I'm having some trouble coming up with a name for this that's not "bigotry".

[2ndAmForComputers]

Another thing I'm having trouble with is being surprised.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2013/09/02/pope-francis-first-encyclical-shows-what-he-really-believes-about-unbelievers/

[arcane1]

1. Dicketry?

Most of his points can be summed up thusly: atheists don't give money to the church.

[skepticscott]

2. Wonder if the chorus in here

that regularly accuses Richard Dawkins of bigotry (and rather lamely, at that), will chime in on this one with equal vehemence.

Not holding my breath.

More likely that they'll be overflowing with praise for how much better this one is than his predecessor.

[Warpy]

3. Pope Francis is just being a very typical believer

and not being willing to listen to atheists who tell him they're just like everybody else, they just believe in one fewer god than he does.

However, he's clinging to his own innate superiority as a believer and I wish him good luck with that. He's going to need it.

[Heddi]

4. Surprisingly (snicker) I've seen many of the same arguments pronounced right dang here

in the ALL INCLUSIVE LETS BE RESPECTFUL Religion Forum!

"Say it ain't so, Heddi!!" I hear. Oh it's so.

For those with questionable internet access, here's some of His Popeishnesses pearls of wisdom:

Atheism weakens community ties. For some reason, Francis seems to believe that religious faith is required to “build our societies in such a way that they can journey towards a future of hope” (51). As he sees it, “the light of faith is capable of enhancing the richness of human relations”, while without it “nothing could truly keep men and women united” (51). (Heck of a burden to put on faith, if you ask me.)


Atheists make gods of other things. The basic argument Fracis seems to set forth is that atheists secretly know God exists, but we’re scared he might demand too much sacrifice of us, so we pretend to think he’s not real because we are rebellious and naughty. Then we pick something else to venerate in God’s place, because we can’t just not worship anything, and “before an idol, there is no risk that we will be called to abandon our security” (13). It’s a bit of a pat on the back (at our expense) for the courageous faithful.


Atheists are self-centered. Chances are, the one thing we’re busy worshiping is ourselves: “idols exist, we begin to see, as a pretext for setting ourselves at the centre of reality and worshiping the work of our own hands” (13). Francis really seems to think that only faith can “guide us beyond our isolated selves” (4) or provide “concrete directions for emerging from the desert of the selfish and self-enclosed ego” (46). By contrast, “faith is God’s free gift, which calls for humility and the courage to trust (14)”.


Atheists have no moral compass. Carrying his ‘faith as light’ metaphor to dizzying heights, Francis argues that in the absence of faith/light, “it is impossible to tell good from evil, or the road to our destination from other roads which take us in endless circles, going nowhere” (3). No one can be good without God because they attribute their good actions to themselves instead of to him, and thus “their lives become futile and their works barren” (19). Essentially the only way to be a good person is by pretending it’s not really you doing good things; it’s God making you do them.


If we really tried to find God, we’d find him. This one is quite a slap in the face for the many unbelievers who became such after a long and sincere process of religious seeking; it suggests that we were either secretly searching in bad faith, or our efforts were defective. If “he can be found also by those who seek him with a sincere heart” (35), clearly we must have been insincere. It’s our fault, not God’s, if we couldn’t detect him.


Atheists lead impoverished lives. Since “faith enriches life in all its dimensions” (6) and is “the priceless treasure [. . .] which God has given as a light for humanity’s path” (7), we can assume he envisions us all living in the psychological equivalent of a Dickensian poorhouse. I get the sense that Francis sort of feels bad for us, that he can’t really grasp the concept that atheists might sometimes feel peace and joy even though we think there’s no God.


An atheist can’t really understand love. Francis explains that “only to the extent that love is grounded in truth [read: God] can it endure over time” (27). I don’t really understand why he thinks that, but it seems clear that he doesn’t accept non-God-oriented love as real love. Meanwhile, “those who believe are never alone” (39).

[longship]

5. Where to start on this.

Too bad OP provides zero context to know what this even about.

Here are the Pope's bullet points:

1.Atheism weakens community ties.

2. Atheists make gods of other things.

3. Atheists are self-centered.

4. Atheists have no moral compass.

5. If we (atheists) really tried to find God, we’d find him.

6. Atheists lead impoverished lives.

7. An atheist can’t really understand love.

In other words every insulting, stereotypical, cartoonish characterization ever contrived by religious people of non-believers.

Yup. Atheists really need to embrace this new liberal pope. Not!!

That would be Pope-icock!

One can click through to read the apologist rationale behind these positions. But we've already heard them all before. After all, a religion based on Bronze Age dogma doesn't have many new ideas.

So much for reaching out to non-believers.

[xfundy]

6. I found that word for you.

REALITY.

[Politicalboi]

7. There are no Atheists who can

Preach to their sheep that the world is coming to an end and we must take our own lives to be with Jebus before it's too late. Talk about cults. I'll take Atheists for $1,000 Alex.

[rurallib]

8. sounds like the powers that be have reeled him back in

after that 'gay' comment he made on the airplane.
Why would anyone expect anything else from a guy whose job it is to sell jesus?
You won't by the Jesus if he shows any doubt, right?

[cbayer]

9. It's bigotry.

[skepticscott]

11. Compare and contrast to what you claim as "bigotry"

by Richard Dawkins. Quote statements by Dawkins about Muslims that equate to all of the things Francis says about non-believers.

But I suppose the fawning praise and optimism for this pope will continue unabated and unashamedly.

[skepticscott]

34. Rug disagrees with you completely

Why is he wrong?

[rug]

10. If the bullet points she extracted were in fact the encyclical, it would be bigotry.

And it would be bigotry only if it was intended for the entire group. But there are individuals who meet one or all of them.

But, like most propagandists, the bullet points are not the entire document. This is:

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/francesco/encyclicals/documents/papa-francesco_20130629_enciclica-lumen-fidei_en.html

[skepticscott]

12. Right on cue

The apologistics begin.

Care to demonstrate that any of the points made are the exact opposite of what the pope said? Or will you just argue that "yeah, he pretty much said that, but it's only mild bigotry?

[rug]

13. Did you read it or are you just reflexively responding?

[skepticscott]

15. In other words

You can't show that any of the "bullet points" (all of which were referenced to specific cites in the encyclical, btw) are in direct contradiction to what the pope said, or even misrepresent it.

More evasion. And yes, I read it last weekend. If you had, you should have been able to provide a coherent defense of your apologetics, instead of a lame deflection.

Even cbayer had no hesitation in calling this bigotry. Is she dead wrong and deluded?

[Lordquinton]

16. so applying this statement conversely

"And it would be bigotry only if it was intended for the entire group. But there are individuals who meet one or all of them. "

Than you agree with any and all statements made about Catholicism in which one or more member (say, I dunno, the pope for example?) meet them, than they are true and not bigoted?

[skepticscott]

17. His post is worth bookmarking

For future reference

[rug]

30. Do that. Everybody needs a hobby.

[rug]

29. Do you know what bigotry is?

It is ascribing to an entire group denigrating characteristics.

To say that a member of a group is say, an asshole, is not bigotry.

To say that all members of a group are assholes, or _________ or __________ is bigotry.

That says nothing about the truth of whether anyone (say, I dunno, the pope or Richard Dawkins, for example) is in fact an asshole.

[skepticscott]

32. By that logic

If someone calls Barack Obama a nigger, that's not bigotry, as long as they aren't calling all black people niggers. That's seriously what rug is arguing here.

[rug]

35. You may want to edit that.

[DreamGypsy]

14. For a while there, I thought the encyclical ...

...was from the Onion.

In Mary, the Daughter of Zion, is fulfilled the long history of faith of the Old Testament, with its account of so many faithful women, beginning with Sarah: women who, alongside the patriarchs, were those in whom God’s promise was fulfilled and new life flowered. In the fullness of time, God’s word was spoken to Mary and she received that word into her heart, her entire being, so that in her womb it could take flesh and be born as light for humanity. Saint Justin Martyr, in his dialogue with Trypho, uses a striking expression; he tells us that Mary, receiving the message of the angel, conceived "faith and joy".[49] In the Mother of Jesus, faith demonstrated its fruitfulness; when our own spiritual lives bear fruit we become filled with joy, which is the clearest sign of faith’s grandeur. In her own life Mary completed the pilgrimage of faith, following in the footsteps of her Son.[50] In her the faith journey of the Old Testament was thus taken up into the following of Christ, transformed by him and entering into the gaze of the incarnate Son of God.

Have you heard about those chromosome thingees? Twenty-three pairs to build a human? 22 pairs of autosomes and the 2 sex chromosomes? There's some actual biology going on. If Mary's "faith and joy" don't manage to conceive a Y (even though it's fairly useless), then "Christ’s divine sonship" becomes a "Christine's divine daughtership". How would that work out for the patriarchs, who allowed women, alongside them, to flower with new life?

Thanks, Frank.

[struggle4progress]

18. I didn't find words such as "atheism" or "atheist" or "unbeliever" anywhere in Lumen Fidei

so I'm not sure how the author, of the article linked in the OP, reaches her conclusions

[trotsky]

19. Atheist or nonbeliever = someone without faith.

Now read it again.

And thanks for your continuing service, which you seem to relish to provide, of stomping on the minority.

[struggle4progress]

20. The phrase "without faith" occurs only once in the document in section 36: the sentence

reads "Clearly, theology is impossible without faith." This is what you are upset about?

[trotsky]

22. Knock it off.

Let's try to have a freaking adult discussion for once, shall we? Are you willing to do that?

Read the document - everything is loaded with how it takes FAITH (i.e., religious faith) to accomplish good things in society and life.

Atheists and other non-believers don't have faith. Oh there's a nice nod to us that as long as we are sincere in our searching, we'll find god. Thus implying that anyone who doesn't obviously wasn't sincere. A direct slap to all of us who came to our position through honest searching.

Now be serious for once and admit that yes, the pope's remarks are bigoted toward non-believers. Cbayer did above - do you disagree with her?

[struggle4progress]

27. The article linked by the OP misrepresents the document.

[trotsky]

28. So you disagree with cbayer.

Thanks for answering, even if you don't want to provide any reasoning for your claim.

[struggle4progress]

36. Do you think participants in this group should be forbidden to disagree with cbayer?

[cbayer]

39. Under no circumstances is anyone permitted to disagree with me!!

Or me to disagree with anyone.

[struggle4progress]

44. eek! trotsky and cbayer are plotting a putsch in the religion group!

[cbayer]

45. I had to look that up. Now I have a new word!

[trotsky]

46. I'd love it if you could actually behave like an adult and support your statement.

Are you ready to try?

[skepticscott]

33. And you don't have a page full

of Google search results to substantiate that claim? Remarkable.

But do you agree that when the pope says "faith" he is referring to religious faith?

[struggle4progress]

37. Do you think participants in this group should be forbidden to use google?

[skepticscott]

38. Silly and irrelevant question

And a very conspicuous dodge of the one that was posed to you. So I'll ask again:

do you agree that when the pope says "faith" in that encyclical he is referring to religious faith?

[struggle4progress]

40. I thought you wanted to discuss "Google search results"

#33 -- a subject that you seem frequently to mention

[skepticscott]

41. Take trotsky's advice in 22

And see if you can't have an adult conversation next time.

[struggle4progress]

42. You mention google quite regularly: do you have some religious or conscientious objection

to the use of google? There seems to be some important issue to you here

I'm sure it's out there on Google. Knock yourself out.

is posting the results from the Almighty Google your limit of insight?

Apparently when you said that you believe in a "higher power", you meant Google

you sure do use Google

I'll leave you to your Googleized understanding

doing your research on Google

it's not on Google

I don't think you'll find that on Google

Apologetics by Google 2.0

Google will whitewash

by Google search, no doubt

Apologetics by Google

It's not on Google, BTW

[rug]

43. Lol!

[Goblinmonger]

47. You do know it is obvious to those reading this

that you are avoiding the question and that that speaks volumes.

[struggle4progress]

50. I'm not seeing anything offensive in the letter. It's fine with me if

people don't want to read it, or if people disagree with the Pope after reading it

It's less clear to me why anyone would simply make up stuff about what the letter says about atheism and atheists -- since the letter contains no instances whatsoever of the words "atheist" or "atheism"

Apparently Trotsky didn't like this observation, and felt it appropriate to complain that I seemed not to agree with cbayer and needed to grow up. Apparently skepticscott didn't like the observation either, and felt it appropriate to raise once again some unclear issue regarding google. And apparently, you also didn't like the observation, so felt is appropriate to make some vague rumbling noises about avoiding questions. These do not appear to be efforts to shed light or to produce useful discussion

[trotsky]

52. And yet what miniscule effort have you even attempted to explain yourself?

All you've done is toss snark, go crazy on Google, and attack others.

Are we ready to grow up yet and make this a discussion group? Would you care to discuss why you think, even though the letter doesn't specifically mention "atheist" or "atheism", that when he refers to faith he doesn't mean religious faith, and when he disparages instances without faith, that he isn't therefore referring to non- believers?

Multiple atheists have said they found the letter offensive, if not bigoted. Cbayer thought so too - whatever she thinks she is. That's a point worth mentioning since it's not just the people you dislike who are disagreeing with you.

Well? Let's have an actual discussion here, s4p. If you really want one, that is.

[struggle4progress]

54. (1) Which of my posts in this thread motivated your claim I'm "going crazy on Google"?

[struggle4progress]

55. (2) Do you have a religious or conscientious objection to the use of Google?

[trotsky]

57. Thanks for demonstrating without a doubt...

that you are not ready to have an adult discussion. Let the record show I gave you multiple chances.

[skepticscott]

56. Don't waste your time on this one

He appears incapable of having a conversation based on facts. Something that seems to have gone viral among certain segments of the posting population.

[trotsky]

58. I gave him multiple chances to act like an adult.

I think I was more than patient and fair in my attempts at actual dialog.

That's all I can do. Readers can judge for themselves.

[skepticscott]

59. I count four right now

who have gone completely playground juvenile.

[rug]

60. I count at least five.

[Goblinmonger]

69. .............

[rug]

70. Maybe six.

[el_bryanto]

21. The problem is that he believes that living with faith is better than living without faith

Many atheists believe the opposite - that living without believing in superstitions is better than believing in superstitions. I don't know how you get around that essential disagreement respectfully.

I do agree that the argument "If we really tried to find God, we’d find him," is a bit myopic and disrespectful (although it's paralleled by the question "So have you ever considered there might not be a God?" that I've been asked on occasion).

But how do you argue for the value of faith without suggesting that people without faith are lacking? Or how do you argue for reason over faith without suggesting that the faithful are deluded?

Bryant

[trotsky]

23. Of course he does - that's his job.

An atheist who says that life without faith is better than life with is branded a religious bigot. (See: any thread about Richard Dawkins)

So is there a double standard here?

[el_bryanto]

24. Well yes - on both sides of the coin

I'm probably willing to make allowances for people who are saying things I agree with; you are probably willing to make allowances for people who are saying things you agree with.

Dawkins is a lot more direct in some of his pronouncements though.

“Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is the belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence.” - Richard Dawkins

“Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings.” Richard Dawkins

I don't know. That last one seems a bit offensive to me. But perhaps in an absolute sense it isn't.

This goes to another question which is "What is the value of religious tolerance?" There are plenty of people, both believers and atheists, who would argue that religious tolerance is in fact a negative value; allowing false doctrines or pernicious superstitions to run rampant when really they should be clamped down on.

Bryant

[trotsky]

25. I think what it comes down to is this:

Is religious faith necessary to be a decent human being, or to craft the best possible human society?

The pope thinks so. Richard Dawkins doesn't. I don't either.

[el_bryanto]

26. Nods -

Dawkins does believe that a believer like me is lacking though - superstitious and credulous.

I don't faith is necessary to being a decent human being, though. While I believe faith can be very beneficial, many faithful people are jerks.

Bryant

[rug]

31. You're right, it's a stretch.

Lumen Fidei, the Light of Faith, is written about faith. It is not written as an attack on the faithless.

[Goblinmonger]

48. Except when it says, when writing about faith,

that only through faith can you achieve wonderful things.

[struggle4progress]

49. What text exactly are you purporting to discuss?

[eomer]

51. Here's an example:

The light of faith is capable of enhancing the richness of human relations, their ability to endure, to be trustworthy, to enrich our life together. Faith does not draw us away from the world or prove irrelevant to the concrete concerns of the men and women of our time. Without a love which is trustworthy, nothing could truly keep men and women united. Human unity would be conceivable only on the basis of utility, on a calculus of conflicting interests or on fear, but not on the goodness of living together, not on the joy which the mere presence of others can give.

I disagree. Human unity is conceivable on the basis of the goodness of living together without faith.

[struggle4progress]

53. Horrors! You disagree with something the Pope said! So he must be a bigot!

[eomer]

61. I disagree with the Pope's statement that as an atheist I am inferior.

I disagree with the Pope's statement that because I'm a person of no faith it is inconceivable for me to truly keep united with men and women.

I disagree with the Pope's statement that because I'm a person of no faith my ability to endure, to be trustworthy, is inferior to that of others.

I disagree with the Pope's statement that because I'm a person of no faith I am incapable of human unity on the basis of the goodness of living together or on the joy which the mere presence of others can give.

All those ways in which the Pope says I am inferior are not true. I am capable of all those things.

The light of faith is capable of enhancing the richness of human relations, their ability to endure, to be trustworthy, to enrich our life together. Faith does not draw us away from the world or prove irrelevant to the concrete concerns of the men and women of our time. Without a love which is trustworthy, nothing could truly keep men and women united. Human unity would be conceivable only on the basis of utility, on a calculus of conflicting interests or on fear, but not on the goodness of living together, not on the joy which the mere presence of others can give.

[struggle4progress]

62. The Pope nowhere said atheists are inferior. He spoke of the importance of love

[eomer]

63. He's speaking about the importance of faith.

Read the excerpt and take care to understand the relationship between the words and lines:

The light of faith is capable of enhancing the richness of human relations, their ability to endure, to be trustworthy, to enrich our life together. Faith does not draw us away from the world or prove irrelevant to the concrete concerns of the men and women of our time. Without a love which is trustworthy, nothing could truly keep men and women united. Human unity would be conceivable only on the basis of utility, on a calculus of conflicting interests or on fear, but not on the goodness of living together, not on the joy which the mere presence of others can give.

Here is a shortened version that makes it easier to see the progression of his logic:

The light of faith is capable of enhancing ... their ability to be trustworthy. ...Without a love which is trustworthy, nothing could truly keep men and women united. Human unity would be conceivable only on the basis of utility, on a calculus of conflicting interests or on fear, but not on the goodness of living together, not on the joy which the mere presence of others can give.

In other words, the love of those without faith is not trustworthy and therefore their only basis for human relations is utility, conflicting interests, and fear. Clearly this is a statement that people without faith are inferior in their capacity for human relations.

[struggle4progress]

64. "If it were true --- as conceited shrewdness, proud of not being deceived, thinks --- that one

should believe nothing which he cannot see by means of his physical eyes, then first and foremost one ought to give up believing in love. If one did this and did it out of fear of being deceived, would not one then be deceived? Indeed, one can be deceived in many ways; one can be decived in believing what is untrue, but on the other hand, one is also deceived in not believing what is true, by the flattering conceit which is absolutely certain it cannot be deceived. Which deception is most dangerous? Whose recovery is more doubtful, that of him who does not see or of him who sees and still does not see? Which is more difficult, to awaken one who sleeps or to awaken one who, awake, dreams that he is awake?"
-- Søren Kierkegaard
Works of Love (1847)

Although you are very sure you understand what Francesco's letter intends, and what it implies, I think you do not understand it at all and therefore distort and misrepresent it

[eomer]

65. So do you say then that faith is not a requirement for trustworthy love?

Do you say that without faith there can still be love that is trustworthy and that human unity based on that love is possible?

If you say that then we agree.

[struggle4progress]

66. You are, of course, free to hold whatever opinion you like, concerning the importance of "faith"

just as Francesco is free to hold whatever opinion he likes regarding the relative roles of "faith" and "reason"

I say that disagreement on such points is not prima facie evidence of bigotry

[eomer]

67. I think it is bigotry if it is a claim that people of no faith are inferior.

And I do think the excerpt that I've pointed to is a claim that people who have no faith are inferior, that they do not have the same capacity to be trustworthy in human relations that those of faith have. I do believe this is bigotry.

[muriel_volestrangler]

68. I don't think the pope is saying faith is a *requirement* - he said it enhances human capability

to be trustworthy (and other things). Now, I disagree with him that it does do that, but I don't think that he said faith is required. He just think it helps a lot.

However, I think a bit further on is claiming that only faith in 'God' is suitable:

Modernity sought to build a universal brotherhood based on equality, yet we gradually came to realize that this brotherhood, lacking a reference to a common Father as its ultimate foundation, cannot endure. We need to return to the true basis of brotherhood. The history of faith has been from the beginning a history of brotherhood, albeit not without conflict. God calls Abraham to go forth from his land and promises to make of him a great nation, a great people on whom the divine blessing rests (cf. Gen 12:1-3).

If I were a Catholic, I'd be worried that the pope is claiming that "universal brotherhood" started with a mythical character who is supposed to be admired for being willing to kill his son because God told him to. I find so little to admire in the stories about Abraham that I'm amazed Christians don't just cut him out of the bible completely (I guess it's "faith" that keeps him in - if God inspired someone to write him in, who are humans to point out his many faults?). But the idea that 'brotherhood' cannot endure without God does seem to be an "only monotheists can keep civilization going" claim.

[eomer]

71. He does in a number of places come right out and say that faith is essential.

In the rest it is strongly implied and the instances that are sprinkled about where he comes right out and says it show that we are right in interpreting the rest as meaning it.

Here are some excerpts that contain the explicit statement mixed together with the merely implied version:

Slowly but surely, however, it would become evident that the light of autonomous reason is not enough to illumine the future; ultimately the future remains shadowy and fraught with fear of the unknown. As a result, humanity renounced the search for a great light, Truth itself, in order to be content with smaller lights which illumine the fleeting moment yet prove incapable of showing the way. Yet in the absence of light everything becomes confused; it is impossible to tell good from evil, or the road to our destination from other roads which take us in endless circles, going nowhere.

A light to be recovered

4. There is an urgent need, then, to see once again that faith is a light, for once the flame of faith dies out, all other lights begin to dim. The light of faith is unique, since it is capable of illuminating every aspect of human existence. A light this powerful cannot come from ourselves but from a more primordial source: in a word, it must come from God. Faith is born of an encounter with the living God who calls us and reveals his love, a love which precedes us and upon which we can lean for security and for building our lives. Transformed by this love, we gain fresh vision, new eyes to see; we realize that it contains a great promise of fulfilment, and that a vision of the future opens up before us. Faith, received from God as a supernatural gift, becomes a light for our way, guiding our journey through time. On the one hand, it is a light coming from the past, the light of the foundational memory of the life of Jesus which revealed his perfectly trustworthy love, a love capable of triumphing over death. Yet since Christ has risen and draws us beyond death, faith is also a light coming from the future and opening before us vast horizons which guide us beyond our isolated selves towards the breadth of communion. We come to see that faith does not dwell in shadow and gloom; it is a light for our darkness. Dante, in the Divine Comedy, after professing his faith to Saint Peter, describes that light as a "spark, which then becomes a burning flame and like a heavenly star within me glimmers".[4] It is this light of faith that I would now like to consider, so that it can grow and enlighten the present, becoming a star to brighten the horizon of our journey at a time when mankind is particularly in need of light.

Paul rejects the attitude of those who would consider themselves justified before God on the basis of their own works. Such people, even when they obey the commandments and do good works, are centred on themselves; they fail to realize that goodness comes from God. Those who live this way, who want to be the source of their own righteousness, find that the latter is soon depleted and that they are unable even to keep the law. They become closed in on themselves and isolated from the Lord and from others; their lives become futile and their works barren, like a tree far from water.

A light for life in society

54. Absorbed and deepened in the family, faith becomes a light capable of illumining all our relationships in society. As an experience of the mercy of God the Father, it sets us on the path of brotherhood. Modernity sought to build a universal brotherhood based on equality, yet we gradually came to realize that this brotherhood, lacking a reference to a common Father as its ultimate foundation, cannot endure. We need to return to the true basis of brotherhood. The history of faith has been from the beginning a history of brotherhood, albeit not without conflict. God calls Abraham to go forth from his land and promises to make of him a great nation, a great people on whom the divine blessing rests (cf. Gen 12:1-3). As salvation history progresses, it becomes evident that God wants to make everyone share as brothers and sisters in that one blessing, which attains its fullness in Jesus, so that all may be one. The boundless love of our Father also comes to us, in Jesus, through our brothers and sisters. Faith teaches us to see that every man and woman represents a blessing for me, that the light of God’s face shines on me through the faces of my brothers and sisters.

At the heart of biblical faith is God’s love, his concrete concern for every person, and his plan of salvation which embraces all of humanity and all creation, culminating in the incarnation, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Without insight into these realities, there is no criterion for discerning what makes human life precious and unique. Man loses his place in the universe, he is cast adrift in nature, either renouncing his proper moral responsibility or else presuming to be a sort of absolute judge, endowed with an unlimited power to manipulate the world around him.

55. Faith, on the other hand, by revealing the love of God the Creator, enables us to respect nature all the more, and to discern in it a grammar written by the hand of God and a dwelling place entrusted to our protection and care. Faith also helps us to devise models of development which are based not simply on utility and profit, but consider creation as a gift for which we are all indebted; it teaches us to create just forms of government, in the realization that authority comes from God and is meant for the service of the common good. Faith likewise offers the possibility of forgiveness, which so often demands time and effort, patience and commitment. Forgiveness is possible once we discover that goodness is always prior to and more powerful than evil, and that the word with which God affirms our life is deeper than our every denial. From a purely anthropological standpoint, unity is superior to conflict; rather than avoiding conflict, we need to confront it in an effort to resolve and move beyond it, to make it a link in a chain, as part of a progress towards unity.

When faith is weakened, the foundations of life also risk being weakened, as the poet T.S. Eliot warned: "Do you need to be told that even those modest attainments / As you can boast in the way of polite society / Will hardly survive the Faith to which they owe their significance?"[48] If we remove faith in God from our cities, mutual trust would be weakened, we would remain united only by fear and our stability would be threatened. In the Letter to the Hebrews we read that "God is not ashamed to be called their God; indeed, he has prepared a city for them" (Heb 11:16). Here the expression "is not ashamed" is associated with public acknowledgment. The intention is to say that God, by his concrete actions, makes a public avowal that he is present in our midst and that he desires to solidify every human relationship. Could it be the case, instead, that we are the ones who are ashamed to call God our God? That we are the ones who fail to confess him as such in our public life, who fail to propose the grandeur of the life in common which he makes possible? Faith illumines life and society. If it possesses a creative light for each new moment of history, it is because it sets every event in relationship to the origin and destiny of all things in the Father.

[skepticscott]

72. You read this

(at least until your head hurts) and you think, "sheesh, he's just making up word salad as he goes". There's no reason here, no facts, no arguments, just one empty declaration after another.

[struggle4progress]

73. So Francesco and you do not entirely share a common worldview: he thinks something is required

that you do not think is required, and on this basis you regard him as a bigot. Is it your general stance on such disagreements, that those who have a different perspective than yours, or who consider essential some matters that you do not consider essential, are bigots?

[eomer]

74. No, actually, I haven't said this is bigotry. But I do think it's ironically a lack of human unity.

I jumped into a subthread where Goblinmonger said:

48. Except when it says, when writing about faith,
that only through faith can you achieve wonderful things.

To which you replied:

49. What text exactly are you purporting to discuss?

My posts were in reply to your #49 and meant to provide the text you asked for that shows him saying that only through faith can you achieve wonderful things. Or put differently, that atheists are incapable of certain things, incapable of being fully good, incapable of true human unity. I believe I've demonstrated him saying those things, but I haven't decided whether I think that constitutes bigotry. Is it bigotry to call atheists inferior in these important ways? I'm not sure but that is merely a question of semantics. I would say the more important fact is that calling atheists inferior in those ways is ironically a lack of the brotherhood and human unity that the Pope meanwhile has said is only possible through faith. And that lack of brotherhood and human unity in his statements is bad enough whether or not it fits the definition of the word bigotry.

Interestingly I had a chance conversation on my commuter train a couple of days ago with a woman who seemed (in my opinion) to be hampered by her faith from full brotherhood and human unity with me, an atheist. We had a very friendly conversation and she was nice to me in a way but she would not accept, like the Pope apparently doesn't accept, that I could be good without believing in God. Each time I tried to say that we could find a common ground that we both want to be good and do good, though for different reasons, she always replied with something about God as the source of being good. She was prevented by her views on God from full human unity with me.

[skepticscott]

75. Nice spin on bigotry

But if it were white skin or a Y chromosome or a heterosexual orientation that he said were "required" to be a fully realized human, would you be singing the same tune?