Well, Musket, there's no provision for voting on the teachings of the Catholic Church - and I'm not sure I'd like to have non-theologians vote on theological issues, anyhow. My friend the Lutheran pastor says their method of voting on doctrine gets really weird at times. What usually happens in the Catholic Church is that with teachings that don't work, people just start ignoring them. And then a century after the unworkable teaching is forgotten, it's abolished. Limbo went away a little quicker. It was something that was taught into the 1960s, and then was forgotten. A couple of years ago, Pope Benedict said it didn't exist. The right-wingers in the Catholic Church are making a last stand on gay marriage, but most Catholics just don't care if gays get married or not. Surveys show that 98 percent of American Catholics ignore the Catholic Church's restrictions on birth control. Most likely, other places will follow that trend.

And while the rules may be on the books, most of the controversial topics are rarely spoken of from the pulpit - which means they're probably not as important as critics seem to think they are. Yeah, some parishes have "natural family planning" classes to present rhythm as an alternative to birth control, but these really aren't pushed very hard. And yes, the Catholic bishops in California put money into the Proposition 8 attempt to prohibit gay marriage, but it appears that gay marriage will become legal in California any day now. And I have only once heard a negative word about homosexuality in a sermon - that was from a rather right-wing deacon, and he got a tongue-lashing from the pastor.

My local and national governments have lots of laws on the books that I don't favor, and so I work to change them with the realization that I will not be 100% successful. Same with any institution - not every aspect will be favorable to me, but that doesn't necessarily mean that I can't live and prosper within the structure of the organization.

Stringsinger, my statement about the song "Let the Mystery Be" (Iris DeMent) was that the song expresses what I feel about things, that it's good to be able to enjoy the mystery of things and not argue about them or over-analyze them. I think we ALL should be able to drop the constant arguments and look for things that unite us. Whether or not we're religious, you and I and even Steve Shaw should all be able to look together at a flower and simply enjoy the beauty of it.

In the "Militant Atheism" thread, Stim brought up Edie Brickell's song, "What I Am" to counter what I said about the DeMent song, but "What I Am" also speaks very strongly to me. I find that here at Mudcat, too often I'm forced to whimper, "but I'm not like that," when I'm being condemned for the Spanish Inquisition and molesting priests and the Magdalene Laundries. "What I am is What I am" - don't go blaming me for all that shit unless you hear me supporting it.

The basis of bigotry, is blaming all members of a group for the actions of a few. Mudcat is full of that sort of bigotry. In an ideal discussion forum, people would address the substance of what other people have said. Do we do that here as much as we should, or do we rely too much on labels and bigotry?

And on the topic of this thread and the militant atheism thread, perhaps the idea is that certain militant or strident atheists have recently been guilty of some of the more obnoxious traits of religions - intolerance and exclusion, and making money by playing on the intolerance and fear that people have of groups other than themselves. Strident atheism can be every bit as strident and obnoxious as strident religion - and it's the stridency and obnoxiousness we should criticize, not the religion or atheism.

Let's all go out and look at flowers this lovely spring day, and together enjoy the mystery of beauty that they bring to us.

-Joe-