[closewith]

It doesn't sound silly at all to me. I was also raised atheistically, but in a fiercely Catholic family in Ireland. I never saw this at the time, but I knew it happened.

To my shame, I thought she was uncool for years after. I think I picked it up from others at the time (I was in a Catholic primary school).

Ironically, even though it was apparently common knowledge amongst my Catholic country- and family-members, it took years for for me to believe that that kind of systematic abuse could have happened.I have dedicated a part of my resources and efforts to eradicate the Catholic church and other radical religions from my country

[paulmd]

As slow as it is, society has been making progress. A lot of things that were unthinkable or unsayable in the 90s are in the open now. The arc of history is long but it bends towards justice.

It’s sad we’re still fighting on the LGBTQ front but in general it’s notable largely because justice is winning and these are the dying spasms of a hate movement that is losing state favor and is having to fight for its survival. They’re fighting because if they don’t then LGBTQ people are generally getting their rights protected and normalized.

Scouts is another example of how much the zeitgeist has turned on overt religiousity and bigotry. Even in the 2000s you couldn’t be an openly gay scoutmaster because what if you fucked a kid? And of course the deep religious pagentry/teaching that’s buried in a lot of the scout materials and routines. Just 15 years later that’s a really bad look.

Anyway there are a few rare people who are ahead of the curve on these issues and usually take a punishment for it, but time often proves them right.

She was right, and the Catholic Church and organized religion in general continue to be a plague on humanity. All the good they’ve done in the past few decades is more than undone by the Mexico City policy alone and the immensely negative impact it’s had on half of our population, along with continued assaults on women’s health, LGBTQ rights, etc. It’s just still tremendously impolite to say it but she’s right, this institution is a negative force on society.

As mentioned elsewhere, not standing/reciting the pledge of allegiance is another thing that was a bit controversial in the 90s but I think has just faded away nowadays. Even at sporting events today it feels a bit over the top and the connection to the hyper-militarized US culture and the pipeline to military recruiting is obvious - not a coincidence that flyovers and uniformed personnel are another common sight at sporting events.

[anotherthrway]

There is nothing “progressive” about apostates raving against the belief system they left behind. It demonstrates a lack of maturity, imo. True progressive thought is constructive and positive. Burning scripture, dipping religious symbols in piss, making porn with performers in religious garb, these are all destructive and negative and never a manifestation of progress, enlightenment, or spiritual progress. There is also nothing courageous for someone performing in front of an SNL audience dumping on the Catholic Church and it’s Papa.

I hope Sinead rests in Salaam. And I’d rather remember her for her God given graces, her beauty, her voice and her support for justice for oppressed, than what was clearly an error (certainly according to Islam, even in its “Sufi” modality) on her part.

[notnaut]

This take certainly feels like a perspective only someone entrenched in organized religion could put forward. It is far more courageous, progressive, empowering, and inspirational for a victim of abuse to actively identify and oust their abusers than slump into the type of passivity you advocate for here.

There is inherent destructive energy in pinpointing abuse. It’s destructive because these “belief systems” and more general social structures are amazingly, regularly built on top of that abuse. The abuse is a part of it - they go hand-in-hand. It reproduces the power structure of the system. The more people that know, the more the foundational rot is exposed, the more obvious it becomes that the entire thing needs to be torn down.

[anotherthrway]

“Feels” is accurate. That is merely your personal non-rational response to a position you disagree with. You have no insight into my personal condition whatsoever (and you are entirely off the mark in your feelings).

Sinead (RIP), for example, could have simply recited a line from Jesus regarding what awaits those who harm children (it’s in the Gospels) and held up the picture of the du jour Pope and then list the grievances against that institutions in that regard. Now that would have been a powerful, positive, and progressive, without causing division, and far more effective in causing reflection amongst the faithful of that institutions to do the necessary house cleaning.

The issue here, since it was not clear to you, is the way new understanding, new insights, are to be communicated. The goal remains a Humanity that dwells in harmony and peace after all. Correct?

[notnaut]

My bad. Took offense to the notion that there’s nothing courageous about taking bricks out from the foundation of your master’s house.

Do you see a way to this goal without destruction?

[anotherthrway]

Since Christianity is topical here, let’s see what we can find in Christian lore to help us understand the way of the superior human being when confronting corruption in religion, clergy, and institutions.

There is a well known incident as related to us in the Hadith of Jesus son of Mary. One day “the morality police” of the Pharisee apparently thought they were being clever in shooting two birds with one stone (pun intended). They went to the quarter where prostitutes worked and dragged a woman caught in the act and brought her before that lovely one. This was to discredit him before the Israelites as his progressive and luminous teachings were indeed a threat to their station of power and prestige and control over the people. Jesus did not tear them a new one using words (even though certainly capable of it) nor did he pick up the stone and throw it at them (even though they certainly deserved it).

No. What he did was silently allude to the poor grasp of the people of the actual Law, and then with a simple statement he not only confronted the Pharisees with their own corruption and sinful nature, but also saved a soul from certain death. To their credit, the Pharisees in question were ‘self-reflective’ enough to get the message and leave in peace.

This is how he was inviting people to a superior understanding without alienating them (!) and at the same time clearly establishing the guilt of the standing church and its priests. In fact, this way was so effective that the Sanhedrin decided that they had to get rid of him, intent on murdering him.

[FrustratedMonky]

Have to start somewhere. Sometimes need a little shock to get the message out.

Can't make progress if nobody knows there is a problem, except the victims of course.