I was reading this blog post about how some guy nearly got cheated at Sim Lim. Right at the end of it, he posted what he learnt, the last of which was “There are decent PRCs around too”.
PRCs, by the way, refer to mainland Chinese, which some Singaporeans have something against, either because of bad experiences, their friends’ bad experiences, the fear of lost jobs or the love of quiet.
Now, the sudden realisation that some PRCs can be decent isn’t, in and of itself, much of a revelation. I’m sure lots of people go through the “Not all Jews/Muslims/PRCs/boys/Mutant Zombies are bad people” epiphany, but this guy’s blog was called Catholic Writer! I only noticed this after I finished reading the thing, and my jaw dropped.
How is it that people don’t understand that when you identify yourself as part of a group (or are identified as being part of a group by your skin colour, hat or aversion to pork), people without that group will judge your entire group by your actions?
Allow me to demonstrate –
There are stupid Catholics around too.
There are asshole Catholics around too.
While I don’t like PRCs, as much as I don’t like Tree Huggers, Pro-Lifers, Death Penalty Abolitionists, and pretty much everyone who doesn’t agree with me on absolutely everything – remember, I AM RIGHT, YOU ARE WRONG – herein lies the rub, I don’t automatically assume that they’re bad people. Oh wait, he didn’t assume that all PRCs were bad, he assumed they were all indecent.
I would never opine that a group had some saving grace because IT’S FUCKING OBVIOUS.
Of course there are decent PRCs. There are decent EVERYONE. EVERYONE is fucking decent until they prove otherwise. What kind of person calls himself a Catholic and automatically assumes people are indecent? I understand the concept of Original Sin, but why are PRCs more originally sinful than others?
Guilty until proven innocent and innocent until proven guilty are very far apart.
This guy also has a long post condemning homosexuality, entitled “A great injustice to homosexuals”. The great injustice he talks about was removing homosexuality when DSM went from III to IV.
Now, I agree that that Church has to take a stand against homosexuality. I respect her for it.
I also, being a sheep easily influenced by Hollywood, think gays are hilarious.
What I find offensive is how he starts out with some local issues (a gay teacher), changes the subject to the 377A, changes the subject to gay marriage, and ignores all those points to focus entirely on DSM IV. That’s just tabloid journalism.
What I find seriously offensive, though, is faith masquerading as science.
While I believe in the Intelligent Designer, I think any attempt to prove Him, in addition to being ultimately vain, is positively insulting.
It’s insulting to my intelligence, and, far far worse, it’s insulting to God.
Would it be okay to do a psychological profile of Jesus and decide that, based on his personality type, “My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?” would have been uttered by anyone with a similar personality, were they to be, you know, crucified? That any of the Apostles are interchangeable with anyone else with the same personality type and life experience?
The beauty of faith lies in faith. As much as I abhor the concept of sola fide (in that it denies the virtue of Works), I appreciate the beauty and power of the idea (and I just adore a good line in iambic pentameter).
Faith and knowledge are mutually exclusive. When I know something, such as the chair I’m sitting on, I have no need for faith. The “faith” I have in the chair that it will not collapse isn’t actual faith, it’s an expression of the knowledge gleaned from prior experience with chairs and similar works of carpentry.
Jesus, by the way, made really good chairs.
If I choose to believe that the chair does not collapse because it is God’s Will That I Not Fall on My Ass, that, then, is an article of faith.
To masquerade faith as science is to distract and deplete the power of faith. It is charlatanism, the acts of witch-doctors selling snake oil.
On a related note, it has always seemed to me that Evolution is a Proof of God, to anyone who has any brains.
Obviously, it’s a random and undirected process. The position of God as Intelligent and God as Sibei Eng (ie. suffering from a state of barely endurable ennui on the verge of terminal boredom) are mutually exclusive. Why would God personally go and tinker every single variant on every single thing?
Because of Love? Every rock and every tree? That’s not love, that’s OCD.
Like fractals, complexity theory and any field of maths or science, He simply made the System and left it to run itself. That, you see, is what makes Him God.
Go wiki fractals. Utter genius.
List by Tags [ religion pseudoscience ]
Wendy – i think i'm in love with you! *swoon*! you write so well...|
28 Pisces 2k8 04:12
nocturne – Thanks Wendy, you swoon very well.
28 Pisces 2k8 18:12
Methodist – May God forgive you
28 Pisces 2k8 08:28
nocturne – Methodist - God won't. There is nothing to forgive.
28 Pisces 2k8 18:12
GeeWhiz – "What kind of person calls himself a Catholic and automatically assumes people are indecent?" Sounds like you have high expectations of Catholics. ;-)
28 Pisces 2k8 19:16
nocturne – Only higher expectations of those who wear their beliefs like a badge, in that it drags others down with them. When you identify yourself as part of the community, you speak for and as the community. This guy gives the impression that ALL Catholics are bigots, which I feel is unfair.
28 Pisces 2k8 19:41
831 words / 4964