Canterbury Atheist (Paul) has recently done a post asserting that the organisation of the Catholic Church is (shock horror) not a democracy, indeed, he claims it to be interchangeably totalitarian and fascist. I think he was serious.
If we were to accept his premise that a religious organisation needs to be democratic, it follows all institutions in our society need to be democratic. Businesses would require a CEO to be voted in by workers, families would require a vote from Johnnie on vegetables or sweets for dinner and so on. I'm not going to bore you with more examples that prove my point, I'm assuming that you can see this.
I could also spend a bit of time pointing out that we don't really have a classically democratic system. At best it is an indirect democracy, and at worst, something closer to an oligarchy, given we elect members to parliament for a reasonably long period of time, that make all sorts of decisions, supposedly on our behalf but it's rare we agree with all their policies. Of course, if you didn't vote for the party that wins, this is even worse.
Another issue with democracy is that the will of the majority doesn't mean the best decisions will be made. The more specialist a topic, perhaps the more important the will of the majority does not prevail. A surgeon asking where to cut in a delicate operation shouldn't put it to the vote. A bomb disposal expert might not want to put it to a vote with the people tied to the bomb if he's 99% sure it's the red wire. Asking him to do so is a recipe for disaster.
Equally, on matters of faith, relying on Priests who have studied the theology all their lives to explain doctrinal matters is better than relying on the "garden variety catholic" (Paul's words) who may not understand the full reasoning behind the Catholic position on issue of morality or spirituality. I personally have learned much when looking into Catholic matters that I once only had society's preconceived and often ill-conceived thoughts for my education.
Still, discussing democracy is not really the point. Aristotle said it was bad, but better than anything else (actually, he added a rider that this was only as a political system for governance of up to 10,000 people as he could not comprehend how a state could function democratically if it were bigger).
The point Paul misses is that the Catholic Church is like many organisations operating in a secular society, and there are some important freedoms (and reasons) that underpin its right to exist. And make no mistake, Paul is ultimately arguing for ways to negate this right. Paul is actually the totalitarian here.
The definition of totalitarianism is this:
1. of or pertaining to a centralized government that does not tolerate parties of differing opinion and that exercises dictatorial control over many aspects of life.
2. exercising control over the freedom, will, or thought of others; authoritarian; autocratic.
I suggest that Paul wishes to use the State to exercise control over the freedom, will and thought of others. He wishes to deny people their freedom of belief, by shutting down their freedom of association.
For that is the one freedom that underpins membership in this "hierarchical power structure" - freedom of association. Consider that the Catholic Church is funded by voluntary donations from its members. Consider that they are free not to baptise their children, yet they do. Consider that they choose to follow the Catholic faith, and all its tenets. Consider that they choose to place children in Catholic schools (as do many non-believers). Consider that they have the freedom to leave the faith, according to their conscience. Some do.
Also of note, many people choose to become Catholic. The Catholic Church is open to all regardless of age, race, colour or sex. Hardly the hallmark of a fascist and totalitarian regime, that persecutes large swathes of its population. The Catholic Church is more open than many democracies. It preaches a doctrine of faith to follow, which many Catholics often ignore or fall short on (contraception being one often ignored). How does the church punish this? With forgiveness for those that repent and confess.
Contrast Iran who last year put a bill through their democratic parliament to make apostasy - in particular, leaving the Islamic faith, a crime punishable by death. If that's the will of the majority, then that's alright then according to Canterbury Atheist. Because democracy is superior to a Christian moral belief set that treats all people as children of God, and worthy of love, and offered forgiveness for genuine repentance.
Paul argues: "The system the Catholic Church functions under bears a striking resemblance to European fascist regimes of the 1930’s , except I guess you could argue, those historic dictators first came to power via the democratic system. Paul doesn't make a great case for his former proposition, and scores an own goal with the latter.
Canterbury Atheist treats freedom of association and freedom of belief as something that requires state control, because the decisions the individual makes are not respected.
It's not democracy that is actually superior, it's the constitution we agree to live by.
The Catholic "constitution" is actually one that has helped build our western civilisation, and is founded on a strong philosophical grounding based on a synthesis of faith and reason.
Any decent constitution or bill of rights in a secular society will guarantee freedom of religion, and close to that is freedom of thought, among other freedoms.
The emerging use of so-called "human rights violations" and "hate speech" legislation to shut down freedom of religion and consequently freedom of opinion is chilling, and like those that voted in Hitler, I hope they know not what they do. Because if they do know, we are dealing with great evil rather than great ignorance.
Related Link: Canterbury Atheist unbelievable
See also JT at Contra Celsum: Losing Ground
And my earlier post: Saving Us From Ourselves
If we were to accept his premise that a religious organisation needs to be democratic, it follows all institutions in our society need to be democratic. Businesses would require a CEO to be voted in by workers, families would require a vote from Johnnie on vegetables or sweets for dinner and so on. I'm not going to bore you with more examples that prove my point, I'm assuming that you can see this.
I could also spend a bit of time pointing out that we don't really have a classically democratic system. At best it is an indirect democracy, and at worst, something closer to an oligarchy, given we elect members to parliament for a reasonably long period of time, that make all sorts of decisions, supposedly on our behalf but it's rare we agree with all their policies. Of course, if you didn't vote for the party that wins, this is even worse.
Another issue with democracy is that the will of the majority doesn't mean the best decisions will be made. The more specialist a topic, perhaps the more important the will of the majority does not prevail. A surgeon asking where to cut in a delicate operation shouldn't put it to the vote. A bomb disposal expert might not want to put it to a vote with the people tied to the bomb if he's 99% sure it's the red wire. Asking him to do so is a recipe for disaster.
Equally, on matters of faith, relying on Priests who have studied the theology all their lives to explain doctrinal matters is better than relying on the "garden variety catholic" (Paul's words) who may not understand the full reasoning behind the Catholic position on issue of morality or spirituality. I personally have learned much when looking into Catholic matters that I once only had society's preconceived and often ill-conceived thoughts for my education.
Still, discussing democracy is not really the point. Aristotle said it was bad, but better than anything else (actually, he added a rider that this was only as a political system for governance of up to 10,000 people as he could not comprehend how a state could function democratically if it were bigger).
The point Paul misses is that the Catholic Church is like many organisations operating in a secular society, and there are some important freedoms (and reasons) that underpin its right to exist. And make no mistake, Paul is ultimately arguing for ways to negate this right. Paul is actually the totalitarian here.
The definition of totalitarianism is this:
1. of or pertaining to a centralized government that does not tolerate parties of differing opinion and that exercises dictatorial control over many aspects of life.
2. exercising control over the freedom, will, or thought of others; authoritarian; autocratic.
I suggest that Paul wishes to use the State to exercise control over the freedom, will and thought of others. He wishes to deny people their freedom of belief, by shutting down their freedom of association.
For that is the one freedom that underpins membership in this "hierarchical power structure" - freedom of association. Consider that the Catholic Church is funded by voluntary donations from its members. Consider that they are free not to baptise their children, yet they do. Consider that they choose to follow the Catholic faith, and all its tenets. Consider that they choose to place children in Catholic schools (as do many non-believers). Consider that they have the freedom to leave the faith, according to their conscience. Some do.
Also of note, many people choose to become Catholic. The Catholic Church is open to all regardless of age, race, colour or sex. Hardly the hallmark of a fascist and totalitarian regime, that persecutes large swathes of its population. The Catholic Church is more open than many democracies. It preaches a doctrine of faith to follow, which many Catholics often ignore or fall short on (contraception being one often ignored). How does the church punish this? With forgiveness for those that repent and confess.
Contrast Iran who last year put a bill through their democratic parliament to make apostasy - in particular, leaving the Islamic faith, a crime punishable by death. If that's the will of the majority, then that's alright then according to Canterbury Atheist. Because democracy is superior to a Christian moral belief set that treats all people as children of God, and worthy of love, and offered forgiveness for genuine repentance.
Paul argues: "The system the Catholic Church functions under bears a striking resemblance to European fascist regimes of the 1930’s , except I guess you could argue, those historic dictators first came to power via the democratic system. Paul doesn't make a great case for his former proposition, and scores an own goal with the latter.
Canterbury Atheist treats freedom of association and freedom of belief as something that requires state control, because the decisions the individual makes are not respected.
It's not democracy that is actually superior, it's the constitution we agree to live by.
The Catholic "constitution" is actually one that has helped build our western civilisation, and is founded on a strong philosophical grounding based on a synthesis of faith and reason.
Any decent constitution or bill of rights in a secular society will guarantee freedom of religion, and close to that is freedom of thought, among other freedoms.
The emerging use of so-called "human rights violations" and "hate speech" legislation to shut down freedom of religion and consequently freedom of opinion is chilling, and like those that voted in Hitler, I hope they know not what they do. Because if they do know, we are dealing with great evil rather than great ignorance.
Related Link: Canterbury Atheist unbelievable
See also JT at Contra Celsum: Losing Ground
And my earlier post: Saving Us From Ourselves
Nice.
ReplyDeleteVery. I put up an excerpt and link back to here at Crusader rabbit.
ReplyDeleteSuccint. What I found 'disconcerting' is when he states "Out of that growing number of non-superstitious population are coming the more vociferous individuals like me, who are not afraid to challenge the very foundations of your belief". I could be wrong here but it appears that the correct word is ATTACK rather than "challenge". Reading his posts one cannot help but notice the irrationality of the arguments whilst he decries the lack of an intellectual response.How does one respond with all due respect to psycho-babble? Seeking to dialogue, debate or simply discuss is an entirely different matter.
ReplyDelete