[swatcoder]

It's telling how blithely you're missing the point of what the pope(s) mean by human value. Their intended meaning is that far gone from modern consciousness, even among people who meant to champion some kind of human value themselves.

They're not talking about the economic value of humans or even the psychological value of humans as subjects with experiences and a right to liberty or care or something. The idea they're trying to recall and reinvigorate is a sense of human value that transcends that temporal, material noise altogether and that is truly universal. It's the human value that welcomed slaves, prostitutes, wretches, merchants and kings as peers in something grander than economy or state or lineage or tribe or creed.

Now, you can make a well-developed case that that's hogwash and that the human value that matters is the one that alleviates suffering or grants liberty or even the one that grants material reward for some virtue or bloodline or whatever, but that's not what these guys are talking about. They mean a human nature that is always there and always worthy, just as much when it's experiencing temporal poverty/suffering/abuse as when it's basking in temporal wealth/success/freedom.

The idea is that Christian or not, Catholic or not, it does good for everyone to think of human value that way and the critique -- for a long time now -- is that for all the flash and glimmer of technology and its material benefits, it sometimes makes it very very easy to forget.

[analog31]

>>> It's the human value that welcomed slaves, prostitutes, wretches, merchants and kings as peers in something grander than economy or state or lineage or tribe or creed.

This sounds a lot like an appeal to democracy, yet it often seems that religion is at odds with democracy in our world. And given the choice between living in a religious society or a democratic one, I'd choose the democracy any day of the week. Not just for my own prosperity, but for the overall welfare of everybody.

The one thing that has heartened me about the new Pope is that he has spoken favorably about democracy.

[graemep]

Modern democracy developed in societies dominated by religious values and at least partly because of those values.

What you describe as an appeal to democracy could also be described as a statement of Christian values. The idea that every individual matters and is loved by God is a core belief. There are some quotes in my other comments, but I think this is worth adding. https://biblehub.com/galatians/3-28.htm

[analog31]

This is indeed the paradox. I call it a paradox because it seems like religions value those things on paper but religious societies counteract them. I'm as puzzled as anybody as to the root cause.

The development of democracy may have been a reaction of religious people towards their own religions.

[graemep]

It depends on what you mean by a religious society. Do you mean theocracies ? Democracies with a religious electorate? Countries with an established religion?

[analog31]

Yes. ;-)

Granted there are only so many countries, so it would be hard to see a clear statistical picture. And it's complicated by the fact that religion may be secondary to democracy as a predictor of well-being. But I don't know of a country right now (or a region in the US) where the influence of religion on governance is a cause for optimism about the future of democracy.

[graemep]

I can think of one quite easily! I am in the UK where the influence of religion on politics is very much positive IMO. For example, we have an established church that often speaks up for the poor, against war, etc. Religion is in the forefront of practical action: it is a disgrace we need good banks, but the religious took the lead in filling that need (I see the same around the world too).

Also, historically we would not have democracy as we know it without the moral framework of religious ideas. I am guessing you are American and the idea of separation of church and state can be traced back to a long line of development that started with "give to Caesar what is Caesar's". Even in the UK, despite the efforts of Henry VIII, state control of the church faded and we are a de facto secular democracy.

Yes, my examples and arguments are all Christian, but different religions have different values and histories so you cannot generalise across all of them and I am sticking to what I know. I also think taking a long term historical view makes it look a lot more positive. Have you read Dominion by Tom Holland?

[RetroTechie]

I prefer a more general version: (and keep <deity> out of the discussion)

= All life is precious =

For "life", you can read: any creature that potentially could be perceived as an individual that deserves a minimum of respect, a fair share of space/raw materials, not hurting, torturing or kill it without good reason, etc.

No need to go to extremes, but the above is imho a good starting point when considering the ethics on how to treat other creatures. Note that the question of whether something has a 'soul' or not, is not relevant there.

I'd be willing to consider including AI entities in that "life" category, if/when they cross that line between machine/tool and "creature with own personality, hopes, dreams, fears etc". Regardless of physical form.

[orochimaaru]

What rot. Tell that to native Americans who were forcibly converted and enslaved. Tell that to people in the inquisition. Tell that to peoples in India and the east that were forcibly converted so that the pope could fill his coffers. Tell that to all the children murdered in Christian and catholic schools.

Christianity and Catholicism doesn’t fool me. If you’ve ever wanted to see the mythical devil - look to those preaching and they legacy of hate that they carry.

[swatcoder]

There's really no argument against the institutional and historical hypocisy. There's no shortage of people and groups that have done or currently do horrible violence against others, sometimes even in the name of these ideas.

But I don't know if that takes away from the idea itself and what fruitful counterpoint it might play in modern discourse.

[bigstrat2003]

So your argument is that if some people who claim allegiance to an idea do evil things, that renders all who claim such allegiance, and even the idea itself, evil? That is a pretty poor argument. It's also one that I don't think you would actually accept in another context. I bet you anything that I can find some ideal you uphold which was espoused by some vile people at some point, and I also bet that you wouldn't go "ok, I guess I have to give that ideal up now".

[andrepd]

If a group of people claim to be "divinely inspired" but then they do the same evil more or less as other groups, that leads me to conclude that they are not uniquely favoured by a god.

[graemep]

> Tell that to native Americans who were forcibly converted and enslaved.

Tell that to those were were protects by the influence of the Church. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protector_of_the_Indians

> Tell that to people in the inquisition.

Which inquisition? Do you by any chance mean the Spanish Inquisition? An agency of the Spanish government.

> Tell that to peoples in India and the east that were forcibly converted so that the pope could fill his coffers

Which people. There were Christians in India for 2,000 years. Some of my ancestors probably converted before the English did.

> Tell that to all the children murdered in Christian and catholic schools.

AFAIK these are mostly allegations that have never ben substantiated.

[mamala_mamachan]

> > Tell that to peoples in India and the east that were forcibly converted so that the pope could fill his coffers

> Which people. There were Christians in India for 2,000 years. Some of my ancestors probably converted before the English did.

These Christians in India, who have been there for 2,000 years, are only the syrian christians or st thomas christians or malankara nasranis that follow eastern rite liturgies(syriac rites to be specific), and they all happen to be from the state of kerala or the malabar region only. The state itself has latin rite catholics as well as protestants which all started only since European colonial arrivals, though the syrian christians or st thomas christians or malankara nasranis are the majority of christians from that state. I am not trying to argue that all these people in India from european christianity(latin rite catholic and protestant) are forced converts or anything. Still, anytime this argument comes up, the syrian christians or st thomas christians or malankara nasranis are used as a shield, still, at the same time, in other cases, the community is also ridiculed as wrong christianity and the history of community as fake by the same people who use it as shield (the event of terming as wrong literally happened when portuguese came in the 15th century and force converted all to latin rite through synod of diamper which led to coonan cross oath leading to restoration of syriac litrugy but unfortunately permanently splitting the community into eastern catholics and orthodox denominations; even the british later came and tried to protestantise creating a small protestant faction also out the orthodox ones).