Is Pope Francis a bigot?

[skepticscott]

Does someone who thinks that gays and lesbians should never be allowed to marry or adopt children (and in fact condemns both of those things), or who thinks that homosexual sex is a sin, qualify as bigoted?

Should Pope Francis be subject to the same judgement as Republicans are on this site for espousing those attitudes?

15 votes, 2 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	Yes
	13 (87%)
	No
	2 (13%)
	2 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[DonViejo]

1. You have two questions in your poll...

one too many.

[skepticscott]

3. The title is the question

The second is just a clarification, and there is no scenario under which honest answers to those two questions would be different in any case. So go ahead and answer the first.

[Warpy]

2. Of course he is, whether personally or just under the burden of former

popes being infallible when they talked about stuff they knew absolutely nothing about.

Fortunately, most Catholics know they're talking through their funny hats when it comes to anything about sex in general and women, lesbians and gays in particular.

Catholics tend to be highly reasonable people. It's just the hierarchy that is ignorant and happy to show it whenever possible.

[Bluenorthwest]

9. Then why are Ugandan Catholics running a pogrom against gay people while their

American counterparts do nothing to object and instead continue their ultra precious promotions of Francis?
The people allow the horrors via their silence. It is not reasonable to be a member of a group that is practicing violent oppression of a minority group. Not in my book. This concept that they secretly laugh at their clerics does not make it better, they subject others to oppression at the hands of those clerics over teachings they themselves find amusing? How is that reasonable? Will it still be reasonable when Ugandan gay people are all dead?

[kwassa]

11. Catholic Magazine 'America' Denounces Uganda's Harsh Anti-Gay Laws: Jesuit Editors Speak Out

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/25/catholic-magazine-america_n_4855428.html

Religious leaders around the world are uniting in protest of Uganda's harsh new anti-gay laws, with South African former Archbishop Desmond Tutu likening them to the situations in Nazi Germany and apartheid South Africa.

The editors of America magazine, a leading Catholic publication run by the Jesuit order, have added their voices to those condemning the criminalization of homosexuality in an open letter titled, "When the Law Is a Crime."

America Editor at Large The Rev. James Martin, S.J., told The Huffington Post in an email, "As Christians we are concerned with affronts to human dignity, which is at the absolute heart of our Christian beliefs. And as Catholics we look to the Catechism which enjoins Catholics to treat gays and lesbians with 'respect, sensitivity and compassion' and to avoid 'every sign of unjust discrimination.'"

The letter says in part:

The church’s vigorous support for traditional marriage, moreover, must be accompanied by advocacy for the human rights of gays and lesbians in equal measure. This is required by the church’s own teaching. Indeed, a growing number of Catholic leaders have offered unqualified support for the decriminalization of homosexuality. In December 2009, the delegation of the Holy See to the United Nations said the church opposes “all forms of violence” and “discriminatory penal legislation” against gay persons. That same month, according to a diplomatic cable published by WikiLeaks, Cardinal Antonelli Ennio, then-president of the Pontifical Council for the Family, said that Catholic bishops in Uganda “or anywhere should not support the criminalization of homosexuality.” Most recently, on Jan. 29, an editorial in The Southern Cross, the newspaper of the bishops of South Africa, Botswana and Swaziland, urged Catholics in Africa “to stand with the powerless” and “sound the alarm at the advance throughout Africa of draconian legislation aimed at criminalizing homosexuals.”

We add our voice to this swelling chorus. Pope Francis has described gay people as “socially wounded” because “they feel like the church has always condemned them.” Catholics must examine how we contribute, perhaps even inadvertently, to a culture of fear and shame. In a field hospital after battle, a basic responsibility of the caregivers is to “do no harm.” The church must oppose violence against gay persons and should strongly advocate for the decriminalization of homosexuality. No one should be subject to a criminal penalty simply for being gay. If laws like these do not constitute the “unjust discrimination” against gay people that the church rightly denounces, then what possibly could?

[okasha]

13. Oh, dear.

Facts are such inconvenient things.

[skepticscott]

16. Inconvenient to the claim that the pope is a bigot?

Hardly. But keep flailing. And don't forget to cast your ballot.

[trotsky]

19. Oh dear indeed.

I mean, they would be, if they had anything to do with the subject of the OP.

[skepticscott]

21. And if you were wondering about posts and posters defending papal bigotry

you don't have to look far.

[skepticscott]

15. Funny that the pope is not among the religious leaders

who are "uniting" to condemn this, don't you think? Why would that be, if he's not a bigot?

And how very generous of the Jesuits to condemn what's going on in Uganda, while still supporting wholeheartedly their church's blatant discrimination of homosexuals. How nice of them to say that it shouldn't be illegal to be gay, while still adhering to the doctrine that homosexuals should not be allowed to live as full persons.

Their parsing of words when they remind Catholics that they should avoid "every sign of unjust discrimination" is truly nauseating. Apparently they feel that the discrimination against gays mandated by Catholic doctrine is "just".

[kwassa]

23. I don't see the pope as a bigot, as it is defined here.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigot

: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially: one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

I don't see the hatred and intolerance part on the part of the Pope. I do see the Catholic Church discrimination against gays and women.

[skepticscott]

24. So you don't think that calling same-sex marriage the work of the devil

or a destructive attack on god's plan is bigoted? O-key doke, then. Because that's what this pope has done.

I guess "separate but equal" doesn't qualify as bigotry in your book, either.

[kwassa]

29. and where did Pope Francis say that?

here is what he did say:

Pope Francis has signalled that he could see the Catholic church tolerating some forms of same-sex civil unions -- though not marriage -- when it comes to situations such as medical care and property for gay couples.

In an interview with the Italian daily Corriere della Sera, the pope said that "matrimony is between a man and a woman," but moves to "regulate diverse situations of cohabitation (are) driven by the need to regulate economic aspects among persons, as for instance to assure medical care," according to a translation by Catholic News Service.

"It is necessary to look at the diverse cases and evaluate them in their variety," Francis said.

While the remarks were far from endorsing same-sex marriage, something Francis and his predecessor Pope Benedict XVI have spoken out against, they represent the latest in what many Catholics and church observers have read as a more gay-friendly tone of the church under the pope, who was elected nearly a year ago.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/05/pope-francis-civil-unions_n_4904060.html

[Goblinmonger]

32. Is the Googles not working for you

Because this seemed to work for me.

[kwassa]

34. It would appear that his views are evolving on the subject.

Like many who have changed their views on gay marriage.

[trotsky]

40. Nope, you have no evidence of that.

Marriage and civil unions are different things.

[kwassa]

90. no, civil unions are progress. Same-sex marriage is the next step.

[skepticscott]

99. If he weren't a bigot

there would be no need for "steps" in his personal beliefs. He could step up tomorrow for another staged speech and say that he believes that same sex couples should enjoy the same marriage rights as everyone else. Period.

[skepticscott]

72. His views are that same-sex marriage should never be allowed. Period.

His views are in lockstep with Catholic Doctrine.

If you have any evidence of his advocating for the legalization of same-sex marriage, feel free to link to it. But we won't hold our breath.

[elleng]

54. Right, but some/many are unable to recognize the distinction.

[Humanist_Activist]

64. What distinction, just in the past month, Pope Francis criticized same sex parenting...

and he has used stronger language than that in the past, how is that NOT hateful towards homosexuals?

[elleng]

66. quoting kwassa,

'I don't see the hatred and intolerance part on the part of the Pope. I do see the Catholic Church discrimination against gays and women.'

[Humanist_Activist]

67. Uh? So when the Pope, a PERSON, says this, it isn't intolerance, what is he, possessed by the...

Catholic Church?

Is he a robot, unable to come to his own decisions?

What is your argument here?

[Cartoonist]

126. The definition you posted includes the word intolerance.

You don't see that? I don't see why hatred is part of that definition. It's a relative word. It can easily be replaced with "stupid".

[elleng]

53. Thanks for this.

Been 'debating' some here, and needed to see this rational point of view.

[Prophet 451]

4. Sadly, yes

I'm not sure if considering gay sex a sin in and of itself makes one a bigot but opposing same-sex marriage and adoption certainly does.

[skepticscott]

5. Why sadly?

He's not sad about holding those attitudes. He espouses them enthusiastically and with joy.

[Prophet 451]

6. Because I think he's in a position where he could do much good

[skepticscott]

7. He thinks he IS doing good

by espousing bigotry. The rightness of Catholic doctrine on these issues is not in question, as far as he's concerned.

[AtheistCrusader]

14. Calling it a sin denies their nature.

So, I'd immediately rule even that 'bigotry'. You bet.

[Bluenorthwest]

8. Uganda is 42% Catholic, Francis' Bishops are calling for murder and elimination of

gay people as well as urging parents to turn in their gay children. Francis has not objected because these things are in line with his own teachings over the years that gay people are tools of the devil out to destroy God's plan. Francis long ago declared 'God's war' on gay people.
No one can preside over a pogrom who is not a full tilt monster. Francis and his Bishops are monsters.
.

[kwassa]

12. What Ugandan Catholic bishop called for the murder and elimination of gay people?

I'm looking for it and not finding it. I did find that that the Ugandan bishop did go along with a revised version of it, after being opposed to the death-penalty version.

http://www.religiondispatches.org/dispatches/petermontgomery/6065/ugandan_bishops_push_notorious_anti-gay_bill/

The reported support for the bill from the Uganda Joint Christian Council is especially noteworthy since Roman Catholic Bishop of Uganda Cyprian Lwanga previously denounced the bill’s death penalty and imprisonment provisions as contrary to “a Christian caring approach to this issue,” though he also said “We, the Catholic Bishops of Uganda, appreciate and applaud the Government’s effort to protect the traditional family and its values.” According to Box Turtle Bulletin, which has followed the Ugandan situation closely,

On December 10, 2009, the Vatican released a statement which opposing “all grave violations of human rights against homosexual persons,” particularly “the murder and abuse of homosexual persons are to be confronted on all levels, especially when such violence is perpetrated by the State.” The statement didn’t reference Uganda by name, but that last statement was taken as an oblique reference to the proposed Anti-Homosexuality Bill. Shortly before Christmas Day that year, the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Uganda, Cyprian Lwanga, denounced the proposed Anti-Homosexuality Bill in his annual Christmas message from Rubaga Cathedral. That message was broadcast over several Ugandan television channels.

.

[edhopper]

18. OMG

"We support what they want to do, just not the way they are doing it."

That is not opposition, that is coverage.

[kwassa]

22. You didn't answer the question.

[edhopper]

26. Saying they support the intention, just not the killing part is

Not really opposing it, is it.
Have they condemned it, have they threatened to excommunicate those that pass and enforce this atrocity?
No, they said their hearts were in the right place, and then stand by as this madness goes on.
Defend them all you want, I for one won't allay their guilt.

[kwassa]

30. Not what I said. Bluenorthwest claims that bishops are calling for the killing and elimination

of gay people.

What bishop said that and when did they say that?

I think what is happening in Uganda is totally reprehensible, and the support of any of this legislation by any of the religious community is deplorable, but don't make claims that are not supported in fact.

[edhopper]

31. You can take that up with Bluenorthwest

I was responding to the quote box you posted.

So you question doesn't pertain to me.

[Humanist_Activist]

38. You are wrong about the Bishops, they oppose the death penalty, but life in prison is acceptable.

Still horrendous, of course, and I guess that falls under the Catholic Church's category of just discrimination of homosexuals.

And people defend this church, its unbelievable.

[Warren Stupidity]

128. last time I looked the RCC's position on state executions was not so clear.

It was not a blanket opposition.

[Humanist_Activist]

130. It is true that the Church doesn't have an absolute position, for the past century or so...

it has held that capital punishment should be extremely rare, and as JPII said in 1995, the conditions under which capital punishment can be justfully administered are practically non-existent.

This position has a lot more leeway for individual Catholics to interpret, of course.

[rug]

10. That hidden post must still sting.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=126263

Why don't you post your real question: Do Catholic DUers "tolerate the support of homophobic bigotry"?

It's the logic of your rightfully hidden post.

[edhopper]

17. Do you agree that the Church's

stance on gay marriage is bigoted?
If so, how do you support and fund the Church (assuming you do) while not supporting this ideology?
What steps do you take to change the Church's and Pope's views on gay marriage?

[rug]

20. I wouldn't say bigoted. I wouod say it's wrong.

It would be bigoted if it did not also make its statements about the dignity of every human being and did not also condemn all sex, by anyone, outside marriage. There is a strange consistency to its rationale. Would you say it's bigoted against divorced people?

The problem here is it's wrong when it takes a stance on civil marriages. It is also without any competence to do so.

As to what I do about it? Likely as much as you do, ed.

[edhopper]

25. I understand your view.

Am I mistaken that you attend a Catholic Church and support them monetarily at times?
If not, then yes, whast can you do about it. If so, then you can do something.

[rug]

33. The line between attendance and a buck in the basket and complicitly in whatever evil

you think is going on is not there.

Would you like me to ask what stocks you own, directly or indirectly, and return an indictment based on that?

[edhopper]

44. So you've decided what I was going to say

when I said you could do something.
Your defensiveness is noted.

[rug]

49. You've said it before.

Your repetitiveness is noted.

[edhopper]

60. I've said you could find out where your priest stands on gasy marriage,

Andvassk where your donations go to?
I ask3ed if you remain silent or speak up about the treatment of gay people by the Church?
Okay.
I guess you need to remain silent, attend your services and hope it all gets sorted out.
Or perhaps you just don't think this is an issue you don't think is worth bothering with.

[rug]

61. It's a very important issue but this particlar discussion is not worth bothering with further.

[edhopper]

75. Sure

Well, I tried

[Humanist_Activist]

37. "dignity" are you fucking kidding me, that's just a cruel joke when the Church opposes equal rights.

I would dare say its a rather open and outright lie by your church.

Kinda like how they oppose unjust discrimination of homosexuals, but fail to delineate what just discrimination should be allowed.

[rug]

41. No I'm not "fucking kidding" you. It's a fact.

That is precisely what it teaches, the dignity of every human being.

However, your intemperate screed here suggests to me they might be wrong.

[Humanist_Activist]

43. Dignity cannot be had without recognizing equal rights, otherwise its a fucking lie.

Stop defending this bigoted bullshit.

[rug]

50. Rights are a matter of law; dignity is a matter of humanity.

You get rights by fighting it out in the political arena, not by reflexively bashing an entire religion.

Stop peddling this bigoted bullshit based on your warped opinion of the RCC.

[Humanist_Activist]

51. I'm bigoted against their homophobic beliefs, which are straight from the Catechism...

would you like me to link to it, it has a rather warped and bigoted view of homosexuality, after all.

[rug]

56. Of course you are. You must have a stering opinion of the RCC but for that.

[Humanist_Activist]

59. Actually, outside of their actions and lobbying against choice, contraception, same sex marriage....

and anti-discrimination laws for LGBT people, my opinion is generally high.

I find the supernatural beliefs to be foolish, of course, but the economic beliefs are rather likeable, being close to my Socialist beliefs and positions, though I feel some of them don't go far enough.

[elleng]

55. People have problems with nuance

and its too bad, because its often necessary.

Thanks

[rug]

57. It gets in the way of their bias.

[elleng]

58. Yes it does,

and its really too bad because they could use the experience THINKING, would help us all.

[elleng]

27. No.

A bigot is a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.

[trotsky]

28. What part of "refuses to let gay people marry or have children" isn't utterly intolerant? n/t

[Humanist_Activist]

35. But not intolerant of people? What do you call a person who opposes equal rights for other people?

[Humanist_Activist]

36. I'd like to see the justification for those who voted "no". The Catechism of the Catholic Church...

calls homosexuality "objectively disordered", this Pope believes the same, how is that NOT bigoted?

[elleng]

39. The definition of a bigot does it.

A bigot is a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.

[Humanist_Activist]

42. Get your definitions right, here's a fucking link:

With the FIRST definition:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigot


[div class="excerpt" style="background-color:#dcdcdc; padding-bottom:5px; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-bottom:none; border-radius:0.4615em 0.4615em 0em 0em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]Bigot[div class="excerpt" style="background-color:#f0f0f0; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-top:none; border-radius:0em 0em 0.4615em 0.4615em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]: a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. : a bigoted person; especially : a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group)

[elleng]

45. Here's where I got my definition,

and there really is NO reason to be so rude.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigot
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bigot

[Humanist_Activist]

46. I have every reason to be rude to the disingenuous. Why the fuck should I be nice to those who...

defend and coddle homophobic bigots?

[elleng]

47. You are no humanist,

and are more and more irrational.

'Defend and coddle homophobic bigots' has NOTHING to do with my posts, nor does 'disingenuous.'

[Humanist_Activist]

48. Pope Francis has said that same sex marriage is the work of the devil, that same sex parenting is...

child abuse, so forgive me if I don't take the words of one of his atrocious apologists seriously.

If you are so fucking sure of yourself, go to the LGBT group here on DU and post an OP about how Pope Francis is NOT a homophobe. Go ahead, do it, we'll see how far you get there.

ON EDIT: Oh, and one other thing, don't you dare fucking define that I'm not a Humanist, unlike you, I support the equal rights of everyone AND oppose those who advocate for inequality and discrimination, rather than apologizing for them.

[Warren Stupidity]

63. And of course the alert trolls just pounced on your post.

[Humanist_Activist]

65. I find it curious, they stop bothering to respond when their BS is called out, don't they? n/t

[malokvale77]

68. Beautifully said

I especially liked the "ON EDIT" part.

I hate how religious beliefs get a pass when it comes to discrimination and bigotry. It is kind of silly when "God believers" think they can define "Humanism.

[Humanist_Activist]

69. I'm a humanist, I put the welfare and rights of People above those of Gods...

Whether such Gods actually exist or not is completely and utterly irrelevant. Some religious humanists may believe that they are serving their chosen Deity through helping people, and those people I have no issue with, its those others, who would place their God and His/Her/Its chosen morality/religion above the rights of people that are the enemy.

[malokvale77]

73. I commend you for this...

and I'm right there with you. I'm against anyone or anything that would restrict another humans rights or jeopardize their welfare.

I like your way of thinking. In my household we call it "having a grip".

[AtheistCrusader]

70. Just in case.

I'mma quote your entire post here, because I 100% agree, and in case it gets hidden, they better hide me too, because I'd say the same thing. Well said.



"Pope Francis has said that same sex marriage is the work of the devil, that same sex parenting is...
child abuse, so forgive me if I don't take the words of one of his atrocious apologists seriously.

If you are so fucking sure of yourself, go to the LGBT group here on DU and post an OP about how Pope Francis is NOT a homophobe. Go ahead, do it, we'll see how far you get there.

ON EDIT: Oh, and one other thing, don't you dare fucking define that I'm not a Humanist, unlike you, I support the equal rights of everyone AND oppose those who advocate for inequality and discrimination, rather than apologizing for them."

[Humanist_Activist]

71. Thanks for that, I don't see why it would get hidden, I didn't violate any rules as far as I can...

see. But Juries are unpredictable.

[Warren Stupidity]

78. Here:

On Tue Apr 29, 2014, 05:49 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Pope Francis has said that same sex marriage is the work of the devil, that same sex parenting is...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=126921

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Way over the top. He can make the same point without being an asshole.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Tue Apr 29, 2014, 06:34 PM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I might have been sympathetic to the Alerter if they hadn't resorted to calling the poster an asshole.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: being an asshole is not a hide-worthy offense. This post is not attacking anyone personally, it is taking a strong position on the issue. Please stop alerting on posts you don't like, and posters you don't like. Stop alert trolling. This is a discussion board, this post is discussing the issue.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I agree the poster is rude and over the top but I'm not sure it necessarily constitutes a TOS violation. In situations like this where I'm on the fence, I default to "leave it alone."

To the poster in question: chill out. The next time someone reports you you may not have me around to keep the odds in your favor.

Gravitycollapse.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Well, in addition to being rather intolerant of another person's opinion. just too much 'fucking..'
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: fuck pope francis and the pope mobile he rose in on. spot on, if you're offended perhaps it's time to get a new fantasy to be'ieve in

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

Apparently the alerter believes that not making a point in a way the alerter believes points ought to be made is a violation of the TOS.

[Humanist_Activist]

79. LOL, well the majority got it right this time, I didn't personally attack anyone...

and I'm a proud asshole when it comes to being outspoken against homophobic bigots and their enablers.

[unblock]

52. wait, someone can hate gays, blacks and women but if they kinda tolerate jews, that's not a bigot?

are you saying someone would need to be a complete, equal-opportunity *sshole before the word "bigot" applies?

if so, is there a better term for selective bigotry?

[Humanist_Activist]

62. No, if they hate people, period, they can't be bigots, but if they criticize the Catholic Church?

That's a bigot.

[skepticscott]

74. I'm equally interested in the justification of those who didn't even vote

Even those who have stood up here to defend homophobic bigotry at least didn't shy away from expressing their opinion, as hateful as it was. I expected the usual suspects. The ones who haven't even had the courage to say what they think deserve even less respect, though.

[rug]

76. Probably because they have even less patience with bullshit polls than they do with

bullshit statements like equating a vote in this stupid poll to a vote "to defend homophobic bigotry".

Are you that insecure in your arguments that you must routinely reshape what others actually say?

[pinto]

77. Republicans and their extremist religious supporters enact laws, federal and state statutes.

Those laws effect us all. The Catholic church as an organization has a set of tenets. None of them need effect us. (I'd wager most US Catholics disregard many of them, fwiw.)

Separation of church and state! I think that's where we ought to be putting our focus - religionists, theists, atheists, agnostics, nones or those just passing by.

[Humanist_Activist]

82. "None of them need effect us." But they do, when the USCCCB lobbies to ban same sex marriage...

when the closest hospital to you is run by a Catholic organization, etc.

We can pretend they have no power or influence over us, but that would be a lie.

[pinto]

84. Legal marriage rights are primarily a civil concern. Churches can do what they may.

I know the religious opposition, yet feel the challenge lies in the courts and legislatures. GLBT marriage rights have been upheld by a number of federal appellate courts. Anti-gay legislation in many contexts has been found unconstitutional.

As far as hospitals go I have limited knowledge. I've had some experience with the local ER at a Catholic funded hospital. Found the staff to be considerate, concerned, and as efficient as ER traffic allowed. Didn't sense any discrimination at all. My medical record is clear, I have AIDS. I think I got a secondary look at times due to my medical history, as should anyone with other factors on board.

Yes, the churches wield some influence. Our best effort remains at the legislative level, imo. Or in the courts.

[Humanist_Activist]

85. Ahh, you are one of those "I got mine, fuck you" types, ok, well at least you make it easy...

for me to dismiss your opinions.

[pinto]

89. I'm not a type. I'm not a label. I'm not a category. I don't hold a "fuck you" point of view.

You're welcomed to dismiss my opinions. I take no offense. The labeling grates a bit, but eh.

[Humanist_Activist]

96. The issue I took with your post is you bothered to criticize extreme religious supporters...

of Republicans while giving the RCC, which I would put in that category, a pass.

I also don't enjoy the fact that you talked about feeling ok at a Catholic-run hospital ER, so therefore discrimination doesn't exist. That's nice, do you think a woman who was violently raped and sent to the same ER would be prescribed and given EC if she requests it?

[pinto]

129. Sorry for the late response, I've been sidetracked. I Include extremist RCC members in that.

Obviously didn't make that clear. As far as EC at the local hospital, to be honest, I haven't a clue. A neighbor is an ER nurse there, though. I'll ask her when she's out for walk with her kids or when we run across each other in town.

[BuddhaGirl]

80. Are atheists bigoted toward those who believe in god?

n/t

[Humanist_Activist]

81. Some are, I'm sure, what is the point of your post?

Are you trying to equate the lack of belief in a deity with bigotry against people?

[BuddhaGirl]

86. Not at all equating the two

not sure where you got that. The word "bigot" gets thrown around a lot, especially at catholics who express support for Francis.

Not all catholics are bigots and not all altheists are bigots.

And atheism *is* a belief - just as believing in a god is a belief...imo.

[skepticscott]

87. Your belief that atheism is a belief

is no different than the belief than not collecting stamps is a hobby. Silly.

[BuddhaGirl]

98. you're entitled to your opinion

Silly.

[Humanist_Activist]

88. Who said all Catholics are bigots? Give me a post link or something.

We are criticizing ONE man, we are calling that ONE man a bigot for holding, well, bigoted beliefs and expressing them.

Are Clippers fans racist? Not all of them, no, probably not even any of them, is the owner of the Clippers a racist? Fuck yes.

You can claim atheism is a belief all you want, but putting an "imo" at the end doesn't make you immune from being wrong.

[kwassa]

92. And what is your proof that Pope Francis is a bigot?

Links to the Catholic Catechism are not accepted, as they show nothing about the personal beliefs of the Pope.

[Humanist_Activist]

94. Here's a letter from him to the Carmelite Nuns about Argentina's same sex marriage bill...

http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2010/07/may-holy-family-join-us-in-this-war-of.html

[kwassa]

100. A view he held four years ago, and seems to be changing.

Even this letter would not qualify him as a bigot, under the definition of bigot, as previously posted.

[Humanist_Activist]

101. Question, are people who are against interracial marriages racist in your worldview?

Because they are in mind, for rather OBVIOUS reasons.

On what planet is opposing EQUAL rights for a group of people NOT bigoted? Can you explain this to me?

[kwassa]

105. False argument.

The pope occupies a political post. His two long-term predecessors were quite conservative, and one was quite popular. They built up huge cadres of conservative cardinals in important political positions. Francis has to undo that. It doesn't happen overnight.

Pope Francis is making a series of moves to open up the church, quite deftly, including the recent move to elevate two popes to sainthood, one conservative, but one who brought about the greatest liberalization the church has ever seen.

He has given lip-service to the possibility of civil unions, a stepping-stone on the way to same-sex marriages. This is huge. He is doing a house-cleaning at the Vatican. He is setting a new personal example of a pope that I haven't seen in my lifetime, but is the most Christ-like I have seen ever, in terms of the basic example that Jesus made in gospels.

Calling him a bigot is frankly stupid. There is no nice way to say this. He has risen in an institution that has historically oppressed women and gays (like many other institutions in the world, not unique at all to the UCC) and he has taken steps to change things. It is politically unrealistic to think that he can instantly change this huge institution. He is making important steps, however.

[Humanist_Activist]

108. First off, he called civil unions a "lesser of two evils" even back 4 years ago or so...

so that is nothing new. In addition, you are making excuses, that's all I see, you claim I made a false argument with NO evidence to contradict it, indeed, do you have any evidence to support your position at all?

[kwassa]

109. If you bothered to actually read this thread in it's entirety ...

I earlier posted a quote from him suggesting an openness of the entire Catholic church to the idea of civil unions. In this thread.

In other words, I posted the evidence, you haven't read it. That is on you.

[Humanist_Activist]

110. When he was a Bishop in Argentina he supposedly tried to negotiate the same thing.

Also, please note that generally, when talking about civil unions, he means no longer fighting them in a legal context.

Am I supposed to be impressed? He's not the first or last bishop who thought that, rather than having legal same sex marriage, that legal civil unions would be an acceptable alternative, separate and unequal to marriage. That is still a bigoted position to hold, by the way.

Look, he's not stupid, he knows that, when it comes to legally restricting marriage rights to heterosexual couples only, his side is losing, and losing badly, even in countries with overwhelming Catholic majorities.

[kwassa]

111. It is a very traditional position to hold. To describe it as bigoted is very new.

I am judging him by the larger context of the changes he appears to be trying to make in the RCC, which is very bold, from what I can see. Same-sex marriage is one issue among many, important, but not solo. The previous two popes would never have considered it, much less moved to open up anything. They were in the business of retrenching.

[Humanist_Activist]

112. Civil unions, in the form of Marriage, have been around for a long time...

common law marriages, etc. But civil unions as an alternative to marriages is relatively new.

And even if it were traditional doesn't mean it can't also be bigoted. Indeed, there are quite a lot of views that are considered traditional in various cultures that are bigoted.

[kwassa]

113. Bigotry must involve demonstrated hate and intolerance, per the definition.

I'm not seeing that in Pope Francis.

[Humanist_Activist]

114. I would say that its rather intolerant to call same sex parenting child abuse...

and opposing equal rights, in any context is intolerant as well.

Now, can you tell me how this isn't intolerance?

[kwassa]

120. It still doesn't rise to the level of bigotry, to me.

[skepticscott]

116. Except that we're not talking about Catholic Church politics here

This is about Francis' personal views about homosexuals and same-sex marriage. If he truly thought that same-sex marriages should be legal, absolutely nothing would prevent him from standing up in front of a microphone today and telling the whole world that. Nothing. But we both know that won't happen.

And your argument that he's not a bigot because his views are "evolving" is just silly. The fact that he might not hold bigoted views at some point in the distant future doesn't mean that he doesn't hold them now.

[kwassa]

117. I completely disagree. We ARE talking about Catholic Church politics

Pope Francis is a canny politician, and he has to be to be effective in his position. He can't get out too far ahead of his flock, much like the gradual way Obama came out publically to support same-sex marriage. As such, I have no idea, nor does anyone else, what Pope Francis's personal, in-his-heart belief about same-sex marriage.We can make assumptions, but none of us truly know.

There is still major struggle going on in the Anglican Communion, of which I am a part, about same-sex marriage, though it strongly supported in the US. We have the same problem with Uganda and some other places that threaten schism over it. The titular head of our church, the Archbishop of Canterbury, can't come out in support of same-sex marriage even though Great Britain has legalized it for everyone there, and even though he is under huge pressure to do so. He is too afraid of blowing the Communion apart.

[Goblinmonger]

118. So he's fine, but a majority of Catholics are bigots

so he can't say what he wants at the risk of offending them?

[kwassa]

119. I have no idea if he is fine. I have no idea of the majority of Catholics are bigots.

He appears to be liberalizing the church and getting back to the basic Christian message, to me.

The majority of American Catholics are in favor of same-sex marriage. I don't know how the issue plays out world-wide.

[skepticscott]

121. Are you saying he's afraid to take an unpopular position

if it's what he really believes? Somehow, I doubt it.

What kind of a person would agree to lead an organization whose doctrine and policies were fundamentally bigoted and discriminatory unless he was in agreement with them? Is he lying about his support for, and agreement with basic Catholic doctrine? Barack Obama is a politician leading a democratic country whose laws evolve with changing public sentiment. The Catholic Church is not a democracy, and has utterly rejected the notion that their fundamental doctrines should change based on public opinion. Your comparison is valueless.

[kwassa]

122. Since I rarely find agreement with anything you say, I don't expect to now, either.

What kind of a person would agree to lead an organization whose doctrine and policies were fundamentally bigoted and discriminatory unless he was in agreement with them? Is he lying about his support for, and agreement with basic Catholic doctrine?

What kind of person? A person who believes in Jesus Christ and the Catholic church, neither of which are defined by their bigotry and discrimination. How strongly he supports basic Catholic doctrine, in his heart, is also unknown.You choose to make the assumption that he wholly supports them. That is only your assumption.

Pope Francis was elected, by the way, by the cardinals. The cardinals were appointed, of course, by previous popes. Not a democracy, not a dictatorship.

Bottom line, I disagree with your analysis. So what else is new?

[skepticscott]

123. Bigoted doctrine is fundamental to the Catholic Church

As noted, the fact that ALL of their doctrines are not bigoted doesn't change that. If Francis believes in the Catholic Church, he embraces that bigotry along with everything else. Many people have had the courage to reject it and the church, because they find it reprehensible. Francis has embraced it and doubled down on his support for it.

If he's been lying to a billion Catholics all this time, there is still nothing that prevents him from telling the complete and absolute truth today.

[trotsky]

124. So why hasn't Jesus straightened out the RCC by now?

Did Jesus support gay marriage? Gay adoption? Why would he let a church get established in his name by people holding bigoted positions? Why would he let it continue today, when it is negatively impacting millions of people?

[skepticscott]

103. Based on what?

Where is your evidence that he thinks same-sex couples should be allowed to legally marry, in the Catholic Church or anywhere else?

[kwassa]

107. Based on what I already posted of his viewpoint on civil unions

He is opening up to the idea of civil unions, an intermediate step on the path to same-sex marriage.

[skepticscott]

115. He made vague statements about something that some people

sorta mighta be open to kinda, that would still be discriminatory against same-sex couples even if enacted, which he did not advocate for in any case. He still condemns same sex legal marriage and adoption in the most vehement terms.

Here's how you judge whether the pope is a bigot. If a Republican politician held and expressed the same views as the pope about same sex marriage and homosexuals in general, would they be regarded as a bigot on this site, without any dissent? The answer is clearly yes. Pope = bigot.

But feel free to keep defending the pope's anti-gay bigotry. You're making my case perfectly.

[BuddhaGirl]

93. LOL - I never said that some were saying that all

Catholics are bigots. The word gets does get tossed around/implied etc. though.

I don't think Francis is a bigot. He holds bigoted views, but he genuinely loves all humans, and says that gays should be embraced and loved. You can believe as you wish, of course

It's your opinion that atheism is not a belief system...everything is a *belief* system. Belief in god, belief in no god...belief in the Easter bunny, no belief in the Easter bunny.

[Humanist_Activist]

95. How can someone hold bigoted views and not be a bigot?

I'm sorry, that's a self contradictory sentence.

Also, your use of the word "belief" is also not making any sense.

I'm sorry, I feel like we perhaps shouldn't converse anymore, I actually think that language, while it can be fluid, shouldn't be butchered in the manner in which you are butchering it. To such an extent I really don't know how to makes sense of your post.

[BuddhaGirl]

97. I am butchering nothing

but we'll just agree to disagree. Sorry you don't understand.

[Humanist_Activist]

102. Under what context would someone be a bigot, if its not while holding bigoted views?

[Walk away]

104. Your problem is that you are...

correct, logical and sincere at the same time. Your expectations are way too high.

[Humanist_Activist]

106. Hey now, I feel like I should be insulted, OK, not really...

I do try to be concise, accurate and consistent in my posts, I fail at times, like everyone, but at least I try.

[skepticscott]

83. Not as long as their religious practices

and how they live out their beliefs don't harm others or restrict their rights.

To the extent that they do, all decent people, atheist or otherwise, should speak out against them, and not care what they're called as a result. Bigot, anti-Catholic crank, whatever.

[rug]

91. If that were true, you wouldn't be so desperate to portray believers as mentally ill.

You'll get as little traction from this latest bit of dishonesty as you did from that.

[Goblinmonger]

125. Yes. If Pope Francis had a DU account

and said here the same things he says normally, MIRT would ban him. No question. Yet people here defend him. Though people in this forum have defended people that were banned for homophobia.

[skepticscott]

127. Yep

Pretty much puts a nail in it.