Religion
Related: About this forumIs the self-styled leader of the Catholic Church a bigot or not?
Since he adheres absolutely to the doctrine of the organization he leads, which says that homosexuals should not be allowed to legally marry...EVER.
Is this a problem for the billion or so Catholics in the world, for whom the pope DOES speak, as leader of the organization that they voluntarily and happily belong to?
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)skepticscott
(13,029 posts)a big fat YES, too. 2-0 in favor.
roguevalley
(40,656 posts)Response to roguevalley (Reply #3)
Post removed
roguevalley
(40,656 posts)mr blur
(7,753 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)Apparently you didn't learn anything about community standards from your recent forced sabbatical.
rug
(82,333 posts)djean111
(14,255 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)It really reveals the principle behind the idea (or lack thereof) don't you think?
rug
(82,333 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)You already correctly identified the inspiration for the paraphrase in this OP.
rug
(82,333 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Simple word-substitution of a similar issue, or full role reversal, is an effective tool for identifying whether there is a principle in play, or not.
rug
(82,333 posts)I got that.
But it is, of course, much more than that. It's a malicious, churlish broad brush that extends to anyone who replied with other than agreement.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)Start with his hidden post and step gingerly through the rest of them
If you're asking which OP it's copying, you know which one.
.http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=141634
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Don't play games with me.
Which of the two threads is 'churlish', etc?
Pretty sure it's 'both' or 'neither'.
rug
(82,333 posts)And listen, I don't play games, with you or anyone else in here. So don't have the temerity to tell me what to do.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Seems like a game to me.
Both threads fit your description, and that is why this one was appropriate to create. It highlights that condition.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)Guffaw!
The "I get the last word" game is a real bore, isn't it?
I mean, it's got him discussing grammar, as if he just couldn't understand a word you wrote. Of course everybody else on the planet who can marginally speak English could understand what you wrote. But understanding... that's not part of the "I get the last word" game. Distraction is.
rug
(82,333 posts)AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)Is the Pope a bigot????
and you want to talk about grammar.
What a joke you are!
(Get that last word in! I noticed you answered all my posts before the toast I was toasting popped up! You ARE a seasoned professional at the distraction games!)
rug
(82,333 posts)ETA: Verbum extremum
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)Thank you Dr Pangloss....
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)He doesn't do irony, either.
rug
(82,333 posts)djean111
(14,255 posts)skepticscott
(13,029 posts)with one inexplicable "undecided".
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)skepticscott
(13,029 posts)Thank you for your unequivocal moral courage.
rug
(82,333 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Htom Sirveaux
(1,242 posts)patriarchal positions with regard to women. I'll bet it is a problem for those Catholics who disagree.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)call him a bigot, eh?
Very telling.
Htom Sirveaux
(1,242 posts)What it means is that I'm uncomfortable reducing people to labels like that.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)are deeply misguided? Or is that something else you're not able to have a firm opinion on?
Htom Sirveaux
(1,242 posts)It usually just leads to more name-calling, as it has in this case.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)who do the same to Republicans on this site are just wasting bandwidth too?
Or are you just an apologist for bigotry when it's religious people promoting it?
Htom Sirveaux
(1,242 posts)Like I said, I didn't call Dawkins and Co. "bigots" either, so clearly the answer to your second question is "no".
It might be fun and cathartic to call Republicans names, but it doesn't change what Republicans say, how they think, or how they act. And then they name-call us in return.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)Who's been called a name they don't deserve here?
And after all, calling things like we see them is perfectly acceptable, according to people here that you support wholeheartedly.
Htom Sirveaux
(1,242 posts)I support them wholeheartedly?
840high
(17,196 posts)skepticscott
(13,029 posts)Pressing someone to express something other than wishy-wash is "bullying"? I wonder if you've even seen real bullying before.
rug
(82,333 posts)I wonder if you've even seen real blowback
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)I wonder if you think you'e ever wrong.
And as a person who makes clothes, I've see many inseams measured incorrectly.
rug
(82,333 posts)Response to rug (Reply #63)
Post removed
rug
(82,333 posts)Really.
840high
(17,196 posts)TygrBright
(20,753 posts)okasha
(11,573 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)And so did someone who proclaimed from the rooftops that she was going to trash this group.
mr blur
(7,753 posts)Warpy
(111,122 posts)That's massive bigotry, friends.
pinto
(106,886 posts)That was sarcastic, obviously. But to the point -
I was raised in the culture. For the billion or so Catholics in the world, many take the dogma with a grain of salt. Or a billion grains of salt.
Equality in respect to sexual orientation is progressing nationwide. That's just a fact. As is the ongoing support for gender equality. It's not so in many other parts of the world, blatantly and at times deadly. That's the bigger issue, imo. Across any religious affiliations.
We can lead by example - the world watches us in this interconnected web of communication. They're not blind to the bigger picture. Not sure what else we can do other than what we can do here at home.
Is the Pope a bigot? I've no clue. The bureaucracy is clearly hide bound in outdated dogma. Centuries of it. Change there will not be breaking news, yet I think it will happen.
okasha
(11,573 posts)that codified the Church's present stance on orientation and gender issues. I'm waiting to see what comes out of this fall's meeting of bishops before taking any position on the Church's position. If Francis decides to move away from current policy, he knows he has much of the laity behind him.
pinto
(106,886 posts)okasha
(11,573 posts)in the fall before I take a position on the Church's position. Some of the Latin American bishops are speaking out strongly for LGBT rights, and the Latin American church in general is far more liberal than the hierarchy in the US. They're Francis' former close colleagues, and I suspect they may carry more than a bit of influence. Certainly more than Dolan.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Argentina was a move by satan himself.
"At stake is the identity and survival of the family: father, mother and children," said Cardinal Bergoglio. "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 Gods law engraved in our hearts.
Let us not be naive: This is not simply a political struggle, but it is an attempt to destroy Gods plan," said the future pope. "It is not just a bill (a mere instrument) but a move of the father of lies who seeks to confuse and deceive the children of God.
Words straight from the mouth of a bigot, through and through. A man exhorting a nation to discriminate against same sex couples that wished to marry.
This is not just a national issue. There are north of 1.2bn catholics worldwide, several nations of sufficient population that their government is heavily influenced by catholicism, reflected in the merge between law and church doctrine.
Certainly there are individuals within the catholic faith that do truly believe in civil rights, including SSM. But the organization itself is heavily invested against civil rights in this case.
And the pope, is most certainly, a bigot. He has adequately demonstrated so.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)(the "who am I to judge?" comment) was made specifically in the case of homosexual priests who are "seeking the Lord" and "have good will". In other words, he won't judge a homosexual priest who isn't in a homosexual relationship.
That isn't bigoted??
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)Yes.
We're supposed to be impressed with such mushy crap? In this day and age?
trotsky
(49,533 posts)And his bigotry is against people for an innate part of who they are - something they can't change.
rug
(82,333 posts)He's also wrong in weighing in on the civil aspects of marriage. He certainly is free to proclaim that humans, straight, gay or otherwise, should not have sex outside a marriage but he has no authority to proclaim that governments should ban it. There are so many things that religion has preached against and does preach against, such as usury, blasphemy, adultery and the rest, that the state does not outlaw and the churches have shut up about. Who knows, this vocal attack on same sex marriage, from among the myriad of things that it considers wrong, may indeed be bigotry, if only from its focus alone.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)People who hold and enforce misogynistic and homophobic positions are, by definition, bigots. Francis clearly holds misogynistic and homophobic positions, and enforces them as chosen/elected leader of the RCC.
I'm not sure how anyone could argue against that.
Tetris_Iguana
(501 posts)Not that it's an excuse, but he's also a product of a bigoted environment.
The mind does amazing gymnastics when it comes to justifying the status quo.
Iggo
(47,534 posts)Fortinbras Armstrong
(4,473 posts)Rationally stay away from this forum.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)But you knew that.
Fortinbras Armstrong
(4,473 posts)When your immediate response to the OP was "Absolutely and demonstrably".
Sorry, but based on your previous post in this thread, I don't believe your claim of not taking the thread seriously.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)Fortinbras Armstrong
(4,473 posts)Besides which, your statement is wholly irrelevant to what I was saying -- that when Warren was saying, in effect, I was just funnin', he was being disingenuous at best and dishonest at worst.
Now, one can have a genuine debate on Catholic teachings about homosexuality. But saying "the Pope is a homophobic bigot" is not a constructive statement in such a debate.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)comes from the prince of lies, that same sex parenting is child abuse. You doubt my fucking sincerity? This fucker's church funds programs to oppress my friends and family. Don't you DARE doubt my sincerity.
There is no "debate" on Catholic teachings on homosexuality, they are homophobic and WRONG, fucking period. Do you not agree?
Fortinbras Armstrong
(4,473 posts)Any further conversation on this would be weary, stale, flat, and unprofitable.
You have decided that the Pope is a homophobic bigot. I have been told that saying that another poster is a bigot is worse than the bigotry espoused by that poster, and is worthy of censure. For that reason, and that reason alone, I shall not say that YOU are a bigot.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)That is just full of derp.
Fortinbras Armstrong
(4,473 posts)You just don't like it when I proclaim atheistic bigotry for what it is. So you pretend that there is no such thing, while simultaneously wallowing in it.
You are now soloing in this thread, since it is clearly impossible to have a civil conversation with atheistic bigot such as inhabit the Religion forum.
As I said in my first post, this thread shows very well why rational people avoid this forum.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)teaching of homosexuality that IS worthy of discussion?
This Pope CAMPAIGNED against the civil rights of LGBT people in Argentina, here let me repeat that, this Pope CAMPAIGNED against the civil rights of LGBT people in Argentina. The fact that he failed to stop same sex marriage there does NOT excuse his bigotry, and I frankly don't give a shit how much he says he "loves" LGBT people in his attempts to oppress them.
The fact that you want to call me a bigot worse than the Pope. A person whose worse offence against him is strongly criticizing him for trying to oppress others is just contemptible. It shows you value your Church over the rights of people.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)There is just no getting around that.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)I would LOVE to see what this poster comes up with next.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)MellowDem
(5,018 posts)And his mewling apologists on the left are pathetic to behold.
rug
(82,333 posts)let alone a clear observation.
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)adheres to an explicitly bigoted belief system. It's common knowledge that the Pope thinks the devil is behind marriage equality, for example. He said it explicitly. And that homosexual as are a sin. Inherently wrong. That requires a whole lot of prejudice about a group, and some other presumptions besides about the supernatural. A bigot.
My opinion has a lot of evidence and reasoning to back it up, most of it already in the public sphere. Yours? I won't hold my breath. But I'd love to hear your reasoning for why the Pope isn't a bigot. I'll be sure to supply more evidence if you wish, but discussion isn't a one way street.
rug
(82,333 posts)But opinions, particularly biased opinions, are hardly knowledge.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)Or was he so severely misquoted that they mean the opposite of what they say?
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)if the definition of a bigot is someone who opposes marriage equality. (At that time Obama's position was "marriage is between a man and a woman..... God is in the mix" . However, Obama showed signs of evolving on this issue, just as Pope Francis does now, especially compared with his predecessors.