pope made homophobic slur

[Rival]

"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.

Yes, I get this, but if that's how my words were taken I would appreciate knowing which.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

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 t's cut and dry hard science.

Well, yes. But that is the point. Some people subjectively treat it as objective and that is so for some on both sides of religion or not.
Or that their subjectivity is a special unique case.

I am not saying you are doing it. I am saying that it is a fact that some people subjectively claim they are in effect special.

 

[Secret Chief]

"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.

Post 178, then 189 et al. A roundabout I'm not getting back on.

 

[Alien826]

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.

If you hang around, you'll find it's not all that bad. You can post in DIR areas where you will meet people that agree with you. There are areas that are reserved for friendly "fun" stuff.

What to avoid is coming in with very fixed opinions in debate areas, because people will, you've guessed it, debate with you and it won't always be sweetness and light. I'll add that some people actually enjoy that atmosphere. We get those who come in to ridicule atheism, evolution and so on, and seem to invite angry responses. Some want to convert us, some are probably trolls. If you are in either category, you'll find a place here, but first grow a thick skin.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

If you hang around, you'll find it's not all that bad. You can post in DIR areas where you will meet people that agree with you. There are areas that are reserved for friendly "fun" stuff.

What to avoid is coming in with very fixed opinions in debate areas, because people will, you've guessed it, debate with you and it won't always be sweetness and light. I'll add that some people actually enjoy that atmosphere. We get those who come in to ridicule atheism, evolution and so on, and seem to invite angry responses. Some want to convert us, some are probably trolls. If you are in either category, you'll find a place here, but first grow a thick skin.

Lol, she's staff and has been on here for over a decade. Talking to her like she's a noob is really ridiculous. You're the noob.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

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.

Basically the Pope is obligated to impart the laws Given in the Bible as given by Jesus the Christ.

The world would be a lot better place if we chose to practice the Morals and Virtues given by Jesus Christ.

Regards Tony

 

[Alien826]

Lol, she's staff and has been on here for over a decade. Talking to her like she's a noob is really ridiculous. You're the noob.

Shoot, how did I miss that? I hope you see why I made that mistake. Apologies @Rival.

Nyah, nyah nyah, you're a noob too!

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

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

You've chosen to defend a position that you can expect to get a lot of condemnation for expressing.

This is my whole problem. This is being treated as though t's cut and dry hard science.

Your problem as I see it is that you hold an opinion that is unpopular with a lot of people who disagree with you, you want to express it anyway, and the response to that has caused you significant distress. You have choices to make. You can maintain the status quo if you feel strongly that your message should be heard, or you can modify your message if you don't.

I had a similar experience here recently. I consider my position on the Israeli-Hamas war reasonable, but a lot of people disagree and get pretty emotional about it, so I don't express any opinion in those discussions. It's not important to me that I do, so why subject myself to that reaction?

This issue is different. I DO feel strongly about this. Do you? If you do, you'll want to continue make your argument and accept whatever fallout ensues. If not, you'll probably modify your posting behavior.

This really is a cut-and-dried moral issue for me. Be kind. Be tolerant and loving. Be empathetic. Don't make gay lives harder to live.

Maybe you think that you already do that. Believers often couch religious bigotries in the language of love, as in I hate your sin but love you the sinner, or I'm concerned about your immortal soul. If so, you can benefit by seeing that that is not how you are received.

Anyway, I don't see you as a bad person. I think that you have accepted some bad dogma from a religion, and you are unhappy about what followed when you expressed it. I'm sorry that that has happened to you and I regret contributing to your unhappiness, but in my opinion, you're carrying water for a toxic worldview, and I feel that it is important for me to speak out. It breaks my heart to see what this religion does to those lives.

 

[McBell]

Basically the Pope is obligated to impart the laws Given in the Bible as given by Jesus the Christ.

The world would be a lot better place if we chose to practice the Morals and Virtues given by Jesus Christ.

Regards Tony

What does a slave run for these days?

 

[McBell]

Lol, she's staff and has been on here for over a decade. Talking to her like she's a noob is really ridiculous. You're the noob.

If noob is based on length of time as a member, you are also a noob.
As is she.
At least to someone who joined RF back in 2005...

 

[setarcos]

Why not? I think that everyone SHOULD be concerned with what offends others.

Being generally concerned that I will inevitably offend someone for something I did is a feeling all decent people should have.
Being specifically concerned with not offending everyone all the time would mean no dialogue at all could ever take place.
Feeling concern in the form of empathy or sympathy is what decent people do. Acting to alleviate that concern in all things is impossible, a waste of time, and does a disservice to the ones we are trying to have a dialogue with by lying to them and ourselves by belittling our own opinions for the sake of that lie. Of course a little bit of tact in dialogue goes a long way.

Disagree. Their feelings aren't legitimate.

Um...so your saying that the feelings of those who disagree aren't legitimate as apposed to your own feelings? I'd say if their feeling anything its a legitimate feeling for them.

If homosexuality is to be respected by all, we need to speak to the ones who don't respect a homosexual person's right to being loved and accepted by his or her community

And why shouldn't others who disagree with homosexual practices have those rights as well? And in what way must one respect what they have dissent against? I don't think any particular proclivity someone has must be respected. I think your misplacing what should be respected about another person.
I certainly don't respect, nor should I have to, a persons right to bestiality, to self mutilation, to sex in public, to hate speech, to using the bathroom where ever they wish, to obnoxious entitled behavior, to murder someone, to being uncivil, to indiscriminate drug use, to abuse their spouse, to total disregard of another's discomfort for the sake of ones own, to lie for personal gain....the list could go on and on and on. So how do we determine what behavior deserves respect?
It seems to me that homosexuals (my own experience that is) go out of their way to emphasize their sexuality over their humanity. Just look at the gaudy way so many pride parades display their preferences. Or the cartoonish characterization of femininity many homosexuals display. Might that be your "learned behavior" as well?
Can you give me an example of one other minority group who's parades, advertisements, actions, and arguments more often than not
emphasize what kind of sex they prefer to have over what kind of human being they are in consideration of the content of their character? Even the transgender group does better in that regard.
I can drum up respect for another decent human being. I don't need to know your sexual preferences to do that.
But push acceptance and respect of your particular kind of sexual fetishist proclivities on me and you've got an argument.

What some of us including me are doing here is pushing back against institutionalized homophobia. We want to make such opinions disappear.

I'm sorry...but I'm afraid your performing a Sisyphean task there. As long as living natures sexual proclivity towards propagation and sustainment of life exists and as long as an attitude of dismissing the feelings of others in favor of your own exists your not going to be successful. Your approaching the whole idea of acceptance wrong if you think that accusing every dissent of homophobia and hate mongering will result in progress towards your goals in this endeavor. The only thing your likely to accomplish is alienating even those who would have been your allies. Dialogue is what's needed not forced acceptance. And with that dialogue comes inevitable offence.
The "institutionalized homophobia" you speak of is a ridiculous label applied as a result of the homosexual's total fixation on not being offended.
So some bakeries won't bake a wedding cake for a homosexuals wedding because of their personal convictions. Some institutions won't admit homosexuals into their ranks. Some stores prefer not to sell to homosexuals. Some families prefer not to view movies that include homosexual scenes. Your not going to change any of those convictions by forcing respect upon them or labeling their every action homophobic as if that title is a testament to their deplorably ignorant character. Your not gonna change anything by destroying the rights of one to ensure the rights of another.
I'm barred from doing a lot of things that I'd like to do because of someone else's preferences and convictions. I have too much money, I have too little money, I'm the wrong race, the wrong sex, the wrong height, weight, prefer the wrong foods, wrong religion, wrong world view, etc.
I don't demand what I see as my rights be respected by destroying someone else's rights nor do I dwell upon it. If I wish something to change I'm more likely to change it through enticement rather than through force if I wish it to be substantively successful.
Your more likely to get somewhere by asking them why, even though you think you know the answer. Why do these people not like homosexual behavior? Why don't these people take into consideration homosexual desires when formulating their desired rights?
IF dissent against homosexuals is merely learned, can I prove that, how is it learned, why is that learning sustained in society, and what is the best path to change that learning? Again, I'm pretty sure the last isn't best changed by labeling all dissent as homophobic as if homophobes are ignorant degenerates.

That begins with making them uncomfortable to express. We won't change too many of those minds, but they will generate fewer copies of themselves the more they are intimidated to express such opinions.

If this were true you wouldn't have the explosion of public declarations of homosexuality that we see today. Seems everyone's rushing to come out of the closet accompanied with stories of persecution nowadays.
The world is more divided than its ever been. Its not getting better its getting worse. I think part of the problem is the attitude that suppression of opinion gets rid of that opinion. What ends up happening is grouping and entrenchment of like opinion instead of communication with unlike opinion. The end result is often verbally or physically violent interaction with no productive progress being made.

 

[setarcos]

That's how it's proceeding with racism as well. We don't cure racists. We replace them with people that have never been made to hate in the first place. These ideas, like scientific paradigms, evolve one funeral at a time.

I don't agree. You’re not going to eliminate racism by magically disappearing racists. That's because people misidentify or ignore ALL the factors that keeps racism alive most of which is insidious. One of those factors is that many of those who feel racially persecuted are the ones that ensure it is an issue that won’t go away. Unintentionally or not, they breathe life into racism.

They want revenge not rightful equality. That revenge often takes on an air of superiority and entitlement above the equality that they say they want. In other words, they don't want equality. They want to be the ones that are the suppressors rather than the ones being suppressed, the end result of which is the same only flipped. That's not very productive.
Speaking from personal experience and setting aside mentioning any particular race, I've witnessed at least 5 firings within the last year in which an accusation of racial discrimination was made. Never mind every single one of those people were fired for legitimate reasons which was ONLY concerned with job performance. Racism has become an excuse for despicable behavior which only serves, again, to alienate those that would otherwise be an ally against racism. Often times the persecuted are their own worst enemy.
Racism will stick around as long as we fixate on only getting rid of racists instead of the sources of racism.

Doesn't this contradict what you just wrote about soliciting these people's sympathy? That's not going to happen for the reasons you just gave.

I don't think so. Solicitation of sympathy is a bit different from demanding conformity to ones wishes through the forced sacrifice of someone else's. It’s my understanding that those with homosexual inclinations are free to be Roman Catholic as long as they conform to the requirements in at least attempting not to practice homosexual acts. If they don't wish to conform then they are free not to be Roman Catholics. I think Roman Catholicism frowns on adultery and unmarried sex as well. I can imagine that if those people who practice such things demanded that it be made acceptable in Catholic practice they would be expelled as well.

If anyone is forced to be Christian -Roman Catholic or not- then whoever is attempting that force has failed miserably in understanding Christianity. I have many desires that I should not indulge in if I aim to be a good Christian. Why should homosexuals be exempted?

outsides have no duty to make the Pope or his adherents comfortable.

I absolutely agree. By definition "worldly behavior" by Catholic criteria has no duty to make and what's more is expected not to make the Pope or his adherents comfortable.

If they know that you disapprove of who they love or have sex with, then you are seen as functionally homophobic even if not explicitly so.

I have no qualms with who they love. There are many men in my life that I love. That's quite different from equating the love of another with having sex with them.

But here we go again....every dissention is labeled homophobic to the point of being meaningless.
I've disagreed with you many times...does that make me "It Aint Necessarily So" phobic?

They object to what I am, what I believe, and how I live.

Beliefs can change. You are more than just what you believe. Theists may disparage a particular belief you have but If you equate the entirety of your life with a single belief -if that's possible- then, yes, in disparaging that specific belief then they are disparaging your life as well. I don't think life really works that way though. That aside...you must also accuse yourself if you accuse others of such things. So what's your point?

If I feel that way about the faithful who have learned to be bigoted against atheists, I imagine your gay friends feel the same way, and I doubt that they are friends.

They continue to be friends because they don't make acceptance of their sexual preferences the pivotal determinant of that friendship.

When that becomes an issue I imagine it would be hard for the friendship to survive without dialogue and acceptance that that dialogue will inevitably be offensive in nature.

Nothing. Dissent and disagreement with a gay person being him- or herself is homophobia.

And that point makes the term a bit useless. If everything is homophobic to a homosexual who has been disagreed with then it’s fair to say that everything is phobic to anyone who has been disagreed with. Which makes anyone who debates anything with anyone else phobic so what exactly is the term supposed to imply? Is it supposed to be some magical talisman that wards off ignorance and discrimination by making the label a derogatory statement about the perpetrator? If everyone is equally guilty of some dissention then no one is any guiltier of anything than anyone else. So WHAT IS THE POINT?

 

[Quintessence]

You've chosen to defend a position that you can expect to get a lot of condemnation for expressing.

Hmm... just like homosexuals (or basically any human group in existence) have chosen to defend a position that they can expect to get a lot of condemnation for expressing. Funny thing, that.

There's a reason why I made this thread today:

https://www.religiousforums.com/threads/what-religious-cultural-tolerance-really-looks-like.277988/

 

[Rival]

You've chosen to defend a position that you can expect to get a lot of condemnation for expressing.

Your problem as I see it is that you hold an opinion that is unpopular with a lot of people who disagree with you, you want to express it anyway, and the response to that has caused you significant distress. You have choices to make. You can maintain the status quo if you feel strongly that your message should be heard, or you can modify your message if you don't.

I had a similar experience here recently. I consider my position on the Israeli-Hamas war reasonable, but a lot of people disagree and get pretty emotional about it, so I don't express any opinion in those discussions. It's not important to me that I do, so why subject myself to that reaction?

This issue is different. I DO feel strongly about this. Do you? If you do, you'll want to continue make your argument and accept whatever fallout ensues. If not, you'll probably modify your posting behavior.

This really is a cut-and-dried moral issue for me. Be kind. Be tolerant and loving. Be empathetic. Don't make gay lives harder to live.

Maybe you think that you already do that. Believers often couch religious bigotries in the language of love, as in I hate your sin but love you the sinner, or I'm concerned about your immortal soul. If so, you can benefit by seeing that that is not how you are received.

Anyway, I don't see you as a bad person. I think that you have accepted some bad dogma from a religion, and you are unhappy about what followed when you expressed it. I'm sorry that that has happened to you and I regret contributing to your unhappiness, but in my opinion, you're carrying water for a toxic worldview, and I feel that it is important for me to speak out. It breaks my heart to see what this religion does to those lives.

I came on this thread to explain that the Pope made a mistake in a second language and that a word he used had connotations he didn't understand likely due to age.

Instead of saying 'Oh alright, that clears that up,' the same faces who enjoy disparaging Catholicism continued to drag the topic out to berate the RCC, the Pope, and individuals whom they deem 'homophobic'. The Pope's error was acknowledged as such, and yet still the thread descended into 'The RCC is an evil homophobic institution and so are those who agree with it,' type thread.

All they had to do was accept the Pope messed up and move on. Instead, as usual, there was a dog-pile on people who agree that SSM and so on are wrong and agree with the RCC's position.

That's the problem.

 

[Secret Chief]

came on this thread to explain that the Pope made a mistake in a second language and that a word he used had connotations he didn't understand likely due to age.

Instead of saying 'Oh alright, that clears that up,'

Tut tut everyone doesn't agree with your take on things. How rude.
If your posts didn't have that patronising attitude you might not get as wound up or feel the need to tell people to basically shut up.
Your opinion is just that - it's yours and it's subjective. Realise the world isn't going to just gratefully accept your wisdom. We aren't all here sitting at your feet waiting for you to dispense it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I think you have conflated some things.

I agree we should not bully anyone for any reason, but I explained to you that where I am the Church is not advocating this kind of bullying and is actively against it, so yes I agree with the Church(es).

The proof of the pudding is in the eating, and the Catholic Church is a diverse organization. Aspects of it advocate against bullying, while other aspects of it tactitly - or not-so-tacitly - encourage it and a few engage in bullying directly.

I do not agree with SSM, so I agree. There is nuance here as I don't believe lack of SSM is intolerant.

Prohibiting same-sex marriage is literally intolerant. Not tolerating same-sex marriages is the whole point of it.

The tolerant approach is the one we have in many western countries now: we don't prohibit same-sex marriage but also don't force anyone to take part in them. Same-sex couples can do their thing; anti-LGBTQ churches can also do their thing.

My views are fairly standard Christian views, but your view of Christianity seems to be very American and I don't recognize it, as I've said before.

Which is weird, since I'm not American.

The Church you describe is not the Church I agree with. Where I am, no Church is interfering with healthcare, judges, or anything else.

Britons like to complain about the NHS, but one positive aspect of it is that you won't get denied healthcare based on someone else's beliefs.

In Ontario's system, even though hospitals are funded by the province, they're arms-length from the government and many are operated by Catholic organizations and are free to deny normal medical care based on their beliefs.

When my ex and I went to a fertility specialist, the first thing she told us was that because her clinic was attached to a Catholic hospital, IVF wouldn't be an option.

Today, there are two large-ish hospitals that serve my area. One is Catholic, one is secular. When someone gets rushed to a hospital in an ambulance, it's a 50-50 chance they'll end up at the Catholic hospital and be denied MAID, if it ever comes to that.

Priests in the C of E have been allowed gay civil unions since 2005. So I am not seeing the apparent intolerance or bullying here.

Since we were talking about the Catholic Church, I'm not sure what the relevance the C of E would be.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I came on this thread to explain that the Pope made a mistake in a second language and that a word he used had connotations he didn't understand likely due to age.

Instead of saying 'Oh alright, that clears that up,' the same faces who enjoy disparaging Catholicism continued to drag the topic out to berate the RCC, the Pope, and individuals whom they deem 'homophobic'. The Pope's error was acknowledged as such, and yet still the thread descended into 'The RCC is an evil homophobic institution and so are those who agree with it,' type thread.

The Pope committed two errors:

- he expressed anti-gay ideas.
- he used offensive terminology to express those ideas.

You've been arguing that we should overlook the second one; fine. You haven’t given any real reason to overlook the first. Instead, you've just argued that since you agree with his point, it shouldn't be considered an error.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Perhaps non-Brits, like you, are not aware that the UK Parliament has up to 26 members there simply by courtesy of them being bishops (known as the Lords Spiritual). Democracy in action folks!

The whole upper house is unelected. Bit disingenuous imo to single out the Bishops, whose record of political involvement in general tends to lean towards the liberal left.

 

[Rival]

The proof of the pudding is in the eating, and the Catholic Church is a diverse organization. Aspects of it advocate against bullying, while other aspects of it tactitly - or not-so-tacitly - encourage it and a few engage in bullying directly.



Prohibiting same-sex marriage is literally intolerant. Not tolerating same-sex marriages is the whole point of it.

The tolerant approach is the one we have in many western countries now: we don't prohibit same-sex marriage but also don't force anyone to take part in them. Same-sex couples can do their thing; anti-LGBTQ churches can also do their thing.



Which is weird, since I'm not American.



Britons like to complain about the NHS, but one positive aspect of it is that you won't get denied healthcare based on someone else's beliefs.

In Ontario's system, even though hospitals are funded by the province, they're arms-length from the government and many are operated by Catholic organizations and are free to deny normal medical care based on their beliefs.

When my ex and I went to a fertility specialist, the first thing she told us was that because her clinic was attached to a Catholic hospital, IVF wouldn't be an option.

Today, there are two large-ish hospitals that serve my area. One is Catholic, one is secular. When someone gets rushed to a hospital in an ambulance, it's a 50-50 chance they'll end up at the Catholic hospital and be denied MAID, if it ever comes to that.




Since we were talking about the Catholic Church, I'm not sure what the relevance the C of E would be.

You are American. You are on the American continent. That's what I referred to. There's no other term for it that I know.

 

[Rival]

The Pope committed two errors:

- he expressed anti-gay ideas.
- he used offensive terminology to express those ideas.

You've been arguing that we should overlook the second one; fine. You haven’t given any real reason to overlook the first. Instead, you've just argued that since you agree with his point, it shouldn't be considered an error.

You know the RCC's position on this and yet every time it's reconfirmed you want to argue about it, then. That seems rather inane.

Just accept the RCC is unaligned with your beliefs.