pope made homophobic slur

[Eddi]

I haven't found this at all.

Jacob Rees-Mogg has publicly stated that the teachings of the RCC determine the way he votes on certain things and he's quite a senior Tory

 

[Alien826]

I think that's another possibility, although I suspect that even in a closed meeting, he would probably be aware of the potential PR issues from having a slur reported by anyone who attended the meeting. Surely he would be aware that his status as the pope would put him under a magnifying glass and speak accordingly.

Yes, I'm just adding another possibility.

 

[Rival]

Be careful. Historically, the Catholic church has had a huge effect on laws passed in countries where they hold power. And these laws apply to everyone, not just Catholics. And don't say that's all changed. The SCOTUS now has 6 Catholics out of the 9 justices. And look what they did to reproductive rights. For everyone.

An interesting (true) story. Way back, it's very different now I believe, I knew an Irishman who lived and worked in London. Whenever he went to Ireland, he would take as many condoms as he could, to sell at a huge profit. They were virtually unavailable in Ireland.

I can tell you things are changed here. Condoms are available everywhere.

I am in the UK and even with a State Church there is virtually no interference. To me the idea that the RCC is having undue influence is bizarre.

The example you gave of abortions was not carried out by the Church, it was carried out by people with beliefs influenced by the Church. This is not the same, and they are entitled to do that. Otherwise I could flip it and saw the woke have overtaken the court and allowed abortion and people would shrug and say sure. Anyone on the court is allowed to try to get his views into law; we cannot bar religious people from doing this no more than we can non-religious liberals and others.

I think this is being way too overhyped.

 

[Rival]

Jacob Rees-Mogg has publicly stated that the teachings of the RCC determine the way he votes on certain things and he's quite a senior Tory

Obviously? People's views dictate what they do.

We can't exactly outlaw this.

 

[PureX]

The usual noise over nothing.

There are lots of people looking for any excuse to bad-mouth the Vatican. And it's not as if they don't deserve it in some significant instances. But this one is just silly.

 

[Eddi]

Obviously? People's views dictate what they do.

We can't exactly outlaw this.

Yes, so that's an instance of its teaching influencing public policy

 

[Rival]

Yes, so that's an instance of its teaching influencing public policy

Its teaching, not the Church itself as an institution.

I imagine Muslims vote in line with their doctrines, but no-one is saying the Imams have taken over.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I don't have a derogatory term for people who approve same-sex marriages; I just call them 'woke', which is a term they gave themselves.

Since all woke really means is “aware of and actively attentive to important facts and issues (especially issues of racial and social justice),” I would be proud to be called so. It is only the right that is trying to make woke mean "anything on the left," which is of course nonsense, but of course they only do it to try and turn it into a pejorative.

I shall continue to call myself woke, without shame, and hope that I can live up to what it means to me.

 

[Eddi]

Its teaching, not the Church itself as an institution.

And the teachings are issued by the church

 

[Rival]

And the teachings are issued by the church

Sure.

But are you really suggesting that politicians not be allowed to vote in line with their religious beliefs?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Welcome to that day.

I can tell you that where I am the RCC has absolutely no say in my life whatsoever. So maybe it's your own apparent obsession with the RCC that is the problem.

I'm glad for you, then. That's not the case here.

Here, Catholic organizations get to make healthcare decisions for non-Catholics. Catholic schools are funded just like secular public schools (but are exempted from the parts of the normal curriculum that are incompatible with Catholic teaching), and Catholic bishops lobby for and against changes to secular law.

... and the governmental and political interference of the RCC here is mild by international standards.

 

[Kathryn]

The teachings of the RCC have a considerable influence on public policy as a great many people who have power and influence follow it

Or don't follow it.

 

[Rival]

I'm glad for you, then. That's not the case here.

Here, Catholic organizations get to make healthcare decisions for non-Catholics. Catholic schools are funded just like secular public schools (but are exempted from the parts of the normal curriculum that are incompatible with Catholic teaching), and Catholic bishops lobby for and against changes to secular law.

... and the governmental and political interference of the RCC here is mild by international standards.

We have two out of those three, except with Anglicanism too. We have bishops in the Lords as you know, and we have faith schools run by tax money. Many non-religious send their kids there, as they're generally seen as being better schools which get better results. I don't know why. It's not seen as a problem by the majority.

The healthcare is odd but surely that is something that can be lobbied against, one would hope.

Can't be as bad as the NHS!

 

[Eddi]

Sure.

But are you really suggesting that politicians not be allowed to vote in line with their religious beliefs?

Not at all

Just making an observation

As an interested party

The RCC is very powerful

 

[Rival]

Not at all

Just making an observation

As an interested party

The RCC is very powerful

Well, as the largest religious institution in the world its members will, knowingly or not, have some undercurrent of influence. This is just the way it is with such religions. There's nothing much anyone who dislikes this can do as these people have chosen to follow this path. There's similar with Eastern Europe with Orthodoxy and that's 10x more involved with governments, but I rarely see Westerners talking about this. The OC is a good example of interference in the State which makes the RCC look very timid.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Its teaching, not the Church itself as an institution.

I imagine Muslims vote in line with their doctrines, but no-one is saying the Imams have taken over.

Many have said that, actually; preaching of hatred and encouragement of persecution have both been central issues facing Arab secularists for decades. Naguib Mahfouz survived an assassination attempt for "blasphemy," Farag Foda's assassination was defended by al-Sha'rawi and al-Ghazali (two of the most influential imams in the Arab world at the time), and Nawal El Saadawi was involved in many public rows with some imams because of her views, including her opposition to female genital mutilation decades ago.

Publicly promulgating certain beliefs knowing that they can and do inspire support for violence, persecution, or legal abuse seems to me a perfectly valid reason to criticize both the beliefs and the preachers who publicly promote them.

 

[Viker]

Unless you are part of the RCC, the Pope's views and RCC doctrine have nil effect on you at all.

Ever heard of the Supreme Court of the United States? It's now mostly RCC and now mostly conservative partisan. I don't see your statement as realistic at all. Evangelicals and Catholics are shaping policy as of right now. These policies absolutely are directed at me and impose upon me.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yes, I said you understand.

But you seem to believe that using words like this are in any way useful. When you use them, you are implicating that the belief is in itself wrong, despite your understanding of their reasons for it.

It's very useful. The usefulness just isn't focused on changing your mind.

You can disagree with those reasons, but calling them slurs and derogatory names indicating a deficiency in their morality is not making you look any better than how you see them.

People are allowed to have different beliefs without those beliefs being undermined by people calling them 'phobe' just because they think their morality is bad.

No, everyone is allowed to express their opinion, including our opinion of the opinions of others. Nobody has the right to be free from criticism of what they say or consequences of their speech.

Homophobes have the right to express their views. Likewise, everyone else has the right to say exactly what they think of those homophobic views. In turn, the homophobes have the right to say what they think about the criticism of their views, etc., etc.

I don't have a derogatory term for people who approve same-sex marriages; I just call them 'woke', which is a term they gave themselves.

Why would you ever need to express a derogatory opinion of people who approve of same-sex marriages?

 

[Rival]

Many have, actually; preaching of hatred and encouragement of persecution have both been central issues facing Arab secularists for decades. Naguib Mahfouz survived an assassination attempt for "blasphemy," Farag Foda's assassination was defended by al-Sha'rawi and al-Ghazali (two of the most influential imams in the Arab world at the time), and Nawal El Saadawi was involved in many public rows with some imams because of her views, including her opposition to female genital mutilation decades ago.

Publicly promulgating certain beliefs knowing that they can and do inspire support for violence, persecution, or legal abuse seems to me a perfectly valid reason to criticize both the beliefs and the preachers who publicly promote them.

Sure, but I was referencing the UK parliament here, which Eddi referenced.

I don't know about outside of Europe.

 

[Eddi]

Well, as the largest religious institution in the world its members will, knowingly or not, have some undercurrent of influence.

Hence its leader has a responsibility to be very careful about what he says