3 ms·

is secularism a result of hypocrisy in the flock in this scenario?

• somenameforme 1y ago
  Definitely, our children do not learn so much from our words as much as from our behaviors and actions. Religious individuals like to claim that the decline in religiosity drove a decline of morality in society. I think it's rather the opposite - that a decline of morality in society drove a decline in religiosity. It's like a parent trying to teach their child about healthy eating while they down cokes, chips, and sweets every day. That kid is going to be much more likely to, himself, end up downing cokes, chips, and sweets than he is to eat healthy. And for his own kids, he may not even bother with the pretext of healthy eating.
  • exe34 1y ago
    I like how you try to link lack of religiosity and lack of morality. it shows you understand neither.
    • somenameforme 1y ago
      Morality is relative. But from my worldview the perpetuation of a culture, and a society, is the first and foremost requirement of any successful culture or society, and arguably the single most primal responsibility of the people within that culture and society. This overlaps well with religion, but not so much with what I assume you might consider moral or amoral given your comment.
      • exe34 1y ago
        yes, this is why the Catholic church protects abusers. propagation of the memeplex comes above the people it pretends to save.
        • somenameforme 1y ago
          Your response is incoherent to me, can you rephrase it?
          • exe34 1y ago
            > But from my worldview the perpetuation of a culture, and a society, is the first and foremost requirement [...]and arguably the single most primal responsibility of the people within that culture and society. This overlaps well with religion, I was agreeing with you, if not prescriptively, at least descriptively.
            • somenameforme 1y ago
              On that I would disagree. Had the Catholic Church chosen to take severe actions against the pedophiles, defrocking and even excommunication in severe cases, I think they would be in a far greater position today. By protecting the pedophiles, they have greatly imperiled their own authority and ability to persist into the future. This gets back to the original discussion we were having about hypocrisy. Far lesser ails led to the Protestant reformation. In this case, alongside the dysfunction in the College of Cardinals, there will be no reformation but simply a decline.
              • exe34 1y ago
                they didn't know it was going to backfire. they were trying to save it using the same approach that worked for >1500 years.
                • deleted 1y ago
                  [deleted]
                • somenameforme 1y ago
                  I wouldn't say this is entirely accurate. For instance there's some irony in that the reason Priests can't marry is, in part, because of draconian measures against priests abusing their power by essentially establishing fiefdoms composed of Church lands and property. Local priests would control such property and then pass it onto their heirs, appoint family members to important positions, and generally just treat it their own little demesnes. The Church responding with 'you can no longer get married and shall have no heirs' was a very serious FAFO moment. Just think about how huge a deal that is, if you can even imagine it! The Church used to make much more effort to abide their values, very much in the way that e.g. Islam does today. The centralized nature of the Catholic Church means this (the pedo stuff) could easily be rectified by a single person, the Pope, but their failure to do so is also what I was alluding to with the dysfunction in the College of Cardinals (which is whom elects the Pope).