Scalia was a champion of traditional Catholicism

[trotsky]

http://www.cruxnow.com/faith/2016/02/14/scalia-was-a-champion-of-traditional-catholicism/

Justice Antonin Scalia, a giant of American jurisprudence and a vocal defender of traditional Catholic morality, was fiercely protective of religion’s role in the public square, but he always insisted his faith did not impact his judicial rulings.

Scalia, who died Saturday at a ranch in West Texas where he was quail hunting, received the sacrament of the anointing of the sick, known colloquially as last rites, from a local priest, the Diocese of El Paso confirmed. The Rev. Mike Alcuino, who serves at a parish and several missions in the diocese, was called to the ranch where Scalia died at age 79.

...

But in the New York interview, Scalia spoke about his traditional Catholic beliefs, stating that he believes in heaven and hell (“Oh, of course I do.”) as well as the Devil.

“Of course! Yeah, he’s a real person. Hey, c’mon, that’s standard Catholic doctrine! Every Catholic believes that,” he said. “Most of mankind has believed in the Devil, for all of history. Many more intelligent people than you or me have believed in the Devil.”

Wow.

[LiberalEsto]

1. But he loved the death penalty n/t

[trotsky]

4. Well sure.

And some Catholics are OK with birth control.

But he was 100% in agreement with the pope and church leadership on reproductive choice, on homosexuality and marriage equality, and the status of women.

[AtheistCrusader]

2. I can think of a small handfull of good decisions he sided with or wrote opinion for.

Some really good ones, but since his worldview was based on special pleading, there was no consistency at all. So he would forever fail to be a good judge, with reliable, principled history. Of all the supreme court justices in the last 20 years, to me, his positions were the hardest to predict. It was literally a crapshoot.


And we know he was a vicious homophobe and an asshole. It's curious, is that a product of the RCC's policies, which he adopted in his personal life, or does the RCC simply attract people like him to shelter within the blanket of their official bigotry?

[skepticscott]

5. His siding to protect flag burning as free expression

was one of his few good decisions, and one of the most surprising, because he was a right-wing ideologue as well as a religious zealot. But anyone who claimed to base his Constitutional philosophy on "original intent" was intellectually bankrupt from the get-go.

[MADem]

3. What's interesting is that he was as unlike the current Pope as it would be possible to be.

He understood all the doctrine, but he lacked the compassion, the "Who am I to judge?" gene!

I don't think he was a typical Catholic, either. Most nowadays are "cafeteria" ones, while he is practicing the Catholicism of a hundred years ago. He'd get along with Mel Gibson's father...!

[skepticscott]

6. Um.. No..he was exactly like the current pope

in his bigoted attitudes towards homosexuals, as well as his blatant denial of church-state separation. It would actually be quite easy to be more different from Blank Frank than Scalia was.

[MADem]

7. Well, I disagree. I think they both had a long way to go, but Frank is further along his path.

Of course, you will differ, as you do, so I won't be surprised. But that won't cause me to change my view of those two.

[skepticscott]

8. Hogwash

Blank Frank is both completely and utterly opposed to allowing same-sex couples to legally marry, as was Fat Tony. Their fundamental views were the same. Frank is just as big a bigot as Scalia..the only difference is, he's better at fooling people into thinking he's not a bigot.

If Frank were really different from Tony, he would support same-sex marriage wholeheartedly, but he doesn't...and he hasn't moved one inch on the "path" towards actually supporting it. I defy you to show us one word or action of his that supports same-sex marriage. Because I can show you a boatload showing that he opposes it.

[MADem]

9. See? I predicted your reaction!

Go argue with someone else! And take that single issue strawman with you!

[skepticscott]

14. Yes, you can predict that my reaction to nonsense

will be to call it out. And this is not an argument, since you have nothing, except denial in the face of uncomfortable facts. That, and calling equal rights for same-sex couples a "strawman".

[MADem]

15. Aww, sez you!

I have nothing save facts; you're just wanting to pick apart one particular issue and pretend it is the sum total of the individual, when it isn't.


And trying to force the discussion into a claim that I called "equal rights for same-sex couples a "strawman"" is a bridge too far. You're flying over the shark with that entirely false assertion.


Frank is not a perfect person--I'll bet you aren't either. I know I'm not.

But he's certainly more compassionate than Scalia was. That was my point. That was pretty much my only point.

You, though, want to rail against old Frank like a) It will make a difference (pro tip--it won't) and b) Anyone--least of all me--cares. And to do that, you will readily engage in intellectual dishonesty by suggesting that I am in some fashion opposed to/not pleased with/diminishing "equal rights for same sex couples."

Anyone can read this whole thread, though, and see exactly what you said, and exactly what I said. You aren't changing my mind about Frank--he's a damn sight better than Scalia in terms of his approach to his religion. After all, he thinks global warming is real. That's certainly a start.

skepticscott
14. Yes, you can predict that my reaction to nonsense
View profile
will be to call it out. And this is not an argument, since you have nothing, except denial in the face of uncomfortable facts. That, and calling equal rights for same-sex couples a "strawman".

[skepticscott]

16. See, you can't even be accurate about what you posted yourself just above

But he's certainly more compassionate than Scalia was. That was my point. That was pretty much my only point.

Um, no... your "point" was that Scalia "was as unlike the current Pope as it would be possible to be." Which, as demonstrated, is false. Scalia was exactly like the pope in ways that many, many people are not.

And you conspicuously avoided my challenge: Show us one word or action of Frank's that supports same-sex marriage. I suspect we both know you can't. But I'm sure you'll continue to regard him as a wonderful, non-bigoted human being nonetheless.

[MADem]

17. Well, I consider compassion an important virtue. A distinguishing one. Apparently, you do not!

I didn't "avoid" your challenge. I didn't consider it a "challenge" I regarded it as something more akin to goading and baiting, and I am ignoring your standard goad and refusing your usual bait.

Frank's church doesn't "do" SSM. Many churches don't. It's their loss. It's not news, though.

Don't try to speak for me, (But I'm sure you'll continue to regard him as a wonderful, non-bigoted human being nonetheless) because you're always wrong. He's flawed, but trying. As many are, and many do.

[skepticscott]

18. You claimed that

"Frank is further along his path" with regard to same-sex marriage than Scalia. I challenged you to back up that claim with evidence of things that he has said or done. As usual for the apologists here, you complain that being asked to back up your claims with actual evidence is "goading", "baiting" and just not piaying fair. Typical, but hardly gaining you any intellectual ground. If it galls you that your claim has been exposed as baseless nonsense, tough.

The issue is not just that Frank's church doesn't "do" same-sex marriage, though that's bigotry enough. It's that they lobby and advocate in countries all over the world that it should not be legal for anyone, whether they're catholic or not. They fight to keep an entire segment of the population from having equal human rights. That's what Frank is "trying" to do. If he had his way, restrictions on same-sex marriage would be tightened, not removed. His efforts are entirely directed towards depriving LGBT persons of their rights. Only the most shameless of apologists would try to argue that he's actually moving in the other direction (as noted, without a single shred of evidence).

And this is too funny:
Don't try to speak for me. Following right on the heels of YOU speaking for ME:

Well, I consider compassion an important virtue. A distinguishing one. Apparently, you do not!

Hypocrite much?

[MADem]

19. No, I didn't say that. You need to read what people SAY, not "interpret" what you want them

to say because it supports your single issue "arguments."

The path Frank is on has to do with his entire being, his compassionate nature, not the single issue you insist upon bringing to the fore, like it's the only challenge that his religious organization has to overcome. That's why I used the term "distinguishing." I was referencing his overarching compassionate attitudes--not your singular and angry focus on two issues (equality and the church-state thing).

Nothing is "funny." And no, I'm not a "hypocrite much " -- but you are easily amused, by your OWN self....!

Hey, pointing out that your very words refute your emphasis on his attitude of compassion is not "speaking for you." I'm simply paying attention to what you are saying. That's very different from putting entire sentences in my mouth, like you were struggling to do.

So, since clearly you enjoy a laugh (over and over again, it would seem) here's one for you....

What's "baseless nonsense" (your favorite term) is trying to have an adult conversation with you. I don't know why anyone bothers, and I should know better by now--all you want to do is play the snark/put-down game. You're uninterested in any conversation, you seek agreement with your views.

I'm going to have to disappoint you.

[Goblinmonger]

10. What one doctrine does he hold differently than the current pope?

Just one. And "Who am I to judge?" doesn't count because he still has the same policies in place in relation to gay priests and gay people in general. He was just saying "Well, if they don't talk about or act on their homosexuality, then who am I to judge?" Which, logically, means that he would judge if they acted on it or were vocal.

[MADem]

11. Who? Scalia? He holds nothing, he's dead.

But he was a Lefevre type--a fan of the Latin Mass.

[Goblinmonger]

12. Fine. Did he hold.

Do you think the new Pope doesn't say Mass in Latin? I know he has said it is better in the vernacular, but he said a few masses in Latin in the US.

[MADem]

13. Are you sure those masses weren't in his native SPANISH?

Yes, his heritage is Italian, but being raised in Argentina, he is, culturally, hispanic.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/09/02/papal-mass-washington-spanish/71580850/

[Goblinmonger]

20. Yeah, I know the difference

And that mass you link to was also in Latin.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3245930/Pope-president-seek-common-ground-Oval-Office-visit.html

Also, are you still searching for one policy that Scalia and Pope Francis differ on? Since they are so fundamentally different in your mind, I'm sure it should be easy to find.

[MADem]

22. No...I don't have an obsessive need to visit pointless

Wrath upon a religious figurehead!

That anger's gonna eat you up!

[Goblinmonger]

23. So you have no policy they differ on

even though you claim there are many.

Got it.

[MADem]

24. What you've "got" is a hatred of a religious leader. Like your pal in this thread.

I can't help you with that, it's your issue.

Life is too short.

Got it?

[Goblinmonger]

25. What I've got it you making a claim you can't support

What's interesting is that he was as unlike the current Pope as it would be possible to be.

And that confused me. So I asked you for policy that they differed on. And you have been able to tell me nothing.

If you don't want to be called on out a claim you can't support, then don't make claims you can't support.

[MADem]

26. I am not "making a claim." I have a POV and you don't agree with it. Too bad for you. nt

[Goblinmonger]

28. Do you even understand what making a claim is?

You made a statement about the two in comparison. All I am doing is testing that statement. If you have nothing to support it, then just admit that. For me, believing something just because I want to and it makes me happy doesn't do much in the realm of that thing being true. And when I do have those areas, I certainly don't go out and tell people those things like they are fact. Which is what you did.

Go ahead and believe that Pope Francis and Scalia were polar opposites. It's not true, but it will make you feel better I guess. Personally, I hope we get to the time when we can stop lauding Pope Francis for PR moves all the while he still holds horribly bigoted positions toward women and gays. But, hey, you feel good about thinking that, so it's cool.

When you don't know why a good deal of people in the group don't take you seriously and you want to go to other groups and say it's just because we are asshole atheists, remember this discussion. It's because you say things and then when asked to back them up you make it seem like it's an affront to your awesomeness that we actually ask you to support what you are saying. It's like the pigeon playing chess thing.

[MADem]

29. Yes I do--and I'm not "arguing" with you. I have an opinion, and it is not a "claim."

Deal with that. Your attempts to fling shit at me to move me to protest, or change my mind, are failed efforts. Your opinions are not controlling, certainly, so stop pretending they are.

Give it up.

[Goblinmonger]

30. Never studied argumentation, have you.

"Opinions" fit very nicely into Toulmin (and others).

I realize you will never change your mind nor your MO. I'm responding to you for the other people that read this so they can realize what you really are and what level of seriousness to give to the things you say.

But you might want to make sure when you use the word "opinion" that it doesn't mean what you think it means and someone who has actually studied argumentation will know you are full of it. Or not. No skin off my back. But I'll continue to point out when you are wrong.

[MADem]

33. Look, professor, you can play your little "Let's have a fight" game all day,

but at the end of it, you're just shadow boxing. And as for "wrong"--well, you couldn't be more if you tried.

Cutesy put-down, delivered in snarky, know-it-all fashion, is not "argumentation." It's closer to internet trolling or bullying.


Did your esteemed educators teach you that in class, too? If not, you need to learn it in The Real World. There's a reason you're getting the reaction you're getting from me--and it has nothing to do with my being wrong or lacking understanding. It's more to do with your approach to conversation.

Do have a nice day.

[Goblinmonger]

34. I have a pretty good handle on what argumentation is.

Studied it, taught it at the college level, coached debate at the college level, coached teams in the National finals. I have no need to know your thoughts on what is and isn't argumentation. Feel free to tell me where Toulmin is wrong, though. I need a good laugh today--it's been a tough one already.

[LiberalAndProud]

36. Criticizing flawed doctrine might look like hatred of a religious leader,

because the doctrine flows from that direction.

[MADem]

37. When the criticism becomes incessant and obsessive, it speaks for itself. nt

[LiberalAndProud]

38. Yes, from time to time incessant and obsessive happens around, here and there.

It can be annoying.

[Lordquinton]

40. So does defense of bigotry

You won't even admit there is a problem, that speaks volumes.

[MADem]

41. That would only apply if that is happening.

I take a warts-and-all approach.

You need to read better, because your pithy little remark just isn't accurate.

[Lordquinton]

42. So you claim that homophobic stances and actions are "warts?"

That people's lives aren't worth fighting for?

How about their oppression of women, just another wart?

The abuse of children, just a pimple?

[MADem]

43. If you can't bother to read, I'm not going to play this stupid little "so you" game.

Throw your baby out with your bathwater, because only YOU are the Pure and Holy!

[Lordquinton]

44. Do you even read what you type?

This isn't petty belief issues, this is major stuff. This is people's lives, men women and children who are being harmed over this, and not one theist has even deigned to say that it's a bad thing, just that we're terrible for reminding them how rottn the people they defend are.

You say "let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater" but you refuse to even acknowledge that the bathwater is full of sewage.

[rug]

27. And now for something completely different . . . .

Scalia's (not very Catholic, right wing) Originalism

http://religiondispatches.org/scalias-not-very-catholic-right-wing-originalism/

/

BTW, John Allen was contrasting "traditional" Catholicism, a reservoir of reaction, to Catholicism, post Vatican II.

[trotsky]

32. "Traditional" Catholicism could also be said to require the execution of heretics...

and the torture of Jews who won't convert. They did that for a very long time indeed.

Anything goes, I guess.

[LiberalAndProud]

39. The literalism in Scalia's makup was rigid, it seems to me.

[Zambero]

31. Drinks a lot, bigoted elitist, then tells it to the priest on Saturday?

Now that's a long-standing tradition in Catholic circles. Absolution is awesome for this brand of believer, provided they drop dead within 10-15 minutes of leaving the confessional.

[rug]

35. You underestimate what people are capable of in ten minutes.

[Lordquinton]

45. Some claim he wasn't like most Catholics

And they're right, most Catholics aren't sitting on the highest court of the land. He had a ton of influence, unlike anyone else, including the Pope, so his views matter.