Start a new topic on this JT in order not to go off topic.

Start a new topic on this JT in order not to go off topic.

I was only replying to Lannarebirth.

Back to the Pope's challenges:

Francis has indicated an intention to reform a Vatican government that is widely acknowledged as a den of dysfunction

and theater of Italian-accented turf wars. Some cardinals have even

suggested that back-stabbing in the papal court helped drive Francis’s

predecessor, Pope Benedict XVI, into retirement.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/pope-francis-urged-to-reform-church-government/2013/03/17/b24b1638-8e82-11e2-9f54-f3fdd70acad2_story.html

Back to the Pope's challenges:

Francis has indicated an intention to reform a Vatican government that is widely acknowledged as a den of dysfunction

and theater of Italian-accented turf wars. Some cardinals have even

suggested that back-stabbing in the papal court helped drive Francis’s

predecessor, Pope Benedict XVI, into retirement.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/pope-francis-urged-to-reform-church-government/2013/03/17/b24b1638-8e82-11e2-9f54-f3fdd70acad2_story.html

Sounds like a Thai 'crackdown' to me, just words.

A big issue for the new Pope is increasing obesity IMO. Without a radical change in headwear (which is not going to down well with traditionalists) he is going to find it hard to fit an ever burgeoning Alter boy under it.

Oops.

Argentine President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner says she has asked for the
Pope's intervention in the Falklands dispute between her country and the UK.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-21835363

This goes back to an earlier post on freedom OF religion and freedom FROM religion. They are essentially the same thing though I guess it could be considered using the following example.... Close both eyes for a few seconds then open the left only, remember the image. Close your eyes again then open the right only, remember the image. Close both eyes then reopen them both at the same time. What you see is a composite of both images you remember.

With the above in mind.. freedom OF religion does not mean you can impose your religious belief on others which President Cristina is trying to do by using a religious body. Trying to use the hand of her particular flavour of god is just not going to do it, it's an insult to the thinking world. She should perhaps hook up with PM Yingluk for a bit of bottom dwelling shopping.

First problem for the new Pope I think... Does he tell her to sling her hook because the Catholic church is not a political organisation along with avoiding Prada, or does he git involved?

Oops.

Argentine President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner says she has asked for the

Pope's intervention in the Falklands dispute between her country and the UK.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-21835363

This goes back to an earlier post on freedom OF religion and freedom FROM religion. They are essentially the same thing though I guess it could be considered using the following example.... Close both eyes for a few seconds then open the left only, remember the image. Close your eyes again then open the right only, remember the image. Close both eyes then reopen them both at the same time. What you see is a composite of both images you remember.

With the above in mind.. freedom OF religion does not mean you can impose your religious belief on others which President Cristina is trying to do by using a religious body. Trying to use the hand of her particular flavour of god is just not going to do it, it's an insult to the thinking world. She should perhaps hook up with PM Yingluk for a bit of bottom dwelling shopping.

First problem for the new Pope I think... Does he tell her to sling her hook because the Catholic church is not a political organisation along with avoiding Prada, or does he git involved?

I was interested to see Kirchner, the lady who accused the Pope when Cardinal Bergoglio of "being reminiscent of mediaevalism and the Inquisition", now going cap-in-hand to him asking him to help over the Falklands Issue. That, IMO, would be interference in political affairs. The day after JT tells us off for interfering, a politician asks us to interfere.

And this is very much "a problem the Pope faces". Kirchner will not be the only one to ask for the Pope's help for political reasons.

Oops.

Argentine President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner says she has asked for the

Pope's intervention in the Falklands dispute between her country and the UK.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-21835363

This goes back to an earlier post on freedom OF religion and freedom FROM religion. They are essentially the same thing though I guess it could be considered using the following example.... Close both eyes for a few seconds then open the left only, remember the image. Close your eyes again then open the right only, remember the image. Close both eyes then reopen them both at the same time. What you see is a composite of both images you remember.

With the above in mind.. freedom OF religion does not mean you can impose your religious belief on others which President Cristina is trying to do by using a religious body. Trying to use the hand of her particular flavour of god is just not going to do it, it's an insult to the thinking world. She should perhaps hook up with PM Yingluk for a bit of bottom dwelling shopping.

First problem for the new Pope I think... Does he tell her to sling her hook because the Catholic church is not a political organisation along with avoiding Prada, or does he git involved?

Can't you see that you have just made my point about the differences between "from" and "of"?

Freedom "of" religion gives Cristina the right to ask for divine intervention if she so chooses.

Freedom "from" religion does not give her that same right under your example that politics should not be encroached by the Church.

You can't have it both ways.

Oops.

Argentine President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner says she has asked for the

Pope's intervention in the Falklands dispute between her country and the UK.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-21835363

This goes back to an earlier post on freedom OF religion and freedom FROM religion. They are essentially the same thing though I guess it could be considered using the following example.... Close both eyes for a few seconds then open the left only, remember the image. Close your eyes again then open the right only, remember the image. Close both eyes then reopen them both at the same time. What you see is a composite of both images you remember.

With the above in mind.. freedom OF religion does not mean you can impose your religious belief on others which President Cristina is trying to do by using a religious body. Trying to use the hand of her particular flavour of god is just not going to do it, it's an insult to the thinking world. She should perhaps hook up with PM Yingluk for a bit of bottom dwelling shopping.

First problem for the new Pope I think... Does he tell her to sling her hook because the Catholic church is not a political organisation along with avoiding Prada, or does he git involved?

Can't you see that you have just made my point about the differences between "from" and "of"?

Freedom "of" religion gives Cristina the right to ask for divine intervention if she so chooses.

Freedom "from" religion does not give her that same right under your example that politics should not be encroached by the Church.

You can't have it both ways.

A week ago I knew virtually nothing about the new Pope. That said, I'm going to go out on a limb and say he does not involve himself in this matter in any way. I believe Ms. Kirchner is employing that device used by failed politicians everywhere, the misdirection.

It turns out, keeping with the non-saintly pattern of his biography (riding the bus is nice, but not very consequential), Pope Francis was extremely non-aggressive in fighting against child sex abuse in the Argentinian church. Logically, Pope hopefuls, why would you expect such an OLD MAN to magically change his entire behavior pattern just because he has a new (albeit very impressive) title?

There is nothing wrong with having an open mind about this new Pope, but faced with the growing evidence of his record, it's more rational to tamp down on any grand expectations.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/pope-francis-was-often-quiet-on-argentine-sex-abuse-cases-as-archbishop/2013/03/18/26e7eca4-8ff6-11e2-9cfd-36d6c9b5d7ad_story.html

But during most of the 14 years that Bergoglio served as archbishop
of Buenos Aires, rights advocates say, he did not take decisive action
to protect children or act swiftly when molestation charges surfaced;
nor did he extend apologies to the victims of abusive priests after
their misconduct came to light.

“He has been totally silent,” said
Ernesto Moreau, a member of Argentina’s U.N.-affiliated Permanent
Assembly for Human Rights and a lawyer who has represented victims in a
clergy sexual-abuse case. Victims asked to meet with Bergoglio but were
turned down, Moreau said. “In that regard, Bergoglio was no different
from most of the other bishops in Argentina, or the Vatican itself.”

a déjà vu for me! in summer 1999 during the Argentine presidential election campaign contender Fernando de la Rua promised should he be elected he will travel to Rome and ask the Pope for intervention, id est Argentina's external debt should be forgiven and written down to zero.

de la Rua made it to president, did not contact the Pope but resigned dec21, 2001 and 5 days later his successor declared the biggest default in financial history.

Kirchner and Papa Frankie both agree (as do most all Argentinians) that Las Malvinas son Argentinas but the Kirchner appeal to Papa was only about domestic politics. She can't really think he can, should, or will impact that issue as the global Papa. It was probably a smart political move by Kirchner. She's in a bit of a fix, formerly and correctly opposing Papa on his anti-gay medieval hokum and now of course Argentinians are understandably super proud to have an Argie Papa, as well they should be. This way Kirchner can soften her feud with Papa over social issues, and ride the nationalist wave of the people. Yes it's rather a cynical political move by Kirchner, but in politics, cynical often ... works.

Oops.

Argentine President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner says she has asked for the

Pope's intervention in the Falklands dispute between her country and the UK.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-21835363

This goes back to an earlier post on freedom OF religion and freedom FROM religion. They are essentially the same thing though I guess it could be considered using the following example.... Close both eyes for a few seconds then open the left only, remember the image. Close your eyes again then open the right only, remember the image. Close both eyes then reopen them both at the same time. What you see is a composite of both images you remember.

With the above in mind.. freedom OF religion does not mean you can impose your religious belief on others which President Cristina is trying to do by using a religious body. Trying to use the hand of her particular flavour of god is just not going to do it, it's an insult to the thinking world. She should perhaps hook up with PM Yingluk for a bit of bottom dwelling shopping.

First problem for the new Pope I think... Does he tell her to sling her hook because the Catholic church is not a political organisation along with avoiding Prada, or does he git involved?

Can't you see that you have just made my point about the differences between "from" and "of"?

Freedom "of" religion gives Cristina the right to ask for divine intervention if she so chooses.

Freedom "from" religion does not give her that same right under your example that politics should not be encroached by the Church.

You can't have it both ways.

Freedom FROM religion is also inextricably an inter-faith issue and this may help to de-muddy the water in understanding. Person X believes in Y and this is protected by freedom OF religion in that X is free to practice said belief. Person A believes in B which is not the same as Y but they are still protected by way of freedom OF religion. But you have to ask yourself.... are they? Freedom is a negative concept in that it does not mandate good, it protects from harm. I feel I need to hammer home this concept so I will give another example though it will be lost unless you understand the difference between mandating good and protecting from harm.... You are walking through the bush and find an animal that has fallen into a pond. You climb in, grab the animal and place it on dry land to go about it's way. You have not given that animal it's freedom, you have removed the barrier which stopped its freedom.

To go back to person X and person A. Person X's belief is protected FROM the beliefs of others including person A. Unless there is something to protect FROM it is meaningless.

Can't you see that you have just made my point about the differences between "from" and "of"?

Freedom "of" religion gives Cristina the right to ask for divine intervention if she so chooses.

Freedom "from" religion does not give her that same right under your example that politics should not be encroached by the Church.

You can't have it both ways.

Freedom FROM religion is also inextricably an inter-faith issue and this may help to de-muddy the water in understanding. Person X believes in Y and this is protected by freedom OF religion in that X is free to practice said belief. Person A believes in B which is not the same as Y but they are still protected by way of freedom OF religion. But you have to ask yourself.... are they? Freedom is a negative concept in that it does not mandate good, it protects from harm. I feel I need to hammer home this concept so I will give another example though it will be lost unless you understand the difference between mandating good and protecting from harm.... You are walking through the bush and find an animal that has fallen into a pond. You climb in, grab the animal and place it on dry land to go about it's way. You have not given that animal it's freedom, you have removed the barrier which stopped its freedom.

To go back to person X and person A. Person X's belief is protected FROM the beliefs of others including person A. Unless there is something to protect FROM it is meaningless.

Freedom FROM religion has nothing to do with an inter-faith issue. It has everything to do with a complete Separation of church and state. It has to do with removing religion from any state sponsored issue totally.

Wading through your alphabet soup post, I notice you say Freedom is a negative concept. You couldn't be further from the truth. Freedom gives one the choice of having a negative concept or a positive concept. After I have freed the trapped imaginary animal in my journey through the bush, what is to keep the same animal from returning to the same trap he was just extricated from?

Trap = negative concept

No trap = positive concept

It was the freedom to choose an alternate route and bypass the trap on his second attempt. Freedom is neither a negative nor positive concept. It is simply the power to choose one or the other.

Just as an aside, Separation of Church and State is not mentioned in the US Constitution, just as Freedom FROM religion is not mentioned.

Freedom of.... freedom from.

Not one of the problems the Pope will face.

Freedom of.... freedom from.

Not one of the problems the Pope will face.

He doesn't minister to the American flock?

Freedom of.... freedom from.

Not one of the problems the Pope will face.

He doesn't minister to the American flock?

Freedom of.... freedom from.

Not one of the problems the Pope will face.

He doesn't minister to the American flock?

Of course, but he doesn't have to make any decision about from/of.

Papa Francisco has a very appealing PERSONALITY. What's not to like? He reminds me of an old friend of mine, a heterosexually married and defrocked gay Catholic priest from Cuba.

BTW, is there a more correct name for Papa or is it OK to use different names?

The Italians are saying Francis and the Argies are saying Francisco.

I much prefer Francisco.

Can't you see that you have just made my point about the differences between "from" and "of"?

Freedom "of" religion gives Cristina the right to ask for divine intervention if she so chooses.

Freedom "from" religion does not give her that same right under your example that politics should not be encroached by the Church.

You can't have it both ways.

Freedom FROM religion is also inextricably an inter-faith issue and this may help to de-muddy the water in understanding. Person X believes in Y and this is protected by freedom OF religion in that X is free to practice said belief. Person A believes in B which is not the same as Y but they are still protected by way of freedom OF religion. But you have to ask yourself.... are they? Freedom is a negative concept in that it does not mandate good, it protects from harm. I feel I need to hammer home this concept so I will give another example though it will be lost unless you understand the difference between mandating good and protecting from harm.... You are walking through the bush and find an animal that has fallen into a pond. You climb in, grab the animal and place it on dry land to go about it's way. You have not given that animal it's freedom, you have removed the barrier which stopped its freedom.

To go back to person X and person A. Person X's belief is protected FROM the beliefs of others including person A. Unless there is something to protect FROM it is meaningless.

Freedom FROM religion has nothing to do with an inter-faith issue. It has everything to do with a complete Separation of church and state. It has to do with removing religion from any state sponsored issue totally.

Wading through your alphabet soup post, I notice you say Freedom is a negative concept. You couldn't be further from the truth. Freedom gives one the choice of having a negative concept or a positive concept. After I have freed the trapped imaginary animal in my journey through the bush, what is to keep the same animal from returning to the same trap he was just extricated from?

Trap = negative concept

No trap = positive concept

It was the freedom to choose an alternate route and bypass the trap on his second attempt. Freedom is neither a negative nor positive concept. It is simply the power to choose one or the other.

Just as an aside, Separation of Church and State is not mentioned in the US Constitution, just as Freedom FROM religion is not mentioned.

You'll have to excuse me, I can't make it any more simple and something tells me that it would still not be understood even if I could. I did think of using something like 'John has 6 apples... He gives 2 apples to Jane.... How many apples does John still have' but person X & A is the same thing and I've already done that.

BTW, is there a more correct name for Papa or is it OK to use different names?

The Italians are saying Francis and the Argies are saying Francisco.

I much prefer Francisco.

Pope Insanity MXLV according to an article on another thread.

Papa Francisco has a very appealing PERSONALITY. What's not to like? He reminds me of an old friend of mine, a heterosexually married and defrocked gay Catholic priest from Cuba.

BTW, is there a more correct name for Papa or is it OK to use different names?

The Italians are saying Francis and the Argies are saying Francisco.

I much prefer Francisco.

In English-speaking countries, Francis. In France, I suppose Francois. And when you're in Argentina, why not Francisco? It's all the same name,

Meanwhile, perhaps notmyself could explain why MXLV? In Roman numerals that means 1045, which doesn't seem to mean anything.

No trap = positive concept

It was the freedom to choose an alternate route and bypass the trap on his second attempt. Freedom is neither a negative nor positive concept. It is simply the power to choose one or the other.

Just as an aside, Separation of Church and State is not mentioned in the US Constitution, just as Freedom FROM religion is not mentioned.

You'll have to excuse me, I can't make it any more simple and something tells me that it would still not be understood even if I could. I did think of using something like 'John has 6 apples... He gives 2 apples to Jane.... How many apples does John still have' but person X & A is the same thing and I've already done that.

You continued ability to talk down to people who might disagree with you is duly noted. Thank you for your courtesy.

Meanwhile, perhaps notmyself could explain why MXLV? In Roman numerals that means 1045, which doesn't seem to mean anything.

It said nothing about it in the article so I went searching for events during the year 1045.

May 5 – Pope Gregory VI becomes the 148th pope, following the resignation of Pope Benedict IX in exchange for money. There are growing allegations that simony takes place during Gregory VI's reign.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1045

What do you think?

No trap = positive concept

It was the freedom to choose an alternate route and bypass the trap on his second attempt. Freedom is neither a negative nor positive concept. It is simply the power to choose one or the other.

Just as an aside, Separation of Church and State is not mentioned in the US Constitution, just as Freedom FROM religion is not mentioned.

You'll have to excuse me, I can't make it any more simple and something tells me that it would still not be understood even if I could. I did think of using something like 'John has 6 apples... He gives 2 apples to Jane.... How many apples does John still have' but person X & A is the same thing and I've already done that.

You continued ability to talk down to people who might disagree with you is duly noted. Thank you for your courtesy.

Courteous enough to take the time to explain using a number of examples along with the theory and logic behind it. I have failed and I ask to be excused for that failure. I'm a man of great fortitude and patience but I am also someone who is willing to accept that some things cannot be done regardless of the effort involved.

Meanwhile, perhaps notmyself could explain why MXLV? In Roman numerals that means 1045, which doesn't seem to mean anything.

It said nothing about it in the article so I went searching for events during the year 1045.

May 5 – Pope Gregory VI becomes the 148th pope, following the resignation of Pope Benedict IX in exchange for money. There are growing allegations that simony takes place during Gregory VI's reign.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1045

What do you think?

I think it's some ignorant person putting Roman numerals together simply because many Popes have numbers after their names, e.g. John XXIII and Benedict XVI. If that's the best he can do, I don't really think we need pay him much attention!

I found this an insightful article on the papacy:

http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/news/world/what-a-pope-can-and-cannot-do-doctrine-limits-new-pope-on-changes-678697/

I found this an insightful article on the papacy:

http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/news/world/what-a-pope-can-and-cannot-do-doctrine-limits-new-pope-on-changes-678697/

Interesting. It firmly quashes the idea that a Pope can do exactly what he wants!

Fine. "Compass" to their flock. Leave everyone else alone!

If everybody else would leave us alone, that might be a lot easier, Jingthing. Interference, if that's what you'd call it, goes both ways.

What interference are you talking about? Your church has a very high international profile. They have a dreadful historical record in forcefully (putting that mildly) cramming their down their dogma (google: inquisition) and are still very active in aggressive conversion efforts. What have non-Catholics done exactly that interferes with your right to follow Catholic doctrine? Complain that your church has protected sex criminals, which it has? Seriously I really want to know about this interference you speak of. I don't think it exists.

I strongly get the feeling that you don't think non-Catholics have a right to voice strong opinions about Catholic institutional actions or Popes. If that's the case, my response would be ... too bad. The Catholic church is MASSIVELY large and powerful and yes does much good in the world and also much bad. It's leaders seem clearly interested in preaching (and more) to the entire world, not only Catholics. It is open to public criticism by everyone, Catholic and non-Catholic alike.

Yes there are some authoritarian countries with minority Catholic and/or Christian populations where these religions are repressed by the states. I'm not really talking about those cases in my query. All people of good will are obviously against repression of freedom of worship.

The problem with obtaining freedom FROM religion is that theists of all flavours know that it would cause their belief to die out. To keep on topic I'll address the CC but it works equally well with others.

People die so in order for the CC church to continue to exist it needs to replace those that have passed away on at least a 1:1 basis. What methods are available for this to happen - or - what methods are available in order for the CC church to propogate? It cannot be reason, obviously because it is believed on personal faith. I suggest that the mechinism used and the only one available is forced conversion which would also include the inculcation of children.

I need to address the 'culture' remarks before they come... Culture does not have a truth value, it has a preference. Some people prefer potatoes while others rice. Neither one can be considered correct or incorrect. The same could be said for a preference for jeans and a t-shirt rather than a Sari. There is no truth value unlike religious belief which in this case is Catholicism. I should also point out that someone cannot have a non truth value belief or to put it another way... a non belief belief.

We can expect through culture that dress, food etc. would be geographic within the cultural area. Let's go back to forced conversion and child inculcation with regard to something that has a truth value. Something with a truth value is not constrained by geographic location and yet it would appear to be so, why is that? There are 1.2 billion Catholics in a worldwide population of 7 billion so we should see, if we drew a circle around 7 million people in any given place and see 1.2 million Calothics or there abouts.

The new Pope needs to address this but I bet he will not. He may be a new face but the song remains the same.

No takers yet again though I'm not surprised.

If the new Pope does not address this then more and more people are going to question it.

Not Myself :

Isn't it nice to be able to express yourself in this way?

Whether or not I agree with your views, you are allowed to put them into a public forum without fear of reprisal, other than adverse comment from other posters, or sanction from the moderators, such as a 'holiday' or permanent exclusion.

If this were a website in China, or an Islamic country such as Saudi Arabia, you could face years in jail or even the death penalty for putting forward views contrary to the approved dogma of that state. In North Korea you would be lucky to have a computer (or access to the Internet) at all, and forced labour/execution would be a guaranteed result of such posts.

I don't mind you knocking faith, in whatever form it may (f)take, but your declamations and blinkered view of those with faith seems to me to be as deeply embedded in you as you believe faith is embedded in others.

Is 'Freedom from Religion' therefore your faith?

Not Myself :

Isn't it nice to be able to express yourself in this way?

Whether or not I agree with your views, you are allowed to put them into a public forum without fear of reprisal, other than adverse comment from other posters, or sanction from the moderators, such as a 'holiday' or permanent exclusion.

If this were a website in China, or an Islamic country such as Saudi Arabia, you could face years in jail or even the death penalty for putting forward views contrary to the approved dogma of that state. In North Korea you would be lucky to have a computer (or access to the Internet) at all, and forced labour/execution would be a guaranteed result of such posts.

I don't mind you knocking faith, in whatever form it may (f)take, but your declamations and blinkered view of those with faith seems to me to be as deeply embedded in you as you believe faith is embedded in others.

Is 'Freedom from Religion' therefore your faith?

Why am I a Catholic is a question more and more people are asking and it needs to be addressed. Is the new Pope going to do the same as you and just ignore it and or change subject?

I need to address the 'culture' remarks before they come... Culture does not have a truth value, it has a preference. Some people prefer potatoes while others rice. Neither one can be considered correct or incorrect. The same could be said for a preference for jeans and a t-shirt rather than a Sari. There is no truth value unlike religious belief which in this case is Catholicism. I should also point out that someone cannot have a non truth value belief or to put it another way... a non belief belief.

We can expect through culture that dress, food etc. would be geographic within the cultural area. Let's go back to forced conversion and child inculcation with regard to something that has a truth value. Something with a truth value is not constrained by geographic location and yet it would appear to be so, why is that? There are 1.2 billion Catholics in a worldwide population of 7 billion so we should see, if we drew a circle around 7 million people in any given place and see 1.2 million Calothics or there abouts.

Ah, culture. My cue.

Culture is measurable and has dimensions. If you want to add "truth value" to the academic discussion, please do so. I am looking forward to your definition and to your research paper, showing what it is and how different cultures deal with it.

In fact, culture is "collective programming of the mind" (Google for Hofstede) and yes, inculcation is not far from the truth. It is the reason some people prefer a T-shirt and jeans while others prefer a Sari.

"if we drew a circle around 7 million people in any given place and see 1.2 million Calothics or there abouts" is of course incorrect, because Catholics are not evenly distributed around the Globe. You'll find a higher concentration of Catholics in the Philippines or South America than you would find in Thailand or Japan.

I need to address the 'culture' remarks before they come... Culture does not have a truth value, it has a preference. Some people prefer potatoes while others rice. Neither one can be considered correct or incorrect. The same could be said for a preference for jeans and a t-shirt rather than a Sari. There is no truth value unlike religious belief which in this case is Catholicism. I should also point out that someone cannot have a non truth value belief or to put it another way... a non belief belief.

We can expect through culture that dress, food etc. would be geographic within the cultural area. Let's go back to forced conversion and child inculcation with regard to something that has a truth value. Something with a truth value is not constrained by geographic location and yet it would appear to be so, why is that? There are 1.2 billion Catholics in a worldwide population of 7 billion so we should see, if we drew a circle around 7 million people in any given place and see 1.2 million Calothics or there abouts.

Ah, culture. My cue.

Culture is measurable and has dimensions. If you want to add "truth value" to the academic discussion, please do so. I am looking forward to your definition and to your research paper, showing what it is and how different cultures deal with it.

In fact, culture is "collective programming of the mind" (Google for Hofstede) and yes, inculcation is not far from the truth. It is the reason some people prefer a T-shirt and jeans while others prefer a Sari.

"if we drew a circle around 7 million people in any given place and see 1.2 million Calothics or there abouts" is of course incorrect, because Catholics are not evenly distributed around the Globe. You'll find a higher concentration of Catholics in the Philippines or South America than you would find in Thailand or Japan.

Thank you for taking the time to comment.

In fact, culture is "collective programming of the mind" (Google for Hofstede) and yes, inculcation is not far from the truth. It is the reason some people prefer a T-shirt and jeans while others prefer a Sari.

Specifically "It is the reason some people prefer a T-shirt and jeans while others prefer a Sari.". I am well aware of the reasons behind 'preference' and I use this example as a differentiation between something someone prefers and something someone believes to be correct or right. We see on the forum (for example) people asking where is the best place to live... There is no 'best place' because it is subjective so therefore no true or false. With Catholicism it is not a question of which one is best but rather which one you believe to be true. One can have an opinion on the best way to get from BKK to CM but one cannot have an opinion on how far it is.

"if we drew a circle around 7 million people in any given place and see 1.2 million Calothics or there abouts" is of course incorrect, because Catholics are not evenly distributed around the Globe. You'll find a higher concentration of Catholics in the Philippines or South America than you would find in Thailand or Japan.

Specifically "is of course incorrect, because Catholics are not evenly distributed around the Globe.". This is what I siad but you did not quote me in full.

With that being said... We should find that those of a Catholic bent willing to say that their belief is a preference rather than a truth. Do we see that? No. So I ask all... Why not?