Pope demonstrates colossal ignorance and hypocrisy

[trotsky]

OK yeah so it's my headline. Sue me.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/pope-francis-religious-fundamentalism

"A delicate balance is required to combat violence perpetrated in the name of a religion, an ideology or an economic system, while also safeguarding religious freedom, intellectual freedom and individual freedoms. But there is another temptation which we must especially guard against: the simplistic reductionism which sees only good or evil; or, if you will, the righteous and sinners," Pope Francis said. "The contemporary world, with its open wounds which affect so many of our brothers and sisters, demands that we confront every form of polarization which would divide it into these two camps."

"the simplistic reductionism which sees only good or evil"?

So popey, when you said that marriage equality was "a move of the Father of Lies who wishes to confuse and deceive the children of God" - was that simplistic reductionism?

Or how about when you said that gender theory was "ideological colonization" much like that which "was done by the dictators of the last century. They came with their own doctrine -- think of the Balilla, think of the Hitler Youth." - what was that?

A hateful bigot AND a flaming hypocrite. Great guy.

[Surya Gayatri]

1. "Hateful" is not a qualifier I would apply to Pope Francis.

Blinkered by tradition, burdened by centuries of convention, yes. Hateful? No.

I do NOT perceive of him as an inherently spiteful or malevolent man.

Would unrec, if DU3 still had that feature.

[Goblinmonger]

2. So what does this statement about gay marriage make him?

"a move of the Father of Lies who wishes to confuse and deceive the children of God"

Does that sound loving to you?

[Surya Gayatri]

4. Did you read the text of my post?

"Blinkered by tradition, burdened by centuries of convention"

...is what that statement makes him, IMHO. I do NOT believe that he "hates" LGBT people or marriage equality.

In the context of his training and background, he erroneously considers these social realities as foreign to the tenants of Christ's teachings.

Wrong, very wrong, yes. Hateful? No.

[Goblinmonger]

5. So how do we know when someone is a bigot

and when someone is just "blinkered by tradition"? And what's the damn difference?

[Surya Gayatri]

9. "And what's the damn difference?"

The very "hatefulness" and malevolence which the OP ascribes to Pope Francis in an seemingly unwarranted way.

IMHO, one may be hidebound and blinkered without malevolent intent. Misguided ignorance does NOT automatically equate to malice.

[PeaceNikki]

12. Do you understand what sub-forum that you are posting in at the moment?

Just wondering.

[Surya Gayatri]

16. Do you mean "Atheists & Agnostics"? Yes, I am aware. I happen to be an agnostic, FWIW.

[mr blur]

76. EVERYBODY'S an agnostic. Nobody knows. So what?

[PeaceNikki]

7. Saying that gay couples raising children is child abuse is fucking hateful

[Surya Gayatri]

10. Firstly, I would direct you to post N° 3...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/123046178#post3

Secondly, if by using the epithet "hateful", your anger is assauged and you are in some way mollified, have at it.

As I have said in all of my posts in this thread, my opinion is that misguided ignorance does not necessarily equate to malice.

[PeaceNikki]

11. And I will direct to to post # 4

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1230&pid=46189

He said it's child abuse. Child abuse. When two people who are in love raise a child with love. Calling that child abuse simply because they don't have different genitals is hate. I don't care how you spin it, it's hate. Hate driven by misguided ignorance is still hate.

Hate.

[Surya Gayatri]

13. Have at it...whatever it takes to mollify your obvious rage.

[PeaceNikki]

14. Do you understand what sub-forum that you are posting in at the moment?

[Surya Gayatri]

20. Please see post N°16, where I've already replied to this question.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/123046178#post16

[PeaceNikki]

15. Yes, it fills me with rage that he calls gays raising children child abuse.

And it should fill everyone with rage. It's shameful and inexcusable.

[Surya Gayatri]

17. Rage and fury are very personal and subjective emotions. Saying that any pronouncement

should "fill everyone with rage" is a dictate to which one may or may not be willing to acquiesce.

[PeaceNikki]

23. OK, I will change that to say that it should fill decent human beings who have a moral compass

with rage.

[Surya Gayatri]

26. Notwithstanding a fairly well-honed moral compass, I am not enraged.

Disturbed and dissatisfied, yes. Fulminating with fury, no.

[trotsky]

28. We used to live next to a lesbian couple with two kids.

They were (and still are) WONDERFUL parents.

The thought that anyone would say that loving home was abusive makes me very angry. Not "disturbed" or "dissatisfied" but legitimately angry that someone is promoting that kind of hatred against decent human beings who love each other and their kids.

[Surya Gayatri]

34. Anger--How if affects people. FYI

http://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/bhcv2/bhcarticles.nsf/pages/Anger_how_it_affects_people?open

Summary

Anger is a powerful emotion. Uncontrolled anger may cause increased anxiety, high blood pressure and headaches, and trigger fights or abuse.

Health problems with anger

The constant flood of stress chemicals and associated metabolic changes that go with recurrent unmanaged anger can eventually cause harm to many different systems of the body.

Some of the short and long-term health problems that have been linked to unmanaged anger include:

headache
digestion problems, such as abdominal pain
insomnia
increased anxiety
depression
high blood pressure
skin problems, such as eczema
heart attack
stroke.

[trotsky]

36. OK, I see you've abandoned any attempt to logically defend your position...

and have moved to attacking me personally for "uncontrolled anger."

Great. Way to set the example.

[Surya Gayatri]

38. No "personal" attack intended or implied. Simply a medically substantiated

exposé on the effects of anger on the body.

[trotsky]

39. The Upside of Anger: 6 Psychological Benefits of Getting Mad

http://www.spring.org.uk/2012/03/the-upside-of-anger-6-psychological-benefits-of-getting-mad.php?PageSpeed=noscript

Anger is a powerful motivator and not necessarily a bad thing. If you don't get angry that a person is preaching hatred against other human beings, I think you have a problem. Not me.

[Surya Gayatri]

41. I personally try to transform anger into other less destructive sentiments. Not good for

the blood pressure and stomach acid.

[trotsky]

49. Well, at any rate, you've abandoned trying to defend your position,

so I guess that's that. Embrace the bigot. I won't be joining you.

[Surya Gayatri]

51. I do NOT embrace him. I respectfully demur at detesting him, however.

I have not insisted or even requested that you "join" me in not hating. Quite simply, I've steadfastly maintained my own personal refusal to hate.

[trotsky]

53. Good for you!

You've established you are the superior human being on this thread, and who knows, perhaps the planet! Maybe you could go teach the pope to quit bashing gay people? Thanks much!

[PeaceNikki]

54. This post sums up the tone of the subthread perfectly.

The arrogance in which the poster waltzed into this thread is mind-numbing.

People are venting, ffs. Get off your high horse.

[trotsky]

56. It bothers me A LOT that this pope is out there using his bully pulpit to spread ignorance and hate.

Just like all the popes before him.

I don't think I should have to apologize for getting angry when my LGBTQ allies and friends are disparaged and attacked.

[PeaceNikki]

58. Exactly. Or made to feel like you're an unreasonable brute.

That really bothered me. I have AMAZING gay friends who are fanfuckingtastic parents and the idea that he calls that abuse does make me filled with rage. IT brings tears to my eyes.

This shit is still happening, right now, in the gold old USA and this fucker is propagating the hate towards gays:
http://gothamist.com/2015/09/19/mother_daughter_describe_anti-gay_a.php

Yeah, rage and fury is what I feel and I do not appreciate being talked down to like I am the asshole here.

[Surya Gayatri]

60. No apology required. Your emotions are your emotions. Why apologize?

In the same vein, my emotions are my own, and I politely demur at hating.

[Surya Gayatri]

61. I claim moral superiority to no-one. I'm surprised that you would cede that position to me.

I simply do my best to do right as my conscience dictates--or in other terms, to lead a dharmic life.

That being said, I sincerely doubt that the Pope would find my views on morality or right living to be of interest.

[Lordquinton]

64. Not only does the man say gays with children is child abuse

He endorces actual real "It's ok to hit them, just not the face" child abuse, with added instruction on how not to get caught doing it.

Plus you somehow got confused from saying the Pope is hateful (which is a light term in this circumstance) to a personal hate thing.

What actions would be required for someone to be considered "hateful?"

[Warren Stupidity]

40. So basically your argument is that the pope is

an ignorant idiot and thus should be given a pass on his utterances of hateful bigotry.

Do I have that right?

[Surya Gayatri]

42. I prefer "hidebound" and "blinkered". Your particular lexical choice would not be mine.

No "pass" has been or should be given. I do not subscribe to the RC's doctrine or dogma. I am not and never have been a Roman Catholic and I am not a practising Christian.

That said, I do not hate Pope Francis for his misguided utterances.

[Warren Stupidity]

62. I don't hate him either. I find many of his utterances to be hateful bigotry.

I refuse to believe that he should get a pass out of ignorance. He's a fucking jesuit. They are never ignorant.

[Surya Gayatri]

70. No-one is giving anyone a "pass", as I said up-thread.

One can know one's chosen subject matter with encyclopedic scope, and still be utterly ignorant of alternative realities.

[Lordquinton]

63. Don't bring the "angry atheist" tone policing in here

It's not welcome.

[Surya Gayatri]

69. I'm not 'angry' and do not wish to become so. OTOH, whatever emotions others

choose to experience is strictly their affair. Collective consciousness notwithstanding, emotions are very subjective and personal things. It is difficult, if not impossible, to "make" someone feel something, with the exception of natural or trained manipulators.

My personal choice is not to hate and thus to avoid anger's very deleterious effects on my health--both physical and mental.

This has not always been an easy choice to honour. Nevertheless, the dividends have been definite over the long term.

[PeaceNikki]

73. He said "tone policing". Meaning you came in here trying to paint US as hateful

because we're fucking fed up with Wonderpope being painted as some hero to the left.

You have repeatedly done so and you are perceived as thinking you have some moral superiority.

[Surya Gayatri]

75. 'Perceptions' of tone are extremely subjective. The perceived 'painting' of anyone as anything

is frequently in the eye of the beholder. I do not consider you 'hateful' anymore than I perceive the Pope as malicious, malevolent or spiteful.

I simply demur before the implied invitation to detest the man.

[Lordquinton]

77. That's not what I'm talking about

I'm talking about coming into the A&A safe haven and accusing others of being angry, because that's a long running attack on minority groups to keep them in place. Go to the their AA group and tell them they're angry if you still don't understand.

[Surya Gayatri]

79. There is no such 'accusation' of anger against anyone. In numerous

posts in this thread, people have said:

"filled (me) with rage..."

"legitimately angry that someone is promoting that kind of hatred"

"getting angry"

"filled with rage"

"rage and fury is what I feel"

Anger and rage may indeed be appropriate responses for some people in some cases.

As I've steadfastly contended from my first post here, however, my personal choice is not to hate and thus to avoid anger's very deleterious effects on my health--both physical and mental.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/123046178#post69

[PeaceNikki]

80. You introduced the word "rage" in this thread in a very patronizing and arrogant manner.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/123046178#post13

[Surya Gayatri]

81. And, you then embraced it as your own with alacrity.

"Anger & rage": a semantic pairing often used for rhetorical effect.

"Patronizing & arrogant" would be another such pairing.

[PeaceNikki]

82. I recall having incredibly pleasant interactions with you during the Charlie Hebdo massacre

Today I find myself annoyed by you.

I'm done with you on this shit.

See ya.

[Surya Gayatri]

83. Nice chat...

[Lordquinton]

84. You brought it in first

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1230&pid=46191

Post 10

Secondly, if by using the epithet "hateful", your anger is assauged and you are in some way mollified, have at it.

You really don't seem to get this, Maybe you should do some more reflection on why people might have strong feelings about a respected giving instructions on how to beat children without being caught.

it seems like you're no where near as far along on your emotional journey as you think you are.

[Surya Gayatri]

85. I can only bow before your conspicuously superincumbent sagacity.

"Maybe you should do some more reflection on why people might have strong feelings about a respected (SIC) giving instructions on how to beat children without being caught.

it seems like you're no where near as far along on your emotional journey as you think you are."

I am awed and humbled and will endeavor henceforth to amend my manifestly misguided metaphysical beliefs.

[mr blur]

86. Are you a pompous idiot? I only ask because you "sound" like one.

[Surya Gayatri]

87. Pomposity is as pomposity does, mr blur.

Read the post to which my reply was directed.

Pompous self-importance is a wide, two-laned avenue.

[Lordquinton]

88. Given this whole thread

I can't help but think that you're not here in good faith.

[Surya Gayatri]

89. Feel free to think what you will, Lord. My faith is my own and very personal.

Good or not--my judgement is purely subjective.

[Lordquinton]

90. Amazing

You can dish it out, but you certainly can't take it.

[Surya Gayatri]

91. Take what, exactly? My duck feathers are fairly waterproof...

[Lordquinton]

92. If you say so

Whatever helps you sleep at night.

[Surya Gayatri]

93. I sleep like a 'tree stump', as my French compatriots would say.

[mr blur]

95. Well, you certainly appear to think like one.

[Surya Gayatri]

96. Oh, là là! What wit! Cuts like the proverbial rapier!

[trotsky]

97. If nothing else, you do seem to have an obsessive need to get the last word.

Now are smileys a sign of spiritual maturity or not?

[Surya Gayatri]

98. In the distant place and time where my character was formed, it was deemed

the least of social refinements to respond when addressed directly.

Certainly ordinary language has no claim to be the last word, if there is such a thing. -- J L Austin

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._L._Austin

John Langshaw "J. L." Austin (26 March 1911 – 8 February 1960) was a British philosopher of language and leading proponent of ordinary language philosophy, perhaps best-known for developing the theory of speech acts.

[beam me up scottie]

19. I just rec'd it in your honour.

And fuck the pope.

Sideways.

He's a homophobic, misogynistic bigot.

Anyone who deprives others of their human rights is hateful.

[Surya Gayatri]

21. Well, good on you! LOL!

Now, if only you could "beam me up", too!

[beam me up scottie]

32. You wouldn't like where I'd beam you to.

No room for pope apologists on my starship.

[Surya Gayatri]

33. Nevertheless, bon voyage! Boldly go...etc.

[PeaceNikki]

22. No, no, no. They're just MISGUIDED

[beam me up scottie]

24. There's a lot of "misguided" people on DU.

I really don't like seeing them in here, though.

Nice of them to drop in and school us on what is and is not hateful.

[trotsky]

25. hateful

adjective
1. arousing hate or deserving to be hated: the hateful oppression of dictators.
2. unpleasant; dislikable; distasteful: She found her domestic chores hateful.
3. full of or expressing hate; malignant; malevolent: a hateful denunciatory speech.

Your loving pope said that homosexual couples adopting children is CHILD ABUSE.

Explain to me how that is not hateful? Child abuse is terrible, I certainly hate it. That's the imagery he chose to use. HE CHOSE.

I stand by hateful.

[Surya Gayatri]

29. By my reading of the OP, it seemed that the third definition was the

intended one, and the one with which I took issue.

"malignant; malevolent"--two qualifiers that I personally would not assign to Pope Francis.

[trotsky]

31. Frank believes in hell.

He believes that souls in a state of grave sin will go to hell.

He believes that homosexuality is a grave sin.

Add it all up. He's fundamentally no different than Fred Phelps was on this issue, he just puts on a friendly smile and doesn't wave the offensive signs.

You can embrace the bigot all you want. I won't.

[Surya Gayatri]

37. Yes, "hidebound and blinkered", but not automatically "malevolent" with intent.

OTOH, Fred Phelps' intent was manifestly to inflict as much anguish and pain as possible.

As all great philosophers will concur, "intention" is the motor of malice.

[jeff47]

3. Use him where he is helpful. Oppose him where he is not.

So he's helpful on climate change and economics.

He's obviously not helpful on LGBT and "women's issues".

So use him when he is a useful tool, and oppose him when he is not.

[PeaceNikki]

8. he's really not, though.

You cannot be taken seriously on climate change or poverty without bringing population/birth control into the equation.

You just can't.

[jeff47]

18. He's not as useful there, but still can be useful.

The way he's useful on climate change is to get some people to actually care about climate change.

Once that door is open, it can be easier to work on steps to fix it. He won't help reduce population growth, so we'll have to.

[trotsky]

27. "Use him" how, exactly?

If we as liberals dismiss his authority on LGBTQ, women, reproductive issues, etc., then why can't conservatives simply dismiss his authority on climate change and economics just as easily?

[jeff47]

30. If he gets some people to start caring about economic issues

then that is helpful.

If we as liberals dismiss his authority on LGBTQ, women, reproductive issues, etc., then why can't conservatives simply dismiss his authority on climate change and economics just as easily?

It's not zero-sum.

Different majorities will have to be brought to bear to solve these different problems. So use something like, "Even the Pope tells you to care about the poor" when you're fighting for the poor. It's not an endorsement of everything that comes from him, but still can be useful in getting some groups to change from prosperity gospel-lite to supporting efforts to reduce poverty.

Those people who were just convinced to help fight poverty will not be convinced to fight for LGBT rights or reproductive issues. So the pope becomes irrelevant - they already oppose, and the pope opposing doesn't change their mind. To advance those causes, we will have to assemble a different pool of people.

For example, actual libertarians might like "Get government out of our bedrooms" while never supporting economic reform efforts.

[trotsky]

35. And if he gets some people to oppose abortion rights? Cool too?

My point is that to pretend he is any kind of authority on ANYTHING other than the dogma of the RCC is a mistake.

(And by ruling out reproductive rights, he betrays a total ignorance and glaring insincerity on TRULY understanding how we address poverty and the environment.)

[jeff47]

44. He isn't changing dogma to oppose abortion rights. He's following existing dogma.

The people who follow him already oppose abortion rights. He's not going to switch a significant number from pro-choice to anti-choice.

[trotsky]

46. "The people who follow him already oppose abortion rights"?

You mean Catholics? Because no, not all of them do.

But if you disregard his ability to change minds on that issue, then why do you think he will help with climate change and poverty, especially when he rules out one of the major factors right from the start?

[jeff47]

47. It was shorthand, not an exhaustive statement.

But if you disregard his ability to change minds on that issue, then why do you think he will help with climate change and poverty

Because the same dogma that causes him and his followers to oppose abortion should cause him and his followers to help with climate change and poverty.

[trotsky]

48. Now you're not making sense.

"Because the same dogma that causes him and his followers to oppose abortion should cause him and his followers to help with climate change and poverty."

Say what?!? I just pointed how his followers DON'T all agree with him on abortion. If they are free to ignore him on that, then right-wingers are equally free to ignore him on climate and poverty.

[jeff47]

50. Right-wingers aren't going to be convinced by anyone.

So they aren't the target.

There are christians who are suddenly noticing the stuff in the Bible about helping the poor and not worshiping wealth, because papering over those has been used to manipulate them. That is helpful in fighting poverty.

These same christians were already well aware that abortion is evil, EEEEEEEEEEVIILLLLLLLL, because that has been used to manipulate them for years.

The change in the first paragraph helps. The second paragraph has no change. The fact that most catholics ignore his demands on birth control doesn't make the first paragraph go away.

[trotsky]

55. Then what the fuck do we need the pope for?

Right-wingers are the ones fighting action against climate change! Everyone else is already on the right page! So again what the hell do we need the wonderpope for?

There are christians who are suddenly noticing the stuff in the Bible about helping the poor and not worshiping wealth, because papering over those has been used to manipulate them.

Are there? Really? How many? Do you have any facts to back up these statements? Studies? Surveys?

You are saying multiple contradictory things. Accept the pope's authority and help, but don't accept his authority or help. He can change minds, but not the minds that matter. And so forth.

[jeff47]

57. They aren't going to listen to us.

We're evil satanic atheists. The Pope, on the other hand, isn't.

Everyone else is already on the right page!

Except they aren't all on the right page. There's lots who aren't particularly interested in doing anything to fix it right now. Hopefully we'll be able to use the Pope's prodding to push some of those people into a more active role.

Are there? Really? How many? Do you have any facts to back up these statements? Studies? Surveys?

Yeah, it's not like you only needed to be conscious the last 30 years to notice prosperity gospel growing among the religious.

Again, hopefully we'll be able to use the Pope's prodding to get more movement.

Accept the pope's authority and help, but don't accept his authority or help. He can change minds, but not the minds that matter. And so forth.

That's because you keep insisting I am speaking in absolutes. I am not.

On some issues, the Pope's authority can help us. On other issues, it can not.
On some issues, he can change minds because he's saying something different than what has been said the last few decades. On other issues, he's repeating the tired rhetoric that isn't helpful.

This isn't an all-or-nothing situation.

[trotsky]

59. But you just said they won't listen to him either!

I give up. Have the last word.

[jeff47]

66. You're clumping people together who do not agree.

You will not get a fundamentalist baptist to listen to the pope.

Fortunately, we don't have to convince only fundamentalist baptists.

[Lordquinton]

65. He is not saying anything different than the last however many popes have said

He does not vary from Benedict on any issue, he just doesn't look like Emperor Palpatine, and wasn't the actual grand Inquisitor.

Shall I bold it? He's not saying anything different from the last Pope, he just has better PR.

[jeff47]

68. Except Benedict and the previous popes didn't have this focus on poverty.

Instead they spouted the occasional platitude.

The guy's no saint. Half to three quarters of his positions are awful. The other half to one quarter can be useful.

[PeaceNikki]

74. Benedict wrote books railing against capitalism and poverty.

He didn't get the attention Pope McDreamy gets, but their views are identical.

[Lordquinton]

78. But his views are identical

Half to three quarters is awful, and the other half to quarter is base level human decency (Unless you're a woman, a child, or gay)

The point is that he's not changing anything, he's just trying to focus people away from the bad stuff, until he moves to make actual changes, he's really not an ally you'd want, cause even in his white house address he brought along his hate speech.

Maybe if he performed a gay marriage we could revisit this, but until then he's a poison pill.

[Cartoonist]

6. Had to rec this because of P1

Jesus never taught homophobia.

[yodermon]

43. sounds like he's evolving on the issue..time will tell. or maybe it will take the next pope or two.

If the RCC is ever to cease being a hate-group, it will be via changes like these.

Is he in actual fact a hypocrite? almost certainly, but who the fuck cares. If his clout can move church members/policy in a more progressive direction, then good. Don't make it about "him"; cult of personality cuts both ways. Hating on him is about as useful as swooning over him (and yes there is tons of swooning this week, granted).

[Surya Gayatri]

45. "Hating on him is about as useful as swooning over him"...

[trotsky]

52. I am allowed to voice my opinions about anti-gay bigots.

And I will continue to do so.

[Lordquinton]

67. Calling out his bigotry does not equivicate to hate

He has made approximately zero changes, and has done less than past popes have to fight the abuse issues within the church.

That people care more about protecting his image than exposing his hate is sad.

Also, remember where you are, this is a place to vent about this very issue. If you perceive any anger, then realize it is more than justified.

[LostOne4Ever]

72. What changes? He hasn't changed a damn thing!

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]And as he fools more and more people back into the church it makes getting actual change through HARDER and LESS likely. Not the other way around.

Only by starving the beast of members till it hurts so bad will they EVER change.

Applauding this man is self defeating![/font]

[LostOne4Ever]

71. Praising the enemy only give our "so called" allies bad ideas

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]For instance, this thread in which someone is suggesting that we throw women and all minorities under the bus:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7204545

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]Nope. I refuse to accept that shit! And that is part of the reason why I am gonna keep on calling the pope out again and again and again![/font]

[mountain grammy]

94. My fundamentalist niece posted this:

"I don't care that America is welcoming the pope. I'll be glad when America welcomes Jesus." Jeeeeeeesus!

of course she got many "amens" for that.

It's scary as fuck to me when the pope sounds like the "sane" one in the room. Religions are desperate to grow their flocks, whether with fear and hatred or love and acceptance depends on the which way the wind is blowing, but the ultimate goal is the same; fill the pews and the coffers and kill us with kindness or just outright kill us.