Althouse: Baptizing babies violates fundamental human rights, says the former president of Ireland, Mary McAleese.

June 23, 2018

Baptizing babies violates fundamental human rights, says the former president of Ireland, Mary McAleese.

"You can’t impose, really, obligations on people who are only two weeks old and you can’t say to them at seven or eight or 14 or 19 'here is what you contracted, here is what you signed up to' because the truth is they didn’t," The Irish Times reports. McAleese said that for centuries "people didn’t understand that they had the right to say no, the right to walk away... But you and I know, we live now in times where we have the right to freedom of conscience, freedom of belief, freedom of opinion, freedom of religion and freedom to change religion. The Catholic Church yet has to fully embrace that thinking."

I thought it was the parents, the godparents, and the congregation who were making vows about how to bring up the child and the child was only receiving a benefit — or what the adults present believed would be a benefit. Adults must make decisions about what is good for a new human being at least up to some point when it's in a position to think for itself. The idea that adults should refrain from making decisions for a child isn't even coherent. To hold back from imposing any values is itself a decision. You might think it is best for a child to maintain a religion-free environment, but you could be wrong about that and why not go hysterical and call that too a violation of fundamental human rights?

301 comments:

«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 301 of 301

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...: Angle-Dyne, Angelic Buzzard said...
I feel bad about having made fun of you.

Bless you. Remorse is the first step on the path to redemption.; 6/23/18, 2:42 PM
Bilwick said...: If only we could keep "liberal" parents from inculcating their kids with the equally faith-based dogma of the Cult of the State.; 6/23/18, 2:45 PM
buwaya said...: A person accused of witchcraft in Spain, in the 16th-17th century, was not set upon by a crowd of her fellow peasants, nor was she likely to be put to death at all.

In the largest single case, of the Basque witches of Zugarramurdi, of 7000 accused (yes there was a great deal of local politics in this) only a dozen were eventually burned. Compare with the mass insanity of the contemporary German witch-craze (or French, or English, which were not as bad, but each many times worse than Spain), where hundreds were killed in every major town.

The difference was that the Spanish Inquisition was governed by due process, and indeed had as one of its goals the suppression of public hysteria. The Inquisition in net probably saved many times as many people as it executed.; 6/23/18, 2:46 PM
Anonymous said...: jimbino: A couple of commentators here have made the argument that no harm is done in surreptitiously baptizing an infant who is an atheist from a non-religious family. That is silly, since many of our laws have long punished folks for such "victimless" crimes as grave desecration and mutilation or eating of a dead body.

But where do *you* stand on grave desecration and mutilation or eating of a dead body? Aren't such prohibitions grounded in religious/superstitious beliefs, and therefore aren't Teh Statists oppressing atheists and people with a different set of superstitions/religious beliefs, by punishing such acts? Or does it depend on whether any National Park properties are involved?; 6/23/18, 2:48 PM
Rusty said...: buwaya said...
The Inquisition wasn't anti-science.
It was concerned mainly with heresy, of a fundamental sort.

"But much of the then emerging science was directly contradictory of fundamentalist beliefs so this distinction is meaningless."

buwzya has it. The church wasn't anti science. it was anti heresy. Science didn't contradict the church.; 6/23/18, 2:50 PM
buwaya said...: There was one, just one case, of Galileo, of the Church getting into grips with a scientist. This was largely because Galileo, though having powerful friends in the Church, was a total ass.

Otherwise the Church backed and indeed financed every sort of scientific endeavor, from the sixteenth century on, which is a largely untold story in the English language. This suppression is part of the Catholic-Protestant propaganda wars which have left a long shadow.; 6/23/18, 2:52 PM
Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...: buwaya said...
We could use the Inquisition today, to restore the Catholic faith and its Church to discipline and coherence.

How would that work? Asking for a friend.; 6/23/18, 2:55 PM
Anonymous said...: BCARM: The Church of the Inquisition was little different to current fundamentalist Islamicists. It's all-or-nothing with religion.

This is just dumb. Not-even-wrong dumb and ignorant.

It's like you've been possessed by the spirit of the demonic retarded love child of jimbino and Robert Cook.; 6/23/18, 2:56 PM
n.n said...: Adults must make decisions about what is good for a new human being at least up to some point when it's in a position to think for itself.

The issue is the age of consent, but also the threshold of action. McAleese's argument implies lowering the age of consent, perverting the consensus for threshold of action, thereby challenging the precedents of our and most of humanity's social order. It's a progressive slope. Maybe we should follow it, to confirm or reject our ancestors' observations and conclusions.; 6/23/18, 2:58 PM
mockturtle said...: Discussing theology on an internet blog is a fool's errand. Not saying who the fools are, specifically, but Psalm 14:1 hints at it.; 6/23/18, 3:03 PM
Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...: Rusty said...
The church wasn't anti science. it was anti heresy. Science didn't contradict the church.

But the science did contradict the Church and once it really got started it contradicted it more and more until the Church was forced to make strategic retreats. But cafeteria religion can never work, which is why we are where we are today, adrift.

I am temperamentally a Buddhist. I agree with the precepts and basic thrust of the religion and practice, but I don't buy into the whole package because much of it is nuts from my 'modern' perspective, so the religion is worse than useless for me. I can see that there is a path of faith and belief that could lead to a better life but I can never fully enter that path.; 6/23/18, 3:03 PM
Mark said...: The Spanish Inquisition was largely geo-political for national security reasons after the Spanish finally beat back the Muslim forces that had invaded and (for a time) conquered the area (during which time there had been collaborators with the enemy during that Islamic occupation).; 6/23/18, 3:03 PM
Mark said...: When the scientists treated science as science, the Church had no problem with it.

It was when Galileo started demanding that the theology change to fit his untested theories -- which were not scientifically proven until hundreds of years later -- that Church officials started telling him that he had gone too far.; 6/23/18, 3:05 PM
Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...: mockturtle said...
The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.

From the perspective of fundamentalist religion this is a perfectly reasonable position to take.; 6/23/18, 3:06 PM
Roughcoat said...: . It was a remarkably callous world, and would have seemed so even to brutalized medieval serfs.

That's a good point, although the degree of callousness varied from one civilization (and culture, and society) to the next. Barbarian societies, e.g., were more callous than civilized ones. I believe Asian societies have always been and remain the most callous. The death of nearly 100 million Chinese by violence or indirect government action (e.g., ideologically caused famine) would seem to support this claim. Also the fact that history's three most costly wars (in terms of lives lost) were fought in Asia by Asians against Asians. (These are: the Mongol Conquest of China; the Tai Ping Revolution; and the combined conflict of the Chinese Revolution / Sino-Japanese War / Chinese Civil War.) Supposedly the primitive societies on Papua New Guinea, where some 50 percent of the male population is slain in war or in acts of murder, are the leaders in callousness.; 6/23/18, 3:10 PM
Mark said...: Galileo was actually celebrated and congratulated by high officials of the Church for his theory, following Copernicus, that the earth revolved around the sun, and after his death, he was buried with honors in the Basilica of Santa Croce in Florence, near the tomb of Michelangelo, and many elite Florentines. In 1611 he travelled to Rome, where he was feted by cardinals and granted a private audience by Pope Paul V, who assured him of his support and good will.

It was only after Galileo, a rather headstrong person, began demanding that everyone accept the Copernican theory without actual scientific proof that he started to get into trouble. (It was not until 1838 that telescopes had progressed to the point of being able to observe the necessary stellar parallax and thereby actually prove the theory scientifically. By the way, Galileo was also zealous in his demands that people accept his theory that the planets orbit the sun in perfect circles, which Kepler and Jesuit astronomers had disproven.)

Meanwhile, in addition to this belligerent insistence on accepting heliocentrism as established fact, without the accompanying scientific proof, Galileo made a much larger diplomatic error in then going beyond the realm of science and telling some Biblical scholars and theologians that they needed to reinterpret scripture. It was only after Galileo started to tell some of the theologians their business, that he knew more about theology than did they, that he began to earn the wrath of some in the Church.; 6/23/18, 3:11 PM
Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...: buwaya said...
Otherwise the Church backed and indeed financed every sort of scientific endeavor, from the sixteenth century on, which is a largely untold story in the English language. This suppression is part of the Catholic-Protestant propaganda wars which have left a long shadow.

But, after the initial flowering and, one might argue, suppression in Italy the modern scientific revolution largely occurred in countries that were Protestant.; 6/23/18, 3:12 PM
Mark said...: By the way, the essence of the scientific method is testing and proof.

Demanding that everyone accept a theory without actual scientific proof -- kind of like the climate nuts today -- is anti-science.; 6/23/18, 3:13 PM
Roughcoat said...: Should be: "The death of nearly 100 million Chinese IN THE SECOND HALF OF THE 20TH CENTURY" etc.; 6/23/18, 3:14 PM
buwaya said...: A modern Inquisition should be tasked with the reform and discipline of the Church, as a sort of central inspectorate. A Catholic University, for instance, should be examined as to its curriculum, the life of its directors and faculty, and its practices, such as its organization of student life.

It would be given a statement of reforms, as to what changes are required to bring it to conformance with custom and doctrine, including, if necessary, the closing of departments and the dismissal of faculty. If it refuses, it should be decertified as a Catholic institution, and all Catholic clergy forbidden to teach or participate in governance there.

And so on, to all institutions, hospitals, schools, seminaries, parishes, religious orders.; 6/23/18, 3:16 PM
Mark said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 6/23/18, 3:16 PM
Mark said...: the modern scientific revolution largely occurred in countries that were Protestant

So, according to you, since Protestants are Christian -- it was in these Christian lands that modern science was able to happen. The atheists and secular humanists had little to do with it.; 6/23/18, 3:18 PM
n.n said...: Psalm 14:1

Principals before principles. Judge a person by the color of their skin... nay, paint with broad sweeping strokes. Also, an affirmative and progressive conflation of logical domains. We exist on a proving ground for spirits - coherent "conscious" energy masses.; 6/23/18, 3:19 PM
Paddy O said...: "Discussing theology on an internet blog is a fool's errand."

I'd say assuming we can convince each other is a fool's errand, but it can still be an instructive exercise.; 6/23/18, 3:20 PM
Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...: Mark said...
So, according to you, since Protestants are Christian -- it was in these Christian lands that modern science was able to happen.

Yes, but first let's remember that Protestants are apostates from the perspective of the Church. And, second, the disjoint between science and religion steadily widened throughout that period until there was a terminal break, personified by Darwin who was the last major scientist to struggle to throw off Christian dogma in order to accept a more rational account of the world's physical origins.; 6/23/18, 3:26 PM
buwaya said...: The “story of science”, in the Anglosphere, is distinctly slanted in the expected directions.; 6/23/18, 3:26 PM
Sebastian said...: "Who needs to read this shit."

Of course, you wouldn't expect much from online amateur commentators.

But still, the sheer ignorance of the lefties here, the utter wallowing in it, the complete detachment of any historical awareness, all while parading their supposed enlightened attitudes, is instructive. Even the prog culture war has devolved into the sheer assertion of the will to power, no argument or evidence needed, the better to scorch the earth.

In the culture war, as in American political life, we are being patronized by our inferiors.

I say as a non-Christian.; 6/23/18, 3:29 PM
Tyrone Slothrop said...: As a child, the Time-Life Science Library volume on evolution made a lot of sense to me. So it seemed very much in the natural order of things when Father Toal, a young Irishman, told my fourth grade class that evolution was entirely within the Church's teaching, that the mechanism of God's creation was miraculous no matter how you look at it. At the dawn of man-in-space and the bright future of science, this seemed right.

I have been at times a devout Catholic, an agnostic, and a proselytizing atheist. Now, I can't think of a label that would apply.

This koan tells the story: We are nothing but tadpoles swimming in the pool of temporal existence. Someday we'll turn into frogs, but we have literally no way of understanding what this will mean. No matter what we think it is, it will be something else.

Here is the religious teaching that underlies Western classical liberalism: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Jesus said this, but it is by no means exclusive to him. When unclassical liberals demean religion, they demean this basic human philosophy also. "Do unto me as I demand. I will do unto you as I think you deserve."

The proprietor of the Red Hen doesn't live by the Golden Rule, clearly, and his attitude is representative of the left. I don't know how we recover from this.; 6/23/18, 3:29 PM
Rabel said...: A post about George - Will.
A post about Paul - McCartney.
A post about John - The Baptist.

As usual, Ringo gets the short end of the stick.; 6/23/18, 3:35 PM
Michael K said...: Darwin who was the last major scientist to struggle to throw off Christian dogma in order to accept a more rational account of the world's physical origins.

You really should read, Rodney Stark's "For the Glory of God," which explains why science has progressed in Christianity.

Islam has not progressed beyond 1300. They were farther for a while but regressed. Stark explains why.

China made great progress until about 1500 then regressed.

There is a reason why "The Enlightenment" occurred in the west and in Christian countries.; 6/23/18, 3:36 PM
Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...: Tyrone Slothrop said...
it seemed very much in the natural order of things when Father Toal, a young Irishman, told my fourth grade class that evolution was entirely within the Church's teaching

But this elides a key point, the Church does not accept Darwin's view of mankind. And it was this logical consequence of Darwin's initial formulation of his theory that caused Darwin to struggle for so long, until he was forced to publicly discuss his work by circumstances.; 6/23/18, 3:40 PM
William said...: Michael Collins, the great patriot of the Irish cause, was a gifted athlete, but he refused to play soccer, rugby, or cricket. He considered them British "garrison sports". The only sport he played was hurling. This native Irish sport consists of drinking vast amounts of Guinness and competing to see who can vomit the furthest. As a sport, it has never taken off outside of Ireland.......I believe the former Irish President's rejection of baptism is of a piece with Collins' rejection of soccer. It comes from a kind of twisted nationalism and the belief that all bad things are external to Ireland and foisted upon them. She probably thinks that the sins of the church in Ireland was something imposed by Rome and not creat d by the native genius of the Irish........It is perhaps worth mentioning that Michael Collins died a martyr and was murdered by the IRA.; 6/23/18, 3:43 PM
mockturtle said...: I have worked with many scientists from all over the world and would estimate that fewer than half were agnostic or atheist. OTOH, people I know who are teachers or work in other government jobs tend to be agnostic or New Age.; 6/23/18, 3:44 PM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: "Rationalism and empiricism either naturally go together or kind of need each other."

NO!

So reason and observation (the fusion of which constitute science) must be severed from each other because differing, ancient schools of philosophy - based in one or the other - demand it.

YES.

Replace rationalism with reason and empiricism with observation and it was a perfectly good sentence, Mr. Elitist Philosopher.; 6/23/18, 3:48 PM
mockturtle said...: William asserts: This native Irish sport consists of drinking vast amounts of Guinness and competing to see who can vomit the furthest. As a sport, it has never taken off outside of Ireland...

Not quite so. One can see the distasteful evidence of it on shop and restaurant windows all over London [and other cities and towns, as well].; 6/23/18, 3:49 PM
William said...: When Napoleon invaded Spain and installed his brother on the throne there, one of the first things he did was eliminate the Spanish Inquisition. The Spanish peasants did not rejoice at their deliverance. This was probably because Napoleon's troops plundered their crops and raped their women, but the fact remains that most of the Spanish population was in favor of the Spanish Inquisition. In demonstrations against the Bonaparte rule, they used to chant "Give us back our chains". As an instrument of murder, torture, and repression, the Spanish Inquisition was far less harmful than the occupation of forces promoting liberty, equality, and fraternity.; 6/23/18, 3:50 PM
etbass said...: BCARM said...

"Yes, but first let's remember that Protestants are apostates from the perspective of the Church. And, second, the disjoint between science and religion steadily widened throughout that period until there was a terminal break, personified by Darwin who was the last major scientist to struggle to throw off Christian dogma in order to accept a more rational account of the world's physical origins.

Have you read Darwin's Doubt by Meyer?; 6/23/18, 3:51 PM
mockturtle said...: As an instrument of murder, torture, and repression, the Spanish Inquisition was far less harmful than the occupation of forces promoting liberty, equality, and fraternity.

Right on, William! Throwing out a monarchy is one thing; throwing out God is another, as we shall learn at our peril.; 6/23/18, 3:53 PM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: "Who needs to read this shit."

Of course, you wouldn't expect much from online amateur commentators.

But still, the sheer ignorance of the lefties here, the utter wallowing in it, the complete detachment of any historical awareness, all while parading their supposed enlightened attitudes, is instructive. Even the prog culture war has devolved into the sheer assertion of the will to power, no argument or evidence needed, the better to scorch the earth.

In the culture war, as in American political life, we are being patronized by our inferiors.

I say as a non-Christian.

Yep. We're ignorant of why you elitists need to promote make-believe gobbledygook as something that it's good for you to get others to believe in. We're ignorant of why promoting historical dead-ends is important to remain enlightened and productive today.

Maybe you're ignorant of how cavemen developed the use of fire, or why agriculture is necessary for civilization. What an appalling lack of historical awareness!; 6/23/18, 3:53 PM
Paddy O said...: Speaking as a card-carrying Evangelical (literally, I have a card), I don't have a problem with evolution. I don't agree that life began randomly with a lightning bolt striking just the right stew of primordial amino acids, but evolution doesn't really prove that. Some people teach it like it does, but that's a religious step of faith about reality.

Biologos has some very worthwhile discussions, and hey, wait, is that another card-carrying Evangelical on the front page? The editor of Christianity Today? That's like one of the main pillars of the neo-Evangelical movement. I'll bet we can rustle up some backwoods folks to give a more authoritative description of Christian beliefs...; 6/23/18, 3:53 PM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: Right on, William! Throwing out a monarchy is one thing; throwing out God is another, as we shall learn at our peril.

A so-called scientist prophesies lament at "throwing out God."

She should go create a Dinosaur Adventure Land or creationist museum other kind of monstrous pseudo-science/religion hybrid if she thinks it's such a priority to stick an invisible, imaginary sky daddy into places where I never heard him asking to go.

Go explain the importance of sky daddy to whatever work you publish in your next scientific research paper.; 6/23/18, 3:56 PM
Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...: buwaya said...
The “story of science”, in the Anglosphere, is distinctly slanted in the expected directions.

I had not realized this was a thing. Leibniz and Pasteur are also accepted as scientific gods so it is not quite the anglosphere. Cajal is a saint.; 6/23/18, 3:57 PM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: Speaking as a card-carrying Evangelical (literally, I have a card), I don't have a problem with evolution.

Oh... wow. Clap clap. Like anyone asked you. We're so happy that certain kinds of endeavoring into factual, rational observation meets your glorious approval, O Great and Noble Emissary of the Sky Daddy.; 6/23/18, 3:57 PM
William said...: Lenin had the corpses of Orthodox saints dug up. He did this to demonstrate to the superstitious peasants that the saints were made of mortal clay and that they were not immune to the corruption of life. After he died, the Communists spent a lot of money to embalm and preserve his body and built a huge mausoleum to demonstrate his uncorrrupted remains to the faithful. They did the same with Stalin....Question for BCARM: who was more ignorant and superstitious: the Communsts or the Orthodox?; 6/23/18, 3:59 PM
Michael K said...: Ritmo shows up to shit on the thread; 6/23/18, 4:00 PM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: I don't agree that life began randomly with a lightning bolt striking just the right stew of primordial amino acids, but evolution doesn't really prove that.

Then go publish your observations. Are you anti-vax, too? So great to know that extensive rationalization on the works of bronze-age goat herders make you so comfortable providing your say-so on what an amino acid is, and how it does or does not lead to the assembly of things we call "life."

Some people teach it like it does, but that's a religious step of faith about reality.

LOL. When are you going to get it into your head that gods are not only unnecessary, but an intentional distraction from the naturalistic explanations for universal observation that actually work, in real life? First you said sky daddy made all these lifeforms ab initio. Then that fell apart, so you say we have to hold out for the idea that sky daddy at least made the first lifeform. No, we don't. We just go with the more rational explanation with more support to it by multiple lines of real-world evidence.

What you appeal to is not evidence, but superstitions and myths designed to comfort your sense of a place in the universe. You then arrogantly inject those things into areas where the number of facts and reasons and people who know them and can demonstrate them greatly dwarf the utility of your personal, psychological need for sky daddy to be wherever you find something mysterious or beyond your personal comprehension.

Damn. I know that sky daddy is supposed to be a personal sky daddy, but sometimes the facts aren't about you, or your own personal psychological needs. Even sky daddy might say that for you to be motivated that way is a bit, you know, arrogant.; 6/23/18, 4:04 PM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: Michael K said...
Ritmo shows up to shit on the thread

A fly recognizes his own. "This shit doesn't taste as good as my own!"

Go cry to sky daddy about it, moronic pseudo-Christian.

Stop telling other people to believe in things you don't believe in yourself, liar. Stop trying to control people with what you know to be myths.; 6/23/18, 4:05 PM
Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...: etbass said...
Have you read Darwin's Doubt by Meyer?

I haven't but there are now well accepted explanations for the Cambrian explosion that don't involve an appeal to anything beyond mundane science. In particular, it is now understood that gene regulatory function had to evolve considerably before complex multi-cellular animals were possible and that this took a long time to happen. Once complex gene regulation did evolve, however, it became relatively simple for a vast array of different animal types to be assembled from essentially the same tool-kit of genes, with only relatively minor changes in gene regulatory function. This proved to be a very versatile template that lead to an explosion of different animal species.; 6/23/18, 4:07 PM
Fritz said...: My father was an agnostic, raised by a missionary father, who directed the music at a Congregational church, where I was both baptized and confirmed. I survived with my skepticism intact.; 6/23/18, 4:08 PM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: The Spanish Inquisition was largely geo-political for national security reasons...

As is all religion.

Religion is simply the mythology of a state. In this case, Christianity, the state is Vatican City, and the forms in which it existed going back to Constantine.; 6/23/18, 4:10 PM
damikesc said...: Just checking...it is wrong to baptize kids but it is OK to pump them full of hormones because they believe they are in the wrong body?; 6/23/18, 4:11 PM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: Discussing theology on an internet blog is a fool's errand. Not saying who the fools are, specifically, but Psalm 14:1 hints at it.

The fools are the ones who need sky daddy and his earthly emissaries to tell them what to think.; 6/23/18, 4:13 PM
n.n said...: many scientists from all over the world and would estimate that fewer than half were agnostic or atheist

Separation of logical domains. Atheists and agnostics have their logic and articles of faith. The objective standard is based on observable, reproducible, and deductive (rather than inferential or creative) reasoning, which implies a limited frame of reference in space and time, near and far, forward and backward, where accuracy is inversely proportional to space and time offsets from the observation frame.; 6/23/18, 4:14 PM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: many scientists from all over the world and would estimate that fewer than half were agnostic or atheist

I bet fewer than half of all Republicans or American conservatives are agnostic or atheist.

A substantial number are Evangelicals and then there are a number or theists and deists to varying degrees.

But I'm pretty sure that at least 40% are just authoritarians who recognize the importance of myth and celebrate the sort of mind-control that belief brings with it. They view society as disorderly, chaotic, prone to violence and breakdown and look to religion not as some sort of salvation that they personally believe in but as a salvation to what they see as the "problem" of freedom and free inquiry. They see it as providing a framework or guideline into which they can keep all the people of a society better controlled or behaved. With an intentional myth.

It's the most disingenuous nonsense I've ever heard of. They don't believe it themselves but think it's important for others to believe. This is the worst kind of elitism imaginable.; 6/23/18, 4:19 PM
Dust Bunny Queen said...: Baptism, like funerals, are not for the benefit of the actual central participant (the baby or the corpse) but more for the other others (parents, family,survivors)

The baby and the corpse probably don't really care much about the ceremony. Whether there is any real value in either ceremony for the main participant remains to be proven. The baby/child needs to die to know if the baptism "took" and they don't go to Hell. The corpse might be able to figure it out, but there isn't much chance of us (survivors) knowing one way or the other.

In my mind both ceremonies are a big MEH. If it makes the others happy, feel at peace and makes them STFU...whatever then.; 6/23/18, 4:29 PM
mockturtle said...: Note that I didn't claim than most [of the scientists I worked with] were Christians. Quite a few Muslims, more than a few Hindus, one Sikh. Many of the Chinese, Japanese and Koreans were Christians but not all. At least two Russian Jews. When I worked there I was not yet a Christian, myself, having been brought up by agnostic/atheist parents.; 6/23/18, 4:50 PM
Darrell said...: I wonder what Pisshead thinks.

Said no one ever.; 6/23/18, 4:55 PM
Paco Wové said...: The proprietor of the Red Hen... is a woman, in point o' fact.; 6/23/18, 5:00 PM
mockturtle said...: DBQ, we don't do funerals in my family, at least since my grandparents. Sometimes a little memorial get-together, ash scattering if requested, etc. We're not much into public displays of any kind. Weddings have been likewise on the modest side in my generation, eschewing the big, catered affairs for simpler ones. Possibly a boomer thing--we were all hippies back in the day.; 6/23/18, 5:00 PM
Michael K said...: I can tell a Ritmo or Inga thread as they are always more than 200 comments with about half by the two fools.; 6/23/18, 5:02 PM
Hammond X. Gritzkofe said...: Well said, Althouse.; 6/23/18, 5:07 PM
Roughcoat said...: We do funerals, and weddings, and everything, elaborate rituals up the ying-yang. I'm a believer in ritual. I think ritual is vastly important to our mental and emotional health. And, dare I say it, to our spiritual health as well. I think ritual is important on several levels, from the superficial to the deep and profound.; 6/23/18, 5:20 PM
etbass said...: BCARM said...

"I haven't but there are now well accepted explanations for the Cambrian explosion that don't involve an appeal to anything beyond mundane science. In particular, it is now understood that gene regulatory function had to evolve considerably before complex multi-cellular animals were possible and that this took a long time to happen. Once complex gene regulation did evolve, however, it became relatively simple for a vast array of different animal types to be assembled from essentially the same tool-kit of genes, with only relatively minor changes in gene regulatory function. This proved to be a very versatile template that lead to an explosion of different animal species."

There is another book out by Klinghoffer, which I have not yet read, "Debating Darwin’s Doubt: A Scientific Controversy That Can No Longer Be Denied" but plan to.; 6/23/18, 5:23 PM
mockturtle said...: Roughcoat asserts: I think ritual is vastly important to our mental and emotional health.

I think you may very well be right, roughcoat. I think it provides cohesiveness that our present culture rather lacks.; 6/23/18, 5:38 PM
Dust Bunny Queen said...: Roughcoat is correct.

Rituals are an ancient part of what makes us humans and are a source of comfort. Rituals were, and are, a means of self soothing and maintaining a feeling or an illusion of control in a world that was often dangerous, capricious, scary and downright unknowable.

Not everyone has the same need or faith in rituals. Many rituals make no sense in today's modern world if you want to think about them. On the other hand....unless we are ritually sacrificing children or virgins....what harm can there be.

Let people have their comfort. Who knows? Maybe the ritual holders are correct and the naysayers are just wrong. Either way. I think people should just mind their own business and respect other people's belief or NON belief.; 6/23/18, 5:47 PM
Trumpit said...: Be kind to your children. Please, don't hit them, scream at them, circumcise them, pierce their ears, mostly feed them junk food, or smoke cigarettes in their presence. Don't do those things to your dog either. Don't be a misopede (someone who hates kids). I think that women who hate men (misandry) want to circumcise male babies to destroy their sexual power due to jealousy, sense of inferiority, etc. I truly believe newborns should be armed with a .25 Automatic Pistol, "Baby" Browning to shoot the doctor who's about to wreck their baby cock, and their future sex life.; 6/23/18, 5:56 PM
Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...: I also agree with Roughcoat, although I am personally not that good at them. In fact I actively avoid them. But I feel bad about it.; 6/23/18, 5:57 PM
mockturtle said...: LOL, Trumpit is all about shooting medical providers again.; 6/23/18, 6:02 PM
mockturtle said...: ARM [and DBQ & Roughcoat], as I said, I grew up in a non-ritual-observing home. But my younger daughter went to Catholic school for several years in Seattle and I attended mass during that time. While not a Catholic [nor a Christian at all then], I admit to finding comfort in the predictable responses, the kneeling, etc. Although Jesus preached against meaningless rituals, I suspect the Hebrews were given rituals for a reason, just as every culture has its rituals. It brings--and keeps--people together. And maybe that is what we so desperately need today.; 6/23/18, 6:08 PM
Roughcoat said...: mockturtle and DBQ:

Thanks for your comments. I should like to add that, as a believing Catholic I that our rituals have real purpose, and accomplishes real things in the material world. In other words, e.g., I believe transubstantiation occurs, literally and actually. And all that other stuff. In other words, I don't think ritual is merely utilitarian, a means of soothing our bruised psyches and comforting us. No worries if you don't share this belief, I'm okay with that, I recognize that it's a stretch.; 6/23/18, 6:09 PM
Roughcoat said...: Dang. Correction: "... as I believing Catholic, I believe that our rituals" etc.; 6/23/18, 6:11 PM
Roughcoat said...: Also, ARM: thanks. I know what you mean.; 6/23/18, 6:12 PM
Anonymous said...: mock: We're not much into public displays of any kind. Weddings have been likewise on the modest side in my generation, eschewing the big, catered affairs for simpler ones. Possibly a boomer thing--we were all hippies back in the day.

I think the growth in big public displays (and huge expenditure) in weddings is more the result of the decay of meaningful ritual than any attachment to tradition. Traditionally, the ritual itself was the same for any member of the community, rich or poor, and was about acknowledging the couple's connection to the past and present, their existence as a link in a chain. Certainly not about publicly "sharing our love" or other such tripe.

It might be the custom of some families to spring for big blow-outs afterwards, and wealthy people would put on swanky receptions, but that was separate from the ritual itself.; 6/23/18, 6:15 PM
mockturtle said...: Evangelical churches observe two ordinances: Baptism and the Lord's supper. Neither is believed to result in salvation but reflects one's belief in Christ for salvation. YMMV.; 6/23/18, 6:20 PM
mockturtle said...: My favorite wedding was my sister's. It was held at his parents' home on Mercer Island with two rabbis present. The ceremony was simple but beautiful with the canopy and the crushing of the wine glass underfoot and everyone saying, "Mazel Tov!" There was a big fancy reception at the Country Club later but I didn't attend.; 6/23/18, 6:24 PM
Jaq said...: As usual, Ringo gets the short end of the stick

Maybe he was circumcised.; 6/23/18, 6:27 PM
Ambrose said...: I haven't read the 276 comments so maybe this point has been made - but it is interesting to me that only someone who fervently believes in baptism could object to it on these grounds.; 6/23/18, 6:36 PM
Michael K said...: Blogger The Peasants are Revolting! said...
As usual, Ringo gets the short end of the stick

Maybe he was circumcised.

With a chain saw but that's just me. Wishing.; 6/23/18, 6:41 PM
Jaq said...: I haven’t read the 276 comments so maybe this point has been made - but it is interesting to me that only someone who fervently believes in baptism could object to it on these grounds.

I believe in baptism. I’ve seen it done!; 6/23/18, 6:43 PM
n.n said...: Male circumcision does not affect sexual function or "destroy their sexual power". Today, it is mostly a cosmetic change, with social significance. However, in the past, in arid regions, it was an objectively sound means to improve male health. It is still sufficient, but no longer necessary. It still expresses a community connection.; 6/23/18, 6:50 PM
Lydia said...: Perfect timing -- tomorrow is the celebration of The Birthday of Saint John the Baptist.; 6/23/18, 6:50 PM
n.n said...: Not circumcised, but rather "bobbed", which produces a eunuch, and does indeed affect sexual function and "destroys their sexual power".; 6/23/18, 6:52 PM
chickelit said...: Blogger mockturtle said...LOL, Trumpit is all about shooting medical providers again.

There’s only one other commenter here with a permanent grudge against MDs. Two pees in the same pot.; 6/23/18, 7:00 PM
mockturtle said...: Today, it is mostly a cosmetic change, with social significance. However, in the past, in arid regions, it was an objectively sound means to improve male health.

It decreases the risk of STDs.; 6/23/18, 7:05 PM
Quaestor said...: That all said, isn’t it a violation of the first amendment to violate the citizen’s religious belief and practices?

But it's Ireland we're discussing, is it not?

McAleese is virtue signaling. Leftist do that reflexively to feel good. Think of it as masturbation that really can send you mad.

McAleese is also monumentally stupid. If she were not she would have realized that her claim that consent is a universal human right regardless of age puts her far from the side of those progressive angels who seek to do for and to us many things they deem to be for our own good whether we consent or not.; 6/23/18, 7:32 PM
Michael K said...: trumpit is either crazy or doing a good imitation of a psychotic.; 6/23/18, 7:39 PM
Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...: Rivers of blood.; 6/23/18, 7:42 PM
narciso said...: true, one cant make the profession of faith oas an infant, however would mcalesses say the same about the Shahada somehow I doubt it. This is the culmination of the process that Michael Burleigh noted in sacred spaces; 6/23/18, 8:10 PM
narciso said...: Progs see proverbs 22:6 differently than we do.; 6/23/18, 8:12 PM
n.n said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 6/23/18, 8:25 PM
n.n said...: male circumcision... It decreases the risk of STDs.

Yes, and infection. It removes a vestigial flap of skin that traps infectious agents and inflammatory particles. This is less of an issue in areas with good personal hygiene and clean, abundant water. So, today, it is an elective procedure in many contexts, but it retains its useful premise.; 6/23/18, 8:26 PM
n.n said...: a permanent grudge against MDs

My personal physician is a female MD. #Virtue

That said, my mechanic is a male ASE. #Deplorable; 6/23/18, 8:32 PM
Trumpit said...: God created foreskins and you two bible thumping old hags want to remove it from all male babies that aren't even yours. What right do you have? You figure if you'll never get boned by the real McCoy, then nobody should. Why God created evil and selfishness, and you two wretched examples of both bad qualities, I'll never understand.; 6/23/18, 8:46 PM
Michael K said...: Trumpit. Still crazy after all these years,.; 6/23/18, 9:32 PM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: I can tell a Ritmo or Inga thread as they are always more than 200 comments with about half by the two fools.

Dr. Butthurt! Paging Dr. Butthurt!

Is there a Dr. Butthurt in the house? Someone who gets easily offended at anyone posting a thought that points out how stupid and slavish his comments are?; 6/23/18, 11:45 PM
cyrus83 said...: There is an anthropological question lurking in the background - is there a soul or not? Christianity teaches that there is one, and that it is what animates the body and gives it life. When the soul leaves the body, death occurs - whether that be by sudden trauma that damages a body beyond repair, the slow decay of time, or the sudden choice of the Almighty to call a soul out of this world.

In Christian anthropology, the soul is not the same as the body. It's not material and so upon creation it has all the powers and abilities it is intended to have, but those powers and abilities are limited by the body and its various defects - whether congenital, developmental, or acquired. All souls are capable of sight, but that power can be impeded in this life by the condition of the eyes. Likewise all souls have intellect, although it is limited by the body's development and the condition of the brain. People who have been paralyzed during life have souls fully capable of walking, just not a body capable of doing it anymore.

The entire point is that the soul is the reality of the human essence, the thought of God as it were, which in time to come for the saved will have full expression through a perfected body in heaven, free of all the impediments experienced on earth. This is why baptism is done for infants - the soul is never an infant incapable of thought, and it has an actual sin to be washed away. While God is not limited by the lack of baptism, neither can it be guaranteed that all unbaptized infants go to heaven when they die. The existence of the soul is the entire basis for human rights and also the reason for the opposition to abortion and euthanasia.

Secular anthropology will always over time tend to the weak either being subjected to or eliminated by the strong. The left isn't there just yet, as there remain influences of Christian anthropology, but it will get there soon enough. The leftist ideal is slavery by another name - telling you where you can live, what you can eat, what can be said or published in the public arena, how many kids you can have, where your kids go to school, what your kids are taught, what you can earn, whether you get medical treatment, what goods are or are not allowed to be sold or used, who is to be praised and who is to be shunned, and on and on with every aspect of life, with due punishment doled out for transgressions.; 6/23/18, 11:45 PM
PhilD said...: A child having parents clearly violates its fundamental human rights. After all, parents will try to impose their will in how a child is raised, how it will think, how it will be fed. A child doesn't wants to eat it spinach, tough luck for that child. This is nothing but fascism.

Clearly, what is to be done is to take away children from their parents and give them to the kind of state a Mary McAleese envision. The State will make sure that nothing will be imposed on a child and the child will be totally free of any constrictions. Cross Mary McAleese non-existing heart.; 6/24/18, 2:04 AM
Rusty said...: "But much of the then emerging science was directly contradictory of fundamentalist beliefs so this distinction is meaningless."
No it wasn't. In fact much of what was going was out pacing the churches ability to investigate it. It was the church who sent monks and priestes out into the world to seek out any information on the world before christ was born. It is the only reason we know anything about Aristotle, Plato, Galen etc.
It isn't heresy to state the earth rotates around the sun. It is heresy to say this is not the will of god.; 6/24/18, 7:45 AM
mockturtle said...: Cyrus, while I might quibble that the soul leaves the body after physiological death, I like your thesis. Nicely done. The existence of the spiritual realm is really at the crux of belief vs unbelief.; 6/24/18, 8:17 AM
JamesB.BKK said...: Now do taxes and the rest of the "social contract," Mary.; 6/24/18, 8:13 PM
Steven said...: @Paddy O

There was no "Celtic Church" with any particular affinity to the Eastern Church crushed at Whitby. Sure, English Anglicans trying to retroactively justify the quite blatantly maculate origins of their church invented a fable about a Roman takeover of a British church at Whitby, but it was never more than a fable. It was just one case of many where a local computus for Easter was replaced by the eventual consensus computus.

Indeed, the actual action at the Synod of Whitby regarding Easter was eliminating a surviving Roman peculiarity in favor of conformance with the Eastern Church. The computus used in Ionia before that synod was the one invented in southern France that used to be used in Rome. The one it was replaced with was the method developed by Patriarch of Alexandria, which had become universal in the East before Rome adopted it for the sake of unity. That accounts of Whitby said the participants thought the old Roman method was a primordial custom and the Alexandrian method was "Roman" indicates nothing but that the participants and/or chroniclers were ignorant of the actual history of the rival methods.; 6/24/18, 8:18 PM