So I'm an "issue"?

[jdj]

"John Paul II was generally conservative on issues like abortion, gay rights, women and married people in the priesthood."

this is from Skinner's post on the passing of you know who.

of course all politics is about perspective and point of view, of course, and what does and does't affect our particular demographic (although liberals seem to be a consistent exception to this last part, I'm proud to say.)

I'm kind of surprised to see this put this way, but I do think it is an accurate representation of the leaders of that certain church's point of view, as well as many others. But this is why I'm not sad, and I'm not sorry.

[Career Prole]

1. Don't guess I understand what you're taking umbrage at.

Maybe if you stated your case clearer? :shrug:

[jdj]

3. if it's not obvious, then don't waste your time.

[Career Prole]

67. Okay. n/t

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

75. That was easy...

[LittleClarkie]

104. "If you don't know, I'm certainly not going to tell you"

I just had a sixties sitcom moment.

(quick fun for fellow tv geeks: which sitcom?)

[incapsulated]

6. I'll take a stab

The umbrage is in having your humanity as a gay person, a female person or any other person that the Church and the Pope has either condemned or considered second class citizens, reduced to just another "issue" that people should either accept or reject, but not let interfere with the "respect" that we all must grant the Pope in his passing.

Honestly, as someone who was raised a Catholic, I never expected DU to erupt into such a Papal love-fest.

[jdj]

7. I'm scared.

I read the post as "shut up", basically.

I'm afraid all the bitching and whining that fundies have been doing around here has actually paid off for them. I feel censored.

I'm not sure when I have ever been respected by the catholic church, but I can count umpteen times I have felt disrespected, as a sexual abuse survivor, woman, queer, feminist, pro-choice person, whatever else they don't fucking like about me.

But I owe "respect" because the big cahuna croaked.
:shrug:

[incapsulated]

10. I don't know...

There seems to be a rather bizarre double-standard that applies to the Pope and the church around here. He can call civil unions part of the "ideology of evil" and have his bishops threaten elected officials with excommunication for being pro-choice, but he's a good guy and we should all remember the nice things he said (rather than the bad things he did).

If Falwell said this shit, DU would explode in outrage, and when he dies they will dance on his grave.

I don't get it, and I don't feel comfortable feeling I have to go along with this stupid shit. Is this a political forum or a Catholic refuge? I understand some people are genuinely upset at his passing, but does that mean we have to rewrite history and make this Pope something he was not? Look up Gandhi and MLK and get back to me when you want to talk about truly great religious leaders.

[jdj]

11. you mean I'm not alone?

thanks I feel the same way.

If he weren't being buried over there, I'd be putting on my dancing shoes tout de suite.

edit: I so second you on MLK. PBS ran a great doc. on him the other night and I was bowled over by his courage. He truly was one of the bravest people that ever lived, and when he died he was only 39. When he was murdered, I should say. What a leader, he sure didn't shrink from the role he was placed in.

[incapsulated]

14. No, you're not

I think most of us either took the weekend off or just shut up.

I'm an agnostic or atheist, either. But I'm ready to post an anti-Papal screed that would make Martin Luther proud, at this point, though, if I wasn't absolutely certain it would be locked.

They also had a great one on Malcom X on PBS recently, as well, who was also moved to act by his faith, and grew within it.

[incapsulated]

70. Funny how you read your own post...

And find a typo that totally changes it's meaning, lol.

I meant to say: "I'm NOT an agnostic or atheist, either."

Spellcheck can't save you from stupid.

[RPM]

103. if you dont post it, could you PM it to me

I love a good anti-papal screed.

Doubly so if it would make my Luther proud.

[Tansy_Gold]

37. You're definitely not alone

If I posted what I'm really thinking this week-end, i'd be banned from DU.

To put it politely, I consider virtually all of the Pope's ideology to be ANTI-Democratic, ANTI-progressive, and ANTI-liberal. While he may have been against the Iraq invasion, I have agreed with almost nothing else the man has ever said or done.

A promo for a PBS special contained the statement "This pope changed the world." I couldn't believe PBS would spew such "stuff."

John Paul II did not bring about the "end" of "communism" in eastern Europe, and virtually nothing else he did changed anything. There were no changes within the Roman Catholic Church, and if there were changes in US or international policy that coincided with Catholic dogma, such as the Hyde Amendment for one example, they were more the result of fundamentalist Protestant pressure than Catholic.

[jdj]

56. LOL, I heard the end of communism garbage too.

what is upsetting to me is the whole issue behind this, which is that all those people, all those MASSES of people, giving away their power to this figurehead...it's so tragic, why do we do this, it's a human thing, I know, but what we could do if we appreciated each individual and then acted collectively from that instead of worshipping popes and presidents and actors and rock stars. We have all this power, like Patti Smith talked about, and we just throw it away.
Its so sad.

and then there is of course the 2nd part of that, which is that statement attributed to Lincoln that 'power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely'. So we give away all this power, and, guess what, it gets corrupted.

[Tansy_Gold]

65. Not to mention that he oversaw a Church so riddled with

sexual corruption that it defies belief.

There were rumors -- believable rumors -- that JP2 would grant what amounted to political asylum to Boston's Cardinal Law and others who were responsible for covering up for and conveniently transfering pedophile priests. The Church can officially condemn gays but protect child rapists because they're ordained?

Here in Phoenix, Catholics had to witness the utter collapse of Bishop Thomas J. O'Brien's authority when he was convicted of hit-and-run manslaughter while in the midst of one of many pedophile priest scandals. And even after conviction, O'Brien tried to wheedle his way out of any kind of punishment or compensation or even community service.

In Tucson, the Church is going out of its way to protect assets that would otherwise be liquidated to pay claims to the victims of priestly sexual abuse.

That was the kind of Church JP2 presided over.

When all the scandals were hot news, no one defended the pope; he was routined excoriated here on DU for his lack of decisive action. But now, we are supposed to be respectful?

While the faithful are mourning his passing, a Bishop in Spain is accused of squandering parish funds playing the stock market.

JP2 was a human being, fallible and mortal. He did not embrace the full humanity of those who are not straight and/or celibate males. He felt for the poor but he lived in obscene wealth. He prescribed sexual behavior while condemning it.

Unlike the Jesus he worshipped, the pope did not walk daily among the people. He lived in both a figurative and literal bubble, protected and isolated.

I once asked a Catholic friend how it was possible that a priest who had vowed to live a life of chastity and poverty could then live the life of an oriental potentate as pope. She said it was okay, because he didn't actually OWN anything; it all belonged to the Church and so he was just kind of borrowing it.

That struck me as just a tiny bit hypocritical.

I'm sure that there are many liberal Catholics who are very sincere in their faith and their grief.

I'm not Catholic, I'm not Christian, I'm not even a believer, and I'm sure as hell not grieving.

[jdj]

66. this is what Sinead O'Connor was protesting.

people didn't get it then, and most still don't get it now, but her whole issue with him and the photo ripping up was about the child abuse in the catholic church. She made that very clear at the time, but the media refused to report the truth, and even since the scandal finally broke many people still don't give her credit, she was so far ahead of the rest of society.

But I guess you could say we'v advanced as a culture since they didn't make her drink hemlock or anything.

[rodeodance]

76. I was glad to hear so many give some credit to the Pope rather than

all the credit being given to Pres. Reagan all the time.

[Kipepeo]

80. You're not alone

There are many who can't excuse his evil deeds by pointing to his good ones.

I have to admit though - regardless of politics or religion or anything like that I don't usually understand the outpouring of mass-mourning for individuals we don't know personally in comparison to the lack of mourning for MANY THOUSANDS of deaths of those we don't know personally in war.

Well, maybe I can understand the empathy, of course, but I can't understand the great crying-scenes on Teevee or the CNN memorial 24-7 specials....I mean, I felt little when Princess Diana, Ronald Reagan, Johnny Carson, Ray Charles, Marlon Brando, or the Pope died. Is something wrong with me? I don't think so. (On the other hand, I about cried alone in my living room when reading in the paper that Jerry Orbach from Law and Order (and also Baby's daddy in Dirty Dancing) died. And they played no sentimental your-celebrity-life-in-pictures for him. - either way I guess I can't talk) :shrug:

But I think they make a big deal of some deaths so as to disguise the more "ordinary" deaths of MANY that probably affect more of us directly.

[Nobody]

86. You're not alone

He was one of the myriad reasons I left the church. Once free of the church, I was better able to open my mind to vast possibilities elsewhere.

I've noticed since I was a kid that bigotry against women gets a pass. Not from me it doesn't.

[grace0418]

95. You're DEFINITELY not alone

I'm not big on dancing on anyone's grave (although I might change that opinion when Bushy Boy dies), but I don't understand why we have to ignore the problems with the pope just because he died.

Great, he loved children. Lots of people love children. And many of those people don't turn around and make those children feel less than human because they're female or they're gay or they disagree about contraception, abortion, or gay marriage.

His leadership has incited bigotry and hatred as often as it's inspired peace and love, maybe more often.

[SammyWinstonJack]

96. You're not alone. n/t

[hfojvt]

16. the question is whether Falwell

takes any of the progressive stances that the Pope did. Does Falwell oppose war? Does Falwell preach against the excesses of capitalism? Does Falwell oppose the death penalty? Does Falwell promote religious unity? The Pope is not as totally far right as Falwell.

[incapsulated]

21. No, not to me...

The question is, regardless of your personal belief system, or nice statements made that liberals like, do you use your position as a religious leader to push your oppressive agenda into the political realm.

Which this Pope and his Church did, and do, with regularity. Just like those fundies we are all free to hate.

I guess everyone conviently forgot those Catholic chruches that refused to let Kerry to attend Mass during the election. Or didn't read the Vatican screed against gay marriage and civil unions, calling them evil and depraved, and demanding that their Bishops and laypeople fight any legislation that would allow them. Or didn't notice the weekly updates from the Pope reminding us all just how much he disapproved of gays. Or missed the way the Church is aligning itself, increasingly, with the religious right in this country, to come together against the common enemy: women who want choice and gays. And all the while, hiding pedophilles from justice.

But, it's not nice to say those things, even if they are true.

[Eloriel]

27. Well said, and in addition

all the people -- individuals around the world -- actively HURT by those policies and practices. Not just inconvenienced or snubbed or mildly disrespected, but actively, horrifically HURT.

When you add it all up, it's quite a pile of humanity and frankly ends up reminding me of some of the Church's even darker times: like genocidal practices against ALL indigenous people under the guise of "converting them," and my personal (least) favorite: The Burning Times. You see? It's not really DIFFERENT, except in degree.

[jdj]

29. that's it.

that's what I was trying to say in the OP.

but none of that matters, my hurt that is, because, you see, I'm just an 'issue'.

[incapsulated]

31. But...

He said he was against the war! He actually didn't do anything about it, like threaten excommunication for warmongers, instead of pro-choice people, but jeez, whatta guy!

And sure, he doesn't want HIV positive Catholics in aids ravaged coutries using condoms, but that's his faith! He is a pious man!

I. Don't. Get. It.

[Tansy_Gold]

111. One wonders what might have happened if JP2 had slapped

an interdict on the U.S. over boooosh's invasion.

But of course, he didn't do that, didn't even threaten. Local bishops essentially did it to pro-choice politicians, so it wasn't an impossible action.

However, knowing how much money comes to the Vatican from US catholics, I suppose the holy father knew where the power lay.

[hfojvt]

34. degrees do not matter?

A slap in the face only differs in degree from being beaten to a pulp, but what a difference.
But I agree with the "well said" part.

[onager]

28. Incapsulated: You've made some great posts on this subject

Thanks!

:toast:

As I ranted over in the Atheist group, I'm willing to acknowledge the grief of fellow DU'ers and I hate to see them hurting.

But as for the subject of their grief, I refuse to say anything. Well, anything else. I've already had a couple of posts vanish.

Being a history geek, I usually look for analogies there.

So I guess I'm feeling a little like Ulysses S. Grant. He acknowleged the courage and dedication of his Confederate enemy, while also saying they were fighting for just about the worst cause anybody ever fought for.

[incapsulated]

33. I toast anyone who quotes Grant

:toast:

:)

[hfojvt]

36. hey, he's my famous cousin

one of the four Republican Presidents I am related to, and the first one I found out about.

[incapsulated]

40. Get outta here...

I was brought up not far from his tomb!

[hfojvt]

30. fundies, along with their social conservatism

are also economic conservatives, or ultra conservatives, and pro death penalty and pro war. I have not seen a poll, but they probably voted Bush 80-20 whereas Catholics split about 51-49. So their political agenda is a mixed bag too.

[incapsulated]

38. The question is...

What exactly did the Pope do to change any of the economic issues he raised?

Liberation Theology, which had it's roots in Vatican II, was a movement within the Church that sought to make being pro-active in the cause of the poor and oppressed an important part of being Catholic, but was shot down by this Pope because he thought it was too "Marxist".

It was nice he made those statements, but I focus on the actual action he took. He chose to take action on abortion and gay rights, right into our political process.

[not systems]

72. Exactly.

The American Catholic Church is increasingly allied with
the far right because of abortion and gays.

Thanks for saying so.

[merh]

49. Just out of curiousity

What did MLK or Gandhi have to say about abortion, gay rights, civil unions, birth control, etc?

It is hard to compare leaders of different eras with leaders of today and I would love to read what each or either man had to say about the issues.

[incapsulated]

59. I guess bringing them up...

Was to me an example of men who used their faith to make the world a truly better place. Not their position on one specific thing, such as abortion or gay rights. I can honestly say that neither of these men made an effort to try to restrict the rights of any other group of people, rather they tried to expand the rights of minority or the oppressed. Archbishop Romero also comes to mind, in that he laid down his life fighting for the lives and rights of his people, just to make the point this isn't an "anti-Catholic" thing. I'm sure I would disagree with Romero on abortion, but I respect him for living his faith in a way that was a force for what was right and just.

I don't see what JP has done that even begins to rival what these did, much of it driven by their deep faith, for others. Yet, to hear some on DU, he was some sort of Catholic Hero because he apologized to Jews, or made some statements against war or against injustice (which didn't apply to "sinners", of course).

[merh]

63. His fight for freedom for the people in communist blocked nations

is part of his legacy. Raygun did not make the berlin wall fall, it was the efforts of Pope John Paul II and his standing with the Polish people and the solidarity movement that was the catalyst.

I suggest you read about his life and his efforts. You won't find him perfect, but you will discover he did some pretty impressive things.

IMHO - MLK would have a hard time justifying civil unions and gay rights with his religious beliefs and they probably would not be a part of his battle for civil rights if he were alive today. Gay rights is a very divisive issue in the black community and one of the reasons why many voted for the weed over Kerry.

I don't agree with the pope's stand on gay rights, abortion, birth control or the involvement of women in the church, but I recognize his influence in the end of the cold war and in bringing freedom of religion to many nations that had banned religions of all types. I also know that he condemned the war, to the weed's face, and he opposed violence and capital punishment, he spoke out against the torture and he asked the Jews to forgive the Catholic church for closing its eyes on the Nazi genocide. He wasn't perfect, he had flaws, but he also did some pretty important things.

I don't know what Ghandi or MLK or JFK or RFK would have to say about the issues of today, they were not exposed to the issues and to assume they would include the issues in their civil rights struggles is just assuming too much. They were all born and raised in a different time and they lived in different times.

[incapsulated]

81. Ok...

First off, there is a big difference between, say, being "pro-life" or against abortion for whatever reason, and actively working to make abortion a crime. Which was my point about MLK and Gandhi. They dedicated their lives to freeing people from oppression, not trying to send them back into it.

As far as the Pope and communism goes, he was obsessed with anti-communism to the point that he was not only working for the freedom of those oppressed by it on one hand, he was excusing human rights abuses by those that stood against it on the other. Archbishop Oscar Romero, who stood against the right-wing government that was oppressing the people of El Salvador and sending right-wing death squads to kill them and the priests and nuns who supported them, went to the Vatican for help. He was told by the Pope, who was suspicious that they were aligning themselves with "communists", to "get along" with the government that was killing his poor flock. Romero went back to El Salvador and continued to speak out against the oppression. He was murdered by those same death squads.

I wish his concern for the people oppressed by communism in Europe, was also expressed in some concern for the people being murdered by Catholics in Latin America.

That said, there were such a multitude of factors that brought down the iron curtain, that giving the Pope all this credit all of a sudden is a little disingenuous. The people of Poland were the ones willing to stand against the Soviet Union, which was ripe for collapse.

I'm glad he spoke out against the war, and capitol punishment and torture. I wish he had done as much practically to stop these things as he did to try and stop gay civil unions or legalized abortion. Like threatening warmongers, rather than pro-choice catholics, with excommunication.

[merh]

91. Now who is being disingenuous?

"That said, there were such a multitude of factors that brought down the iron curtain, that giving the Pope all this credit all of a sudden is a little disingenuous. The people of Poland were the ones willing to stand against the Soviet Union, which was ripe for collapse."

The people of Poland had a world leader stand with them as they stood against the Soviet Union, what would have happened if they did not have the world leader standing with them, a world leader that advocated that they make their stand in non-violent ways? The leader of solidatiry has said that he does not believe they would have had the impact if it had not been for the Pope's involvement and they would have had to resort to violence to make an impact. The Pope's involvement kept the spotlight on the efforts and prevented the USSR from just wiping out the dissidents.

Let's put it in relative terms. If we had a "world leader" or just a leader that would stand up to the weed and his evils and would denounce what is going on in our nation, would it not be easier to bring about change and to toss the mfer out of office or have him impeached? We have the desire, we just don't have someone with clout to stand with us and to keep the media attention on the atrocities of this admin.

"First off, there is a big difference between, say, being "pro-life" or against abortion for whatever reason, and actively working to make abortion a crime. Which was my point about MLK and Gandhi. They dedicated their lives to freeing people from oppression, not trying to send them back into it." Again, you don't know what position MLK or Gandhi would take on abortion or gay rights. You can't know because they never had to include them in their platforms or they never were asked what they thought about them.

What people don't understand about the Pope is that he was a man that made a choice about sex -- priests take a vow of celebacy -- he chose not to have sex. He was an old man from another era, that saw that having sex or not having sex is a personal choice. I am not forgiving his inability to understand the gay rights issues and/or to accept homosexuals as human beings entitled to all rights, I am just saying that there are things you do not understand about the man, just has he doesn't understand about the issue.

He did more good than he did bad and his heart, though misguided, was in the right place. He was afterall, just a man.

It is just ludicrous for you or others to try to say what liberals of the past would do relative to gay rights or abortion. They did not have to deal with those issues and they aren't around now to be asked what they think.

If you want a civil rights leader to deal with the issues, become that leader.

[incapsulated]

139. Way to distort what I have said

First, I never said that the Pope had no effect on the Solidarity movement. I said that it was a complicated issue, that in the end the people of Poland should get more credit than the Pope, since they initiated the rebellion, and this new version of history that gives him such enormous credit for the fall of the Soviet Union is as silly as giving it to Reagan. The Soviet Union was ripe for a fall for economic reasons as much as anything else. And everyone forgets that Gorbachev could have reacted with an iron fist, they still had that ability, but he chose to allow the inevitable to happen.

Second, I never compared the stances of MLK or Gandhi on gays or abortion to the Pope's, that is absurd. I made the point quite clearly in another post on this thread that I choose them as examples of men of faith who worked to make the world better, without dehumanizing or oppressing some other group.

As for his stance on gay rights and abortion, I have also made it clear that one individual's belief system is their own business until they try to impose it on another. Which this Pope did, through the political influence of his Church. And his statements evoking terms like "evil" and "depraved", certainly didn't have a positive effect on those toward whom it was directed. His celibacy isn't an issue here, and I have no idea why you bring it up. Unless you are claiming that celibacy makes you intolerant of gays or women.

My posts here were meant to be as one-sided as the praise that has been heaped on JP both in the MSM, and on the day I first posted, repeated right here on DU. I believe that on a political forum, the legacy of a public figure, who was a political as well as a religious figurehead of some influence, should be allowed to be examined in it's entirety without fear of "offending" someone simply because they are followers of that religion. In that vein, I wanted to post the other side of the story, as well as my own personal opinion of the man, because I felt that those of us who do not feel that the "good outweighed the bad" were being stifled.

[jdj]

64. plus with these two leaders their religion was incidental

they represented the people they fought for.

with the pope, he represented religion (i.e a certain world order), and it was his followers who were incidental

[merh]

107. Go back and study both men.

Their religions were why they took the stands they took on the civil rights issues of their generation.

Again, where do you find anything, anywhere that provide that Gandhi, MLK or any other civil rights leader from the 60 & 70 movement commented on, let alone recognized that gay rights and abortion were issues?

Stop confusing eras and don't try to put words in the mouths of dead men. I have no idea, and neither do you, what either man would have to say about gay rights or abortion. I may believe that they would have included the rights of gays in their efforts and they would have been pro-choice, but my desire to believe that does not make it a fact.

[Tansy_Gold]

114. The man who brought MLK and Gandhi together

was Bayard Rustin.

http://www.rustin.org/about.html

<snip>

A master strategist and tireless activist, Bayard Rustin is best remembered as the organizer of the 1963 March on Washington, one of the largest nonviolent protests ever held in the United States. He brought Gandhi’s protest techniques to the American civil rights movement, and helped mold Martin Luther King, Jr. into an international symbol of peace and nonviolence.

Despite these achievements, Rustin was silenced, threatened, arrested, beaten, imprisoned and fired from important leadership positions, largely because he was an openly gay man in a fiercely homophobic era.

<end snip>

Rustin had been a communist but then became an "anti-communist socialist," which still worked against him in the so-called mainstream of the Americna civil rights movement during the anti-soviet 1950s and 1960s.


More on Bayard Rustin at

http://www.apri.org/Bio-Rustin.htm


The point being, i do not think JP2 would EVER have willingly embraced such a diverse entourage as Gandhi and MLK, through the shared activism of Rustin, did.

[merh]

117. Thank you for the links. I will go read them.

So, I take MLK and Gandhi did not embrace his gay lifestyle?

[Tansy_Gold]

123. You can find more doing a google search

http://pages.zdnet.com/linwood/woodshed2004/id62.html

(from halfway down this very long page)

<snip>

In King's day, though, gay rights was invisible on
America's public policy radarscope, and homosexuality,
among blacks, and whites, was hushed up. There's not a
word in any of his speeches or writings about
homosexuality or whether he believed the civil rights
struggle was inclusive of gays.

There's a way, however, to gauge what King's feelings were
on the issue, and what he might say and do about it today.
That gauge is the long time personal and political
relationship that King had with Bayard Rustin. Best known
as the driving force behind the historic 1963 March on
Washington, Rustin was a close King associate, ally,
supporter, and a known homosexual. In 1953, Rustin was
convicted of morals charges. In the frozen mood of that
day and time that was the parlance for homosexual acts.
It carried a quick, and sometimes, stiff jail term.
King knew this, the Kennedy's, top FBI officials, black
elected officials, civil rights leaders, and the tight
circle of black ministers around King, knew it as well.

That didn't deter King from embracing Rustin. At the
high point of the Montgomery bus boycott in 1956 that
launched King into the national spotlight and over the
vehement opposition of black ministers who called
homosexuals and Rustin unsavory and evil, King invited
Rustin to come to Montgomery as an advisor.

A year later, King turned to Rustin and asked him to
draft the resolutions and the organizational charter of
his fledging Southern Christian Leadership Conference.
He demanded that the SCLC board, mostly composed of
black ministers, hire Rustin as its coordinator and
publicist. King didn't win that one. The board flatly
turned him down, and though it was unstated, Rustin's
homosexuality was a major reason.

The issue continued to dog King and his relationship
with Rustin. Harlem Congressman Adam Clayton Powell
publicly threatened to accuse King of having a homosexual
affair with Rustin if he didn't call off planned
demonstrations at the 1960 Democratic convention. King
didn't buckle to Powell's blackmail threat and went
ahead with the demonstrations anyway.

During the next few years, the assault on Rustin's
homosexuality, and the pressure on King to dump him,
escalated. FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover busy with his
blatantly illegal spy campaign against King publicly
released wiretaps of scurrilous remarks King associates
made about Rustin's homosexuality. On the eve of the
March on Washington in 1963, South Carolina Senator
Strom Thurmond denounced Rustin on the Senate floor as
a sexual pervert, and inserted a copy of his 1953 arrest
booking slip in the Congressional Record. The Kennedy's
also flatly demanded that King get rid of him. King did
not publicly break with Rustin. And when he did eventually
distance himself politically from Rustin, he gave no
public hint that his homosexuality was an issue.

King risked much to work with and defend Rustin during
the tumultuous battles of the civil rights era. He valued
him as an ally and a major player in the struggle.
He also believed that deeply embodied in the civil rights
fight was a person's right to be whom and what he was.

<end snip>

This article is a response to the involvement of Dr. King's daughter, Rev. Bernice King, and a niece in anti-gay activities.

[merh]

124. Thank you.

I appreciate this link too.

"The Kennedy's also flatly demanded that King get rid of him. King did
not publicly break with Rustin. And when he did eventually
distance himself politically from Rustin, he gave no
public hint that his homosexuality was an issue."

[Tansy_Gold]

130. Taylor Branch's biography of Dr. King includes

a great deal of information on Bayard Rustin, "Parting the Waters" and "Pillar of Fire."

The important point to keep in mind is that Rustin was *openly* gay, not closeted or rumored or suspected, yet Dr. King *publicly* stood by him.

[merh]

133. Until he distanced himself from him.

:shrug:

[uhhuh]

136. I'll trust King's wife to know his opinion

"Coretta Scott King has endorsed a federal measure prohibiting discrimination because of sexual orientation. She told a June news conference that her late husband would have, also.

"Like Martin, I don't believe you can stand for freedom for one group of people and deny it to others," Coretta King said."

http://gaytoday.badpuppy.com/garchive/events/091597ev.htm

Further:

http://www.congress.org/congressorg/issues/alert/?alertid=7304451&content_dir=ua_congressorg

[merh]

138. Well, it would appear that actions speak louder than words.

"The Kennedy's also flatly demanded that King get rid of him. King did not publicly break with Rustin. And when he did eventually distance himself politically from Rustin, he gave no public hint that his homosexuality was an issue." See link at post 123 above

The point is you cannot compare the participants of past movements to the movements of today. It is not accurate and definitely not fair. Doing that would be like me saying, well if Karol was born a black man in the USofA, he would have understood and fought for the civil rights of all. I don't know that so it is just a silly statement to make.

JPII was not perfect, but to him, sexuality was a choice, given that he chose to take a vow of celibacy. That is not saying he was perfect or even right, it is saying that if you expect understanding without giving it you are just as guilty as the one you harshly judge. Once you learn to be the bigger person and see the good in a person, despite their obvious human fralities, you might find that life is not as complex as you chose to make it. I am not saying I agree with or even liked JPII's stance on gay rights or abortion or women's rights, but I am saying I do appreciate the good he did and his basic goodness.

Hating and defaming a dead man seems rather futile, turning on people who recognize the good in a person, despite their flaws, seems equally futile, all you are doing is turning that person off and possibly away from caring about your cause.

"do unto others as you would have them do unto you"

[Tansy_Gold]

142. Dr. King was under enormous political pressure to sever his

ties with Rustin, who was openly -- some might say flagrantly -- gay in a time when this was both uncommon and dangerous.

http://www.boston.com/news/specials/gay_marriage/articles/2004/02/13/black_gay_rights_linked_in_history/

This column, from Feb 2004, contains a good bit of material from Branch's book and illustrates the intense pressure put on King to disavow Rustin and the lengths to which King went to preserve Rustin's position within the civil rights movement. Some, i suppose, may see King's actions as exploitation rather than utilization, but I can't help that.

The point is that Dr. King knew what Rustin's life was and did not hesitate to enlist his services in the cause at a time when Rustin's "lifestyle" was still looked up as too scandalous for mainstream acceptance. I hardly think JP2 would have done the same thing even forty years later, when there is public acceptance of gays in a larger part of the mainstream.

[merh]

143. But he did eventually "distance" himself from his trusted friend

because of politics.

Dr. King, like so many others, was human.

Understanding that JPII chose to live a life of celibacy, thus he chose his sexuality or to be non-sexual, might make it easier for you to understand that he saw sexuality as a choice. I am not saying his understandings were correct, I am saying that if you demand that others be understanding of you then you might want to try to be understanding of them.

Again, it is ridiculous to say want MLK would do relative to the gays rights movements since he did not have to make that choice, and, it would appear that he did by distancing himself from his trusted friend.

[liberal43110]

54. Thank you

I have been so disgusted by the papal love fest that I took the evening off from reading here at DU tonight (just came back--couldn't stay away!). More than disgusted, however, I have been surprised. I didn't except it here at DU.

[Nay]

82. Thanks from me, too. I have taken a break from the lovefest as

well. I don't get it, either.

[rodeodance]

73. What was MLK's and Ghandhi's position on the gay/lesbian issue?

[Tansy_Gold]

115. Please see my post #114 above

for a suggestion that neither Gandhi nor MLK would have been as fiercely anti-gay as JP2.

[SheWhoMustBeObeyed]

19. Respect to grieving members

Who should matter to us as part of our community. That's how I read Skinner's post.

If people are truly grieving then who am I to piss on their grief. I don't go to a wake and say "she was a jerk" even if I said it before she died and expect to say it again after the pain of loss has faded. Respect is for the grieving.

[jdj]

20. this isn't a wake, it's an internet website.

a political one. a liberal political one.

one where there are alot of feminists, alot of pro-choice people, alot of gay people, and alot of progressives.

it seems to be between who matters more to whom. sad.

[incapsulated]

23. My point

Look, I'm willing to keep my opinions about the Pope quiet for a while, as long as I don't have to read post after post praising St. John the Magnificent, without feeling I have a right to comment, lest I hurt someone's feelings.

If you want a safe place to praise and mourn the Pope without question, why use a political website? I don't get this at all.

[hfojvt]

42. Perhaps some of us

like to feel that DU is a big group of our friends. You share things with your friends, be it happiness, or grief. Chris LeDoux died a couple weeks ago and I wanted to mourn with some DUers, but apparently there is only on Chris LeDoux fan in DU. I probably do not have any friends here either, although I have many DUers that I regard as my friends. Alas, unrequited friendship.

[incapsulated]

47. I think...

The Pope and the Church is too big an issue to many people to brush aside differences, in many ways.

Imagine someone you know and like grieving for the loss of Bush, if he died. Now, I'm sure you could comfort them from an emotional standpoint. But when they began talking about what a great and good man he was, you would start to have a hard time. All you could do was nod, before you eventually started to disagree, no matter how much you liked this person. And that is a personal friend, not an entire forum, most of whom you do not know.

[hfojvt]

62. I do have some friends who are Bush fans

but they know how I feel about Bush. As far as DU goes, nobody makes you read a post, so it is easy to butt out. It does not invade your world like radio or TV or a friend talking to you.

[SheWhoMustBeObeyed]

39. It's a community.

One where there are all kinds of people. Right now all the attention is on the pope-obsessed.

Those who us who are pope-indifferent suggest the pope-obsessed just keep repeating, "It's all about me. It's all about me. It's all about me..."

[jdj]

48. LOL

thanks for that one.

[Eloriel]

22. I am with you 100%

Make that 1000%.

I'm sad and disgusted with DU and yes, perhaps a little scared too (tho not being gay no doubt helps re the fear issue).

I'm afraid all the bitching and whining that fundies have been doing around here has actually paid off for them. I feel censored.

I feel the same way. There's been an absolute inundation of DU by religiously inclined folk who seem to feel they have some RIGHT to inflict their discussions of their religion on us as the fundies claim they have.

I've got a clue for all of them: they DON'T have that right; the don't have that right unless it's specifically given to them by others (aka: they're asked). And I see not much asking around here. It does appear to me they are getting a lot of latitude, tho, and that saddens me. It also appalls me. Our politics in the U.S. are supposed to be completely and totally secular, period. That means, by definition, there is no room for religious discussions in politics. :shrug: Seems simple enough to me. I don't know why people don't seem to understand that religious discussions are simply inappropriate. (Well, yes, I do. They don't WANT to understand that -- they want to force their religious discussions on us no matter what, just like the rightwing fundies.)

[jdj]

25. thanks Eloriel.

is this thing going on around here an organized thing?

I'm starting to suspect this.

no tsunami conspiracy theories, and now no dead pope...

[magnussun]

Respect for people of faith

"I feel the same way. There's been an absolute inundation of DU by religiously inclined folk who seem to feel they have some RIGHT to inflict their discussions of their religion on us as the fundies claim they have."

So what you are saying is that Christians don't have a right to "inflict" their pov on non-Christians here? But you can say what you wish about us without comment? That there's no room in your tent for Christians? Are democrats really the amoral atheist party as republicans claim? I don't think so. I will have you know that Catholics (I am not one) are in the forefront of the fight against poverty and homelessness in America. Those are democratic values.
Moderate and progressive Christians need to make their voices heard, first on newsgroups, then out in public. We must reclaim our religion. If democrats are really the open-minded "big tent" party and the most compassionate, they'll learn to live by those words and respect those of faith and those with diverse independent views who dwell in their ranks.

M

[jdj]

53. people "of faith" have never respected me.

I hate that idiom anyway. you are religious. big deal.
this is not the place to take back your religion. like Sinead said "fight the real enemy".


P.S. I will let you know that I will respect "people of faith" when they earn my respect, which means in general to stop fucking everything up. Until then, no quarter.

[JohnnyCougar]

102. Well, I'm a person of faith...

and here's some respect!

:pals:

[magnussun]

112. Christian DUers DO deserve respect

"P.S. I will let you know that I will respect "people of faith" when they earn my respect, which means in general to stop fucking everything up. Until then, no quarter."

I think the Christians here deserve respect as people of faith because THEY have not harmed you, or insulted you. We oppose the same nuttiness that you do which comes out of the religious right. Please stop identifying all people of faith as being like Pat Robertson.

Would it be fair for me to blame all Muslims for 911? Of course not. So why act as if all Christians are responsible for the right-wing Christian Wahabbis? Treat us as individuals and be tolerant.

M

[liberal43110]

60. Are democrats really the amoral atheist party as republicans claim?

How about looking at politics without regard to religion at all? I don't want my politics mixed up with religion. I thought that was the point of the separation of church and state.

Politicians of all parties, including Democrat and Republican, can subscribe to any religion or none at all.

So, no, I don't think the Democrats should be a party for atheists only, I do think that the Democrats should stand up proudly for a fully secular society that does not discriminate against anyone.

[magnussun]

113. There is a separation of church and state

"How about looking at politics without regard to religion at all? I don't want my politics mixed up with religion. I thought that was the point of the separation of church and state."

Our politics reflect our values, and for Christians our values are based on Christ in word and deed. There's no separation there. We DO have a quite good separation of church and state, in governance, and a means to strike down laws created which violate this separation.

M

[Tansy_Gold]

116. No, Christians DO NOT have a right to inflict their opinion on

the rest of us, IMHO.

Christians and/or Catholics and/or other people of faith and/or those who just want to grieve over JP2 are welcome to do so.

What they are NOT welcome to do, IMHO, is scurry around DU telling all of us who disagree with them to shut up.

I'm not going into the RIP JP2 threads and pissing on the body of their beloved, but I fail to see why I should have to muzzle my disagreement via the locking of any and all threads not glorifying his memory.

I was at a public memorial for Paul Wellstone in 2002 when a rabid goooper walked up to me and screamed into my ear "I'M GLAD THE BASTARD'S DEAD!" I am not going to do the same to the people mourning JP2, but I do think those of us who are not mourning him ought to be allowed to discuss why we aren't.

[animuscitizen]

87. Bisexual, sexual assault survivor, female--with a slightly different view

My romantic relationship history has included men and women. I had an abortion at age 20--following rape by a stranger. I am a strong proponent of equal rights for women and reproductive freedom.

One of my vocational specialties is clinical practice with trauma survivors. I hear detailed stories of childhood sexual abuse 5 days per week. I have strong, personal feelings and professional opinions about pedophilia (and the Catholic Church cover-ups).

I can empathize with your outrage on these issues. The Pope's stance on homosexuality, women's issues, and the pedophilia priest cover-ups are nauseating realities.

I don't see evidence that the Pope was an "evil" person, even though I despise some of his policies. He accomplished some good, for some people.

As a non-religious person, and as someone who tends to be critical of religion in general, I could give a hoot about the Pope. I can easily criticize the Pope, the Catholic Church, and any other religious organization and/or leader. At the same time, I try to be sensitive to religious people. Many Catholics disagree with the Pope on the above issues. Yet those same Catholics have strong feelings about the Pope. Out of respect for others, I try to balance reflective critique with sensitivity.

An inflammatory comment coincides with insensitivity and the intention to inspire upset. A meaningful, critical comment reflects upon policies, philosophy, or specific aspects of leadership that an individual or group finds objectionable. There is a fine line between the inflammatory and the critical. I could be wrong--but I interpreted Skinner's post along this wave of thought. I did not get a sense that it was a call for censorship of opinions. The post appeared to address the need for balanced perspectives and sensitivity. In other words, you are free to express you opinions here.

[ultraist]

125. excellent definition!

An inflammatory comment coincides with insensitivity and the intention to inspire upset. A meaningful, critical comment reflects upon policies, philosophy, or specific aspects of leadership that an individual or group finds objectionable. There is a fine line between the inflammatory and the critical.

The problem I've seen here, aside from a few inappropriate remarks on both sides, is that some of the religious posters, view "meaningful, criticial comment..." as "intolerance" for their religion. A few have even gone so far to say that it is bigotry and hateful to posit any criticisms of their religion.

I don't think the line is that fine. A thoughtful, objective, critique follows general standards and is easy to identify from one that engages in name calling, lack of factual evidence, and other forms of fallacious arguments.

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

137. "I feel censored."

Yeah, well when you're actually censored, then complain to the DU faithful. The Moderators know what they're doing.

Any censorship falls into one of two categories here at DU:
1) one violates the rules;
2) self censorship.

Say what you want and prepare for people to disagree.

Watch:

JPII was absolutely correct in insisting on Eucharistic purity: no more of this rice cakes and sake wine nonsense.

JPII was misguided in NOT fixing that silly, stupid, semi-heretical "filioque" clause.

Fin

[TexasSissy]

140. I don't understand the post, either. I feel like at the end it should

say, "and....." and then complete the thought.

[Orangepeel]

2. "women in the priesthood" is an issue

as are abortion, gay rights and married people in the priesthood. Did you read it as if there was a comma after women?

If not, then I don't understand.

[jdj]

5. okay, I got it.

phew, you don't know how relieved I am.

Seriously.

[Orangepeel]

8. glad to help

:D

[jdj]

9. yeah, but now I'm pissed about the gay rights part.

this is a new feeling for me here.

[Orangepeel]

17. IMHO, you have every right to be pissed about the Pope's lack of support

for gay rights.

[tedzbear]

45. "lack of support" is a vast understatement, don't you think?

Why not call it what it is? Gay Bashing.

[hfojvt]

12. I read it that he was conservative on most women's issues

not just women in the priesthood. Still, even if you are an issue, I would say that nobody's perfect, so why dance on his grave for a few imperfections? At least he had some qualities (or supported some issues you support) you admire, didn't he? I cannot feel sad when anyone dies at an advanced age whether it is the Pope or Isaac Asimov (although Isaac died of AIDS which he contracted from a blood transfusion so that seems more avoidable). It would be nice if we had a Pope who opposed the Iraq war as much as he opposes abortion so 70-80% of Catholics would have voted for Kerry instead of the 49% who did.

[jdj]

13. No,

I despise the SOB. Sinead O'Connor is my hero.

This may be an illegal post in an illegal thread, actually I'm surprised it hasn't been locked yet, but his nazi pronoucements about abortion, women's and gay issues, sexual abuse of children etc. always felt like a total slap in the face.

No, in my world he is/was one of the bad guys.

[hfojvt]

24. mine too, but I believe in respecting mortality

the dead cannot defend themself so it is crass to attack someone at this time. I remember gagging at the love fests during Nixon and Goldwater's deaths. I wanted to scream "In my guts, I still know he was nuts!!!!" or "good riddance you crook!" but that was more a reaction to all of the gushing praise they were getting. Still an essay describing their flaws or failings is not the same thing as expressing the sentiment that "I dance on their grave" or something more scatological. Skinner never made him into a saint or even a good guy, only that he was not nearly as bad as the BFEE.

[jdj]

26. I'm not sure about that.

without the religion the BFEE stuff simply just isn't possile, like Mary Daly said, when God is male, the male is God, and you can't have one without the other. I see them as interrelated and on the same team.

Neither was ever on my side.

[hfojvt]

32. Kerry is male too, and Catholic

so what is the alternative? A big part of my side was opposition to the Iraq war, and the Pope was on my side for that.

[Eloriel]

46. Your delicate sensibilities are misplaced, IMO

When there's someone who has as much authority, power over as many lives in such incredibly PERSONAL ways as this, you just tell the damn truth about them, period, no matter when. And if your truth is akin to dancing on their grave then so be it. I can assure you, the Pope is not significatly harmed by such sentiments -- and if he had been, he had the power to make sweeping changes.

You may not realize it, but your "imperfections" line in the previous post is horrifically, offensively dismissive and trivializing of this man's real impact. Please get it thru your head: this man has been responsible for real, active harm to millions of actual INDIVIDUALs.

When you deny poor women the right to control their reproductive processes themselves, you are HARMING those individual women. Real, active, individual HARM. When you refuse to support the "dignity" of gay people -- I'm hearing so fucking much about this Pope and his emphasis on human "dignity" -- you are enabling (at the very least) gay bashing and discrimination and ultimately the type of physical harm that Matthew Shepherd endured.

When you deny women the right to become fully equal spiritual leaders, you are doing real, active, individual HARM to those women who would want to do that if they could. If you're not a particularly spiritual person, you may have some difficulty realizing just what a heartache and what spiritual abuse this amounts to. FURTHER, as mentioned elsewhere, "When God is a male, all males are gods." When women aren't good enough to become priests (and there's NO amount of rhetorical mumbo-jumbo or gymnastics that can get around that), it does real, individual AND mass harm to ALL women around the world, but I would think especially Catholic women and the women who come into contact with Catholics who believe as the Church has taught. This is unacceptable in the 21st Century and no amount of rhetoric can change that in any way. It was also unacceptable during the entire last half of the 20th century -- IOW: the entirety of this Pope's term.

Unacceptable. Totally, unalterably unacceptable and anyone who thinks of these and so many other faults as "imperfections" is -- well, I won't go there. FURTHER, anyone who ranks these critical personal matters, these human rights, as somehow below war and the death penalty and a few other things he apparently got right, is not a supporter of human rights in any real way.

[ultraist]

68. Well said!

Homophobia and misogyny. 'nuf said

I find it hurtful that so many so called Democrats could be so dismissive of the importance of Gay rights and women's rights.

Do they not realize that VIOLENCE against Gays and women stem from such beliefs?

[hue]

88. Well said again Eloriel!

This is so true regarding the DOUBLE STANDARD of the Catholic church! I was born and raised Catholic.
While the cardinals live in absolute luxury--having their every need attended to by their valets, and caretakers of every kind, they adhere to the Catholic doctrine that, for just one among many examples, forbids the poor everywhere (from Africa to Latin America) from using condoms for family planning and infection control. (I was told by my parish priest when I consulted him about the issue, that as a nurse I could not advise gay men with HIV to use condoms after discharge from the hospital.) Those families will then have either more children than they can feed or a guilty conscience for their "sins". Yet in the seminary dorms the unspoken "other activities" begin.
It is hard to discern what is good and what is evil about the Catholic church. For example Mother Theresa is now considered "blessed". She is on a fast track to sainthood. Yet people indigenous to Kolkutta (Calcutta) claim her work there has harmed their city. Businessmen have written letters stating that pictures of her homes for the sick have discouraged investors from coming to their city. Mother Theresa and her Sisters of Charity order refuse to give analgesics to those they house as it is opposed to her philosophy of suffering. They baptize those dying in their houses whether they agree to it or not. One of her sisters of Charity in New York quit the order because of the financial discrepancies--a huge bank account of funds but none going to the poor or even the sisters in the order for basic needs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother_Theresa#Criticism

I agree that what is mystical about the Catholic church is the much corruption at so many levels which is justified by the church dogma.

[Tansy_Gold]

118. Thank you, Eloriel

It's always about real people, when it comes right down to it.

:thumbsup:

[Behind the Aegis]

18. I had NO idea!

I didn't know that Issac Asimov died of AIDS?! I think I knew he was gone, but I didn't know how. The things you learn at DU! Thanks for that information!

[alarimer]

55. Me neither

I haven't bothered to check, but it's sad if it is true. Although I think he's been gone for a while

[yurbud]

105. support for gays and blacks is paying off

Besides being the right thing to do, look at who is standing up for democracy and progressive values the most.

In the Schiavo case, only Barney Frank spoke against the GOP Demagoguery.

In 2000 and 2004, African American congressmen were the most vocal and blunt in public objection to the theft of the election.

Those that this administration uses as scapegoats or disenfranchises to consolidate their power have nothing to gain by keeping quiet and are standing up when our other leaders are cowards who are betraying us and democracy.

Gays are not a special interest or an issue, they are us.

That said, we need to send the "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" cast over to help the cardinals at the Vatican update their look. That fish hat has GOT to go.

[Solon]

4. My mother's life is also an issue...

Not anymore really, she's in menopause now, however, after she had me, a difficult birth(C-Section in the '70s), the docs said she had to wait at least six years before being pregnant again, my sister was born six years later. How the hell do you think she did it? She never cared for this pope, and her and my father used birth control, both the pill and condoms. After my sister, another C-Section obviously(Bikini cut this time), my dad, a recently converted Catholic at the time, had his tubes tied, so to speak. After my sister was born, my mother would have died if she had gotten pregnant again, so it was either celebacy for them, or violating Church Doctrine to have a fulfilling marriage. I guess they are "bad" Catholics, don't you think?

[bloom]

121. Some good friends of my parents

(when I was young - our families got together for barbeques, etc) were Catholic, had three kids, didn't want to have more kids, so they stopped having sex, ended up divorced - the mother/ex-wife killed herself - when her kids were still fairly young. (I think my mother, at least, believes it was because they were trying to be "good Catholics").

[porphyrian]

15. An "issue" to an archaic patriarchal pseudo-theocracy, yes.

You're a person to us.

[Dookus]

35. thanks, jdj

I feel the same way. I feel somewhat put out that the admins felt it was necessary to gloss over the hatred of this pope and describe him as a good man who meant well.

He was an arch-conservative, homophobic misogynist. But that passes for reasonable in today's world.

[incapsulated]

43. Yeah, well...

I blame you for getting me riled with your posts, lol. I said I would stop last night, and I'm at it again.

We are obviously bad DU'ers.

:spank:

[jdj]

50. geez is that it?

oh god, I hadn't considered that possibility, 'it's not that the pope has gotten better, it's that everyone else has gotten worse'... now I'm really depressed.

[Dookus]

51. Yes, I'm afraid that's it

Even here on a so-called liberal discussion board, he is to be treated with kid gloves, because the religious might get offended if we criticize the policies of a man they never met and never knew.

Christians are now victims, and we have to play along with that pretense.

[bettyellen]

69. every death is sad. but i don't think it's an excuse to rewrite history

or ask those of us who are marginalized and yes, condemned to have respect for their abusers. i have respect for his passing as i do for anyone's, and understand the need for sensitivity at this moment, but whitewashing, forgetting, here? we shouldn't be hypocrites. and we shouldn't feel marginalized or silenced ever. we are supposed to care about policy here, aren't we?

[Dookus]

71. You'd think...

but lately, "you gotta admire the guy" isn't a preface to a point - it's a command in and of itself.

[tedzbear]

41. The Pope was a gay basher and I will not excuse him.

Fuck all the gay bashers!

[magnussun]

52. Gay basher?

The Pope lived by the bible. He loved everyone and NEVER bashed gays. He simply obeyed the bible and didn't support gay preists and gay marriage. You may disagree, but he had the courage to stand up for biblical values, rather than bow down to pressure from the world. Christ did the same. This takes courage.

M

[jdj]

57. I think those papal decrees about gay marriage being an "abomination"

and threatening the bedrock of society qualifies as gay bashing.

I will actually take you at your meaning and respond in kind.
Do I think it takes courage to follow a manual altered and plagiarized over centuries for the benefit of you and your kind?
No, that is not courage to me. That is opportunism.

[mmonk]

83. There also

Humanae vitae which says sterilization (should a couple choose that after they have had enough children) is also called an "abomination" even though my wife had her tubes tied and is Catholic. I guess most Catholics take this stuff with a grain of salt and ignore it but I understand if you choose not to. Just don't let it get the best of you. There aren't any angry Catholic mobs out hunting gays. I do admit that extremists could use it though and misguided bishops could influence laws thus codifying discrimination. Its gonna be a long fight. Don't give up and don't sink to vilification. Choose the smart strategy of dialogue.

[magnussun]

108. That's what the bible says

"I think those papal decrees about gay marriage being an "abomination" and threatening the bedrock of society qualifies as gay bashing."

That's what the bible says. The Pope has no business changing biblical scripture to suit today's society.


M

[Dookus]

131. Really?

Does the church still offer sacrifices? Does the church prohibit the consumption of pork and shellfish? Does the church test every man entering a church for intact testicles?

The church has chosen to ignore a LOT of scripture to suit the times.

[Tansy_Gold]

134. Well, the "bible" says slavery is fine and so is animal

sacrifice, and adulterers should be stoned and witches put to death.

I guess he was kind of picking and choosing which parts of the "bible" he didn't want to change, huh?

Did JP2 go after the eaters of shellfish, or those who planted two crops in the same field? Aren't those also "abominations"?

IMHO, JP2 and the Catholic Church enforce those biblical sanctions that directly support a male hierarchy and a capitalist economy. It's not really about religion, god, or Jesus -- it's about power. And that includes the power to tell individuals how to live their lives even if the way they live doesn't have ANY effect on anyone else. Gay marriage, co-habitation, divorce, etc.: people can live in harmony in a variety of relationships without the proscriptions of religion, but that takes away the power to control.

Everything the churches do is about control of things they have no other good reason to want to control. The corollary of "Because they can" is "Because they want to."

[tedzbear]

58. He refered to people like me as the "culture of death" for starters...

He may have let others do the physical violence for him, but he was the ringleader, no mistake about it.

He just hid behind the Bible, that's all. I know who my enemies are. I learned that real young. You have to in order to survive in this world.

[magnussun]

109. Ringleader?

"He may have let others do the physical violence for him, but he was the ringleader, no mistake about it."

Ringleader? He disagrees with you on homosexuality, so he's promoting violence against you? The "culture of death" is his way of describing hedonism and immorality. You have your morals, let him have his. Differences of opinion does not make someone your enemy.

"He just hid behind the Bible, that's all. I know who my enemies are. I learned that real young. You have to in order to survive in this world."

Hid? You think his goal in life was to bash gays, so he spent his life in prayer to conceal his deadly goals?

M

[not systems]

74. That is too funny...NEVER bashed gays...

give me a break.

Even a bible thumper should know that he said lots of very
hateful things about "lifestyles" and because the bible imbues
hate on these subjects I should give him a pass.

Please.

[incapsulated]

77. "The ideology of evil"

Gay marriage part of 'ideology of evil,' pope says

ROME - Pope John Paul II has released a new controversial book where he suggests same-sex marriage is part of an "ideology of evil" and draws an analogy between abortion and the Holocaust.

....

In one section, he addresses the issue of gay marriage and the pressures on European governments to legalize such unions.

"It is legitimate and necessary to ask oneself if this is not perhaps part of a new ideology of evil, perhaps more insidious and hidden, which attempts to pit human rights against the family and against man," he writes.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2005/02/23/pope050223.html


Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons:

In the discussion which followed the publication of the Declaration, however, an overly benign interpretation was given to the homosexual condition itself, some going so far as to call it neutral, or even good. Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder.

Therefore special concern and pastoral attention should be directed toward those who have this condition, lest they be led to believe that the living out of this orientation in homosexual activity is a morally acceptable option. It is not.


Pope calls for halt to 'evil' gay marriages

Rebecca Allison
Friday August 1, 2003
The Guardian

The Vatican yesterday urged Catholic politicians to actively campaign against legalising gay marriages which it said were evil, deviant and posed a grave threat to society.

In a document which was immediately condemned by gay rights campaigners as shocking and inflammatory, Catholic lawmakers were warned that any support of same-sex unions was "gravely immoral" and there was a moral duty on them to publicly oppose moves towards legal recognition of such marriages.

"There are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God's plan for marriage and family. Marriage is holy, while homosexual acts go against the natural moral law," it said, adding: "Legal recognition of homosexual unions or placing them on the same level as marriage would mean not only the approval of deviant behaviour ... but would also obscure basic values which belong to the common inheritance of humanity."

The papal note says people extending cohabitation rights "need to be reminded that the approval or legalisation of evil is something far different from the toleration of evil".

The guidelines, which were issued by the Vatican's orthodoxy watchdog, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, also described gay sex as inhuman and gay couples adopting children as "doing violence".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/gayrights/story/0%2C12592%2C1...

[magnussun]

110. Gays and abortion

Guess what? While I agree with you on many issues, I am in the middle on homosexual marriage and abortion. I do not HATE gays, I have a gay uncle. I do not hate those who have abortions, my best friend did in high school, at 5 months. I was an atheist then, but still understood that was a baby. It was quite different than purging an egg.

The Pope didn't HATE the man who tried to murder him. He forgave him. That is not a man with a hateful spirit.

M

[incapsulated]

141. I never said any such thing

Where did I say he had a "hateful spirit"? Or even used the word "hate"? I leave it to those who read his words, however, to judge whether they are hateful words in themselves. When someone evokes words like evil and depraved and murder because of who I am or what I have done or my opinion on civil unions or abortion, I consider that pretty damn harsh language, don't you think?

This is less about the personal opinions anyone has on gay rights and abortion or anything else, and more about the effect of a religious leader's opinions about them and his effort to use his influence to impose them upon others. It is also about setting the record straight as to the entire picture of the man, rather than a romanticized version that conveniently omits or glosses over some of his most controversial and outspoken stances, in order to portray him in a more positive light.

[Swamp Rat]

78. "NEVER bashed gays" - wrong wrong WRONG!

x(

[liberal43110]

61. I do not excuse the pope either

I think he was an evil man, and I do not excuse the evil he caused simply because he "was a nice guy" or opposed the war in Iraq. He is a symbol of a hateful organization.

[mmonk]

79. Don't let hatred eat you alive.

As someone who is Catholic (or raised one but is now Agnostic) there are good people in the Church that hate no one, be it gays or anything else. In fact, there are gays in the church. I don't remember anyone pushing intolerance. I don't remember any priests discussing it. Yes, there is some outdated (and hateful) dogma that the pope hasn't removed and some hierarchy won't remove. Language leads to intolerance and prejudice. And it is an injustice. But it's in most traditional churches in America, it's in the mosques, etc. It's something religion should shed. My cousin was a priest and hated no one and didn't believe being gay was a sin. But if you saw him in his robe and collar, I can gather you would immediately assume he was evil. Don't let it consume you for you are not alone. Hate the dogma, pitty the person who still believes it, but recognize there are plenty who don't, even some that wear the collar.

[Bridget Burke]

84. Many of these people were raised to hate Catholics....

They've just chosen new, hipper reasons to do so.

[ultraist]

129. "Many of these people were raised" to idolize Catholicism

They've just chosen the same old justifications to do so.

[LoZoccolo]

44. You jerk your left knee in, you jerk your left knee out...

:+

[noamnety]

85. I don't mind the lovefest

Because I learned about him while reading those threads, and that's always a good thing. Also, I don't mind the criticism, because I learned a lot while reading that as well. That's what this site is supposed to be about - expanding our knowledge. So hearing from both sides is a good thing.

I am on the side that says the internet is not a funeral home, nor is it a wake. But I wouldn't go into a specific love-fest thread and start pope-bashing, that's just wrong. I know people are grieving in those threads, and I do respect that. But they can't stake a claim over the entire internet, or even the entire DU site as their private turf for mourning.

It's not so different from the Kerry bashing, in that way. As someone who supported him whole-heartedly, I found the bashing to be infuriating, but what made it worse was that you can't mention his name in a thread without it being derailed by a half dozen off-topic posts reminding you that they would never vote for him again. That's just rude for the sake of being rude. Specific threads for criticizing Kerry were one thing, crapping all over every conversation about him was another.

So in the lovefest threads, I hold my tongue, and maybe learn a bit of history and have some compassion for fellow DUers. And in the threads that criticize him, I wouldn't go out of my way to call him names, but I'm not going to sugarcoat his role in bringing Bush and Falwell to power, or overlook the fact that despite his giving lipservice to the antiwar movement, he quietly allowed the Catholic Church to form the Christian Coalition, which in turn brought about the war he claimed he opposed. All the lip service in the world doesn't change the fact that they had a specific plan to take over the house, senate, presidency, and judicial system in the US, and now they've done it - it's no use claiming moral high ground when they themselves created the situation. Nor will I overlook the fact that he traded your or my freedom of choice (whether it be reproductive rights or choice of who to marry) in return for more power for the church.

After doing a lot of reading these last few days, I don't believe he was actually homophobic or opposed to birth control or abortion; I believe he espoused those views because to do otherwise undermined the church's credibility and thus the church's power. Unfortunately, I also believe that being homophobic is hateful and ignorant, but pretending to be because of your thirst for power is even worse - that's not ignornace, it's moral failing.

[seabeyond]

89. all pope all the time, this morning like msm

personally i dont know how we are suppose to create pope as all great. i have catholics in my face regularly taking rights away in the name of their religion. i have catholics sitting up a little camp at an old private catholic school, a bunch of men, to go after abortion and euthanasia and go after votes? whatever that is going to be about

catholics conveniently look at the beauty of their religion and tell all us not to speak of the bad. like all us are going to hell cause they believe we have to confess sin to priest. seeing how i have had catholics tell me this to my face, a catholic may think twice why that may be offensive to a non catholic

[Solly Mack]

90. Yes, you are an "issue" and your rights are " special rights"

Me too. Can you feel the love?

See now, if we had only been born....different. :)

So really, it's our fault we weren't born to meet the acceptable standards of others. As a consequence, we don't have human rights or civil rights (like them other folk)...we are other people's "issues" and we want "special rights"...cause we're "special interest" and not part of the human interest that covers everyone else.

[seabeyond]

93. my 9 year old is on your side

last night i decided was time ot explain to him how we are in theocracy rule. gave ex of pharmicist denying brith control, he didnt get at all, and how leads to denying gays treatment or medication

in all we talk gay, he kept coming to but they are just people. they are just human. it made no sense to him whatsoever.

when i first defined gay, he wasnt as embracing. but this kid literally does the research. science. last night he says, there are gays in all animal groups, gods creation, a normal

so my son sees you as a normal

he see himself more of an aberration

[Solly Mack]

97. I'm an issue

because I was born female and multi-racial. I was born before Roe v Wade and while Jim Crow was still being fought...course, those same battles are still being fought today...so I'm still an "issue" to some people.

If you weren't born white, male, and straight...you're an "issue" too, for many people. You're not seen as a human first...entitled...yes,entitled, to the same rights as those born white, male , and straight...we shouldn't have to fight our fellow citizens or our government for those rights if they are inalienable...
Not everything white, male, and straight is the enemy of my rights...but all too many bear that resemblance.

Your son is an abberration...he sees "human" first... he gets it from you. Thank you for your words :)

[ultraist]

128. Very insightful and honest remarks!

:thumbsup:

[hue]

92. You are not an "issue" to me--the Catholic church is

You seem to be someone who has the ability to see clearly--through the haze & maze of lies, deceptions, and authoritarian "dogmas" of misogynists' mis perceptions. Those are who, in the Catholic church, has taken/assumed the infallibility of judging who is good and evil (going to heaven or hell), hence controlling the "faithful" out of fear and ultimate retribution. This is something Jesus as a person prob would never have done.
You are a brave lady for seeing the world through your own eyes! Yes, at times it may seem as if you are alone. But you are not alone.

[seabeyond]

94. after more than 24 hours of this, what i see now

we have the catholics who i have a particular fondness for and defend more than any religion. especially seeing how i feel dogma silliness, and have a christ conscious and love of, well......love. and why i get away with who i am in all religion, cause i am love, no one can battle

anyway, what i see on this board is the same ole, regardless of side, win protecting an agenda. trying to control what is. and like with republicans telling me i am not a christian, immoral, unamerican, unpatriot.........shut up

i see the same that want me to buy a story they are creating in who the pope was, and what catholic is.

an i am not going to buy their story any more i will one of roves stupid lies, when i say, you simply are not factually correct, this isnt even about opinion, it is fact

and then the catholic i talk to, (is all that is in my life) says i dont want to hear what my religion does to create hate of you, i want to only see the good we do

i suggest, the catholic is wussing out on its religion. the religion itself is better then that. and the catholic is selling self out

not to mention all it denies the world, in its ability to love

i would think the catholic religion would want to be the best they can be

[Geek_Girl]

98. I was raised catholic and loved my church

but back in the 70's it seemed like a different kind of church much more progressive than it is today.

When I was 16 I went to mass one day and heard the priest say that "Gods doesn't support Homosexuals and neither should you."
I was appalled and ever since then I turned my back on the church. It was a hard to hear that the church I love, spread common bigotry no different than racial bigotry. It was disgusting.

This Pope made the church more conservative and many Americans and Europeans have left the church. But the good news is that I doubt that any Pope selected will be more conservative than John Paul II.

[seabeyond]

100. yes it was

seventies i hung out with the california catholics. grew up with them thru out teen. they were fun. wild girls, lol lol as they told me so many times, all they have to do is go in on saturday evening, confess, and man then saturday nite, here i come, and they would go to heaven, i to hell cause even though i was home every night hangin with family, not doing a thing wrong, i didnt confess my sin

my one catholic friend let her boyfriend do everything to her, and was ok cause it wasnt intercourse, i remember the conversations, lol lol

my other would come from bushes with bikini bottoms on backwards.

my catholic Friends were a blast, a lot more wild than me, but i liked to go out with them because they were fun

those were the days. that is the catholic i love so

in remembrance

[demgurl]

99. I understand being hurt and offended by an entity/group judging you.

But if there is one thing I have tried to work on, over the last few years, it is tolerance and seeing the other side. The pope (and thus his followers, can believe what they need to to make it through life. I believe what I believe and they can not take that away from me. I have a yahoo group and today I posted a rest in peace post. It was not for me as much as respect for those, in my group, that believe as he does. So even if we do not respect certain teachings, I guess showing a reverence for this man does not have to mean we agree with his teachings, but rather we respect other people who do. In the end it truly will make you a better person.

[seabeyond]

101. but they are creating law that is abusive to people

that is not ok. cannot be ok. no validation or justification or anything else really

simply it is ok.

this is law

not just a belief they hold. but a law, against people

[demgurl]

106. I understand the law hurts people.....

and we can fight against that. But being respecttful of how others feel during this sad time in their life really can reflect well on you and maybe teach them something in the process.

[48pan]

119. My thoughts exactly

He's dead. Let it go and see what the next Pope brings.

[seabeyond]

126. i am not fighting the pope, and i am not letting it go

and i suggest i can still be respectful to catholics and still say that these law that are being passed have got to stop. and i dont htink it is disrespectful to say, i am not going to create a religion that is not so. i am not going to pretend that these warts on the religion isnt their.

let it go

i dont think a woman trying to get a prescription filled really wants us to let it go

i dont think an aids patient trying to get a prescription filled will be comforted with let it go

i wont let it go

i would expect the catholics to NOT let it go at all costs

[48pan]

127. Did I miss something?

"let it go
i dont think a woman trying to get a prescription filled really wants us to let it go
i dont think an aids patient trying to get a prescription filled will be comforted with let it go
i wont let it go"

I don't remember the Pope stopping anyone from getting a prescription refilled. I guess I wasn't paying attention. (sarcasm intended)

[Tansy_Gold]

135. Catholic hospitals routinely refuse, on the grounds of religious

belief, to perform tubal ligations and vasectomies, regardless the reason.

Catholic pharmacists routinely refuse to dispense prescriptions for birth control pills and other contraceptives.

Catholic hospitals refuse to offer rape victims even so much as INFORMATION on emergency contraception.

This is a current issue, as there is legislation now on the desk of CO Gov. Bill Owens to override the RCC on the matter of EC.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/03/30/emergency.contraception.ap/

<snip>

Fellow Republicans say the bill, passed by the Legislature on Tuesday, violates Catholic hospitals' freedom of religion by forcing them to offer information about abortion.

. . .

Denver Roman Catholic Archbishop Charles Chaput objected to the bill because it does not require health care workers to tell rape victims that some medications stop a fertilized egg from being implanted, which he says amounts to abortion. He said the church does not object to rape victims taking steps to prevent ovulation when there is no risk to a fertilized egg.

<end snip>

http://www.womensenews.org/article.cfm/dyn/aid/1209

<snip>

The survey, commissioned by Catholics for a Free Choice, a Washington-based advocacy group that promotes issues of gender equality and reproductive health, found that only 28 percent of Catholic hospitals in 47 states and the District of Columbia would provide emergency contraception, also known as the "morning-after pill" or EC, to rape victims. Fifty-five percent of Catholic hospitals wouldn't dispense emergency contraception under any circumstances. The survey found that most of the hospitals that do provide emergency contraception set up barriers, such as pregnancy tests and police reports, before administering the drug.

. . . .

"What we are seeing is an increasing politicization of the Catholic hospitals by the Catholic bishops," Kissling says. "They are using Catholic hospitals as a way of enforcing Catholic beliefs that they have been unable to enforce through legislation."

. . . .

"What Catholic hospitals do is based on religious directives," says Sister Sharon Park, executive director of the Washington State Catholic Conference. "They follow the teachings of our religious beliefs, which are protected under the First Amendment." Those directives, called the Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services, are sometimes vague and often have been interpreted differently, however. The directives were developed by U.S. bishops, with approval from the Vatican, and all health-care operations affiliated with the Catholic Church must abide by them.

<end snip, emphasis mine>

[ScreamingMeemie]

120. We are all "issues" in the eyes of somebody.

Sorry you have trouble seeing that. :hi:

[cally]

122. I'm trying to stay away from any coment about the Pope

I'm trying my best to show my respect to Catholic DUers. Trying.

:wtf: Here's a man who epitomizes gay bashing and mysogyny.

You are not an 'issue'. I don't respect anyone who thinks their religion tells them that GLBT are sinners. Read your religious texts and try to understand. You are the sinful ones if you condemn others.

Back to my respectful mode.

[bin.dare]

132. I am not an "issue", hell i don't even have a label, but this pope ...

... stank. here is a repeat of something i posted to mykeru.com:

"Rev you surprise me, usually you are so on the ball, precise; this time you are way off the mark.

This recently dead Pope is up there in the pantheon with all those other lousy dead popes (excepting, of course, in recent times John XXIII) --- mind you, Pope John Paul I might have been different if he hadn't been mudered. As far as I'm concerned, JPII did all he could to protect those behind the murders and the financial scandals shortly after he was elected pope.

OK, so maybe you argue he did it "for the good of the Church". OK, fair enough, but what about his disdain for women (views on contraception, women priests, etc), his rejection of liberation theology and hence of the third world poor, his rigid insistency on orthodoxy and thereby rejecting VCII, his covering up the massive sexual abuse in the church (yet dissing gays), and covorting with fascist outfits like Opus Dei ?

No, no, no; this was no Pope of Love, he was a retrograde step mirroring the corrupt politics and money beginning then in the USA and already extant in Italy. I do not mourn his passing, but I do feel sad that he wasted an oppurtunity. bin'dare"

BTW, i want to be labelled a "dead-ender and former Baathist".