How Pope Francis Undermined the Goodwill of His Trip and Proved to Be a Coward

[trotsky]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michelangelo-signorile/pope-francis-kim-davis_b_8221090.html

After first refusing to confirm nor deny it, the Vatican has confirmed that Pope Francis met with the Kentucky clerk Kim Davis at the Vatican Embassy in Washington, where Davis' attorney -- who made the news public after the pope's trip ended -- said Francis told her to "stay strong." And that simple encounter completely undermines all the goodwill the pope created in downplaying "the gay issue" on his U.S. trip.

The pope played us for fools, trying to have it both ways. As I noted last week, he's an artful politician, telling different audiences what they want to hear on homosexuality. He did that in Argentina as a cardinal -- railing against gay marriage when the Vatican expected him to do so -- and he's done that since becoming pope, striking a softer tone on the issue after Benedict's harsh denunciations were a p.r. disaster for the Catholic Church in the West. But this news about Kim Davis portrays him as a more sinister kind of politician. That's the kind that secretly supports hate, ushering the bigots in the back door -- knowing they're an embarrassment -- while speaking publicly about about how none of us can judge one another.

...

He shows himself to be antithetical to much of what he preaches and teaches. He talks about dialogue and having the courage of one's convictions and the courage to speak out. But he swept this Davis meeting under the rug, seemingly ashamed and certainly not wanting to broach the subject. Even Davis's supporters should find that insulting to them.

...

But the optics of it are bad no matter what. Rather than moving us forward on LGBT rights ever so slightly, as many viewed the pope as doing, he now, with this meeting, emboldens the haters in the church who will be pushing to make sure church doctrine continues to call homosexuality "intrinsically disordered." And it sends a message to all those people who've experienced anti-gay discrimination -- like the Catholic school teachers fired from their jobs in the U.S. simply because of who they are -- that this pope is not going to end that discrimination any time soon. Rather than stopping that discrimination, he welcomed, with open arms in the Vatican's own embassy, the bigots who promote that discrimination but who've turned themselves into the victims.

Glad to see others waking up to what many of us knew all along. Together we will overcome bigotry.

[Lifelong Protester]

1. I was so disappointed to hear this.

I am sad that he did not move the church forward on LGBT issues.

[trotsky]

2. The thing we need to remember is, he can't.

All of Catholic theology, and indeed the entire church, is built upon the notion that their dogma is perfect, that they have made no mistakes. Admit one mistake - pull just one card out - and the entire house of them comes tumbling down.

[Lifelong Protester]

3. I know, as a 'recovering' Catholic.

But I'm still disappointed.

[Hydra]

7. The march for human rights will have to continue

The Church and the RW fanatically believe what they do...and they'll have to be dragged kicking and screaming into the future. Plenty in our party as well.

[rug]

91. That's inaccurate.

For one thing, the problem is the RCC's attempts to influence legislation. That can be stopped at any time. You persistently conflate theology with political activities and hold them equally reprehensible. By far, the paramount problem is the political lobbying, regardless of the theology.

For another thing, you have an ignorant view of Catholic theology if you think it has the same instability as a Jenga tower.

[hrmjustin]

4. I am disappointed he met with her.

[LostOne4Ever]

20. Okaerinasai

Last edited Thu Oct 1, 2015, 09:10 PM - Edit history (1)

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal][font style="font-family:'kaiti','MS Mincho','Fangsong',fantasy;" size=6 color=teal][center]お帰りなさい[/center][/font]

Welcome back

I hope that your time away from DU was relaxing.

[/font]

[hrmjustin]

47. Thank you and it was busy. Both my parents had medical issues I had to deal with but

they are well.

[LostOne4Ever]

70. Sorry to hear that happen but glad that they are well :) nt

[skepticscott]

22. No doubt you were surprised as well

But there was no need to be. Many of us tried to illuminate you about the pope, but you preferred to put us on ignore...but that's your choice, as Starboard Tack so wisely observes.

[hrmjustin]

46. I always listened to what you said. I just wanted to be hopeful but... n/t.

[skepticscott]

49. Not really

Since you claimed to have us all on ignore.

Btw, did you really put 100 people on ignore in one night? That's gotta be a fucking world record if you did, dude. Guinness should know about it.

[hrmjustin]

51. 200 and I did that a couple of times but within 48 hou i unblocked. It gets boring and the last time

i did it I ended up missing info i felt i needed to see. But then i got 4 hides within 3 or 4 days after that. Not a goid week.

[skepticscott]

52. Oh, that is so you

Keep it up...never change!

[hrmjustin]

54. Thanks for the Welcome Back Scott!

[LiberalAndProud]

94. I'm sorry you were disappointed.

I mean that.

It would be good for us if the churches would abandon the immoral aspects of the dogma. But I'm afraid that would leave very little dogma in its wake. The holy text can make little sense in the absence of said dogma.

[Dorian Gray]

115. I am too

It left a sour taste in my mouth after all the more positive messages he had been delivering.

I know people say climate change and economic justice are political messages, as well. But they are world-wide issues. Kim Davis is an American phenomenon, and meeting with her is getting mired in American politics. Whether it was done out of ignorance (unacceptable) because others were plotting or because he supports her stance, it's an audience that never should have happened.

[jaysunb]

5. I didn't realize Kim Davis was a Catholic.

I thought she was some kind of fundie.

[struggle4progress]

13. She's not catholic.

[starroute]

14. She is a fundie -- but supposedly her parents were Catholics

Nothing about this story makes a whole lot of sense, though.

[Goblinmonger]

31. Well, that the pope is a bigot makes sense

because he's been a sexist homophobe for quite some time.

So it makes complete sense that he would support what Davis did.

But other than that, sure, it doesn't make a lot of sense.

[bvf]

18. Whatever flavor of clown she is,

I understand she's only been that way for a few years.

[MellowDem]

6. It is kinda sad to me...

that the only thing that made some DUers stop the Pope love was him meeting with someone DU absolutely despises. The Pope already had terrible ideas, and many who would point it out were shouted down, and many DUers just pretended that the Pope was really progressive.

And then there are the many DUers who still are fine with him.

I think the phrase that is most grating is "Well he's Catholic". That phrase is about as meaningful as excusing a racist because "Well he is a KKK member". Religious belief isn't an excuse for bigotry. It oftentimes is bigotry.

[beam me up scottie]

11. I noticed that too.

A homophobe from Kentucky wants to restrict the civil rights of a few lgbt people, the one from the Vatican wants to restrict the rights of all of them.

One is called names and mocked relentlessly on DU and the other is fawned over.

Where's the logic?

An apology to all of the atheists and lgbt people who have been attacked and vilified for condemning his bigotry all along would be nice but I won't hold my breath.

[Yorktown]

19. You failed to notice a very big difference

It's OK to say crap if God covers your back.

Being homophobic is stupid.

Being religiously homophobic makes it OK.

See? Now you see it, now you don't.

Magic.

[beam me up scottie]

28. They're just following their conscience!

See it's not bigotry at all, they just believe in "conventional" marriage.

At least that's what we've been told.

[Yorktown]

114. You say that because you just want to sin

Otherwise, you'd know you're wrong. Right is in the holy book.

which has widely diverging interpretations between different churches,

but let's not confuse the essence of what I'm saying with technicalities.

[Warren Stupidity]

25. There were quite a few who simply marched right with the pope and started defending Davis.

Others decided it was no big deal.

[Dorian Gray]

116. Actions speak louder than words

This is proof positive of that.

[alittlelark]

8. I am hoping he expressed to her that her actions were wrong

........just hoping........

[AlbertCat]

9. I am hoping he expressed to her that her actions were wrong

I'm sure they talked about divorce.....

[nichomachus]

10. Not just divorce

but breaking solemn oaths, living with a man who is not your husband (according to Catholic doctrine). and theft for taking money under false pretenses.

[skepticscott]

24. Why do you need that to be true

when you know perfectly well that it isn't? You know perfectly well that the pope praised her for her courage and exhorted her to continue the fight.

[Goblinmonger]

32. So he changed his mind about gay marriage?

It's no longer a machination of Satan? I would have thought that would be bigger news.

[nichomachus]

12. I'm not a big fan of Francis, but I have to wonder

whether he got suckered on this one.

He's a Jesuit -- nothing if not crafty. I can't imagine him deliberately blowing up all the goodwill he generated on this trip by meeting with trash like Kim Davis. There's probably a good chance he didn't have a clue who this woman was.

I can imagine some bishops telling him only that this was a woman "who was jailed for standing up for her beliefs." So he gave her 10 minutes of his time.

I'm not defending him, but I can see where some right wingers -- Opus Dei types -- blindsided him on this.

[skepticscott]

23. Not even remotely likely

Every move the pope made on this trip was carefully scripted. And there is zero chance that the pope and his handlers weren't aware of a major news story involving same-sex marriage in the country he was about the visit. The pope may be a bigot, but he's not senile. He knew exactly what this woman was about and what he was doing.

[Warren Stupidity]

26. "the idiot pope theory." I forgot about the third splaining in the wake of this disaster.

No sorry the pope is not an idiot, nor are his advisers idiots.

[Cartoonist]

15. The Next Pope

[progree]

16. Sounds like a misogynist and homophobe to me. Here's the homophobe part

Pope wades into U.S. gay marriage debate after historic visit, Reuters, 9/29/15

http://news.yahoo.com/pope-wades-u-gay-marriage-debate-historic-visit-192049390.html

Pope Francis waited until his historic U.S. visit was over to make his most direct comments on the nation's debate over gay marriage, saying government officials should have the right to refrain from actions that violate their religious beliefs.

That statement came in response to a reporter's question on the papal plane about Kim Davis

"Conscientious objection must enter into every juridical structure because it is a right," Francis told reporters, speaking in Italian. "If someone does not allow others to be a conscientious objector, he denies a right."

Francis alluded to the Roman Catholic Church's objections to gay marriage during some of his U.S. talks, citing concerns about "juridical" changes to the definition of the family. Still, he largely avoided the issue, the subject of intense debate.

[progree]

17. And here's the misogynist part

Pope visits U.S. nuns involved in Obamacare contraception lawsuit, Reuters, 9/24/15

http://news.yahoo.com/pope-visits-u-nuns-involved-obamacare-contraception-lawsuit-021905130.html

Pope Francis on Wednesday made an unscheduled stop to a convent of nuns to show his support for their lawsuit against U.S. President Barack Obama's healthcare law.

Vatican spokesman Father Federico Lombardi said the visit to the convent of the Little Sisters of the Poor for what he called a "brief but symbolic visit."

Last August, a federal appeals court in Denver put on hold its ruling that the order of Roman Catholic nuns must comply with a contraception mandate in the law, giving the group time to petition the U.S. Supreme Court.

.. The Sisters argued that the law forces them to provide insurance coverage for their employees to support contraception and sterilization services in violation of their religious beliefs, or face steep fines.

(the Sisters don't have to pay for the insurance, all they have to do is notify the federal government that they are opting out of the requirement, and then a 3rd party or their insurer pays for it. But the Sisters argue that even providing an opt-out notification makes them complicit in providing sterilization and contraceptive coverage)

If the lawsuit succeeds, female employees of these religious organizations will be forced to pay the full bill for their contraception. Or to abstain from (regular PIV) sex, given that the "natural" methods the Catholic Church approves of (or begrudgingly accepts) have a lousy track record in preventing pregnancy.

[Starboard Tack]

21. Damn, trotsky, you really made my day

Last edited Thu Oct 1, 2015, 09:42 AM - Edit history (1)

"Glad to see others waking up to what many of us knew all along. Together we will overcome bigotry."

That is truly the funniest thing I've ever seen on DU, and that is saying a lot.


Keep'em coming. You're a riot.

[Warren Stupidity]

27. Human rights violations are a laugh riot.

People who think that way disgust me.

[beam me up scottie]

29. Indeed.

It's revolting to see the same person who compares same sex marriage to marrying animals, bicycles and family members laugh it up in a thread about the pope's bigotry.

Starboard Tack (10,698 posts)
112. And this has what to do with the RCC?

Why would any couple want to marry in a church that doesn't accept them? Makes no sense.
You really look for extreme situations to provide fodder for your hatred of religion. How about if I wanted to marry my bicycle, or my hamster and some church opposed performing the ceremony, would you be there, fighting for my rights?

I'm sorry, but religious rights and gay rights are not the same thing. I support both. Seems like you only support one. I know many gay couples, some who married in church and some at town hall and some couldn't care less about the institution of marriage.

I think your views are self centered. You want the world to adapt to your values, like the vegan who wants everyone to quit eating meat. What a boring world that would be.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=123723

Starboard Tack This message was hidden by Jury decision. Hide

176. Really? And how exactly did I do that?

You seem to confuse marriage and sexuality. The first is about a ceremonial binding of two entities. The second is about sex.
Who are you to tell me I cannot marry my dog, or my brother, or my mother, or my fucking bicycle, if I so wish. You don't get to decide these things. Sorry to disappoint you.

A Jury voted 5-2 to hide this post on Fri Apr 18, 2014, 05:12 PM. Reason: This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=124676

Starboard Tack (10,698 posts)
177. No, I am not equating it with anything.

We should all have the right to marry whomever or whatever, provided it is consensual and conducted of sound mind.
Do you have a problem with sisters marrying each other? I don't. How about other family members? Do you draw lines and, if so, why?

My point, as I'm sure you are already aware, was about seeking approval from the RCC or any other church, to get married. That approval comes from within one's own conscience. Official approval comes from the state. Fuck the church and fuck those who want to paint me as an enemy of equal rights. Fuck the bigots and bullies and nasty hate mongering anti-theists. Fuck all fascists.

Happy Easter!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=124679

[Starboard Tack]

35. Yeah, me too

Last edited Thu Oct 1, 2015, 01:14 PM - Edit history (1)

Tell us Warren what else disgusts you:

Are you disgusted by those who oppose the death penalty?
Are you disgusted by conscientious objectors? Should they be shot as cowards?
Are you disgusted by the environmental movement?
Are you disgusted by tolerance?
Are you disgusted by humility?
Are you disgusted by universal caring?
Are you disgusted by those who strive to bring peace to the world?
Are you disgusted by feeding the poor and sheltering the homeless?
Are you disgusted by people who drive little Fiats rather than SUV's?
Are you disgusted by those who oppose war?
Are you disgusted with religious people in general?
Are you disgusted by 7-0 jury decisions against DUers with short fuses here on DU who say to those they disagree with"Fuck you, you vicious jackass."
Are you disgusted by this member having to take a break?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=220885&sub=trans

If you answer "no" to all of the above, then you and I are on the same page. If there are any "yes" answers, then let me know and we can discuss it in a civil manner.
I'll be happy to talk about human rights with you any time.

[Curmudgeoness]

82. I do have a "yes" answer that amazes me that you would answer "no".

"Are you disgusted by war?"

Ummm, yes. Please explain why was are not of the same page.

[Starboard Tack]

84. I am indeed. Nice catch.

I shall correct it. Thanks Curmudgeoness. I trust from your reposnse that it is your only "yes" answer? It will be interesting to see if and how Warren responds.

Respect

[Curmudgeoness]

87. No, ST, that was not my only "yes" answer.

But you knew that. It was just the only one that I was surprised by....had to read over that a few times to make sure I was reading it right.

[Starboard Tack]

89. No, I did not know that. So what were your other "yes" answers?

I wasn't meaning to confuse anyone. I get confused myself at times. Must be an age thing.

[Curmudgeoness]

96. My other "yes" is

religious people do disgust me. When you added "in general", I had to think about that since it obviously is not all religious people...however, since most people do not really let me know that they are religious, my answer is "yes" for all those who do.

I have had to unfriend some FB friends because all they ever posted was religious memes, and I got fed up with the piousness they were throwing in my face. A religious person who keeps their faith on a more personal level would not bother me, but I wouldn't even know how religious they were, would I?

I am very saddened that AC got an unscheduled vacation, but I also wish that he/she would not continue to tell people to "fuck off", even if they deserve it. I know that there are too many times that I wish I could say it too, but I don't. Well, at least not yet. (Never say never, huh.)

[Starboard Tack]

101. OK, I think I can relate to that

I feel the same way about the "in your face, holier than thou" crowd.

I am also saddened by the AC thing, but I think he both wanted and needed a break. After all, he'd been announcing it for quite a while. We do get fired up here at times, but telling people to "fuck off" is totally out of line. It's a discussion board, for goodness sake, and we're all on the same side. But I think he'll be OK. He's not a bad guy, but definitely has some anger issues. We all feel like saying "fuck off" at times, just like we all feel like punching someone at times, but most of us don't. Thankfully.

This place has been a great learning experience for me, and I thank everyone for that, including AC. He reminds me so much of myself during my "angry years".

Thank you for being a more calming influence.

[Goblinmonger]

33. So you had your chance to actually call out the bigotry of the pope

and you take the opportunity, instead, to go after a fellow progressive atheist who has been consistently on the right side of the gay marriage issue.

And you wonder why some people don't like you.

[trotsky]

38. I take great pride in incurring the wrath...

of someone who has equated marriage equality with marrying inanimate objects and animals, and who has told women denied birth control insurance coverage to just go buy "rubbers."

[beam me up scottie]

42. When bigots hate you it's a sign you're doing something right.

[Starboard Tack]

41. Hey GM, I got news for you

We are ALL on the right side of the gay marriage issue. Do you shun everyone you know who opposes gay marriage?
I do not wonder why some people don't like me. I didn't come here to be liked, but to speak my mind and listen to others, you know, discuss, debate, argue. That's how we learn, or do you think knowledge is gained solely by teaching?

Your "fellow progressive atheist" is a good guy, and right most of the time, imo, but I think his attitude really sucks. But not as badly as some. It's a shame, because he is definitely one of our more articulate and intelligent members. Hopefully, he'll mellow out with time.

Now, about bigotry. Telling this woman to "stay strong" is hardly bigotry. They believe the same thing, and I accept that they are sincere in their beliefs. Doesn't make them right, but accusing Francis of bigotry and cowardice is ridiculous.
As the blogger in the OP says

But by telling Davis that she should "stay strong" -- if her attorney's account of the encounter is to be believed -- the pope is only encouraging the bigots, even if he's doing so quietly. We don't know all the details yet regarding how Davis came to meet Francis -- if, for example, it was one of the more vocally anti-gay U.S. Catholic Church leaders who brought her along, or if the Vatican invited her.

Maybe this meeting does encourage some bigots, but calling the Pope a bigot himself is ridiculous.

Do you think the Pope is a communist because he met with Castro?

Both the blogger and trotsky are right to oppose the policy of the RCC and the Pope's position on LGBT rights, but using words like coward and bigot only serves to marginalize them as extremists. Name calling doesn't win arguments.

[skepticscott]

50. We have a winner

THAT is truly the funniest thing I've ever read on DU, and that's saying a lot!

[trotsky]

53. "Name calling doesn't win arguments."

You've certainly got a surplus of experience losing arguments, that's for sure.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1225&pid=595

Starboard Tack (11,160 posts)
7. Ignore them. They neither help nor hinder

They are irrelevant and it is their irrelevance that both pisses them off and motivates them. They have no substance and seek to feed off those who do. Responding to their mockery and theophobia only encourages them.
If you leave crumbs on the lunch room counter, the vermin will come to feed. Keep it clean and they will crawl back to the dark corners to fester and eventually consume each other.

Take comfort in the knowledge that most of us, including atheists, are praying in our own ways for those who are suffering. And we don't care if some choose to pray to a deity. It's the thought that counts.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=212242

Starboard Tack (11,160 posts)
30. Hi Muriel

No, I didn't. I don't think rug is a bigot. I think Werleman and Harris are both bigots. Unfortunately, they also happen to be atheists, but we never did claim the moral ground, did we? Which is just as well.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=204542

Starboard Tack (11,161 posts)
120. Well, there you go

Enjoy making these comparisons, which have little to do with anything. I am defending nobody, btw. I have not seen or heard anything from Francis that implies any bigotry towards gays. Feel free to enlighten me. I have no love for Popes in general. This is the first one I have felt anything positive for. So don't worry about raining on my parade. Being opposed to gay marriage, something I strongly support, does not make someone a homophobe or bigot, just a little behind the times. The RCC, in order to survive, must change its stand on same sex marriage. I think Francis will take a run at this before his papacy is up. I wish him luck.

Dawkins, otoh, is an outspoken bigot, proud to conduct his war on religion. No hiding behind tradition or holy books for him. No siree! Just upfront slurring and insulting of those who dare to be intellectually inferior to those endowed with both a superior logic and an ever so polite English public school way of talking down to simpler minds. Funny how Americans lap that shit up.
Enjoy your corner time!
I shall be watching from a distance.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=196842

Starboard Tack (11,161 posts)
93. Just your total wowiness

It's like Wowee! Deep man, real deep. Your outrage is noted in each "WOW!"

Regarding Carson, he is a bigot and a very rigid individual, which is unfortunate, to say the least. Especially so as he is/was a brilliant surgeon. Baffling how such a man could be so ignorant.

Did he actually say that gays are pedophiles? I must've missed that one. Very sad.

Does hypocrisy win any arguments, ST? Clean up your own act before you try to bash others FOR DOING EXACTLY WHAT YOU DO.

[skepticscott]

57. Cue Tack's deflection post

Where he pretends to be incredibly fond of you. Use of the huggie smilie is virtually guaranteed.

[Starboard Tack]

59. Describing someone accurately is not name calling

Those you refer to do not hide their bigotry. As you guys love to say, "this has been pointed out to you many times". They are open and honest about it. And I certainly never called any of them a "coward".

I am the first to admit my own hypocrisy, btw. At least, I admit it. Show me a man who claims not to be a hypocrite and I'll show you a liar. Doesn't alter the fact that name calling doesn't win arguments.
I'm working on my hypocrisy. It isn't always easy.

What I am not, though, is a bigot. You can call me one a thousand times, but it won't make it true.

Thanks for finding those posts, btw. You guys are great at that. I really appreciate it.

[Act_of_Reparation]

60. Denying it a thousand times doesn't make it untrue.

[Starboard Tack]

76. Couldn't agree more

People have a right to think whatever they want. If you think I'm a bigot, then all I can say is "So what, you don't know me". I'm not a leader of a movement or a religion. On that note, I might add that I have revised my opinion of Dawkins somewhat. Though he has made some pretty outlandish remarks, bigoted remarks, about Islam, I do not think he is really a bigot. He likes to play to the crowd and, well, you not what crowds are like, they lap that shit up.

[Act_of_Reparation]

95. See, I disagree.

I think Dawkins is a bigot.

[skepticscott]

62. And who were you describing "accurately"

As vermin?

And if you're saying it is inaccurate and ridiculous to call the pope, who thinks LGBT person should be denied full human rights, a bigot, you're on the wrong website. Who knew?

[Starboard Tack]

72. Wasn't describing anyone as vermin

You guys did that all your own, but hey, who's complaining? Wear you badges with pride. No skin off my nose.
P.S. When you get your english lesson from GM, ask him about the difference between a metaphor and a simile.

[trotsky]

63. LMAO

Thanks for the laughs, ST. Your desperate attempt to spin away when confronted with your own words is always a treat. You destroy your own credibility better than anyone else could.

[Starboard Tack]

73. Always happy to entertain

Heck, we could make a team, you me and BMUS. Take it on the road.

[skepticscott]

37. Let's see if you actually have the gumption

To tell us all exactly what's so hilarious about trotsky's post.

I'm betting that you'll do anything except answer directly and honestly. My money's on deflection and hand-waving. But surprise us.

[Starboard Tack]

43. You must be kidding.

The excerpt I quoted and its source. That is what is hilarious. Fortunately, I hadn't yet poured my coffee when I read it, or there would have been an awful mess.
Just to make you happy, though, I'm always happy to wave a hand your way

[skepticscott]

45. Yep, I win that bet. You have nothing

Except mockery that you've convinced yourself is clever.

No one else is convinced, dude. Sorry, but you've become a really sad character in here. Is this how you enjoy spending a summer holiday in the Italian countryside? You might better spend your time talking to more of those "refugees".

[Starboard Tack]

56. Helped one out this morning. Lovely guy from Nigeria. What did you do?

What do you have against Italy? Do you think everyone who lives in Italy is on holiday? I'm certainly not. Or is it country living that offends you? And, in case you hadn't noticed, summer was over a while back.

No one else is convinced of what, exactly? Must be pretty cool knowing you speak for "everyone". I guess you mean everyone in the knitting group. Very representative.
You are a hoot.

[skepticscott]

58. You mean speaking for everyone like this?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1218213646#post4

"He is a true inspiration for us all, believers and non-believers."

I couldn't possibly be as cool as you are in that respect, Tack!

[trotsky]

66. It's just too easy, isn't it?

Doesn't even come close to feeling like a fair fight. I almost feel sorry for the guy. But then I quickly get over it.

[skepticscott]

68. Hey, but he's WORKING on his hypocrisy!

Although how the fuck you do that, other than just not telling people they shouldn't do shit that you yourself just did, is a mystery. Maybe Hypocrites Anonymous has an Italian chapter.

[Starboard Tack]

80. You might want to try sometime. Very healing.

My gift to you.

"Nothing is more unjust, however common, than to charge with hypocrisy him that expresses zeal for those virtues which he neglects to practice; since he may be sincerely convinced of the advantages of conquering his passions, without having yet obtained the victory, as a man may be confident of the advantages of a voyage, or a journey, without having courage or industry to undertake it, and may honestly recommend to others, those attempts which he neglects himself."[1]
An alcoholic's pleas for temperance, for example, would not be considered an act of hypocrisy as long as the alcoholic made no pretense of sobriety.
Recent studies in psychology have identified the evolutionary bases and the mental mechanisms of hypocrisy, tracing its roots to adaptations that serve contradictory functions in the human brain, and to cognitive biases and distortions that predispose humans to readily perceive and condemn faults in others, while failing to perceive and condemn faults of their own.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypocrisy

Don't ever say I don't care about you, Scottie.

[Starboard Tack]

78. LOL I was just thinking the same thing

Damn, trotsky, you make me feel like Rambo. Keep 'em coming.

[Starboard Tack]

67. For once must agree, you couldn't

I always assumed english was your first language, or maybe it's just a "sciency guy" thing. I think it was GM who came up with that term. Well, he is an english teacher and would probably be willing to help you out with your prepositions. Ask him about the different meaning between "for us all" and "to us all"

[skepticscott]

71. Omg..are you really spending your Italian holiday

Dreaming up baloney like this just to save face?

You already admitted you're a hypocrite, dude, so just accept another example of it as my gift to you to help in your recovery. There's no audience to perform for here, so the spin is really a waste of your time.

[Starboard Tack]

77. I don't believe there is such a thing as wasting time.

You are free to believe whatever rocks your boat. It's raining here, so instead of going on my daily bike ride I'm spending time being entertained and entertaining you and your friends. And getting plenty of laughs too, so nothing is wasted.
Engaging with you is wonderful exercise. Do you disagree with me about us all being hypocritical at times? Are you pure in that regard? Or in denial?

[edhopper]

30. We can't criticize him

unless we know exactly where, when and how long they met and exactly what was said.

Or so I have been told.

[trotsky]

34. Oh really?

So I guess she was just a random winner of the "meet the pope" lottery, and chatted with him about what, exactly? The weather? Knitting? Brewing beer?

Whatever, the more time that goes by, the worse people who make excuses for those two bigots will look.

[edhopper]

36. It's not like the same people

don't attribute the worst possible motivations to the likes of Dawkins or Harris.

That doesn't happen.

[trotsky]

39. Well that's certainly a relief.

What monumental hypocrisy it would be if someone were doing that!

[edhopper]

40. I know

right?

[Starboard Tack]

86. I think we should all bow to your authority on that subject.

Whatever, the more time that goes by, the worse people who make excuses for those two bigots will look.

Sam Harris: "We should profile Muslims, or anyone who looks like he or she could conceivably be Muslim"

trotsky: I agree with SOME of what Harris says, and I think his voice is worth hearing. I think these bashing threads, though, are used as a proxy to bash other atheists by extension.

See how it works? You agree with some of what the bigot says.

Now, what do agree with that Pope Francis said? Anything?

I'm not as slick as you at accumulating others' quotes but for those who are, a quick Google search of "trotsky Sam Harris" comes up with 3,220 results.

[trotsky]

88. I also agree with what SOME of the pope says.

But he's still a bigot.

Harris attempted to defend what he said. You can decide for yourself how well you think he did.

I bet you were so excited you finally thought you were gonna score a point, huh? Better luck next time!

P.S. Your Google search *might* just have turned up a couple of results that have nothing to do with me. Just a hunch. Again, better luck next time.

[Starboard Tack]

90. And so is Harris, though I agree with much of what he says.

So, what do you agree with that Francis says? We're on the same page in terms of LGBT, contraception and women. So I'd love to know where we actually disagree.

Feel free to respond to the list I sent Warren upthread.

Sorry, didn't realize we were here to "score points", but carry on.

[trotsky]

93. Despite my better judgment, I'm going to give you one more chance to drop the act...

and discuss something as an adult.

Please provide your definition of the word "bigot." Since everything here seems to hinge on how YOU believe that word is to be used, I think you owe it to everyone to clarify.

[Starboard Tack]

97. Very well, though I have done so previously.

Here is the same definition I've given before.

In English the word "bigot" refers to a person whose habitual state of mind includes an obstinate, irrational, or unfair intolerance of ideas, opinions, or beliefs that differ from their own, and intolerance of the people who hold them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigotry

The key word here is "intolerance".

Let's take contraception as an example. You and I both agree on this subject, I think. Contraception should be readily available to all who wish to avail themselves of it.
The RCC and some other religious organizations hold the opposite position, based on dogma. I strongly disagree with them, but I respect their right to believe such a thing. When their belief reaches into the secular world, the public domain, then we have a problem.
However, their belief does not necessarily make them bigots. If they are intolerant toward my right to believe contraception is OK, then they are being bigoted, and vice versa, if I criticize their right to believe.

You see, tolerance is not about agreeing with others, but rather accepting the right of others to belief differently.

ISIS and the Taliban are bigoted organizations, who adopt an extreme and perverted interpretation of Islam. This does not mean Islam is a bigoted religion or that all Muslims are bigots, or support bigotry.

The RCC is bigoted, as an organization, toward women and the LGBT community, just as Harris is bigoted toward Islam. Francis, unfortunately, supports those bigoted ideas as a "good Catholic", but overall I do not see Francis, the man as a bigot. Why? Because I think he is sincerely struggling with these issues on a personal level, as a human being. He looks to his God for guidance. Not my choice, but I'm not Catholic. I search internally for guidance, some may call it soul searching. Each to his own. I think he is tolerant of that as I am tolerant of his way of searching.

When Francis makes these statements about Satan he is talking to his flock, who believe in God and Satan and Catholic doctrine. I don't think he is talking to me or you. As long as this doctrine is not being forced on anyone, I'm OK with those who choose to follow it. Who am I to tell anyone how they should believe or think?

Intolerance of ideas and beliefs, that is bigotry.

[skepticscott]

98. Very telling that you don't include

intolerance of people for being what they are under your carefully crafted definition of "bigotry".

And very telling that you can't point to any behavior that fits your definition in any of the DUers you have labeled as "bigots". Won't hold my breath.

And on what basis do you diagnose Francis as "struggling" with these issues, other than your need to legitimize your admiration of him? Can you point to anything he has ever said or written that has condemned or argued against fundamentally bigoted Catholic doctrine regarding homosexuality? Nothing is forcing him to be a "good Catholic", and no one who was not a bigot would belong to or want to lead a fundamentally bigoted organization. If he truly had courage and a conscience, nothing is stopping him from saying that the Catholic Church is grievously wrong, if he actually thought that (which no sensible person believes).

[trotsky]

99. Thank you. Based on the definition and explanation you've given, the pope is a bigot.

"When their belief reaches into the secular world, the public domain, then we have a problem."

I am not sure how well you keep informed about news in the US, but the takeover of hospitals by the Catholic Church is an escalating problem. When the RCC starts to run a hospital, they restrict ALL patients (not just Catholics) from some procedures. No contraceptive operations. No abortions. Etc. That's being intolerant of the rights of others. Bigotry, by your definition.

The pope has visited countries that are pursuing, or have achieved, marriage equality, and he has spoken out against it. He's trying to influence secular law, under which we all live - not just Catholics. Again, bigotry, by your definition.

The pope has called the idea that people can change genders "ideological colonization" and compared it to the indoctrination programs of fascist regimes, like the Hilter Youth. That's expressing total intolerance of an IDEA. Bigotry, by your definition.

It is absurd to try and propose that the pope merely believes or does the things he does because he "has" to as a Catholic. He's a human being with his own free will - and he's in charge of the church now. He could change something if he really wanted to. But he doesn't.

At what point does the pope become responsible for his own beliefs, and stop getting a pass because of his religion?

[Starboard Tack]

102. I don't give him a pass because of his religion, or otherwise on those issues

You are absolutely correct when you say he's in charge of the church now. He could change something if he really wanted to.
But he has changed things, not enough for everyone's liking, but he has made changes, at his own peril. I was here in Italy when the last Pope who tried to change things was murdered.

Regarding the healthcare system

The Catholic Church is the largest private provider of health care in the United States of America. During the 1990s, the church provided about one in six hospital beds in America, at around 566 hospitals, many established by nuns. The church has carried a disproportionate number of poor and uninsured patients at its facilities and the American bishops first called for universal health care in America in 1919. The church has been an active campaigner in that cause ever since. In the abortion debate in America, the church has sought to retain the right not to perform abortions in its health care facilities. In 2012, the church operated 12.6% of hospitals in the USA, accounting for 15.6% of all admissions, and around 14.5% of hospital expenses (c. 98.6 billion dollars). Compared to the public system, the church provided greater financial assistance or free care to poor patients, and was a leading provider of various low-profit health services such as breast cancer screenings, nutrition programs, trauma, and care of the elderly.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_health_care#Europe

Reserving the right not to perform abortions doesn't sound too surprising, as it would be acting against one of the church's core beliefs. That leaves 7 out of 8 hospitals that are not run by the church. Are women forced to go to Catholic hospitals in the US? If so, it is time for a universal healthcare system. If Italy can do this, why can't you? I disagree with the church in this issue, but I respect their right to believe abortion is contrary to their beliefs.
Also, it appears that the RCC has been at the forefront in both healthcare and calling for universal healthcare for a long time. Hard to complain about that. I have many friends in the US who have had abortions and there was no difficulty. I gather there are areas of the country where other providers are not available. That needs to be fixed.
What the church calls compassion, you call bigotry. I respect their right to believe it is wrong. That does not make them bigots.
Many years ago, my wife at the time had to undergo an illegal abortion in Italy because the RCC ran the show back then. She almost died, but thankfully was saved by one of those hospitals. Things here have changed since then.

His trying to change secular law is something to be confronted, but it doesn't make him a bigot in my mind.

Pope Francis, in a historic visit to the White House, issued a call to reject discrimination on Wednesday and declared that climate change is a problem "which can no longer be left to a future generation."

Speaking in English on the South Lawn, the pope said that American Catholics are committed to building a society "which is truly tolerant and inclusive," and he said that individual rights must be protected.

He called for rejecting "every form of unjust discrimination," and he said that a just country must respect religious liberty.

"That freedom remains one of America's most precious possessions," the pope said.
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/pope-francis-visits-america/pope-francis-visit-pope-issues-call-climate-change-white-house-n432231

[trotsky]

103. But you absolutely DO give him a pass because of his religion. You said:

Francis, unfortunately, supports those bigoted ideas as a "good Catholic", but overall I do not see Francis, the man as a bigot. Why? Because I think he is sincerely struggling with these issues on a personal level, as a human being.

You have absolutely NO way to know that. You can't read his mind. And in fact, the only evidence we DO have indicates he is not in any way "struggling with these issues." He has condemned marriage equality as being evil. He compared gender theory to fascist indoctrination. For crying out loud, he just met with freaking Kim Davis and then spoke about how important it was for government employees to refuse to do their jobs!! If he's "struggling" at all with any of that, he's doing a piss-poor job of showing it!

No, instead what we see are all the signs of a carefully scripted PR campaign. If Davis' attorney hadn't opened his mouth, it is possible we might never have heard about the visit. The pope publicly says one thing, but privately does another. (Or DOESN'T do things that would show he's trying to change the church's bigoted ways.)

And seriously, the Catholic takeover of hospitals is a huge problem. Women can't always just go to another hospital. And throwing out "well then the US needs universal healthcare" as some kind of response - really? Sure, let's just flip that switch and have it tomorrow, shall we?

Finally, regarding the last passage you quoted:

He called for rejecting "every form of unjust discrimination,"

UNJUST discrimination. Why not just "discrimination"? Is there a time when discrimination is just? Answer me that.

[Starboard Tack]

106. I'm off to bed now but I'll deal with your last question first

Is there a time when discrimination is just? Answer me that.

Yes, there definitely is.

A perfect example would be putting women and children in the lifeboats first, and the crew and captain last. I think that is just discrimination.

Another example is Affirmative Action, which I think is very just.

I'll get back later on the other things, but I want to say that I appreciate having a decent and civil conversation with you. We are not too far apart in our thinking or ideology. I have a lot of respect for your views and your intelligence. I enjoy a good debate without name calling, as I'm sure you do too.

The last person in the world I ever thought I might be defending is the Pope. It is quite a challenge, but I love to play the devil's advocate and you are a worthy opponent.
But now it is late here and I have much to do tomorrow.

[trotsky]

117. But he's not talking about any of those scenarios, ST.

His mention of "unjust discrimination" was specifically in the context of the dignity of homosexual individuals. And LGBT Catholics took note and objected:

http://www.buzzfeed.com/dominicholden/lgbt-catholics-alarmed-with-popes-remarks-about-unjust-discr

But the pope’s use of “unjust discrimination” — a term that appears in a key Catholic teaching on homosexuality — seemed particularly pointed in that context to LGBT Catholics. They say church officials have used the term to argue that there are, in contrast, just and fair forms of discrimination against LGBT people.

“It is a term that has dangerous ramifications for LGBT people,” said Marianne Duddy-Burke, executive director of the LGBT Catholic organization DignityUSA, who sat in the VIP section at the White House during the pope’s remarks. “To any well tuned LGBT ear, or anyone listening, it is support for a position many U.S. Catholic bishops have taken — which is against same-sex marriage, the right to fire married gay employees or transgender employees, the right to exclude LGBT people from adoption, and to deny LGBT people foster-care services.”

[trotsky]

120. Kicking to keep this recent in My Posts. n/t

[trotsky]

121. Kicking again to see if you've woken up yet. n/t

[skepticscott]

108. You've zeroed right in on it

Tack has offered absolutely no reason to absolve the pope from being a bigot other than some vague extrasensory perception of him "struggling" with the issues of gay and women's rights. As you so ably demonstrated, there is no evidence of this "struggle" whatsoever, and every reason to think that exactly the opposite is true. Tack certainly has no more evidence that the pope is "struggling" with his bigoted attitudes than Harris and Dawkins (two people he unhesitatingly labels as bigots) are, but he grants them none of the same consideration or absolution, which gives his entire diatribe the stench of unredeemable, agenda-driven bias.

Bottom line, Francis firmly believes, and advocates publicly and vigorously that an entire class of adult beings should be deprived of their full human rights, simply because of who and what they are. No decent, thinking person could hesitate to label that as bigotry.

[trotsky]

118. Not to mention the ramifications of basically saying a "good" Catholic is anti-gay.

WTF???

Bottom line, Francis firmly believes, and advocates publicly and vigorously that an entire class of adult beings should be deprived of their full human rights, simply because of who and what they are. No decent, thinking person could hesitate to label that as bigotry.

You are absolutely right. The difference? Evidently bigoted religious individuals are supposed to get a pass because of their religion.

[trotsky]

104. I hate splitting into separate subthreads but in this case I'll make an exception.

I think we need to tread very carefully around "intolerance of an idea" being bigotry.

Few of us on DU are willing to tolerate racism. Does that make most DUers bigots because they're intolerant of racism?

There are BAD ideas. They exist. Ideas that run counter to the notions of freedom, equality, and human dignity. I don't see how it's a problem to be intolerant of those ideas. To speak out against them. To confront those who hold them, and point out how very, very wrong they are.

[Warren Stupidity]

105. You dropped "unfair" from your own cited definition.

"unfair intolerance of ideas, opinions, or beliefs " became "intolerance of ideas, opinions, or beliefs ".

Sorry, your definition makes intolerance of an overt homophobe 'bigotry'.

[Act_of_Reparation]

110. Good. But your definition of tolerance remains murky.

You see, tolerance is not about agreeing with others, but rather accepting the right of others to belief differently.

I don't disagree, but neither do I see anyone honestly suggesting that people not be allowed to believe certain things.

[Starboard Tack]

44. Why not?

We can criticize him all day long for many things, but calling him names like "coward" and "bigot" is counter-productive and childish. Good way to lose an audience, unless one loves preaching to the choir.

[kwassa]

48. You can criticize him, but it is not based on much.

because the circumstances are completely unclear.

Who initiated it? there was some speculation on NPR this morning that this was the work of some lower-level Vatican official that sprung it on the Pope. Does the Pope even know who Kim Davis is? Did the Pope initiate it? Did Kim Davis?

[NonMetro]

61. Possibly?

But Kim Davis confirmed the visit, too, and so did her lawyer. Kim Davis said the Pope said to her: "thank you for your courage." Mat Staver said the Pope told her to "stay strong". Now, those two don't make great witnesses, I'm sure, yet the Pope has not denied it, either, and surely he knows the prominence of the issue in this country?

Also, of the 450 dudes who live with the Pope at the Vatican, why would any of them want to discredit the Pope? And what is a "lower-level" Vatican official, anyway? Is that Vatican talk for "blame it on the janitor"?

[kwassa]

74. Many in the Vatican want to discredit the pope.

The culture wars that rage in America also rage in the Catholic church. The Vatican has been stacked by conservatives by the past two popes, and they love their position and power, and work in various ways to undermine Francis and reforms he is trying to make.

What is not clear is who initiated the meeting.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/kim-davis-pope_560b8eeee4b0768126ffd324

In a telephone interview late Tuesday, Staver would not say who initiated the meeting with the pope or how it came to be, though he did say that Vatican officials had inquired about Davis' situation while she was in jail. He declined to name them.

Davis was in Washington for the Values Voter Summit, where the Family Research Council, which opposes same-sex marriage, presented her with an award for defying the federal judge.

Pope Francis did not focus on the divisive debate over same-sex marriage during his visit last week. As he left the country, he told reporters who inquired that he did not know Davis' case in detail, but he defended conscientious objection as a human right.

In a previous story in the Huffington Post, it was Staver who made initial contact with the embassy.

[trotsky]

75. Oh goodie! A conspiracy!

Always fun to see these sprout up. Somehow this "stack" of conservatives wasn't powerful enough to stop Jorge from being elected, but they are powerful enough to sabotage all his efforts to make the RCC a liberal, welcoming place which we just KNOW he would do if he could. Right?

Keep 'em coming - that's a good one, kwassa!

[mr blur]

79. Ah! if he's not careful he'll be "sleeping with the fishes"?

Poor guy, he's just a patsy, eh?

[Goblinmonger]

81. So the leader of the largest religion in the world

doesn't know enough to just keep his yap shut about something he doesn't know anything about (though, coincidentally, his views of gay marriage align PERFECTLY with that of Kim Davis). How they heck did this buffoon even get elected if he is that clueless and stupid.

[kwassa]

83. Who said he was clueless and stupid?

Not I.

[femmocrat]

85. Here is another conspiracy article, blaming it on Ratzinger:

http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a38440/pope-francis-swindled-kim-davis-meeting/

Excerpt: Ratzinger's fingerprints are all over this story. Vigano is a Benedict loyalist. Robert Moynihan, whose newsletter, Inside The Vatican, got the story first, is an actual lifelong Ratzinger protégé. And the Vatican press office acted just the way I'd want it to act, if I were the guy setting this up. First, it issues a silly non-denial denial, and then it merely confirms that the meeting occurred. At which point, the office clams up, leaving the story festering out there in the news cycle, and leaving the pope out there in the American culture war to twist in the wind. And, if this scenario is in any way accurate, it had its desired effect.
---

(Vigano is the Papal nuncio in Washington D.C. who was discussed on Lawrence O'Brien last night.)

[kwassa]

111. It well could be a set-up.

[Lordquinton]

92. Stacked with conservatives who elected one of their own

What reforms is Francis trying to make again?

Economic policy and climate change are't changes, he's consistent with his predecessors on those issues.

[NonMetro]

107. Well, How Hard would It Be For The Vatican To Say Now That Davis And Staver Are Lying?

I'm not Catholic, but I thought all these guys at the Vatican, all 450 of them, were higher- ups in the church. Aren't they all Cardinals or something?

You're saying the Vatican made a mistake in confirming the meeting with Davis? Is somebody from the Vatican lying about something? Is there some sort of palace intrigue going on there that all these holy men are being mum about? Are they hiding something? Why?

[kwassa]

109. I have no idea. Maybe they aren't lying.

Although they are hardly trustworthy individuals, there are no other sources of information at this moment. The Vatican confirmed only that they met.

Without further information about what did happen, everything all of us say about it is only speculation, based on very few facts.

[NonMetro]

113. Right...And not Saying More Fuels Suspicions

And charges of secrecy and duplicity, and does nothing to answer the questions raised in the OP.

[edhopper]

64. Sure

anyone can meet the Pope.
And neither he nor his people vet any of these meetings. Or understand any of the fall out from them.
Cause we know how politically unsophisticated this Pope and Vatican are.

Right.

[trotsky]

65. The stench of desperation found among pope defenders has grown quite vile. n/t

[NonMetro]

119. We Can See Here Why No Other Religious Leader Was Ever Invited

To speak before the United States congress, and thrown a triumphal parade through the streets of Washington DC. It creates divisions among the people as defenders of the faith take every, even slightly critical remark about him as a personal insult, and immediately jump to his defense. But, Boehner has won: Democrats are fighting each over it already!

[kwassa]

69. A lot of assumptions in your post.

But that is all you have, right now.

[edhopper]

100. I have his words of support for Kim Davis

what do you have?

[Lil Missy]

55. That is so disappointing. n/t

[Lordquinton]

112. Some want to say he didn't know who she was

Bt that's simply poppycock. He follows marrige equality politics closely, even travels to countries to fight against measures. I really don't buy it that he is completely ignorant of the issues going on in the US, and Davis has been headline news for a while now. He knew what he was doing and it fits completwly with his character.