Deceptive Language

| Wed 6 Jun 2012 | 10 Comments | 1988 Views

Author Emily Dietle

My focus is on state-church separation & social issues. I'm an avid reader, and feel that one of our most valuable tools is the free movement of information and ideas. | @emilyhasbooks

To introduce this blog piece, I must first share with you something important about words and titles, and how I choose to use them. You see, I am not a member of the organization known as the Roman Catholic Church (RCC). It is an organization that seeks to dominate and self-promote, using fear tactics and strong-arming. They indoctrinate their member’s children at an early age, to ensure the survival of their organization, because besides using fear to extract money from members, they offer little outside of any standard 501c3 soup-kitchen or charity group.

Because I’m not a member of this organization, I don’t have to use their words. I do not have to give reverence to their self-selected leader, Joseph Ratzinger, by using his internal RCC title of “Pope.” He is merely the Executive Director of a corrupt organization. The area of Rome that this organization occupies is it’s headquarters, not a “Holy See.” Any other internal language that the RCC chooses to create, I am not required to use- and I highly suggest that you don’t either. Words have power, and we can take their power away, by choosing to stop using the RCC’s internal language.

Now that I’ve introduced that, we can continue… The leader of the RCC, Joseph Ratzinger, has been giving speeches to his American department heads throughout the year. One message delivered to these department heads (RCC lingo: bishops) addressed the issue of religious freedom.

It is imperative that the entire Catholic community in the United States come to realize the grave threats to the church’s public moral witness presented by a radical secularism which finds increasing expression in the political and cultural spheres.

The seriousness of these threats needs to be clearly appreciated at every level of ecclesial life. Of particular concern are certain attempts being made to limit that most cherished of American freedoms, the freedom of religion.

Many of you have pointed out that concerted efforts have been made to deny the right of conscientious objection on the part of Catholic individuals and institutions with regard to cooperation in intrinsically evil practices. Others have spoken to me of a worrying tendency to reduce religious freedom to mere freedom of worship without guarantees of respect for freedom of conscience.

The only threats that the RCC faces is that of an educated and socially aware society. The “radical secularism” that Ratzinger references are simply positions that people are taking on social and political issues that don’t adhere to the RCC’s bronze-aged standards. We’re also collectively recognizing that theocracies don’t work, and that moving towards a fully secular government is beneficial to all citizens.

Religious freedom, according to Ratzinger, is the freedom to use their financial power and political clout to manipulate our society. That is not freedom of religion. If I know my audience well, you already know this, but I’ll give you a refresher: As there are multiple religions, you implicitly include freedom from religion when speaking about the freedom of- whether you acknowledge this or not.

The “evil practices” referenced in Ratzinger’s speech include access to birth control and family planning, and the freedom to marry regardless of sexual orientation. If the RCC wants to conscientiously object to treating people equally, it should have certain government benefits removed, including special taxation breaks.

Freedom of thought (also called the freedom of conscience or ideas) is the freedom of an individual to hold or consider a fact, viewpoint, or thought, independent of others’ viewpoints. It is different from and not to be confused with the concept of freedom of speech or expression.

There are not rampant activists trying to remove the right of people to practice their religion, or hold a belief in a supernatural being. We are simply trying to remove their power to control our lives based on those beliefs. Leaders of powerful organizations, like Ratzinger, have no place in influencing our political climate, laws, or lifestyles.

 

  • http://www.atheists.org/fl Bridget Gaudette

    Wow. EXCELLENT post!

  • Andrew

    Catholics lecturing other people on morals. Hilarious. These zombies still think it’s 1625.

  • http://www.atheistgeeknews.com Isaac J. Harris

    I like both halves of this post and will link to it. Ex-Jehovah’s Witnesses will especially appreciate the first half regarding titles of their leaders and not using the same terminology of the religious organization.

    Thanks Emily.

  • Michael Musielewicz

    Ms. Dietle,

    There seems to me that there are two topics within this post. The first dealing with the Church’s nomenclature and the other being the Church’s roll in society. I only really want to ask about the issue of nomenclature. I agree that words have power. Nevertheless they get their power from their meanings.(unless you ascribe to an extreme form of personal language)

    It seems to me that if you wish to argue with any one, it is incredibly useful to use the same terms / words as they are, and to use them in the same way.

    Let us suppose, if you will, that you wish to argue public policy with a group of people that you believe inculcates their young a particular set of mores (by means of free public education)that is wrong, offers little in means social services, levies a nonsensical tax code that burdens the poor and helps the rich, is corrupted at every level, is militaristic, is autocratic, and actively partakes in the massacre of innocent men, women, and children around the globe, let’s say something like the United States. Yet in your argument with them you refuse to use such words as “democrat”, “republican”, “judicial branch”, “House”, “congress”, “president”, “War on Terror”, “dollar”, and “United States” (because of moral repugnance of their activities.

    The question then comes to be how do you plan on having an argument with these people that you oppose if you refuse to use their words for various things within their institution? It seems to me that such an endeavor is impossible and would be something like trying to have a conversation in Russian to a person who only speaks English.

    To conclude, despite your repugnance of the Church’s activities I think that you should still use their terms. By refusing to do so you can only really talk / argue with your fellow atheists (who already know what you mean when use word x in reference to the Church) The people that you actually need to convince however, the intellectuals of that institution, will write you off as either a) not knowing what you are talking about, or b) not understand what you are talking about. In either case you are talking at each other, not with each other.

    Yours,

    Michael Musielewicz

    • The Silencing Machine

      Reductio ad absurdum. Politicians don’t change their name entirely because of their political affiliation. Identifying things for what they are is not identifying things for what they are said to be by a group of people.

      • Michael Musielewicz

        I don’t see your RAA, could you lay it out for me? As for you second point,let me pose a question, “What makes a phone a phone?” or if you don’t want to get in to the metaphysical nature of artifacts, “What makes a rock a rock?”

  • Louis

    Actually, Ratzinger is strongly in favour of both liberalism and the secular state. If you don’t believe me, please see:
    http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1337335?eng=y

    Scroll down to the section by Camillo Ruini.

  • Louis

    Also, the Church doesn’t like theocracies. The Reductions of Paraguay, the theme of the Robert De Niro film “The Mission” were suppressed precisely because they were theocracies.

  • http://ruinenlust.weebly.com Julio R. Corzo

    Funny thing is, I also say Ratzinger instead of the Pope, and when I’m debating in philosophy class some christians don’t even know who this Joseph Ratzinger is.

  • http://northierthanthou.com/ northierthanthou

    I wonder how the Catholic church is handling the issue of freedom of conscience in places where it’s followers dominate government policy? …I also think it’s ironic that we hear this from Conservative Catholics. where was the will to defend religious freedom beyond mere belief when Scalia penned the Smith peyote decision single-handedly wiping the balancing test off the board of First Amendment case law? Right behind him of course. After all; that was someone else’s religion.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Category: Atheism & Religion, Church-State Separation