Pope now resigns!

[Balerion]

Did Manson run a multinational organization that ran charities in every nation that fed, educated, housed and provided medical care for the poor?

Does the Pope, or was it already in place when he got there and autonomous to the point where he really doesn't actually "run" it in that sense?

If you're going to nitpick that Manson didn't help the amounts of people that Catholic charities do, be fair: Manson didn't have the church's resources, either. And why so quiet on the fact that the church's teachings have lead to numerous deaths as well as the pain and suffering of countless children? Oh, right, you already said you don't agree with all of their teachings. But you won't spare the same ink to hold the Pope and church responsible that you will in kissing the Pope's ass.

 

[spidergoat]

Manson never personally killed anyone... that we know about. But the Pope...

VATICAN CITY: Pope Blesses Uganda's Rebecca "Kill The Gays" Kadaga
http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2012/1...as.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

...pretty much gave his tacit approval to kill gays.

 

[joepistole]

Does the Pope, or was it already in place when he got there and autonomous to the point where he really doesn't actually "run" it in that sense?

Does a CEO run his/her company? Does an absolute monarch run his/her country? Yes. Did Pope Benedict found the Catholic Church and Christian theology? Obviously not . . . you are grasping for straws now.

If you're going to nitpick that Manson didn't help the amounts of people that Catholic charities do, be fair: Manson didn't have the church's resources, either. And why so quiet on the fact that the church's teachings have lead to numerous deaths as well as the pain and suffering of countless children? Oh, right, you already said you don't agree with all of their teachings. But you won't spare the same ink to hold the Pope and church responsible that you will in kissing the Pope's ass.

Nit picking . . . really? You are the person comparing the Pope to Manson. Now you are saying they are not comparable? The fact is Pope Benedict and the Catholic Church are in no way comparable to Charles Manson. And just what current Church teachings have led to the pain and suffering and death of which you alleged?

 

[Balerion]

Does a CEO run his/her company? Does an absolute monarch run his/her country? Yes. Did Pope Benedict found the Catholic Church and Christian theology? Obviously not . . . you are grasping for straws now.

So the Pope runs the day-to-day operations of the charitable organizations? I'd be curious to see how true that actually is. I also think it's laughable that you're comparing the Pope to a CEO.

Nit picking . . . really? You are the person comparing the Pope to Manson. Now you are saying they are not comparable? The fact is Pope Benedict and the Catholic Church are in no way comparable to Charles Manson.

I'm saying you can't argue it both ways. You can't diminish his charitable work just because it didn't have the scope of the Catholic Church. And as I said, you're right that they're not comparable. Charles Manson is not responsible for nearly as many deaths, pain, and suffering that the Pope and the church are.

And just what current Church teachings have led to the pain and suffering and death of which you alleged?

Oh, so this is the part where you pretend the church does no wrong? Okay.

The war against contraception, and the crusade against gay rights.

 

[joepistole]

So the Pope runs the day-to-day operations of the charitable organizations? I'd be curious to see how true that actually is. I also think it's laughable that you're comparing the Pope to a CEO.

You are desperately grasping for straws. The Pope runs the Catholic Church, all of it, just as a CEO runs his or her company. This is really not a hard concept to understand. In the case of the Catholic Church, the Pope rules it as a monarch, because he is a monarch as well as the spiritual leader of the Church.

I'm saying you can't argue it both ways. You can't diminish his charitable work just because it didn't have the scope of the Catholic Church. And as I said, you're right that they're not comparable. Charles Manson is not responsible for nearly as many deaths, pain, and suffering that the Pope and the church are.

You cannot compare the charitable works of the Church with Charlie Manson as you have and continue to do. Manson had no charity. Manson offered food and shelter to his supporters in exchange for absolute obedience. That is not charity.

Oh, so this is the part where you pretend the church does no wrong? Okay.

No this is the part where you make stuff up.

The war against contraception, and the crusade against gay rights.

Opposition to contraception or a stance against what some perceive to be gay rights is hardly a war. It is an opinion. Catholics are not out on the street bashing people who use contraception or are gay, nor are they arguing for violence or preaching any ill will towards those individuals. But your stance here demonstrates how fast people launch into hyperbole over just about everything these days. We should be able to disagree with each other without demonizing each other.

 

[Balerion]

You are desperately grasping for straws. The Pope runs the Catholic Church, all of it, just as a CEO runs his or her company. This is really not a hard concept to understand. In the case of the Catholic Church, the Pope rules it as a monarch, because he is a monarch as well as the spiritual leader of the Church.

It's a niggling point, but I really doubt the Pope is as hands-on as all that. Typically, the Pope is elderly, and the last one could barely hold his head up for the last decade of his reign, so I'm not convinced that it's quite like you say.

You cannot compare the charitable works of the Church with Charlie Manson as you have and continue to do. Manson had no charity. Manson offered food and shelter to his supporters in exchange for absolute obedience. That is not charity.

Re-read MR's post. It's not just the food and shelter. But the point isn't that Manson was some great philanthropist, it's that being charitable doesn't absolve you of being a monster. And the Catholic Church constitutes a monster.

No this is the part where you make stuff up.

You seem to characterize all opposing views as made up. You once told me there was no "Left," so I'm not surprised that you're now pretending the church hasn't done anything wrong.

Opposition to contraception or a stance against what some perceive to be gay rights is hardly a war. It is an opinion.

Oh bullshit. Just their groundwork in Africa alone of teaching about the "evils" of condoms should constitute an attempted genocide. Just last year Kenyan bishops were up in arms about the Gates Foundation making family planning resources (aka contraception) available in the country, saying it could “lead to destruction of the human society and by extension the human race.” You call that a fucking opinion? No, a sane human being would call that an attempt to promote a deadly agenda by poisoning the minds of the people affected.

And what does "what some perceive to be gay rights" mean?

Catholics are not out on the street bashing people who use contraception or are gay, nor are they arguing for violence or preaching any ill will towards those individuals.

I didn't say they were. I think most Catholics are good people, just like any other group. I'm talking about the teachings of the Church, and the efforts of the clergy.

But your stance here demonstrates how fast people launch into hyperbole over just about everything these days.

Yeah, how dare I bring up inconvenient facts about an organization you're trying to lavish with unjust praise? Rude of me.

We should be able to disagree with each other without demonizing each other.

We should, except when the people we're disagreeing with are actually demons.

 

[Aqueous Id]

Re-read MR's post. It's not just the food and shelter. But the point isn't that Manson was some great philanthropist, it's that being charitable doesn't absolve you of being a monster. And the Catholic Church constitutes a monster.

I think the pedophile priests have seriously damaged the Catholic image of humanitarianism, and especially any of their bosses who covered it up. I also think there is a degree of abuse that is tantamount to brainwashing, as well as oppressive tactics against society, primarily in private matters of sexuality and reproduction. All of this is a huge turn-off for me, something that seems to have its basis in a kind of twisted attitude about sex, with unprecedented dishonesty and hypocrisy. At the same time, I would stop short of characterizing the many good folks who support humanitarian relief, social justice, political asylum, education and medical care the same way. I just can't paint the whole lot as monsters.

Just their groundwork in Africa alone of teaching about the "evils" of condoms should constitute an attempted genocide. Just last year Kenyan bishops were up in arms about the Gates Foundation making family planning resources (aka contraception) available in the country, saying it could “lead to destruction of the human society and by extension the human race.” You call that a fucking opinion? No, a sane human being would call that an attempt to promote a deadly agenda by poisoning the minds of the people affected.

I'm not clear about the facts of this, so I'm not sure how much harm was done. My thinking is that bishops normally would only be obeyed by their congregation, and the Catholics who feel obligated to obey them would not be subject to STDs since they would be practicing celibacy, or engaging in sex only with their marriage partners. If that's the actual scenario in play in Kenya, then those folks wouldn't need condoms, except merely as a matter of birth control. Then again, if they believe they are not supposed to engage in family planning, then no harm done. All of the rest of the Catholics there who don't feel bound by the doctrine on contraception, plus all of the Protestants in Kenya, plus all of the other religious people there, plus the atheists, would not be bound by the orders issued by Catholic bishops in any case, so they shouldn't be harmed by it. I guess it depends on whether the bishops are influencing public policy (or this particular effort by the Gates Foundation). Even then, I think I would hold the bishops to blame but I'm not sure I would call them monsters, unless I've missed some of the facts. I do think the people who are practicing unsafe sex -- provided they have been educated in advance, and are capable of understanding consequences -- can't be said to be victims of monsters, since they had a choice in the matter. It's hard to say what the consequences are for the rest of the people, and the extent of harm to them. Obviously, if a bishop reduced the availability of condoms in any way, then this is reprehensible, I'm just not sure it falls into the category of monstrous behavior.

I'm talking about the teachings of the Church, and the efforts of the clergy.

One of the big teachings of Catholic church revolves around humane treatment of anyone who is suffering or otherwise in need. This seems to me to be worthy of credit. The teachings against contraception used to be universally believed by Christians of all stripes, and insofar as it's not imposed on non-Catholics, I don't particularly care one way or the other what they believe.

Yeah, how dare I bring up inconvenient facts about an organization you're trying to lavish with unjust praise? Rude of me.

I can attest to some of the justifiable praise due to Catholics, from my acquaintance with a victim of the atrocities in Bosnia. No only did they rescue her and assist her with political asylum, but they gave her a place to live, furnishings and clothing, English lessons, and a job. She was so grateful she devoted herself to assisting their cause. One day I found out that she'd helped rescue a family of 7 from an African genocide, saving them to enjoy the same treatment given to her. One thing that fascinated me was that the Catholics were not allowed to preach to any of the people they were assisting, that the "corporal mercy" was distinct from recruitment. It's that sincerity and honesty that made an impression on me.

We should, except when the people we're disagreeing with are actually demons.

Obviously a huge number of innocent kids have suffered tragically under far too many demons. But then there are are true heroes among them, and I can't help but think that they outnumber the demons thousands -- or even millions -- to one. I am convinced that all of the humanitarian programs, especially those that don't try to recruit converts, ought to be universally supported.

 

[Balerion]

I think the pedophile priests have seriously damaged the Catholic image of humanitarianism, and especially any of their bosses who covered it up. I also think there is a degree of abuse that is tantamount to brainwashing, as well as oppressive tactics against society, primarily in private matters of sexuality and reproduction. All of this is a huge turn-off for me, something that seems to have its basis in a kind of twisted attitude about sex, with unprecedented dishonesty and hypocrisy. At the same time, I would stop short of characterizing the many good folks who support humanitarian relief, social justice, political asylum, education and medical care the same way. I just can't paint the whole lot as monsters.

Nor can I. But the Church as a unit, I think, has done far more harm than good over the course of its life, and should be rightly villainized for it.

I'm not clear about the facts of this, so I'm not sure how much harm was done. My thinking is that bishops normally would only be obeyed by their congregation, and the Catholics who feel obligated to obey them would not be subject to STDs since they would be practicing celibacy, or engaging in sex only with their marriage partners. If that's the actual scenario in play in Kenya, then those folks wouldn't need condoms, except merely as a matter of birth control. Then again, if they believe they are not supposed to engage in family planning, then no harm done. All of the rest of the Catholics there who don't feel bound by the doctrine on contraception, plus all of the Protestants in Kenya, plus all of the other religious people there, plus the atheists, would not be bound by the orders issued by Catholic bishops in any case, so they shouldn't be harmed by it. I guess it depends on whether the bishops are influencing public policy (or this particular effort by the Gates Foundation). Even then, I think I would hold the bishops to blame but I'm not sure I would call them monsters, unless I've missed some of the facts. I do think the people who are practicing unsafe sex -- provided they have been educated in advance, and are capable of understanding consequences -- can't be said to be victims of monsters, since they had a choice in the matter. It's hard to say what the consequences are for the rest of the people, and the extent of harm to them. Obviously, if a bishop reduced the availability of condoms in any way, then this is reprehensible, I'm just not sure it falls into the category of monstrous behavior.

I have to vehemently disagree. We're talking about an area of the world ravaged by HIV/AIDS. Any attempt to keep condoms out of hands of the population's hands, and to keep them from getting all of the information they need, is monstrous. It's disgusting, and it shouldn't matter whether or not they're successful. What kind of thing is that to even say? If a woman successfully fends off a rapist, is the rapist not a monster? Come on.

And if you don't know the facts, maybe read up on it?

One of the big teachings of Catholic church revolves around humane treatment of anyone who is suffering or otherwise in need. This seems to me to be worthy of credit.

Yet they fight against gay rights and the use of contraception, and in practice they cover up years of sexual abuse. This doctrine is either one they don't follow, or their idea of "humane treatment" is different from mine.

The teachings against contraception used to be universally believed by Christians of all stripes, and insofar as it's not imposed on non-Catholics, I don't particularly care one way or the other what they believe.

I never said the Catholics were alone in their crusade. But they are by far the largest Christian denomination, and therefore the most influential.

I can attest to some of the justifiable praise due to Catholics, from my acquaintance with a victim of the atrocities in Bosnia. No only did they rescue her and assist her with political asylum, but they gave her a place to live, furnishings and clothing, English lessons, and a job. She was so grateful she devoted herself to assisting their cause. One day I found out that she'd helped rescue a family of 7 from an African genocide, saving them to enjoy the same treatment given to her. One thing that fascinated me was that the Catholics were not allowed to preach to any of the people they were assisting, that the "corporal mercy" was distinct from recruitment. It's that sincerity and honesty that made an impression on me.

I never meant to imply that all Catholics are bad people. I never said the church hasn't done anything worthy of praise. I just thought Joe was out of line heaping praise on this weasel of a man after what he's preached for and against, and then his subsequent defense of the church.

Obviously a huge number of innocent kids have suffered tragically under far too many demons. But then there are are true heroes among them, and I can't help but think that they outnumber the demons thousands -- or even millions -- to one. I am convinced that all of the humanitarian programs, especially those that don't try to recruit converts, ought to be universally supported.

The problem is that the demons are in their leadership, and in the ink on their doctrines. And if the good outnumber the bad by a million to one, that still leaves a lot of bad apples among the 1.18 billion Catholics there are in the world. And a good number of them wear robes.

 

[rodereve]

I haven't kept up with papal history, but from what I know this pope is the more progressive than past popes (but thats not saying much). At least he publicly acknowledged child abuse by priests as a prevalent issue in the church. I don't care much for the church and most of their teachings, but I think we need more public worldwide figures that uphold general good values, regardless if those values are also religious (e.g. Dalai Lama). The pope is such a powerful position, why do they have to keep electing extremely old people that can barely go out and promote change. I heard there's even talks of the next pope being Black or Hispanic, although thats unlikely, I really think that even talking about it is a sign of progress. The catholic church has slowly become irrelevant throughout the past years, the popes haven't really stood out from the rest of them, I might even say that the name Mother Theresa is more famous than the recent popes. If they elect a new pope, I hope he is someone that can make a difference for the better, and abolish the highly conservative views that polarize discrimination, differences and violence.

 

[joepistole]

It's a niggling point, but I really doubt the Pope is as hands-on as all that. Typically, the Pope is elderly, and the last one could barely hold his head up for the last decade of his reign, so I'm not convinced that it's quite like you say.

No it is not a niggling point. It is a hard fact. You don’t like it because it runs counter to your bias against the Church and this Pope. This one is resigning because he feels in can no longer run the Church as he has for the last 8 years.

Re-read MR's post. It's not just the food and shelter. But the point isn't that Manson was some great philanthropist, it's that being charitable doesn't absolve you of being a monster. And the Catholic Church constitutes a monster.

Then you shouldn’t have made the comparison with Manson. The hard fact is that the Catholic Church has been and continues to conduct charitable operations around the world to feed, house, educate and care for the less fortunate. Evil monsters don’t do that.

You seem to characterize all opposing views as made up. You once told me there was no "Left," so I'm not surprised that you're now pretending the church hasn't done anything wrong.

No I characterize made up stuff as made up as you have and continue to do. Show me where I wrote that the Church has not done anything wrong. I am challenging you to put up or shut up. Because I never said the Church has not done anything wrong. Because it has, and I have said so, but that doesn’t lessen the fact that Church and this Pope are sincere and using their skills and talents to do the best they can with what they have. We can have differing opinions as to what is “good” or what is “right” but that does not make them evil as you have alleged repeatedly.

And I never told you there was no left. You are making stuff up again.

Oh bullshit. Just their groundwork in Africa alone of teaching about the "evils" of condoms should constitute an attempted genocide. Just last year Kenyan bishops were up in arms about the Gates Foundation making family planning resources (aka contraception) available in the country, saying it could “lead to destruction of the human society and by extension the human race.” You call that a fucking opinion? No, a sane human being would call that an attempt to promote a deadly agenda by poisoning the minds of the people affected.

This is great example of hyperbole. Pushing abstinence as the Church has done, in fact as most all churches have done, versus condoms is not genocide.

And what does "what some perceive to be gay rights" mean?

I think the meaning is pretty clear.

I didn't say they were. I think most Catholics are good people, just like any other group. I'm talking about the teachings of the Church, and the efforts of the clergy.

So now you are drawing distinctions between the Church and members of the Church? Where do you think the Church leadership comes from?

Yeah, how dare I bring up inconvenient facts about an organization you're trying to lavish with unjust praise? Rude of me.

Why don’t you bring up a few “inconvenient facts”? I would love to see one.

We should, except when the people we're disagreeing with are actually demons.

I think that says it all. You for some reason are very biased against the Catholic Church, especially its leadership. People should be able to sincerely disagree and remain respectful and amiable. I am a Free Mason, hardly a supporter of the Catholic Church. But I have no bias against the Catholic Church either. The Catholic Church has done many good things in recent years. The Pope has done many good deeds. That doesn’t mean they are perfect. That doesn’t mean they don’t make mistakes. No one is perfect and we all make mistakes. The Catholic clergy are no different from anyone else or the clergy of any other religion in that regard. They are all fallible, just as you and I are fallible, like every other human on the planet. But just because they hold different views and make mistakes that doesn’t make them evil. It doesn’t make them insincere. It doesn’t make them demons. It makes them human.

 

[Magical Realist]

When you're considered infallible and your every statement is broadcast worldwide, its easy to screw up and end up killing alot of people. Case in point: when the Pope said condom use doesn't prevent aids but actually makes it worse.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUuUxe8mfCM&feature=player_embedded

 

[Balerion]

No it is not a niggling point. It is a hard fact. You don’t like it because it runs counter to your bias against the Church and this Pope. This one is resigning because he feels in can no longer run the Church as he has for the last 8 years.

Right, so the last Pope, who couldn't hold his head up for the last several years of his papacy, supposedly ran the Church? My eye he did.

Then you shouldn’t have made the comparison with Manson.

I didn't. Magic Realist did. And it was a fair point, which you ignore because it's uncomfortable to you.

The hard fact is that the Catholic Church has been and continues to conduct charitable operations around the world to feed, house, educate and care for the less fortunate. Evil monsters don’t do that.

You're contradicting yourself; if the Church conducts these charities, then evil monsters do, in fact, conduct charities.

No I characterize made up stuff as made up as you have and continue to do. Show me where I wrote that the Church has not done anything wrong. I am challenging you to put up or shut up. Because I never said the Church has not done anything wrong. Because it has, and I have said so, but that doesn’t lessen the fact that Church and this Pope are sincere and using their skills and talents to do the best they can with what they have. We can have differing opinions as to what is “good” or what is “right” but that does not make them evil as you have alleged repeatedly.

At the outset you glossed over their crimes while lavishing the Pope and the Church with praise. Then when presented with those crimes, you defended them as "opinions," as if there was nothing wrong with what they did, and even classified gay rights as "what some people consider to be gay rights." Clearly you side with the Church on both of these matters, and find their actions on those fronts to be understandable.

And I never told you there was no left. You are making stuff up again.

My apologies. I just searched it, and found that it was iceura, not you, who made that claim. Again, my apologies.

This is great example of hyperbole. Pushing abstinence as the Church has done, in fact as most all churches have done, versus condoms is not genocide.

And this is a great example of you, again, misrepresenting the facts. The Church doesn't simply promote abstinence, they also demonize condoms. See my earlier post about Catholic bishops in Kenya saying that condoms will lead to the destruction of civilization, and MR's post above about how the Pope said condoms will make the AIDS epidemic worse. They've been spewing anti-condom propaganda for decades, and that is monstrous. It's the definition of evil.

I think the meaning is pretty clear.

That you're a bigot who believes gays are fighting for "special privilages" rather than equal rights? I'm certainly hoping that's not the case. Wait, were you the one who once argued that gay rights shouldn't be covered under the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment? Uh-oh.

So now you are drawing distinctions between the Church and members of the Church? Where do you think the Church leadership comes from?

I'm drawing a distinction between everyday Catholics and the clergy, yes. Obviously.

Why don’t you bring up a few “inconvenient facts”? I would love to see one.

They've already been brought up. Open your eyes.

I think that says it all. You for some reason are very biased against the Catholic Church, especially its leadership. People should be able to sincerely disagree and remain respectful and amiable. I am a Free Mason, hardly a supporter of the Catholic Church. But I have no bias against the Catholic Church either. The Catholic Church has done many good things in recent years. The Pope has done many good deeds. That doesn’t mean they are perfect. That doesn’t mean they don’t make mistakes. No one is perfect and we all make mistakes. The Catholic clergy are no different from anyone else or the clergy of any other religion in that regard. They are all fallible, just as you and I are fallible, like every other human on the planet. But just because they hold different views and make mistakes that doesn’t make them evil. It doesn’t make them insincere. It doesn’t make them demons. It makes them human.

What a fatuous load of crap. Straw men built upon straw men. Obviously, there mere fact that people disagree doesn't mean that one of the parties must be nefarious in their intentions. But then, I never said that was the case. What I said was that the Catholic Church has done, and continues to do, some evil shit. It's not about the fact that we disagree, or that I expect them to be above corruption; it's these very specific points that I find to be heinously immoral, and dangerous in every conceivable way. You clearly can't dispute that, so you're reduced to the steaming pile of nonsense above.

 

[joepistole]

Right, so the last Pope, who couldn't hold his head up for the last several years of his papacy, supposedly ran the Church? My eye he did.

We are not talking about the last Pope. We are talking about this Pope.

I didn't. Magic Realist did. And it was a fair point, which you ignore because it's uncomfortable to you.

You did and you have contradicted yourself many times in this conversation on this issue. The fact is the works of the Catholic Church and this Pope cannot be in anyway compared to Charles Manson. The Pope and Charles Manson are not in any way comparable for all the reasons I have previously written.

You're contradicting yourself; if the Church conducts these charities, then evil monsters do, in fact, conduct charities.

LOL, so it is because you say it is? You don’t recognize your fallacies here? Really . . . maybe you should invest some time in a good class in logic and reasoning.

At the outset you glossed over their crimes while lavishing the Pope and the Church with praise. Then when presented with those crimes, you defended them as "opinions," as if there was nothing wrong with what they did, and even classified gay rights as "what some people consider to be gay rights." Clearly you side with the Church on both of these matters, and find their actions on those fronts to be understandable.

My statement which you construe as “lavishing the Pope and Church with praise” is reprinted below.

“I have to agree. I am not a Catholic, I don’t agree with many of the Church’s teachings. But I have no doubt the Holy Father and many in Catholic Church are sincere in their beliefs and have only the best of intentions. I admire the honesty and integrity of this Pope and the many good deeds and contributions the Church has made toward the betterment of mankind in recent years.” - Joepistole

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?133650-Pope-now-resigns!&p=3043074&viewfull=1#post3043074

Now where do you get that I am siding with the Church out of that? How do you get that I am anti-gay out of that? The Church’s position on condoms and premarital sex is not a criminal. It is a position, a belief, noting more and nothing less. You are letting your hatred get the better of you.

My apologies. I just searched it, and found that it was iceura, not you, who made that claim. Again, my apologies.

Apology accepted.

And this is a great example of you, again, misrepresenting the facts. The Church doesn't simply promote abstinence, they also demonize condoms. See my earlier post about Catholic bishops in Kenya saying that condoms will lead to the destruction of civilization, and MR's post above about how the Pope said condoms will make the AIDS epidemic worse. They've been spewing anti-condom propaganda for decades, and that is monstrous. It's the definition of evil.

Christian churches, including the Catholic Church believe that abstinence is the best protection against STDs and unwanted pregnancies. You and I may disagree with churches on this issue because they fail to recognize that everyone or even most people will be compelled to abstain. Remember we are talking about a bunch of celibates here. It’s a way of life for them. Their belief in abstinence over condoms and pharmaceutical birth control does not make them evil or demons. It just makes them a little out of touch with reality. It makes them wrong. But it doesn’t make them evil.

That you're a bigot who believes gays are fighting for "special privilages" rather than equal rights? I'm certainly hoping that's not the case. Wait, were you the one who once argued that gay rights shouldn't be covered under the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment? Uh-oh.

I never said gays were fighting for “special privileges”. That is you making stuff up again. I argued that the US Supreme Court would not likely hold that the 14th Amendment would cover gay marriage because the 14th Amendment addressed race, not sexual preference. And given the conservative makeup of this court, I don’t see them making that leap to include sexual preference as constitutionally protected along with race under the 14th Amendment. I argued that the best legal basis for gay marriage is The Full Faith and Credit Clause, Article IV, Section 1 of the United States Constitution. And in my view, The Full Faith and Credit Clause is a very solid argument for gay marriage which would be difficult for the Supreme Court to ignore. It requires no leap in legal argument. It merely relies on the court to enforce the long established legal principal of stare decisis.

So my disagreement on the legal basis for gay marriage makes me a bigot? I think that explains why you think the Pope is a monster.

I'm drawing a distinction between everyday Catholics and the clergy, yes. Obviously. They've already been brought up. Open your eyes. What a fatuous load of crap. Straw men built upon straw men. Obviously, there mere fact that people disagree doesn't mean that one of the parties must be nefarious in their intentions. But then, I never said that was the case. What I said was that the Catholic Church has done, and continues to do, some evil shit. It's not about the fact that we disagree, or that I expect them to be above corruption; it's these very specific points that I find to be heinously immoral, and dangerous in every conceivable way. You clearly can't dispute that, so you're reduced to the steaming pile of nonsense above.

The only straw men are those in your head. You have been quite open in expressing your hatred for the Catholic Church. And you have yet to produce even one inconvenient fact. You have made a lot of grandiose allegations and you have done a lot of name calling. But you have not once been able to list even one deed of evil intent committed by this Pope. And you have repeatedly ignored all the good this Pope and this Church has done in recent years. We should celebrate the good and work to improve the not so good.

 

[spidergoat]

...The fact is the works of the Catholic Church and this Pope cannot be in anyway compared to Charles Manson. The Pope and Charles Manson are not in any way comparable for all the reasons I have previously written....

The more I think about it, the more I realize how alike they are. Both of them think they have a hotline to God, both of them are responsible for murders, both of them are delusional, both of them admired the Nazis. The only difference is one is in prison.

 

[joepistole]

The more I think about it, the more I realize how alike they are. Both of them think they have a hotline to God, both of them are responsible for murders, both of them are delusional, both of them admired the Nazis. The only difference is one is in prison.

Seriously? And you want people to take you seriously?

 

[spidergoat]

Seriously? And you want people to take you seriously?

I was probably understating it. The Church was responsible for vastly more death and heartbreak than Manson ever was. Did you know that up until even the 1980's, church representatives were stealing the babies of unwed mothers by force?

http://news.yahoo.com/forced-adoptions-for-unwed-mothers-around-the-globe.html

 

[spidergoat]

Did you know:
Irish Doctors Used to Break Women’s Pelvises So They Wouldn’t Miscarry

the operations were carried out without the women's consent "mainly for religious reasons, by obstetricians who were opposed to family planning...discussing Catholic Church influence, and even interference, in maternity hospitals...Survivor Micheline Gilroy remembers being "held down" and a strange man looking annoyed at the end of her bed. "I thought this was the way," she said. It was her first and only labour.

 

[Saturnine Pariah]

Don't really care...but i will miss those sith-pope jokes.

 

[Balerion]

We are not talking about the last Pope. We are talking about this Pope.

And this Pope is just as guilty.

You did and you have contradicted yourself many times in this conversation on this issue. The fact is the works of the Catholic Church and this Pope cannot be in anyway compared to Charles Manson. The Pope and Charles Manson are not in any way comparable for all the reasons I have previously written.

And as I have previously written, the only way they're not comparable is in the fact that the Church is responsible for more death and suffering than Manson ever was.

LOL, so it is because you say it is? You don’t recognize your fallacies here? Really . . . maybe you should invest some time in a good class in logic and reasoning.

Class on logic and reasoning, eh? What would those classes be, exactly? Logic 101? C'mon. I've already made my case for why the Church is an evil organization.

Now where do you get that I am siding with the Church out of that? How do you get that I am anti-gay out of that?

I didn't get that you're anti-gay out of that (though anyone who would speak so well of the Church and the Pope is probably unaware of their efforts on that front, or, as in your case, delusional regarding them) I got that you were a Pope bootlicker from it. Your comments later made me wonder just where you stand on gay rights.

The Church’s position on condoms and premarital sex is not a criminal. It is a position, a belief, noting more and nothing less. You are letting your hatred get the better of you.

On the contrary, you're letting your Church-love and your feigned calls for civility (you lying about my position as well as insulting me repeatedly hardly constitutes a civil disagreement) get the better of you. I'm simply stating facts. You, on the other hand, are misrepresenting everything. Calling the Church's position on these issues "opinions" is to ignore their practical, real-world consequences, as well as to completely misrepresent what they're trying to do. Even the Church wouldn't call these positions "opinions." They take action.

Christian churches, including the Catholic Church believe that abstinence is the best protection against STDs and unwanted pregnancies. You and I may disagree with churches on this issue because they fail to recognize that everyone or even most people will be compelled to abstain. Remember we are talking about a bunch of celibates here. It’s a way of life for them. Their belief in abstinence over condoms and pharmaceutical birth control does not make them evil or demons. It just makes them a little out of touch with reality. It makes them wrong. But it doesn’t make them evil.

Are you incapable of representing this issue accurately? I have no problem with an organization promoting abstinence. If that's their prerogative, more power to them. (But let's not pretend that they can follow their own mandates. Decades of child molestation and rape by members of the clergy stand in evidence against that) It's their anti-contraception propaganda that makes them more than just people with an idea.

I never said gays were fighting for “special privileges”. That is you making stuff up again.

You're the one who said "what some consider to be gay rights." That didn't make you sound like an advocate. Choose your words more carefully next time.

I argued that the US Supreme Court would not likely hold that the 14th Amendment would cover gay marriage because the 14th Amendment addressed race, not sexual preference. And given the conservative makeup of this court, I don’t see them making that leap to include sexual preference as constitutionally protected along with race under the 14th Amendment. I argued that the best legal basis for gay marriage is The Full Faith and Credit Clause, Article IV, Section 1 of the United States Constitution. And in my view, The Full Faith and Credit Clause is a very solid argument for gay marriage which would be difficult for the Supreme Court to ignore. It requires no leap in legal argument. It merely relies on the court to enforce the long established legal principal of stare decisis.

The 14th Amendment doesn't specify race, so it wouldn't require a leap to include sex. But we've been over this, there's no use in rehashing it here.

So my disagreement on the legal basis for gay marriage makes me a bigot? I think that explains why you think the Pope is a monster.

No, but your phrasing of the gay rights issue, as well as your eagerness to kiss Pope ass raised my eyebrows. As I said, I certainly hope you aren't a bigot.

The only straw men are those in your head. You have been quite open in expressing your hatred for the Catholic Church. And you have yet to produce even one inconvenient fact. You have made a lot of grandiose allegations and you have done a lot of name calling. But you have not once been able to list even one deed of evil intent committed by this Pope. And you have repeatedly ignored all the good this Pope and this Church has done in recent years. We should celebrate the good and work to improve the not so good.

So this is the part where you close your eyes, plug your ears, and stamp your feet. Got it.

 

[nijjhar]

I feel that Pope being a German have the instinct that being called an Anti-Christ as he cannot give the accounts of people as Rabbis used to give, he has resigned not to mislead people anymore.

In Jesus, everyone has to give his own account to God and each one of us is to exercise freewill responsible for his own deeds.

If I make a following, then I become an Anti-Christ. This is clearly stated in Matt.19, the so-called arriage and Divorce Parable not understood by any. If you want to know listen to my Youtube Videos on Matt.19.

Pope Benedict 16 is stepping down...
http://news.yahoo.com/pope-resigns-saying-no-longer-strength-fulfill-ministry-112923467.html
What ramifications will this have and leave??
How do you feel about this?