pope made homophobic slur

[Alien826]

Must...not...confirm Godwin's...Law...

I immediately thought of the same example, and decided against posting for the same reason. I did think of other ways to put it, then decided to move on.

 

[Rival]

I immediately thought of the same example, and decided against posting for the same reason. I did think of other ways to put it, then decided to move on.

And I'm still not getting it, so maybe open honesty would help here.

 

[Secret Chief]

Disagree. The word refers to a negative attitude about homosexuals and homosexuality. It's use implies that that is unfair, irrational, and destructive.

OK. That's fine.

Yes, you are being called homophobic for expressing your religious beliefs. The god of Abraham as described is homophobic as are those who accept and repeat its opinions about gays.

You seem to consider religious beliefs off-limits to moral judgment. Is that correct? It would be an amazing double standard. We're talking about a religion that judges those engaging in homosexuality immoral, a judgment that harms its target. It marginalizes and demonizes them while making their lives more difficult and dangerous. Some are convinced of the message themselves and become self-loathing and guilt-wracked.

I don't accept that. That's not OK. I don't care how old the religion

Christianity teaches that homosexuality is sin against a good and just god deserving of damnation.

The purpose isn't to chase you. Ideally, you reflect on what is said and that it has a mitigating influence on you. It's acceptable if all it does is to cause you to be a little more selective in the opinions you express. It's helpful if when you don't that you be publicly rebuked. And it's helpful for those not indoctrinated in an Abrahamic religion to see why they should reject such religions and such doctrine. Altogether, this will be the most effective means of diminishing homophobia.

I offer the example of racism again. After decades of rebuking the expression of racism, first, such opinions were expressed less frequently in mixed groups of people. Later, the opinion was less prevalent. Mixed race couples were no longer gawked at, and nobody felt comfortable saying the n-word except with other racists.

Trump normalized this behavior again. He gave the bigots permission to be openly bigoted, and a surge of racism followed.

OK. That's better than hearing them.

OK. I see it differently.

That's homophobia. There is no good reason for that.

And that's a reason for you to object to same sex marriage? That's a problem with Abrahamic religion. It's manifesting in the American culture wars over abortion, IVF, and contraceptives, which make the church un-American and a problem for those who support enabling people with options and who support church-state separation.

Most people who use that word use it to demean liberals expressing their inclusivity and empathy. It's a term of derision.

Calling yourselves traditionalists doesn't justify the homophobia.

One can live without being free to express his bigotries, or as you called it, being in mute jail.

You're a baby killer and a fascist. It just gets worse.

 

[viole]

Disagree. The word refers to a negative attitude about homosexuals and homosexuality. It's use implies that that is unfair, irrational, and destructive.

OK. That's fine.

Yes, you are being called homophobic for expressing your religious beliefs. The god of Abraham as described is homophobic as are those who accept and repeat its opinions about gays.

You seem to consider religious beliefs off-limits to moral judgment. Is that correct? It would be an amazing double standard. We're talking about a religion that judges those engaging in homosexuality immoral, a judgment that harms its target. It marginalizes and demonizes them while making their lives more difficult and dangerous. Some are convinced of the message themselves and become self-loathing and guilt-wracked.

I don't accept that. That's not OK. I don't care how old the religion

Christianity teaches that homosexuality is sin against a good and just god deserving of damnation.

The purpose isn't to chase you. Ideally, you reflect on what is said and that it has a mitigating influence on you. It's acceptable if all it does is to cause you to be a little more selective in the opinions you express. It's helpful if when you don't that you be publicly rebuked. And it's helpful for those not indoctrinated in an Abrahamic religion to see why they should reject such religions and such doctrine. Altogether, this will be the most effective means of diminishing homophobia.

I offer the example of racism again. After decades of rebuking the expression of racism, first, such opinions were expressed less frequently in mixed groups of people. Later, the opinion was less prevalent. Mixed race couples were no longer gawked at, and nobody felt comfortable saying the n-word except with other racists.

Trump normalized this behavior again. He gave the bigots permission to be openly bigoted, and a surge of racism followed.

OK. That's better than hearing them.

OK. I see it differently.

That's homophobia. There is no good reason for that.

And that's a reason for you to object to same sex marriage? That's a problem with Abrahamic religion. It's manifesting in the American culture wars over abortion, IVF, and contraceptives, which make the church un-American and a problem for those who support enabling people with options and who support church-state separation.

Most people who use that word use it to demean liberals expressing their inclusivity and empathy. It's a term of derision.

Calling yourselves traditionalists doesn't justify the homophobia.

One can live without being free to express his bigotries, or as you called it, being in mute jail.

Very well said. I would add that anyone defending the pope in this instance, or any other instances, is manifestly homophobic. And misogynistic.

But that is OK. After all, the pope can decide who gets in his church and who does not. The problem is not him, but the organization, and its moral stature as such.

Since you still need testicles, as a necessary condition in order to convert a piece of bread into the body of a two thousands years old god, some gender related inequality coming from that organization needs to be expected. It is part of their ideology. That would be like expecting the SS to allow gays and jews to join their ranks.

The question is how anybody not belonging to that organization could possibly justify, or even defend that.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Secret Chief]

And I'm still not getting it, so maybe open honesty would help here.

Just because you're not "getting" something does not mean anyone is not being honest.

 

[Rival]

Just because you're not "getting" something does not mean anyone is not being honest.

That's not what I meant.

I don't know where Godwin's Law is coming up here, I certainly didn't until someone mentioned it.

So if someone could clarify, maybe the issue could be addressed.

 

[Rival]

These threads demonstrate why RF is a horrible place to be Abrahamic.

These pile-ons are destructive, depressing and offensive.

There is no camaraderie here.

 

[Secret Chief]

I immediately thought of the same example, and decided against posting for the same reason. I did think of other ways to put it, then decided to move on.

Yeah, unless you like banging your head against a wall.

 

[Secret Chief]

These threads demonstrate why RF is a horrible place to be Abrahamic.

These pile-ons are destructive, depressing and offensive.

There is no camaraderie here.

Well, this is the debates section of RF, not an Abrahamic section. The North American politics section is often an offensive and depressive place for me. If I started a thread advocating summary execution of all meat eaters in a debates section I'd probably expect a little pushback. Promoting or defending what most people identify as a negative (in this case, homophobia) in a debates section is never going to go well for the promoter/defender.

 

[Alien826]

Not getting what one wants isn't really harm. One can live without sex or marriage.

By that definition a well fed and housed slave would not be harmed by his slavery. Would you like to adjust that statement?

 

[Alien826]

I offer the example of racism again. After decades of rebuking the expression of racism, first, such opinions were expressed less frequently in mixed groups of people. Later, the opinion was less prevalent. Mixed race couples were no longer gawked at, and nobody felt comfortable saying the n-word except with other racists.

I find advertising can be indicative of changing social attitudes. They go to great lengths not to offend people, as that impacts the sales they want.

I don't know what TV you get down there in Mexico, but here there's an ad for a bed that has a husband and wife (man and woman anyway) lying on a bed and disagreeing on what settings they want. So what? It's a black man and white woman. I don't know if they show it in "southern" areas of the country, but it's encouraging anyway.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I personally don't disagree that organizations may, in general, set rules that apply to their own members. After all, people are free to find another church (in this case).

Same-sex marriage was not a thing, legally, and people tried to get that changed. Many churches (including the RCC) strongly opposed changing the law, which went far beyond "[setting] its own standards".

@Rival
The problem is when you grow up in closeknit community and you are in effect told you will go to Hell, if you are you. There are studies of the effect of that.

 

[Revoltingest]

Because retaliation is the quickest way to deescalate conflict.

Sometimes it's not retaliation,
but rather to inform.

 

[Rival]

@Rival
The problem is when you grow up in closeknit community and you are in effect told you will go to Hell, if you are you. There are studies of the effect of that.

This is not the kind of religion I have a background in, though. I have never heard anyone be told this or heard this preached.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

So you have fascist views and wish to shut people up in the name of moral progressivism. I define this as fascism. Trying to stop people from airing their views and putting them in mute jail because you dislike their views. Got it.

Haven't you been trying to modify opinions expressed about the Pope? Here are some comments from you in this thread: "Go away with this crap," "Give it up," "It looks to me more as though some rabidly pro-LGBT people are using this as a stick to beat him with completely unnecessarily," and "I don't want to hear voices accusing the Church of homophobia." Were those also examples of fascism?

You think I'm homophobic unless I'm Woke, basically.

I think you're homophobic because you disesteem homosexuals. You would deny them dignity and equality under the law. They should understand that they displease God, and that they should not be treated as well as heterosexual couples that want the social and legal benefits of marriage.

You seem to hate my religion too.

I consider Christianity a net negative force in the world. I am an antitheist, meaning that I would like to push religions like Christianity and Islam back into their lanes and limit their influence to those who volunteer to submit to it. I object to any religion which disesteems gays, atheists, or women. There is nothing the church does of any good that couldn't be done or isn't being done by a secular organization.

These threads demonstrate why RF is a horrible place to be Abrahamic.

You're on the wrong side of an issue that people care about. RF is a similarly unpleasant place to be an anti-intellectual creationist, anti-vaxx, a climate denier, or a Trump supporter, and all for the same reason. Flat earthers would probably be unhappy here as well, but that's not an issue that energizes realists.

Maybe all of those people should ask themselves why. RF's not a horrible place for me. Why is it horrible for you?

These pile-ons are destructive, depressing and offensive

Sorry that that is your experience, but as I just alluded, perhaps you should try to learn from that. Homophobia is destructive. It's also depressing and offensive. You seem unwilling to even consider that possibility.

There is no camaraderie here.

And whose doing is that? Your religion puts up a wall between us. It teaches you that many of us are morally defective and unacceptable as we are. You just told me that "we're done."

"The division is entirely one sided. I didn't end relationships when I became an atheist. Christians ended those relationships, and it was because their particular religion cannot tolerate - I have letters from people who said 'We can no longer associate with you. You are of the devil." - Matt Dillahunty

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

This is not the kind of religion I have a background in, though. I have never heard anyone be told this or heard this preached.

Okay, good for you and those around you. But it has happened and is happening in some religious settings.

 

[Secret Chief]

The problem is when you grow up in closeknit community and you are in effect told you will go to Hell, if you are you. There are studies of the effect of that.

My near neighbours include an atheist and a big church goer. They get on fine. The atheist asked the church goer if she'd go to hell when she died. The church goer said yes you will.

 

[Revoltingest]

These threads demonstrate why RF is a horrible place to be Abrahamic.

These pile-ons are destructive, depressing and offensive.

There is no camaraderie here.

You have the camaraderie of the like minded.
You endure opposition too.
So it goes for all of us on RF.

It can go well, or be stressful.
How we react can be chosen.
If one is criticized unjustly, choose to dismiss this as a fault with the critic.
If criticized with merit, choose to consider it thoughtfully.
This will preserve one's equanimity.

 

[Rival]

You're on the wrong side of an issue that people care about.

How on earth can one be on the 'wrong' side of a subjective issue?

This is my whole problem. This is being treated as though it's cut and dry hard science.

 

[Alien826]

And I'm still not getting it, so maybe open honesty would help here.

"Godwin's rule" states that the first person that mentions Hitler in a debate automatically loses. It's a joke really, invented because people tend to use that as an example of ultimate evil. The idea is that there are lots of examples of evil people in history, so no need to keep on (and on and on and on) about Hitler.

What you said (sorry can't remember the exact words) made at least two of us think of quoting Hitler as an example, but of course Godwin's rule forbids that.

That's all.