Is the self-styled leader of the Catholic Church a bigot or not?

[skepticscott]

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]

1. Absolutely and demonstrably.

[skepticscott]

2. My vote is

a big fat YES, too. 2-0 in favor.

[roguevalley]

3. i do not know.

[roguevalley]

33. thank you jury.

[mr blur]

39. You were lucky - a ridiculous hide. There again, not unusual in this Group.

[rug]

42. Lucky? You think hiding a chronically disruptive poster's post is luck?

Apparently you didn't learn anything about community standards from your recent forced sabbatical.

[rug]

5. Oh, that New Atheist thread got under your skin, didn't it.

[djean111]

7. For myself, not under the skin, that is so dramatic - just a bit of fun.

[rug]

18. Yes, that's the first word that comes to mind when I read the OP.

[hrmjustin]

9. lol!

[AtheistCrusader]

37. Plain word subsitution role-reversal getting under yours?

It really reveals the principle behind the idea (or lack thereof) don't you think?

[rug]

44. If that sentence made any sense I could give you an answer.

[AtheistCrusader]

45. Sorry, making you understand plain english is not one of my super powers.

[rug]

47. Apparently, neither is basic grammar.

[AtheistCrusader]

48. Add a comma after 'idea', if that helps you.

You already correctly identified the inspiration for the paraphrase in this OP.

[rug]

49. It doesn't. It needs much more than punctuation, British or otherwise.

[AtheistCrusader]

51. The OP is a word-substitution paraphrase of another thread that you identified.

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]

52. Oh, a copycat.

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]

53. Which one?

[rug]

54. Which reply of his?

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]

55. I specified twice that you correctly identified the OP template.

Don't play games with me.

Which of the two threads is 'churlish', etc?

Pretty sure it's 'both' or 'neither'.

[rug]

56. This one by far.

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]

57. Then why bring up something I explicitly ackowledged was correct, as if I didn't know?

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]

60. Don't play games with me.

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]

62. Based on that post, you're not qualified to discuss language comprehension.

[AlbertCat]

64. Yargle Bargle

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]

65. Quod erat demonstrandum

ETA: Verbum extremum

[AlbertCat]

68. Quod erat demonstrandum

Thank you Dr Pangloss....

[cleanhippie]

71. Yeah, AC, he doesn't play games!

He doesn't do irony, either.

[rug]

72. I leave the rolling around on the floor to you.

[djean111]

6. Yes. A bigot. With verse and scripture to justify it.

[skepticscott]

8. I'll put the total down as 3-0

with one inexplicable "undecided".

[hrmjustin]

10. I don't see him changing church doctrine in his lifetime which is a disappointment.

[skepticscott]

11. So you agree that he's a bigot

Thank you for your unequivocal moral courage.

[rug]

14. Unlike the moral courage you exhibit by posting anonymous flamebait on the internet.

[hrmjustin]

15. I don't think he is personally but I think the church is wrong on the issue.

[Htom Sirveaux]

12. He holds bigoted stances on gays and

patriarchal positions with regard to women. I'll bet it is a problem for those Catholics who disagree.

[skepticscott]

13. So you don't dare

call him a bigot, eh?

Very telling.

[Htom Sirveaux]

16. I didn't call Dawkins and Co. "bigots" either.

What it means is that I'm uncomfortable reducing people to labels like that.

[skepticscott]

17. And do you think that people who do

are deeply misguided? Or is that something else you're not able to have a firm opinion on?

[Htom Sirveaux]

19. I don't think it's productive.

It usually just leads to more name-calling, as it has in this case.

[skepticscott]

20. So you think that all of the people

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]

31. I clearly condemned Pope Francis's bigoted ideas.

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]

24. More name calling?

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]

29. Who are these people, and how do you know

I support them wholeheartedly?

[840high]

21. Chill. Don't bully people.

[skepticscott]

23. Bully? Seriously?

Pressing someone to express something other than wishy-wash is "bullying"? I wonder if you've even seen real bullying before.

[rug]

25. He couldn't have been more exact if he measured your inseam.

I wonder if you've even seen real blowback

[AlbertCat]

61. I wonder if you've even seen real blowback

I wonder if you think you'e ever wrong.


And as a person who makes clothes, I've see many inseams measured incorrectly.

[rug]

63. That's likely because they don't trust your hands.

[rug]

67. You really should edit your post.

Really.

[840high]

27. Peace.

[TygrBright]

22. "Self-styled?" n/t

[okasha]

26. And we all thought Marcel Lefevbre was dead.

[rug]

28. And now you recced your own OP?

[okasha]

32. So he did.

And so did someone who proclaimed from the rooftops that she was going to trash this group.

[mr blur]

40. Ah, the famous comedy double act. Right on time.

[Warpy]

30. His bigotry is large enough for half the human race

That's massive bigotry, friends.

[pinto]

34. I confess. I'm ashamed and beg your forgiveness.

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]

35. It was the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215

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]

36. Agree. I think he has a take on the general laity. How it plays out? We'll see.

[okasha]

59. I'm going to wait for the outcome of the bishops' conference

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]

38. Before he became pope, this self-important mammal declared the SSM movement in

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 God’s law engraved in our hearts.”

“Let us not be naive: This is not simply a political struggle, but it is an attempt to destroy God’s 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]

50. Worth noting is that his most tolerant statement to date on homosexuality...

(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]

69. That isn't bigoted??

Yes.

We're supposed to be impressed with such mushy crap? In this day and age?

[trotsky]

41. It's well-established that he is.

And his bigotry is against people for an innate part of who they are - something they can't change.

[rug]

43. Which is precisely why he's wrong on this issue.

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]

46. Francis is not "self-styled", he was chosen/elected. And yes, he is a bigot.

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]

58. Yes

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]

70. You're goddam right he is.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

73. This thread is a perfect example of why people who actually might want to discuss religion

Rationally stay away from this forum.

[trotsky]

74. Does that explain why you're here? n/t

[rug]

75. It more explains why you're here.

[Warren Stupidity]

76. This thread was in direct response to, and a parody of a shit stirring flamebait OP similarly titled

But you knew that.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

82. Right. You were simply being funny

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]

84. Can you demonstrate how the Pope isn't a homophobe? n/t

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

85. You know he isn't, you just want to smear him because he is the Pope.

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]

87. That homophobic bigot called same sex families an attack on God, same sex marriage...

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]

89. Given that your mind is made up on this subject, and even you admit that it is not worth debating

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]

90. Ah the "intolerant of intolerance" canard.

That is just full of derp.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

91. No, the "dislike of atheistic bigotry" non-canard.

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]

92. Of course my mind is made up about this, how can it not be? Is there any defense of the Church's...

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]

86. Well the pope is absolutely and undeniably and officially a bigot.

There is just no getting around that.

[Humanist_Activist]

88. Supposedly we are supposed to debate the merits of Catholic teaching on homosexuality.

I would LOVE to see what this poster comes up with next.

[hrmjustin]

77. I don't like to post ops here anymore. I do occasionally but interfaithwill get my ops.

[MellowDem]

78. Hell yeah he is!

And his mewling apologists on the left are pathetic to behold.

[rug]

79. Your opinion has no reasoning to back it up...

let alone a clear observation.

[MellowDem]

80. It's common knowledge that the Pope...

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]

81. No, it's not common knowledge at all. It is a common opinion in some self-selected groups.

But opinions, particularly biased opinions, are hardly knowledge.

[Humanist_Activist]

83. I'm sorry, are the Popes words up for interpretation now?

Or was he so severely misquoted that they mean the opposite of what they say?

[Nye Bevan]

93. Most of us voted for a bigot to be president in 2008,

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&quot . However, Obama showed signs of evolving on this issue, just as Pope Francis does now, especially compared with his predecessors.