Those that call Pope Francis a bigot might be bigots themselves.

[kwassa]

Why? Let's start with the definition:

Bigotry is the state of mind of a bigot: someone who, as a result of their prejudices, treats or views other people with fear, distrust or hatred on the basis of a person's ethnicity, evaluative orientation, race, religion, national origin, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, socioeconomic status, opinion, or other characteristics

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

Let's talk about prejudice, too.

The word prejudice refers to prejudgment, or forming an opinion before becoming aware of the relevant facts of a case. The word is often used to refer to preconceived, usually unfavorable, judgments toward people or a person because of gender, political opinion, social class, age, disability, religion, sexuality, race/ethnicity, language, nationality or other personal characteristics.

Many of those here are attempting to project various aspects of Catholic church doctrine onto Pope Francis, without knowing his actual beliefs. In fact, no one knows his actual beliefs. Those that do project Catholic doctrine onto Pope Francis as representative of his beliefs are guilty of prejudice, pure and simple.

Attacking Pope Francis as a bigot is itself a bigoted act.

[upaloopa]

1. Ok

Time to watch the show

[trotsky]

2. So true. Guilty as charged.

I'm bigoted against bigots.

[Heddi]

5. you're such a bigot against bigots

why can't you be more tolerant different views? I mean WHO ARE WE TO SAY that homophobia, racism, sexism, are wrong, especially if they're someone's deeply held beliefs? In fact, we were just told this week in the Religion forum that racists "may have truly believed that there were biological, social or cultural reasons reasons to support their position" when it comes to people being racist, and that homophobes may be that way because they've not been exposed to real gay people in their lives.

So see, there's a totally simple explanation. But you're just too bigoted and mundane to understand the intricacies of life

[LostOne4Ever]

26. This! (nt)

[Warren Stupidity]

43. bigot-bigot here!

[Warpy]

48. Another bigot against bigots here

We need to form our own group.

Oh, wait...

[cbayer]

3. We need to work together to fight acts and deeds,

and stopped labeling others on the outside and each other here nasty things just in order to score points.

I think your point is valid. Is the pope a bigot? We can't know that for certain.

Is he the head of an institution that has some bigoted positions? I would say yes.

But the achievement would lie in challenging the acts of the institution and pressuring the leader to make changes.

We don't know where he personally stands.

[skepticscott]

14. Well, you can start by

admonishing your husband in that regard. He and a few others here regularly call other posters bigots, and your response is silence, so please keep your preaching to yourself.

And yes, we do know how Francis stands personally, because he's stated it publicly. Or are you going to tell us he's a liar too?

[Starboard Tack]

96. We are all bigots, to one degree or another. I point out the obvious.

Some of us make an effort to confront our own bigotry and, at times, point out the bigotry of others. When we do this, we also must confront our own hypocrisy, for we are all hypocrites, as well.
It is not always easy to avoid ugly confrontation, but we can make an effort. You never know, we may even accomplish something positive. Introspection is far more beneficial to the soul than name calling.

[Goblinmonger]

98. To a large extent I agree

But don't you think the opposite is true? So many people on this forum are touting how awesome the Pope is. Which, to my understanding, is why the comments about his problems are being pointed out. If nobody was talking about how the Pope is the new hope for all that is wonderful, most people wouldn't care about showing the negatives about him and would have more time for introspection.

[Starboard Tack]

101. I think he has some hard choices to make

I think some point out how much of an improvement he is on past Popes. His awesomeness is limited and relative. The discussion here is healthy, for the most part. I do not defend Francis for his position on women and gays, as Pope. I think he is probably going through a major personal struggle over these issues. I hope he is. Calling him a bigot doesn't help though.

[trotsky]

24. Put your own house in order before you start lecturing others, cbayer.

"We don't know where he personally stands."

Yeah, we do. Because he's said so. He's a bigot. I realize that he's also a hero of yours, and that fact is clouding your judgment.

[AtheistCrusader]

32. How can you possibly say that?

We don't know where he stands? Is he just lying all the time then? Playing a character?

[cbayer]

33. From my point of view, the Vatican and the Pope are much more political

figures than they are religious.

In light of that, I think it's possible that he is sometimes playing a character.

I have no way of knowing what he thinks or believes in his heart and can only judge him by his actions.

I think he has probably held very bigoted personal beliefs about GLBT people, but I don't know where he stands now.

We shall see.

[AtheistCrusader]

35. He has stated, and continues to publicly state very bigoted things about LGBT life/issues.

I see no reason to think he's changed his mind. Ok, so if his faith doesn't allow him to say something different, he could opt not to say anything at all right?

But he doesn't He speaks very publicly about these issues, in terms that aren't even IN the bible. Adoption by LGBT couples as a form of discrimination against children? What fucking page is that on?

[cbayer]

37. Whatever. I don't see much point in this circular arguments

about whether we should label someone a bigot or not.

The church's position is bigoted, imo. I hope hopeful that there are people within the vatican hierarchy who are not bigots and will work towards changing those positions. I don't know whether he is one of those people or not.

Some of the things he has said have been hopeful. Others have clearly not been.

The Advocate named him person of the year. The Advocate. While I found this quite confusing, I think it spoke about their hope.

So what if we put a label on him? What difference would it make?

OTOH, when we put these labels on each other because we don't or won't take a hard stand, I think it does make a difference and causes harm.

[AtheistCrusader]

38. I don't think it's a circular argument. I think it's an incredibly black and white issue.

And he fails the test.

The Advocate's endorsement seems a overly-optimistic mistake, in retrospect, doesn't it?

[cbayer]

40. I'm not sure yet and that is the position I am going to take.

The church fails the test. I am not able to judge individuals who are confined to making public statements.

Obama sometimes says things that I think are politically expedient but don't represent his personal views. That's politics.

Most people have found themselves at one time or another affiliated with groups or organizations that may take a position that is not their own. In some cases, one has to support that position in order to get the leverage to change it. That's politics.

[skepticscott]

41. Sorry, baloney. The pope is NOT "confined to making public statements"

You yourself have stated over and over and over that you're optimistic that he will actually change church policy and doctrine. Well, he's done nothing but double down on the bigotry that's already entrenched. Those are his actions, and that's what he's being judged on here. Nothing else.

The pope is not subject to "political" concerns in the way Obama is. He does not run for re-election, he doesn't need campaign contributions, and he does not belong to a party that needs him to be "expedient". He is free to say and do what he wishes, so we can be quite confident that his (repeated) publicly stated views reflect his true beliefs.

And the whole "change from within" meme is just a cowardly dodge. The pope is and always has been a voluntary member of the Catholic Church. He chose to belong and he chooses to stay, every day of his life. If any decent person belonged to an organization that started actively trying to deprive a large segment of the population of their equal rights as human beings, they should walk away and fight it from the outside.

[Heddi]

4. Does this hold true for attacks on Fred Phelps and his clan?

I mean, how do we REALLY know that Fred Phelps thinks God Hates Fags? He's just using his own interpretation of the bible, and many of those here attempt to project various aspects of Pentacostal/Evangelical church doctrine onto Fred Phelps, without knowing his actual beliefs. In fact, no one knows his actual beliefs. Those that do project Pentacostal/Evangelical doctrine onto Fred Phelps as representative of his beliefs are guilty of prejudice, pure and simp.e

Attacking Fred Phelps as a bigot is itself a bigoted act.

[kwassa]

15. There is a big difference.

We can reasonably assume that Fred Phelps campaign reflected his own beliefs, due to his tiny church consisting of mostly immediate family, and his role as central figure in that church. The church was organized around Fred and his beliefs.

Pope Francis is in charge of the largest Christian church denomation in the world, a massive institution. He reflects the institution more than the institution reflects him.

[Heddi]

18. How do you know that? Because it's convenient ?

because it fits your narrative?

Prior to becoming pope, the Archbishop of Buenos Aires made several comments regarding the repugnancy of gay marriage, gay adoption, etc. I think we know his "inner feelings" quite well. And if his inner feelings were at such odds with the church, then why continue to be a member? Why be the head of an organization that doesn't represent your views?

Sorry, your argument doesn't hold water. His views on gays, gay marriage, gay adoption are quite well known.

[AtheistCrusader]

36. The KKK boasts a lot of members. Still a pack of bigots.

High membership rates doesn't normalize bigotry.

Find a different means of apologizing, because that one isn't going to fly either.

[Warpy]

49. It is exactly the same

Both men are spouting religious dogma as they believe it applies to a group of people.

Sorry about that.

[Goblinmonger]

6. And those that call people bigots for calling people bigots are bigots

It never ends!

If you want to call me intolerant of bigots, go right ahead.

[bravenak]

7. Sorry Kwassa.

Its not his religion I'm hating on. It is his statements that affect the lives of believers and non believers alike. They way he talks about gay families makes my heart sick that he is spreading that message to a billion people. His words are used as justification for the abuses of homosexuals in africa leading to their murder and/or incarceration. Not a nice thing to spread that message.
He should shut up on the issue until he fully evolves. Saying that gay couples should not have and raise children because it is harmful to children is a bigoted position to hold.
Whenever someone speaks of a minority group in that way i substitute my 'subgroup' for theirs.
If he had said something similar in reference to blacks, asians, obese people, or something else, you would be right with us calling him bigots.

I will edit with a quote.

Gay parenting is a rejection of God’s law engraved in our hearts.

“At stake are the lives of many children who will be discriminated against in advance, and deprived of their human development given by a father and a mother and willed by God. At stake is the total rejection of God’s law engraved in our hearts.”

That is a horrible thing to say. It is the same thing that used to be said about mixed race marriages. My mother is biracial and so is my husband. I guess I'm triracial.

Remember the Loving case? Same justification (religious) was used against that couple. The quotes are very similar to those being used today by the pope.
If those people who used religious justifications against mixed marriages were bigots, then those using the same arguments today against a different minority group are bigots. And they have the right to be bigots in their personal lives, but once they go in public and spread a divisive cruel message, they will be called like they are seen.

[kwassa]

19. These are the four year-old quotes I referred to before.

I think he is changing,

this is from this year:

CNN) - Pope Francis reaffirmed the Catholic Church's opposition to gay marriage on Wednesday, but suggested in a newspaper interview that it could support some types of civil unions.

The Pope reiterated the church's longstanding teaching that "marriage is between a man and a woman." However, he said, "We have to look at different cases and evaluate them in their variety."

States, for instance, justify civil unions as a way to provide economic security to cohabitating couples, the Pope said in a wide-ranging interview published Wednesday in Corriere della Sera, an Italian daily. State-sanctioned unions are thus driven by the need to ensure rights like access to health care, Francis added.

A number of Catholic bishops have supported civil unions for same-sex couples as an alternative to marriage, including Pope Francis when he was Archbishop of Buenos Aires in 2010, according to reports in National Catholic Reporter and The New York Times.

Behind closed doors, pope supported civil unions in Argentina, activist says

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2014/03/05/pope-francis-church-could-support-civil-unions/

[Goblinmonger]

21. But gay Catholics can't get married in their church

Or live together in "sin." So...big fucking deal.

[bravenak]

25. If he would just be quiet and think until he changes his mind.

I would be grateful. Until he completes this change he will be hurting others since his words are still being used to deny humans their rights and in some cases to take their lives.
Civil unions are not what all gay couples want. Some want marriage.
If he were to agree to civil unions between blacks and whites, but not marriage ( for some religious reason) you would be just as angry as they are. It is time for the catholic church to modernize, especially since it is spreading inside of third world nations who still practice superstition. Places that still kill witches and and kill albino people to use in witchcraft, and jail people for just being gay. They use his messages to justify their behavior. Places that want to execute people for their sexual orientation. It is up to catholics to not defend his statements or make any excuses for him, but to push for change. To stand up to the authorities and let them know that people are dying because of the warped messages they are recieving.

Sometimes we don't know how horrible what we are saying is until someone we love, who loves us back , lets us know. He will change if he is pushed to it from within the church.

[kwassa]

71. For Pope Francis to even mention support for civil unions is radical

I see it as a step that I would never hear from any pope.

I know civil unions are not what gay people want. I fully support gay marriage. My wife's cousin is in an interracial gay marriage, and we went to the reception. I am in an interracial marriage.

Most of the gay people I currently know are clergy in the Episcopal church. One rector was in an interracial gay relationship, and her partner was fully accepted as a member of the congregation. This is before same-sex marriage became legal here. When it did become legal in DC, the assistant rector in another church we attended married her same-sex partner at National Cathedral, officiated by the Bishop of Washington. This is the cathedral US presidents have their memorial services, and other major events.

Considering the culture wars that are going on in the world, and the recent historical dominance of conservatives in the Catholic church, I thought the church was a complete lost cause. The fact that Pope Francis was even elected astounds me. He is also extremely brave in the example he has been setting so far. The good and bad part of his position is that he has one of the biggest bully pulpits in the world. He is shaking up the Catholic establishment in a big way, and a good way. I hope he has the guts to eventually support gay marriage. I don't know that he will. I hope he will.

[bravenak]

72. I hope he will too.

If everyone keeps speaking out, he will have to change. I actually think it will happen sooner than later, and hopefully he wont be killed for it. Thats something i worry about. People who do big things have crazy folks go after them.

[trotsky]

34. What about the month-old quotes I referred to?

Have his views been further tempered in the last 30 days?

[kwassa]

73. Read the subthread with Atheist Crusader. I already responded.

[AtheistCrusader]

78. And here's a thread in the Catholics/Orthodox safe haven that used the same

interpretation I did.

It's PAINFULLY obvious what the pope is saying there.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12214694

Edit; I can't post in that forum, but I'd like to commend Rug on his objection to that statement. That was actually quite refreshing, perspective-wise.

Edit2: and for the record, Trotsky made that point some 4 hours before I did by the timestamps, so telling that poster you already addressed it as if it was a duplicate is.. odd.

[rug]

83. Of course you can post in that Group. No one is blocked.

[AtheistCrusader]

85. Reading the purpose/safe haven stuff

it sounds like it would be inappropriate? Perhaps I misinterpreted.

[rug]

86. No it's fine. Here's the SoP.

Discuss Catholic and/or Orthodox Christian beliefs, share faith experiences, post prayer requests, discuss Catholic/Orthodox liturgies, traditions, saints, etc.

Certainly you have things to say about Catholic/Orthodox beliefs. (I'll leave it to you if you want to share faith experiences.)

You can certainly discuss, as well as criticize, them there. There is often critiaque and criticism of Church positions there. All that a safe haven requires is that it be done civilly. Easier said than done, I know, but there it is.

[kwassa]

90. That is an excellent thread. Thanks for linking to it.

and the timestamp thing with trotsky is that I had so many reponses I read them out of chronological order.

[trotsky]

80. You sure did, with yet more weak sauce.

It's just sad and pathetic - for all the disagreements we've had, all the sniping, I really thought that deep down, you were better than this.

He has stated and reiterated his opposition to marriage equality, as well as gay couples raising children.

You are just digging deep to make excuses for a bigot.

[pokerfan]

8. Is this related to the tolerance paradox?

The tolerance paradox arises from a problem that a tolerant person might be antagonistic toward intolerance, hence intolerant of it. The tolerant individual would then be by definition intolerant of intolerance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

[kwassa]

16. absolutely.

[AtheistCrusader]

39. So, this whole thread was just a big ol' waste of time then, wasn't it?

[pokerfan]

42. It's also right out of Sean Hannity's playbook

Hannity is always going on about how the LGBT community is so intolerant of “other view points” and that makes hem hypocrites. Of course, the tolerance paradox is not so much a paradox as it is a fallacious argument. Karl Popper said it best:

”Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them... We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant."

[muriel_volestrangler]

9. He's "shocked" by gay adoption; he denounced gay marriage

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/pope-francis-shocked-by-gay-adoption-says-bishop-of-malta-9030505.html

Before he was pope, as Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio, the archbishop of Buenos Aires, Francis reportedly described gay marriage as the work of the devil and a “destructive attack on God’s plan.” He has also said that gay adoption is a form of discrimination against children.

In 2010, Francis championed against a bill for same-sex marriage and gay adoption, according to the National Catholic Register.

“(T)he Argentine people will face a situation whose outcome can seriously harm the family," he wrote to the four monasteries in Argentina. "At stake is the identity and survival of the family: father, mother and children. At stake are the lives of many children who will be discriminated against in advance, and deprived of their human development given by a father and a mother and willed by God. At stake is the total rejection of God’s law engraved in our hearts.”

He went on to describe it as a " ‘move’ of the Father of Lies who seeks to confuse and deceive the children of God" and asked for lawmakers to "not act in error." In the Bible, the Father of Lies is the devil.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2013/03/west-hollywood-reaction-pope-francis-stand-on-gays.html

Perhaps his views will change; but it's not 'prejudice' to take him at his word.

[kwassa]

17. When his views are now tempered by the possibility of civil unions ....

I think a change is already here. The statement you quote is certainly his, but it is also four years ago in a battle he lost in Argentina. Maybe his thinking is more open as he saw the results of legalization of same-sex marriage there.

[trotsky]

22. "Tempered"? Really?

From JUST THIS MONTH, kwassa:

Pope Francis: Kids Must Have Moms and Dads

There was even a discussion thread on it: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1218122885

He's still a bigot. That you are going to such ridiculous extremes to try and defend him is pathetic.

[kwassa]

59. He is not a bigot, not even close.

Here is the link to the actual article, not the second and third hand interpretations in other publications.

http://www.vis.va/vissolr/index.php?vi=all&dl=b60d0e23-33a8-3342-687d-5347ec5ed9e1&dl_t=text/xml&dl_a=y&ul=1&ev=1

[AtheistCrusader]

30. Ok, so it's ok if he's just a tiny bit less bigoted?

Sorry, I reject any relegation of LGBT people to separate but equal civil rights status.


THE CATHOLIC CHURCH DOES NOT OWN THE CONCEPT OF MARRIAGE.
Please get that through your skull.

He has no right to presume to tell others how they can exercise their basic human civil rights.

He remains a bigot today. He has the opportunity to change. That would be nice. So far, he hasn't.

[Warren Stupidity]

44. but when his views were tempered by separate but equal accommodations

I think change is already there. How dare you call George Wallace a bigot, you bigot you!.

[kwassa]

62. false analogy.

[AtheistCrusader]

77. Purple pancake chainsaws.

I too, can string random words together with no explanation whatsoever.


(Can you elaborate a tiny bit on your objection?)

[Goblinmonger]

10. Let's look at another concept you gloss over

If Pope Francis wasn't a bigot and didn't believe the bigoted stances of the Catholic Church, he has the ability to speak ex cathedra and change that doctrine. Yes, some will say that is rarely done, but if he doesn't believe it and sees it as not correct, he has sole authority to change it. Why doesn't he? And be careful, because last time you basically said it was because too many of Catholics are bigots and would rebel against it. Which brings us to the next question: If he isn't a bigot and most Catholics aren't bigots, why is it still the doctrine?

[Vashta Nerada]

11. Stupid and worthless post.

[kwassa]

20. What do you really think? Don't be so bashful.

[nil desperandum]

12. Doctrine

"Those that do project Catholic doctrine onto Pope Francis"

Are you suggesting that the head of the catholic church holds beliefs that run counter to the official church doctrine? I will confess I stopped being a catholic when I started reading the bible in my early teens so it's been sometime since I have read some official catholic papers but I was always under the impression that as the head of the church and the voice of catholics the world over the pope was firmly behind the official doctrine and communication of all that is catholic in the world.

Using the doctrine of an organization to question the head of that organization is not bigotry, it's a fair place to start to assess what kind of individual the head of that organization might be. If your organization is making statements about working to create equal pay work environments it might be safe to assume the head of that organization believes women are being paid unfairly and deserve to have that situation corrected.

It's not unfair at all to assume that the head of the organization is the chief believer in the organization's mission and positions, it's actually quite sensible. That's not bigotry it's a sensible baseline opinion formed from organizational doctrine and communications from the head of that organization.

[skepticscott]

13. Wow, you're really reaching. Do YOU even believe this?

First, and what should be blindingly obvious, Francis is not being characterized as a bigot because of his religion. He's being called a bigot because of the positions on same sex marriage and adoption that he has publicly stated. And gee..projecting Catholic doctrine onto the POPE?? What could we have been thinking? As has been stated many times, absolutely nothing prevents Francis from plainly and publicly stating that he personally disagrees with church doctrine in these areas, if he actually did and has been lying about his true beliefs all along. Nothing prevents elected public officials from saying publicly that they personally disagree with a particular law or court ruling, even if they intend to abide by it as part of their professional responsibility. Francis has shown no inclination to do anything of the sort, as anyone who wasn't a bigot would.

[kwassa]

23. Yes, I believe this, and no, I'm not reaching.

As has been stated many times, absolutely nothing prevents Francis from plainly and publicly stating that he personally disagrees with church doctrine in these areas,

and as I have said several times, I think you are totally wrong on this point, as Pope it would be politically impossible for him to do so.

I think you are bigoted against the Pope, to be more specific, not that I think you care very much. In other words, I think you reflect the bigotry you claim to despise.

[skepticscott]

27. "Politically impossible"? How?

Last edited Wed Apr 30, 2014, 07:50 PM - Edit history (1)

He's the fucking pope. He can say whatever he thinks. He's not running for re-election and he doesn't care about polls or campaign contributions. Popes espouse unpopular positions all the time, and nothing is preventing Francis from saying the right thing about same-sex couples, other than the fact that he doesn't believe it.

And you're right, I don't care what tactics you use to defend the pope's and the church's homophobic bigotry. Call other people bigots for speaking out against it, if it makes you feel empowered. And while you're at it, put the same label on all of the DUers who label Republican politicians and pundits as bigots for saying the same sorts of things the pope does.

[kwassa]

53. You overestimate his power.

He can say whatever he thinks, but he can't be effective unless he has the support of the cardinals. To have the support of the cardinals, he has to build his own base, oust those that were installed by the previous two very conservative Popes, and build in some structural reforms. This takes time.

Clever cardinals in powerful positions can have a huge impact on policy. I don't think you understand the Vatican well at all. The Pope can espouse unpopular views, but to do so with views unpopular with the cardinals, without support built in, and good will, could completely nullify anything he attempts to do.

[AtheistCrusader]

55. Has to? Can't be? Nullify?

The members of the RCC in America poll in favor of birth control at higher rates than the general populace. I think he could change shit like that in a day, cardinals be damned. He'd have a majority of the people behind him.

I think you're speculating there, with absolutes.

[okasha]

66. The majority of the people

are not within arm's reach of his dinner. The Pope does govern alone, any more than the President does. Who do you think forced Benedict out when he became an irredeemable liability?

[Goblinmonger]

58. Unless he speaks ex cathedra

Then the cardinals can go fuck themselves.

[skepticscott]

65. What you're talking about may just be difficult

but in no way, shape or form is it "impossible". Unless, of course, the pope keeps repeating the same bigoted talking points and never speaks out for what's right.

It seems that all you have is meaningless and unfounded speculation about what you'd like to imagine the pope thinks but never says or does anything about.

BTW, would you grant that the last two popes were also bigoted, since they appointed all of these cardinals that you claim would oppose Francis' 11 dimensional chess strategy to change Catholic doctrine in favor of decency?

[muriel_volestrangler]

84. He was selected by the cardinals just a year ago

He has support among them already. Your position is to hope that he's a secret liberal, despite what he has said. And, in the mean time, you are rude and insulting to DUers. Stop calling us bigots (yes, you've aimed that at a specific DUer in this thread). It's disruptive. You are making DU suck.

[kwassa]

87. I think calling Pope Francis a bigot is making DU suck.

It is an abuse of the term "bigot", and a direct insult to the many millions of Catholic believers.

Some athiests in this forum are rude and insulting, too. That also disruptive and also makes DU suck.

And if people don't want to be called bigots, then they shouldn't involve themselves in bigoted behavior. The definition of bigotry is qute clear in the OP.

[muriel_volestrangler]

88. You are a religious extremist and apologist for bigotry

You also don't know the meaning of the word 'bigotry'. We must console ourselves that when you call someone a bigot, you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. This thread is a waste of space, apart from exposing you.

[kwassa]

91. What set you off? You usually are a reasoned individual.

If you have some objection to my definition of bigotry, make it. I supplied standard definitions.

I am not a religious extremist at all, not in the slightest. I'm not orthodox anything, so it does not appear that you understand me very well.

So, I can't be exposed when you clearly don't know who I am.

[muriel_volestrangler]

94. You are enthusiastically defending religious bigotry, apparently for religious reasons

and so I think you are a religious extremist. You think that taking the public statements by the pope and pointing out how they attack LGBT people is 'prejudice'. It's not. It does not 'pre-judge' the pope. It looks at what he says. it's not because he's Catholic. We don't call Stephen Colbert a bigot, although he is a Catholic. He doesn't say what the pope does.

(what has specifically set me off is you calling a DUer a bigot, and being proud of it)

[kwassa]

95. I am not defending bigotry, and I've explained it very clearly why.

In detail. Multiple times.

I explained why I think the Pope is shifting in his thinking, also in detail, also multiple times. You disagree, that's fine. I don't think he is a bigot, and you do.

[Starboard Tack]

100. Do you think DUers are incapable of bigotry?

Are we so pure? We have many self-confessed bigots in this thread, including myself. Hell, I'm bigoted towards my own bigotry. But I'm working on it. Maybe Francis is working on it too. I get the feeling he is, and that he is highly conflicted on the subject of gay rights within the church. He has a tough row to hoe, but that comes with the job. I wish him the best and hope that he will have the courage and strength to radically change Catholic doctrine in favor of equality towards women, the LGBT community and all other minorities.

[muriel_volestrangler]

104. It's impossible for you to be prejudiced about yourself

so, no, you're not "bigoted towards your own bigotry". The OP accuses people of falsely attributing the doctrine of the Roman Catholic church to its leader. Not only is that pretty ridiculous because he's the leader, who has the job for life if he wants, and who got there by rising through the hierarchy and then getting the support of the majority of the next level down, it's also shown wrong by the quoting of what he's said, before and after his election. It's not prejudice to examine what he says and draw conclusions from it.

[Starboard Tack]

105. It is possibe to confront one's negative thoughts and feelings

Criticism of the Pope and Vatican policy is valid, but I don't think we know what personal feelings Francis has. Hopefully, he'll let the world know before too long. He may turn out to be a dud, or maybe a revolutionary. We'll see.

[Lordquinton]

112. Your definition doesn't apply

when talking about Francis's view points we are talking about what he has said publicly. And it's not regulated to just this one issue either, his comments about children needing a mother and father are also very harmful to single mothers.

You are propping up a giant strawman here and being very disingenuous with your arguments.

[Goblinmonger]

89. Here's a two step argument

1.

And if people don't want to be called bigots, then they shouldn't involve themselves in bigoted behavior.

2.

"it is necessary to emphasize the right of children to grow up within a family, with a father and a mother able to create a suitable environment for their development and emotional maturity. Continuing to mature in the relationship, in the complementarity of the masculinity and femininity of a father and a mother, and thus preparing the way for emotional maturity,"

QED

And if you really don't think that is bigoted shit, then go post that comment in GD or LGBT and claim it as your own and see what people have to tell you. My guess is that if the Pope had a DU account and posted that shit within his first 10 posts, MIRT would remove him. Without a doubt.

[kwassa]

92. The complete intolerance indicated in the definitions of bigotry is not present, IMHO.

Nowhere in the Pope's behavior.

big·ot
noun \ˈbi-gət\

: a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. : a bigoted person; especially : a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group)

big·ot·ry
[big-uh-tree] Show IPA

noun, plural big·ot·ries.
1.
stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.

2.
the actions, beliefs, prejudices, etc., of a bigot.

[Goblinmonger]

93. You keep defending the Pope

You are speaking volumes about yourself by doing so.

Let me know how that OP you start in GD or LGBT goes.

[djean111]

28. So, the only reason to think the pope is bigoted when he says kids need a male and female

parents is...........because he is Catholic?
That does not make any sense. He would be a bigot if he was any religion or no religion. He doesn't get a free pass.

[AtheistCrusader]

29. What codswallop.

We know his beliefs. We know what he says. He's public record.

He, personally, is a bigot. Pure and simple. He was a known bigot before he even became pope. The president of Argentina rebuked him for that. Is SHE a bigot, for calling out his bigotry? Ludicrous.

On same sex marriage in Argentina, long before he became pope:


"“Let’s not be naïve, we’re not talking about a simple political battle; it is a destructive pretension against the plan of God. We are not talking about a mere bill, but rather a machination of the Father of Lies that seeks to confuse and deceive the children of God.”

He has also insisted that adoption by homosexuals is a form of discrimination against children. This position received a rebuke from Argentine president Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, who said the church’s tone was reminiscent of “medieval times and the Inquisition”."

Sorry, but that man is a bigot. Per your own definition. My rejection of his bigotry is not predicated upon his membership in his church. It is predicated upon his BS perpetuation of bigotry, wherever he got it from, I don't give a rip. That he has a captive audience of some 1.2bn people raises his profile as an important bigot to oppose, out of a world full of bigots, but a bigot he is and your double reverse rubber/glue apology for a bigot isn't going to fly.




http://www.stpeterslist.com/10390/quotes-from-cardinal-bergoglio-now-pope-francis-on-7-moral-issues/

http://ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today/papabile-day-men-who-could-be-pope-13

[kwassa]

52. You are stuck on the four-year-old quotes, too, I see.

[AtheistCrusader]

54. You don't follow people's links I see. April of this year.

You were offered the link to his statements on same sex marriage in the context of adoption in the last month. Quelle surprise you pretend you didn't see it.

"On April 11, 2014, Pope Francis told the International Catholic Child Bureau same-gender parents are not fit to raise children. The remarks were published in the Vatican Information Service.

He said, in part, “it is necessary to emphasise the right of children to grow up within a family, with a father and a mother able to create a suitable environment for their development and emotional maturity. Continuing to mature in the relationship, in the complementarity of the masculinity and femininity of a father and a mother, and thus preparing the way for emotional maturity.”"

here's another link to the material from April.

http://www.examiner.com/article/pope-s-bad-science-on-children-raised-by-same-gender-parents

[kwassa]

56. No, you're right, I didn't follow the link. At the same time, you are wrong.

I made the assumption based on all the repeat links I received in this and the other thread that kept going back to his Argentina days in 2010. Different links, same quotes.

However, when I went back and looked at your links in your previous note, none of the quotes were recent, even if the articles were. They all harken back his days as Cardinal in Argentina. In other words, I was correct. Nothing you posted was a recent opinion of his.

This new quote of yours is deceptive, as it is taken out of context in a commentary by someone else. The commentator tells a lie, however. He says that the Pope says that same-gender parents are unfit to raise children.
The Pope never said that. Anywhere in this story

Here is the original from the Vatican News Service

http://www.vis.va/vissolr/index.php?vi=all&dl=b60d0e23-33a8-3342-687d-5347ec5ed9e1&dl_t=text/xml&dl_a=y&ul=1&ev=1

Read it in context. Your quote is correct, but nowhere in his total statement does he say anything against same-sex marriage, either.

[AtheistCrusader]

60. Hard to verify your claim.

Your link returns:

"Catchable fatal error: Argument 1 passed to DOMDocument::importNode() must be an instance of DOMNode, null given, called in /usr/local/zend/apache2/htdocs/templatesphp/index.php on line 87 and defined in /usr/local/zend/apache2/htdocs/templatesphp/document_dl.php on line 95"

[kwassa]

63. let's see if this works.

http://www.vis.va/vissolr/index.php?vi=all&dl=b60d0e23-33a8-3342-687d-5347ec5ed9e1&dl_t=text/xml&dl_a=y&ul=1&ev=1

Here is the entire article.

FRANCIS RECEIVES IN AUDIENCE THE INTERNATIONAL CATHOLIC CHILD BUREAU: THE CHURCH WILL TAKE NO STEP BACKWARDS IN SANCTIONS AGAINST CHILD ABUSERS
Vatican City, 11 April 2014 (VIS) – This morning Pope Francis received in audience a delegation from the International Catholic Child Bureau (BICE), instituted following Pope Pius XII's appeal for the defence of children following the Second World War. Since then, this organisation, “born of the maternity of the Church”, as Pope Francis remarked, has been committed to promoting the defence of the rights of children, also contributing to the 1989 United Nations Convention and working in constant collaboration with the Holy See in New York, Strasbourg and above all in Geneva.
Francis, after stating that in a well-constructed society, privileges should only be for children and the elderly because the future of the people is in their hands”, went on to comment on the theme of abuse of minors. “I feel that I must take responsibility for all the harm that some priests – quite a number, but not in proportion to the total – I must take responsibility and ask forgiveness for the damage they have caused through sexual abuse of children. The Church is aware of this damage. It is their own personal and moral damage, but they are men of the Church. And we will not take one step backwards in dealing with this problem and the sanctions that must be imposed. On the contrary, I believe that we must be even stronger. You do not interfere with children.
“In our times, it is important to implement projects against forced labour, against the recruitment of child soldiers, and against every type of violence against minors. On a more positive note, it is necessary to emphasise the right of children to grow up within a family, with a father and a mother able to create a suitable environment for their development and emotional maturity. Continuing to mature in the relationship, in the complementarity of the masculinity and femininity of a father and a mother, and thus preparing the way for emotional maturity”.
“This means, at the same time, supporting parents' right to moral and religious education for their children. In this regard, I would like to express my refusal of any type of educational experimentation on children. One does not experiment on children and young people. They are not guinea pigs! The horrors of the manipulation of education that we have experienced in the great genocidal dictatorships of the twentieth century have not disappeared; they have retained current relevance in various guises and in proposals that, under the pretext of modernity, compel children and the young to take the dictatorial path of 'unitary thought'”. A great educator said to me, little more than a week ago, “At times, we don't know if these projects – referring to real education projects – are sending a child to school or to a re-education camp”.
“Working for human rights presupposes keeping anthropological formation alive, being well prepared regarding the reality of the human person, and knowing how to respond to the problems and challenges posed by contemporary cultures and mentalities that are spread by the mass media. Obviously this does not mean seeking refuge in protected environments, which these days are incapable of giving life, which are linked to cultures that have already moved on. …. No, this isn't right. It means facing with the positive values of the human person the new challenges that the new culture presents. For you, this means offering to your managers and workers a permanent formation regarding the anthropology of the child, as it is there that rights and duties are based. This decides the approach to educational projects, that obviously must continue to progress, mature and adapt to the signs of the times, always respecting human identity and freedom of conscience.
“Thank you again, and I wish you well in your work. I am reminded of the logo of the Commission for the protection of childhood and adolescence in Buenos Aires. It was an image of the Holy Family seated on a donkey, fleeing to Egypt to defend the Child. At times it is necessary to flee; at times it is necessary to stop to protect oneself; and at times one must fight. But always with tenderness”.

[AtheistCrusader]

64. I accept that is an accurate transcript.

What does this mean to you?

"On a more positive note, it is necessary to emphasise the right of children to grow up within a family, with a father and a mother able to create a suitable environment for their development and emotional maturity. Continuing to mature in the relationship, in the complementarity of the masculinity and femininity of a father and a mother, and thus preparing the way for emotional maturity”. "

What is he referring to, there?
Certainly not forced labor, child soldiers, or even sexual abuse by priests.
It's a clever segue, in my opinion. With clear, unambiguous meaning.

[kwassa]

70. Families are very important to raising a child

He is certainly standing up for a traditional family setting.

He, again, states nothing against same-sex families or marriages. If he had done that, I would certainly think he qualifies as a bigot. Without that, it does not qualify has hatred or intolerance necessary to make that distinction, in my opinion.

[AtheistCrusader]

74. I think you are kidding yourself.

That was a clear shot across the bow of same-sex parents. It wasn't even about single parentage, or parentage in a traditional pair bond outside marriage.

That was leveled directly at same sex couples, per the gender roles.
Consistent with his historical comments about same sex parents adopting children.

[kwassa]

75. I disagree.

This interview bounced across a lot of topics relating to the welfare and care of children, covering a lot of ground quickly.It jumped from subtopic to subtopic with little follow-through. No single subject was discussed in depth. Certainly same-sex marriage was not discussed at all, nor same-gender parenting.

After reading the original story, I wondered if this was a highly edited version of the actual conversation, but as this is the original source, it is a question that will never be answered. This reads like a short article about a long conversation.

[AtheistCrusader]

76. Every official-ish catholic news outlet that I found the story on

Last edited Thu May 1, 2014, 02:10 AM - Edit history (1)

carried that section in one piece.

I think it's meaning is clear. I guess we may have to agree to disagree. I'm curious what others think he's talking there, about gender roles.

Edit: Here's a whole fucking thread full of Catholics/Orthodox Christians that clearly interpreted it the way I do.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12214694

[trotsky]

81. And what the hell is a "traditional family setting"??

Is it one where a man has several wives, as found in the bible and throughout history?

Is it where a man has a wife and multiple concubines, also found in the bible and throughout history?

I cannot fucking believe we are having to counter such language on a PROGRESSIVE MESSAGE BOARD.

[Agnosticsherbet]

31. You are saying that the Pope, Vicar of Christ, Head of the Catholic Church, who is responsible for

the promulgation and teaching of Catholic Doctrine, who is preserved from the possibility of error when in the exercise of his office, who could, therefore, change Catholic Doctrine anytime he feels moved by God may not actually believe Catholic Doctrine at all.

If that is true, that would make the Pope a world class Hypocrite.

[kwassa]

51. He may not believe all of the Catholic doctrine. Many Catholics don't.

They simply practice the part they agree with, and leave the rest.

[Agnosticsherbet]

67. Many catholics don't have the power to change doctrine. The Pope has that power.

If he doesn't change doctrine, he authorizes it.

[rug]

45. I don't think there's any question about that.

A lot of them use the word, no matter how ineptly, as a conversation stopper. Any disagreement is an invitation to a descent into insult.

The word biigot has momentarily replaced the word pedophile for that purpose.

Next month it will be misogyny. And so on.

When that fails, they use plan B and call those who disagree with the stupid use of those words, "defenders of homophobia and pedophilia." When those posts get hidden they complain about the jury system tolerating bigotry.

What it's really about is anti-Catholicism. It doesn't matter what they use, including mental illness, as long as it advances that end.

Very lame. And very bigoted.

[AtheistCrusader]

46. So if I point out a misogynistic statement by the pope, you're going to call me a bigot?

I haven't had any troubles with the jury system. Fascinating. Especially since I don't couch my statements in weasel words or anything that might skirt a jury's interpretation.

The pope is a bigot when it comes to LBGT issues. Whether he's waxing poetic about how same sex marriage (or specifically, the movement to legalize it) is the work of the devil, or whether he's calling same-sex couples adopting children 'discrimination against the child'.

The pope is a member of a wildly misogynistic political entity. Not just a member, he's the president. Also the leader of a small, but influential nation.

[rug]

47. No, bit if you call the Pope a misogynist, you've earned the title.

Especially if it's based on a single statement.

[AtheistCrusader]

50. How many do I need?

Because on the same sex marriage issue, he talks about it quite often.

[rug]

57. It's not the quantity of the remarks. It's the quality of the criticism.

Mouthing bigot on cue is something a macaw can learn.

[rug]

109. Ah, evidence of self-recognition.

[Humanist_Activist]

110. I'm not the one claiming an amorphous "they" are out to get Catholics on DU.

Look, if you don't like that we hold Pope Francis to the same standards as we did Fred Phelps, or more recently Donald Sterling, then perhaps DU isn't the place for you, perhaps r/catholicism or the Catholic Answers forums fit you better.

[rug]

111. Neither am I.

I'm describing observed anti-Catholic bigots. Do you find it unflattering?

Since the observation makes you uncomfortable you may prefer r/atheism or JackChick.com.

[Act_of_Reparation]

61. When my grandfather was a kid...

...neighborhood Protestants threw rocks at him and called him "cat licker".

THAT is bigotry.

Grow up.

[kwassa]

69. so, has Pope Francis thrown rocks at gay people? Did he hit any?

I guess he can't be a bigot either, by your standards.

[Act_of_Reparation]

97. Guessing rarely leads one to the correct answer. You should try to do less of it.

Pope Francis is, after all, the supreme authority of an organization that has been shown to exert its influence over political authorities to deny homosexuals a standard of living freely available to straight citizens. If that weren't enough, Francis has gone on record countless times, prior to his ascension, to decry the deviance of homosexuals and the abject evil that would be the legal recognition of their relationships.

[trotsky]

99. But see here's the deal.

If you just ignore everything the man has SAID, and just close your eyes, and imagine what the perfect pope would be like, and really BEEEEEE-LIEEEEEEVE with all your heart, then really he's a wonderful man who wants full recognition of gay marriage and sees nothing wrong with same-sex couples raising children.

And not a bigot, so stop saying that!!!

[edhopper]

68. A Google search of Pope and Uganda

Does not come up with the Pope uncategorically condemning the death penalty for being Gay. You would think a progressive Pope, or one that had a conscience, would speak out against this inhumanity. The only thing I found was his silence, the Luke warm disapproval of the law by the Ugandan Bishop (but only the penalty, not the ban), and the chance that the Pope will visit Uganda to celebrate their matyr, who was killed for refusing gay sexual advances.

[Scuba]

79. Some here are trying "to project various aspects of Catholic church doctrine onto Pope Francis".

Um, isn't he the final say-so on Catholic church doctrine?

[el_bryanto]

82. Pope Francis is a bigot when it comes to gay rights.

I don't necessarily agree that that is his only characteristic or that that is the only significant thing about him or the RCC, though.

But this argument has been lost.

Bryant

[Kelvin Mace]

102. Hmmm... Let me think that over.

.....

Uh, no.

I treat the Catholic Church's views with disdain and disgust, not hatred or fear.

My judgement of the Church's views are based on logic and ethical consistency, something those views utterly lack.

I don't care what he believes, I only care about what he does. This past week he made John Paul II, a protector of pedophiles, a saint.

That pretty much settles the matter.

[Humanist_Activist]

106. I think I just lost IQ points from this post, the stupid, it burns out brain cells. n/t