Maher's 'Reflection on the past 2 weeks of emails' and subsequent discussion

Maher wrote:

First of all, i would like to apologize for somewhat initiating all of this debate about religion and hence filled your e mail boxes. But it has been a pleasure to me to hear from all of you, and i hope you have enjoyed it as well. I guess all i wanted from asking all those questions is to open our eyes and maybe give ourselves a chance to see things from the other point of view, and hence reflect on what we believe in and how it fits with our fellow human beings. Regardless of our differences in opinions and beliefs, and regardless of how we approach things, i am very reassured that we all share the very basic goal of our humanity, the goodness of our existence and the need to better ourselves and others. I especially meant all of this to Alex and David, who i admire very much but have a strong desire for them to experience what they might not be comfortable for; for i was in their shoes and i know where they are coming from.

To answer my own question about my confidence in my beliefs, well when i practiced islam passionately and believed in everything it taught, i was a 100% confident in my faith and that it is the only way to salvation. All of you guys/gals would have ended up in the hellfire if you died before accepting islam, for being so ignorant about islam (does that sounds familiar to Alex and David? I am sure it does. I believed about your religions guys just like you believe about other religions now). If it was not for homosexuality, i would have stayed a devoted muslim until i die. But being homosexual forced me to open my eyes to things i would not have otherwise and start questioning my faith. In my situation, i am very glad that islam opposed homosexuality wholeheartedly.

My confidence level now is somewhat different. I am a 100% confident that there is no one religion/denomination that possess the only truth. Just think about it guys, what are the odds for everyone of you (speaking to those who believe that their religion is the only way to salvation) to have been born in the only correct religion, or denomination for that matter? Are you that lucky and all your fellow human beings that don't fit with you are wrong? Think about the different denominations within your religion, how come your denomination is the one? Alex and David, according to both of your answers, you both will go to hell from the others' point of view. Your "Christianity is at odds" with one another? Alex, you are a 100% confident that Catholicism is the only way, and David you are a 100% confident that being Protestant, especially your sub denomination t(he quakers), is the only way? You are both christians, and there are over a hundred denominations within christianity, and many people within each denomination i guarantee you have a 100% confidence that they are the only way, do you honestly expect us to find that one and only one way to salvation? Now think about Muslims, the jews and all others..most of them hold similar confidence levels about their religions. Do you get what i am trying to ask you to see?

Paul,, i do agree with you that any religion that is filtered by humans like christianity and islam, is something that you probably should be cautious about. Sara, i agree with you about the existence of a higher power and your certainty of being uncertain is something refreshing.

In adiition, I am a 100% confident that there is a higher power in which no greater can be conceived. But now i am like you Jason, in the 90th percentile on my current belief system. I do believe, as some of you know, that our existence is an absolute truth, and everything that exists is true (actual), good (has a purpose), unified (ordered) and beautiful (has value). But the remaining few percents are for me still to work through. This certinity of mine is diffrent than that of the religous ones because, to me, this is universal and speaks to all humans equally.

Now, thank you all for participating in this. I want to especially thank David and Alex because i might have sounded harsh on you, so thank you for being great debaters and trying to think through these questions that i asked! It is highly appreciated!

Alex then responded with an email that stated:

I am not going to respond to all the points you just made but there is still the problem of rejecting objective religious and at the same time declaring that your vision of life is the correct one. Don't you see the problem? You claim:

"This certinity of mine is diffrent than that of the religous ones because, to me, this is universal and speaks to all humans equally."

How is it universal? How can you be so certain?

This is the ultimate irony of the said position. "There is no objective truth, but......this is how things are...." Oh and I beg to differ that your experience as a firm beliver in Islam is the same as mine. I am not going to argue about the veracity of Catholicism but I will say that the Catholic's outlook on life is vastly different from the Muslim's. You unfortunately only see a superficial similarity based on the question of "hellfire." Did you even read what Pope Pius IX said regarding this question? God does not condemn souls who are truly trying to follow the Truth and are following the Natural Law (the law written on everyone's heart) and who are positively ignorant of the Catholic Church. Somehow though such a person (no one can determine who fits this description except God) is united to the Catholic Church which is the only ark of salvation. And frankly Catholics must always exercise Charity towards their non-Catholic brethren just as Our Lord did to the Samaritan woman at the well. Islam and Catholicism are two very different religions so I think it unfair to claim a shared "experience" with me.

Sara then said:

I didn't take it that way at all when I read it. I didn't even see it as him comparing catholicism and islam at a belief level. I saw him comparing them only in their belief that their way is the right way, the only way. even pope pius IX believes that. He is simply falling back on the old standby answer that is in almost every religion about the unreachable because there is no better answer and no one can say to their church body "yes, we are sending lots of people to hell because you didn't talk to them". but in his answer he says they are only saveable because in their hearts they will be catholic even though they don't know what that is. but if someone knows what a catholic is, and still is a baptist, he believes they are going to hell. in that way islam and catholicism are alike. and they are not religions alone in that. catholics have a lot in common with a lot of religions, and simply making those comparisons is not insulting to the catholic church.

ps-more about pope pius IX and others who say that the uninitiated and uninformed will still go to heaven. If this is true then missionaries are doing a GREAT disservice to the uninformed. if they will go to heaven uninformed, but go to hell if someone tells them of jesus and they don't believe then in my view it would be better to leave them alone, let them stay uninformed, and let them get into heaven.

Alex then said:

If one views Catholicism as simply a religion which "condemns" people to hell than no wonder you have this aversion to anything it says. There is a deep spirituality and a long tradition of mysticism which many people seem to ignore and they view the Catholic religion as a mechanical religion which is full of archaic ritual and symbolism. It is also somewhat strange that there is this aversion towards the Catholic Church when it has been responsible for much of what is good in Western civilization, and which all of us are benefiting from.

http://www.ignatius.com/magazines/hprweb/bk_woods2.htm

Sara then said:

i know the history of the catholic church. my family are still very devoutly catholic. and I did much research in catholicism before i left the church. I felt i had to understand what i was either accepting or rejecting. None of what I say should ever be taken as "bashing" the catholic church. infact, if people do misperceive things I make sure to correct them. I stand up for catholicism as often as i "shoot it down". But there are many questions about the catholic church, starting with the foundation, through popes that might not have been popes, all they way to a church leadership that VERY possibly killed a pope in the recent history for being to liberal. and MANY many more things, that makes me question the catholic religion for their leadership and foundation alone, let alone some individual beliefs that are suspect. but I don't think catholicism is a bar to heaven like many. I just think it has many more hurdles you have to jump before you get there.

Alex then said:

Remember though the Church has sacraments which give grace to the soul. Those who are not Catholic would still have to follow the natural law perfectly and avoid sin, and this would be quite difficult without the means established by Christ to sanctify souls. Invincible Ignorance does not save in of itself but simply would not make that person culpable on that account but nevertheless the person would still have to avoid committing mortal sin. Once again I find it rather odd that anyone would say that no one religion could be true yet at the same time say that their own view of religions is the true one. And this idea of reveling in uncertainty and skepticism is somewhat absurd. The mind was made for truth and not for skepticism as the modern philosopher would have it. I will simply say that God gives suffiicient grace for all to be saved but it is up to the individual to correspond to these graces.

Sara then said:

so you don't believe that anything can be gained by questioning? personally, I think blind faith is overrated. if you have nothing but blind faith then you were never tested. i think the commitment of a person who has questioned, searched, and in the end still believes in god is much stronger than the person who never waivers and questions.

Maher then said:

I am not going to keep debating with you over the same issue, this is my last e mail to you in regards of religion at this time. If you read my words you will see that i said "this certainty of mine.." i meant what i am currently certain about no yours or anyone else's, which is different than my previous religious certainty i had, and the other certainties i witness by religious people like yourself and other muslims, jews, chritians and others. My vision of life is just that, mine, but religious people want their visions to be everyone's. That is the difference. If you think catholicism is the only religion that have mysticism and contributed a lot to humanity, you are merely WRONG! Look at what islam did to improve humanity and most religions. The only shared experience with you is having followed an organized religion and all i meant to say in my comparisons, is that people hold very strong convictions about their religions just like you hold about yours. Don't trick yourself into thinking that your passion towards catholicism is one of a kind. I am sorry that i was not very clear.

Paul then said:

Not to be all mutual admiration society or anything, but I really love taking part in this discussion. This, to me, is what the internet is all about, intelligent discussion.

I just read yesterday how Descartes was lauded as the most holiest of philosophers by proving the existence of God, something no philosopher had done before.

Dave then said:

I don't think much faith is blind faith. Mine isn't. I have tested it, departed it and come back to it.

Dave then said:

Just to play the devil's advocate, Alex, but most of the worlds problems are from or have a cuase affect relatinship with many of the problems. Easern Europe, Mid East, Caribbean...most of the problems have arisen from contact with catholic missionaries and the natives. Look at European colonialism to the entire world in the name of spreading the gospel. What do you get out of it? English, French, Spanish colonies. What did they bring to the new world?? Catholicism. I think the spread of the gospel is a good thing, but my god man, look at the Crusades and the Inquisition. They killed and murdered by the authority of the pope. That is not the peaceful spread of the gospel. It is the same thing we accuse the rest of the world of doing. Plus, a personal issue for me with the Catholic Church is the molestation scandals and the ignoring of the holocaust.

Just a few points to counter the "good' the lot of us are benefiting from.

Dave then said:

I don’t believe the sacraments have any supernatural influence on the soul. I believe they are mere practices to show obedience to Christ. Communion…remembrance of the sacrifice on the cross. Baptism…..outward confession of faith to other believers. This is how my faith sees the sacraments. My church now doesn’t even observe on a daily basis because all too often, over indulgence of the sacraments creates a tradition type atmosphere, thus, cheapening the observations.

Alex then said:

I am honest enough to admit that individual Catholics have been sinful and have misused their power in the name of religion. But in its essence Catholicism is a missionary religion (side note: religion simply means the relationship between man and God). It is interesting but you should read the life of Fr. de Smet (a Belgian missionary priest) who came to the United States in the 1800's and was loved by the Native-Americans and did not insist that they become Europeans. I am not saying all Catholic missionaries were angels but boy the generalization that there was nothing but strife between the two groups is simply a bit harsh. As far as the Crusades are concerned, the Seljuk Turks who controlled the Holy Land (also remember all of North Africa which used to be Christian was conquered by Islam) did not exactly make life easy for the Christian pilgrims to the Holy Land. However I am not going to be simplistic and say "All Christians were saints and all Muslims were evil". The Crusades included a mixture of different motivations, some went because of the idea of expiating for one's sins, while others saw it as an opportunity to acquire wealth and power. Also remember in the beginning of the Crusades there were strict guidelines as to who could go on the Crusade (at least officially by the Church) but nevertheless many individuals did not heed this call. I refuse to simply condemn the idea of the Crusades outright because of our so-called Englightened age. Read the historians of the Crusades and you will see that they have a rather different view than the view often given by the mainstream. I am actually reading a book by Thomas F. Madden entitled The New Concise History of the Crusades and I thought I would quote him in his conclusion (yes I skipped all the way to the end, lol):

" For medieval men and women, the crusade was an act of piety, charity, and love, but it was also a means of defending their world, their culture, and their way of life. It is not surprising, then, that the crusades lost their appeal when Christians no longer identified themselves first and foremost as members of one body of Christ. By the sixteenth century, Europe was dividing itself along political rather than religious lines. In that new world, the crusade had no place."

"It is easy for modern people to dismiss the crusades as morally repugnant or cynically evil. Such judgments, however, tell us more about the observer than the observed. They are based on uniquely modern (and, therefore, Western) values. If, from the safety of our modern world, we are quick to condemn the medieval crusader, we should be mindful that he would be just as quick to condemn us. Our infinitely more destructive wars waged for the sake of political and social ideologies would, in his opinion, be lamentable wastes of human life. In both socieites, the medieval and the modern, people fight for what is most dear to them. That is a fact of human nature that is not so changeable."

And I thought I would share another passage of his which is quite poignant in today's time:

"It is not the crusades, then, that led to the attacks of September 11, (you know my position Jason, lol, anyway) but the artificial memory of the crusades constructed by modern colonial powers and passed down by Arab nationalists and Islamists. They stripped the medieval expeditions of every aspect of their age and dressed them up instead in the tattered rags of nineteenth-century imperialism. As such, they have become an icon for modern agendas that medieval Christians and Muslims could scarcely have understood, let alone condoned."

As far as the molestation cases are concerned, it is a tragic failure of both the bishops (many covered up these criminals, and a sad case of sin) but how this has anything to do with the Catholic Church as such is beyond me. No where does Catholicism teach to molest children. All it shows is that like any society the Church is made up of saints and sinners, and it is precisely these sinners that Our Lord died on the cross for. As far as the ignoring of the holocaust...care to elaborate? If you are talking about Pope Pius XII I suggest you read The Pius War: Responses to the Critics of Pius XII authored by Rabbi David G. Dalin and Joseph Bottum. I relate one story. The Chief Rabbi of Rome (Eugenio Zolli) during WW2 actually converted to Catholicism because of the charity of Pope Pius XII in saving thousands of Jews and even took the name of Eugenio which was Pius XII's first name. I leave with a few quotes about this episode during WW2:

“The people of Israel will never forget what His Holiness… [is] doing for us unfortunate brothers and sisters in the most tragic hour of our history, which is living proof of divine Providence in this world.” – Rabbi Herzog (Chief Rabbi of Jerusalem

Pius XII “did more than anyone else to halt the dreadful crime and alleviate its consequences.”

- John Levai (Hungary’s leading scholar of the Jewish holocaust)

“Only the Church stood squarely across the path of Hitler’s campaign for suppressing the truth”

- Albert Einstein

“…for all they had done in various countries to save Jews, to save children, and Jews in general.
We are deeply grateful to the Catholic Church.”

– Mosha Sharett (Israel’s first foreign minister)

“The Catholic Church saved more Jewish lives during the war than all the other churches, religious institutions, and rescue organizations put together. Its record stands in startling contrast to the achievements of the Internation Red Cross and the Western democracies.”
- Pinchas Lapide (At one time Israel’s counsel in Italy)

“…during the Second World War, Pius XII saved more Jewish lives than any other person, including Raoul Wallenberg and Oskar Schindler.”

Pius XII “…spoke out loudly against Hitler and [that] everyone saw him as an opponent of the Nazi regime…Pius XII secretly instructed the Catholic clergy to use all means to save as many human lives as possible…In Rome alone, 155 convents and monasteries gave refuge to 5,000 Jews. At any given moment at least 3,000 were saved in the papal residence of Castel Gandalfo.”
- New York Rabbi David Dalin

“The voice of Pius XII is a lonely voice in the silence and darkness enveloping Europe this Christmas…He is about the only ruler left on the continent of Europe who dares to raise his voice at all.” – New York Times editorial (Dec.25,1941)


Dave then said:

Awesome information on the Crusades. I still see it as a domination and conquer issue. Obviously, there were different people in authority in the different crusades, so the ideological differences are probably profoundly different. I still see it as a situation much unlike prosletyzing and missionary work. As far as the molestation, I have yet to hear a condemnation. Plus, the Vatican paid out settlements and looked the other way (transferred troublemakers). Contacting the authorities is the ideal approach when you learn of a molestation. I hold the Vatican and thus the Catholic Church responsible for the failure to protect their parishioners. I am confident there was a conspiracy. How could there not be. There is nothing, in my opinion, worse then molestation of children.