"There can be no confusion..."

[uriel1972]

For every Good Pope story, there is a Bad Pope story...
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/jan/23/pope-francis-defends-traditional-marriage-ahead-of-italy-civil-unions-vote

[longship]

1. My favorite bad pope is Alexander VI.

The Borgia pope.

Here's his Wiki: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Alexander_VI

He had many Vatican parties. And don't get me started about his offspring, Caesar and Lucretia.

Well, at least they apparently had fun, while it lasted.

[Cartoonist]

2. Why can't we have both?

Heterosexuals will still get married and procreate. There is no reason to deny gay marriage except for hatred and extreme bigotry.

[skepticscott]

3. But..but...

it gives gawd a sad...

[muriel_volestrangler]

4. "How can we be in, if there is no outside?"

Peter Gabriel lays down a far too common facet of human behaviour:

It's only water
In a stranger's tear
Looks are deceptive
But distinctions are clear
A foreign body
And a foreign mind
Never welcome
In the land of the blind
You may look like we do
Talk like we do
But you know how it is

You're not one of us
Not one of us
No you're not one of us
Not one of us
Not one of us
No you're not one of us

There's safety in numbers
When you learn to divide
How can we be in
If there is no outside
All shades of opinion
Feed an open mind
But your values are twisted
Let us help you unwind
You may look like we do
Talk like we do
But you know how it is

You're not one of us
Not one of us
No you're not one of us

[Cartoonist]

6. Us and them

No, not the PF song.
Us and them is what hatred and bigotry is all about. It's the very core of why religion exists. This "love one another" is just cover for the divisiveness and oppression that unelected bigots use to spread their evil.

[Major Nikon]

5. It's very telling when the RCC defends pederasty, but not gay marriage

Kinda makes you wonder if Satan isn't really the good guy.

[rug]

8. Where has the RCC ever defended pederasty?

Are you conflating endoorsing pederasty as a doctrine with global administrative cover-ups of its personnel?

There is a stark difference.

[Promethean]

19. Theres a difference between

defending and endorsing too. But nobody ever accused rug of being honest when he defends the faith.

[rug]

20. Tsk, tsk. Are you incapable of calling me a liardirectly?

That doesn't bode well for your own honesty.

But enough about you and me, no one cares except for the usual denizens who use this forum for meta.

Do you think the RCC endorses pederasty? Be honest. I know you can do it.

[Promethean]

21. Its soo cute how rug

word swapped someone to change the meaning of what they said then when called on it doubles down. The dishonesty is just so obvious but he absolutely must defend the faith! He doesn't realize that dishonest tactics like that are what drive people away from fundamentalists like him.

[rug]

22. I see. Evasion, deflection, and personal insult.

A fine post and a fine demonstration of character.

[cleanhippie]

35. Yup, that's the usual tactic.

And notice the personal attack he leveled at the end.

Character, indeed.

[Promethean]

55. There is a reason I didn't actually speak to him directly

and worded everything as a description of what was happening. Its not about engaging him anymore. His history clearly shows he isn't interested in honest discussion. I am simply pointing out what hes doing to everybody else.

[rug]

57. Yes, that must be the reason.

[cleanhippie]

58. "His history clearly shows he isn't interested in honest discussion."

That sums it all up.

[rug]

59. Do you call petty sniping to another "honest discussion"?

Why, by the evidence, you do.

[Major Nikon]

28. Do you think the RCC defends pederasty? Be honest. I know you can do it.

Strawman rhetoric is disingenuous at best, BTW.

[rug]

34. Of course not. If you've bee reading along you'd have known the answer.

[Major Nikon]

37. I've already stated the answer. YMMV

[rug]

39. I can guess which Group you're checking in on.

[Major Nikon]

43. Ah yes, a clever repackaging of the tired old "I'm rubber, you're glue line"

I never saw that one coming.

[rug]

44. Not nearly as clever as posting a picture of someone sticking his head in a hole.

[Major Nikon]

29. Would you like recent examples, or historical?

http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2014/08/28/why-pope-francis-protecting-high-ranking-pedophile-156630

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/pope-francis-pedophiles-chile-juan-barros/

http://www.sott.net/article/220257-Vatican-Christmas-Shocker-Pope-says-child-rape-isnt-that-bad-was-normal-back-in-his-day

https://news.vice.com/article/pope-francis-accused-of-shielding-priests-who-sexually-abused-children

[rug]

33. Any actual example will do.. Those are not defenses of pederasty but of administrative cover ups.

[Major Nikon]

36. So covering up =/ defending

Normalizing child rape =/ defending.

Providing material support to pedophile priests =/ defending.

Skirting pedophile priests out of the country to avoid prosecution =/ defending.

Promoting Bishops known to have covered for child rapists =/ defending.

[rug]

40. No, it isn't. What it is is defending the institution not pedarasty.

You really should recalibrate your targets if you want to be an effective polemicist.

Offhand, I can think of six far more devastating attacks on the RCC.

[Major Nikon]

45. Holy shit! Why didn't I think of that?

They aren't really protecting child rapists, they are just protecting their own financial interests after harboring child rapists for over a thousand years!

Thanks for clearing that up!

[rug]

46. You really don't see a difference between protecting rapists and endorsing rape, do you?

[Major Nikon]

47. This is some really funny shit right here

I actually do see a difference between "protecting" and "endorsing" which is why I used the former and not the latter, yet you used the two words interchangeably twice now while pretending I'm the one who doesn't know the difference.

Keep it up and soon there won't be a dry eye in the house.

[rug]

48. I see nothing funny about either.

[Major Nikon]

49. No, you're just ambivalent at best

And no, raping children damn sure isn't funny, nor is protecting those who do so.

What's funny is your repeated duplicity after being called out on it numerous times and then trying to blame it on someone else.

[rug]

50. Precision is not ambivalence.

Instead of trying to score phony internet "debate" points, put down your loathing of religion in general, and the RCC in particular, and look at the real problem here.

[Major Nikon]

52. You mean precision like writing off the defense of child rapists as an administrative action?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=222040

Or how about pretending "endorsing" and "defending" are the exact same thing and then pretending someone else doesn't know the difference.

In the interest of precision is seems a lot more like child rape apologia than ambivalence. I was just trying to provide the benefit of the doubt where there is very little.

[rug]

54. Which is still a different thing entirely from defending pederasty or rape.

Keep trying, Major. Your rut just gets deeper each time.

[Major Nikon]

56. You funny

You really do expect anyone to believe moving a child rapist out of the country to avoid prosecution isn't defending child rape, not to mention the thousands of other examples of pure evil on behalf of the RCC.

If you are going for the award for child rapists apologia, you have my vote.

[skepticscott]

27. Not just the RCC

But people on DU who are supposed to be liberal and progressive. There are plenty of unabashed RCC and pope apologists on this site.

[rug]

41. There are far more illiberal and regressive anti-Catholic bigots on this site.

Not to mention the anti-Muslim bigots.

[Major Nikon]

53. Tolerance requires one to tolerate intolerance

Because if you dare call out the pope for homophobia or point out the RCC has been defending child rapists for hundreds of years, then you are obviously a bigot.

[rug]

7. That's correct.

.The Vatican has no say on civil marriage law, only on its own rules on the sacrament of matrimony.

[edhopper]

9. You really don't think

his statement is to sway the vote?
You really don't think he is telling Catholics how they should view this?

[rug]

10. Of course it is. And it can be ignored or condemned as you see fit.

It's a political statement and a political act, neither of which is he competent to make.

[edhopper]

11. And the Catholics in Italy

will feel the same. "Oh well, let's ignore Francis"
You think this is appropriate. When a man who speaks with the authority of God pushes a political agenda?

[rug]

12. When it comes to politics most do.

Abortion, contraception and divorce are all legal in Italy.

Not to mention the Risorgimento achieved in 1871.

There is a false assumption in your question. The Pope's authority is limited to matters of faith and morals not political agendas. He has as much credibility on politics as you or I.

Do you think it is appropriate when someone forms opinions on false assumptions?

[edhopper]

13. you must be right

what I say will have as much political impact as what the Pope says.

Nobody pass4s laws based on what the Catholic Church teaches.

The Filipino Constitution doesn't really exist.

Neither do anti-Gay laws in Africa.

[rug]

14. Do you honestly believe the only reason legislators pass homophobic laws is religion?

[edhopper]

15. That is so beside the point

And I would say today the major factor in anti gay laws in many countries, including our own is Religion.

And none of that has anything to do with the RCC's support of such laws.
Which is the matter at hand.

But I would be foolish to think you ever criticize the Church and not defend anything it does. I mean is the Pope Catholic?

[rug]

16. Only if you are willfully ignorant and prefer ideology to facts.

Make sure you don't read only #6. There are many others.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/assault/roots/overview.html

The matter at hand was your assertion that religion is the reason for homophobia. I already told you the RCC can be ignored in the political arena. When it persists, it can be resisted as any other political player.

Instead, you have this comforting view that religion is the source of all evil. Open your eyes.

[edhopper]

17. Any other reason but religion

for you, like always.

I said "And I would say today the major factor in anti gay laws in many countries, including our own is Religion."

Do you deny that the major proponents for anti-gay laws in this country and those most vigourously fighting gay rights are not doing it due to religion, and this includes major religious organizations like yours?

The RCC can be ignored, and many do, but many also don't, and the RCC and the Pope continue to try to influence politics directly.

You want to willfully ignore what i actually say so you can keep your "it's never religion agenda, fine, it's just so much dust in a blizzard at this point.

[rug]

18. There you go with your preconceived ideas again.

The conjunction you're looking for is "and", not "but".

I see you didn't read all nine conclusions from those studies. Given that homophobic laws have been in effect for centuries and the current science identifying eight other factors, of course I deny that religion is the major factor (your bolding). The reasons for homophobia have not gone away at all.

As to your fervent insistence that the root cause is religion, I would grant you more credibility but for your ubiquitous blame of religion for all sorts of things. It's the sign of a prejudged mind which make its opinions, particularly the more vociferous ones, dubious.

I'll go with the current state of the science as to the causes of homophobia.

[edhopper]

23. There you go insisting I said it's the root cause

As if we are discussing human evolution.

I said the majority of opposition to Gay Rights today is from religion.

Sorry if your unable to understand the distinction, or that your preconceived ideas won't allow you to see the debate at hand.

But only deflect to an esoteric argument that let's your Pope off the hook.

Stay warm and dry.

[Lordquinton]

26. Come-on Ed, the RCC can be completely ignored in the political arena

Those prominent politions who are Catholic and say that's their primary influence in their decision making process, ignore it. Supreme Court Justice Scalia and his declaration that all his rulings will conform to Catholic doctrine? Ignore it.

The RCC pouring millions into political campaigns to make their beliefs law? Ignore that.

See? If you ignore all the instances where Catholic doctrine influences global politics, and the way our world has been shaped by Catholic belief, it's like it doesn't exist.

[rug]

42. That must explain the 15 Demovratic Senators and 65 Democratic Representatives in Congress.

Not to mention the Vice President.

Oh wait, it doesn't. I mistook that for a post based in reality.

Hint: Scalia is a republican appointed by Reagan, not that it matters to you.

[mr blur]

24. But, you see, Wonderpope™ regards "indissoluble matrimony that unites and allows procreation"

as nothing more than a Catholic Factory. Got to keep churning out the Catholics, keep that money pouring in.

[rug]

25. That's a completely ignorant statement.

[Act_of_Reparation]

30. Ah, but there's a catch.

A heterosexual marriage in which one is physically unable to produce a child is still considered valid by the Catholic Church.

A heterosexual marriage in which one party (I'll let anyone take a guess which one it is) suffers "antecedent or perpetual impotence" is invalid.

Before the local Cathosplainers show up to cathosplain that the RCC is not a bigoted organization because reasons, take note that the average gay marriage is more similar to scenario number 1 than scenario number 2. The differentiating factor here is in a gay marriage, the parties concerned are gay. Ergo, bigotry.

Then there's the matter of discriminating against the disabled. Good job there, RCC. Hugging people with the leprosy = good. Marrying people without boners = bad.

[trotsky]

31. Well you know they have no choice but to follow the antiquated rules they made up.

I mean, really!

[Act_of_Reparation]

32. And some would argue we should suffer that nonsense in silence.

Because if you aren't Catholic, it doesn't affect you.

You know, unless the fucking Pope himself putting pressure on your secular government.

[Major Nikon]

38. Don't forget the time honored tradition of refusing communion to politicians who don't march in step

[skepticscott]

51. A tactic even more deserving of ridicule

than some of the arguments made by papal apologists and Cathosplainers on this board. Even supposedly serious Catholics pay no mind to it.

[Goblinmonger]

60. It's OK. We can forget about this now. Dawkins tweeted something.

That is SO much more important.

[trotsky]

61. Oh whew.

Much more important than the global suppression of human rights by the largest Christian church on the planet.