Sorry, Pope Francis: Reproductive justice and LGBTQ rights are economic issues, too

[DonViejo]

The new pope's economic justice platform will continue to fall short if it ignores women's and LGBTQ rights

KATIE MCDONOUGH

Pope Francis issued a mission statement for his papacy on Tuesday that features an incredibly direct indictment of free market economics and growing global inequality. Agnostic or religiously indeterminate progressives of the Internet were suitably excited, as they have been before about the new pope.

Francis doesn’t pull any punches when laying into those who preach the gospel of trickle down, noting in the 84-page document that, “This opinion [about trickle down theories], which has never been confirmed by the facts, expresses a crude and naïve trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power and in the sacralized workings of the prevailing economic system.”

His critique grows more explicit in the next paragraph, continuing:

While the earnings of a minority are growing exponentially, so too is the gap separating the majority from the prosperity enjoyed by those happy few. This imbalance is the result of ideologies which defend the absolute autonomy of the marketplace and financial speculation. Consequently, they reject the right of states, charged with vigilance for the common good, to exercise any form of control. A new tyranny is thus born, invisible and often virtual, which unilaterally and relentlessly imposes its own laws and rules.

full article
http://www.salon.com/2013/11/27/sorry_pope_francis_reproductive_justice_and_lgbtq_rights_are_economic_issues_too/

[Voice for Peace]

1. I think the Pope will evolve on these issues.

If not, then I will find all the rest of his enlightened popedom to be in question. But I will give him some time. Let him hear from the people.

[skepticscott]

2. He's been hearing from people his whole life, which has already been long

How much longer will it take for him to adopt the attitudes of a decent human being? Silly things like the notion that all people are entitled to equal rights, equal treatment and equal opportunity. 5 years? 10?

Color me unimpressed.

[Voice for Peace]

3. I will color you skeptiscott

and hope for the best.

[skepticscott]

4. Hope to your heart's content

But know that everyone can talk the talk these days, and that it's essentially meaningless. He either walks the walk, or he stays the same homophobic bigot he's been his whole life. So far, we've seen only the latter. And since it's still the same unquestionable, unchanging god telling him (and all of his bigoted cohorts) right from wrong as it's always been, it's not clear where any fundamental change will come from.

[Voice for Peace]

5. I will continue to be hopeful as it's what keeps despair at a far distance.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

77. A lot of the criticism of Pope Francis I read on DU

Seems to amount to "He does not agree with me on subject <X>", therefore "color me unimpressed". If you seriously expect him to come out supporting, say, gay marriage, then I want to talk to you about this great deal I have on oceanfront property in Wyoming.

[trotsky]

102. Well, it's good you can admit your church's leader is a bigot.

Progress!

[lachrymosa]

6. It's not a democracy.

The Catholic Church is not a democracy. "The people" don't get to vote to change doctrine.

What is "reproductive justice" btw?

[Voice for Peace]

7. it's a matter of his own heart, nothing to do with people voting.

Maybe as Pope he will have more opportunity to meet
and listen to the righteous (vs religious) side of these
issues.

This can cause a person to evolve -- an open mind
and heart. All of us have been blind in one way or
another in our lives. Something changed, made us
see or think differently.

Time will tell.

[skepticscott]

11. Except that the pope has not been blind

He has seen things very clearly, in particular the word of "god". He has thought about these issues, spoken to many others about them, for decades. His reasons for adopting his very despicable and very clearly laid out beliefs and convictions about homosexuals are based on things that are immutable.

Why do you have such a deep-seeded need to believe he will suddenly change? The degree to which you want something has nothing to do with its likelihood.

[Voice for Peace]

14. I have seen impossible changes in people that defied all reason.

So that is the basis for my hopefulness.

But do you have a deep-seeded need to believe he will not?
None of us can know what another person has seen.

[Voice for Peace]

8. I do not know the meaning of the phrase in your context,

don't think I've ever used it.

What do you think it is?

[lachrymosa]

9. Reproductive Justice

I'm not sure if you were responding to me and my question, but if so, the term "reproductive justice" is in the title of this thread, and I'm curious as to what is meant by that?

[Voice for Peace]

10. d'oh

What is meant in the context of the OP?

My opinion is this: justice for women to have the
freedom to make their own reproductive choices.

If religious people are so worried about other
people sinning -- and about all the myriad unformed
miracles of creation which may or may not reach
fruition -- that they need to control a woman's freedom
to choose, they are not having much faith in the God
they proclaim. He apparently is not wise or powerful
enough to intervene, or to take away a woman's
choice Himself. Or Herself, or Itself, Whatnot.

[AtheistCrusader]

12. Author is using the pope's words.

Flipping "economic justice" to "reproductive justice".

Get it?

[lachrymosa]

22. Yes I get that...

But being a Catholic, I have a lot of trouble with the idea that abortion=justice, and of course so would the Pope.

The Church will never waiver on her stand regarding justice for all from conception until natural death.

[AtheistCrusader]

24. Natural death can be a horrifying, painful process.

There are conditions that warrant a more humane, self-requested option. Trust me.

[skepticscott]

25. But apparently you'd have no problem with

the death of a woman because she couldn't get an abortion of a mass of dividing cells being called "justice".

[lachrymosa]

31. I've seen pictures of those "masses of dividing cells" after the abortion.

They bear a remarkable resemblance to people, even in the very early stages.

Are you asserting that the 3,000+ abortions that occurred within the past 24 hours in the US were necessary to save the lives of the mothers? Each abortion stopped a beating heart. This is a form of "justice"? And if they had been allowed to live--an INjustice?

[skepticscott]

33. I see you've got the Operation Rescue talking points down pat

But no..a mass of 16 dividing cells bears no resemblance to a person and does not have a "beating heart". But by your "logic" such a thing is considered no different than an 8 month fetus, and has to be preserved at all costs, even if it means the death of a living, breathing human being..

Yes, I'm sure that's "justice" for you and your misbegotten "god", but maybe you ought to spout your right-wing fundy crap on a different site. You won't last long here.

[lachrymosa]

47. Not going to bite. Sorry.

You've misrepresented me, but I know what you would do with a response.

It's amazing that you are so openly hateful and hostile towards religion and the religious, yet are anxious to silence those who wish to express religious beliefs that you don't like. Frankly, I don't mind your nasty attitude and I enjoy having my faith challenged, but that you strive to muzzle those who have valid points of disagreement is not very admirable or impressive.

[skepticscott]

52. Oh, please..get off your high horse

This is a progressive web site, and I didn't make up the rules and guidelines for it. If you don't like them, take it up with the admins or find another. Either way, I suggest you educate yourself about what's appropriate here rather than complaining about being "muzzled".

And no, all religious views are not welcome here. If you wish to regularly, openly and unabashedly express the doctrine of your faith that homosexuality is sinful and that same sex marriage should not be permitted, you'll be bounced out of here rather quickly. We've decided where we stand on those issues, and don't really give a rat what the RCC teaches.

[lachrymosa]

59. Then what you are telling me is that the Catholic group is a sham.

I haven't preached Catholic doctrine, but there is a group that allows for expressing Catholic beliefs, so hopefully there of all places Catholic doctrine could be discussed,and I would think that posters in this religion group, especially in a thread which attacks the Catholic Church, would be openminded enough to hear what a Catholic thinks about it.

I think it needs to be made clear whether ALL religious beliefs may be openly expressed or not. I understand the politics of this board, but religion and personal beliefs are a different matter.

If I say "Belief A" of Catholicism must become the law of the land, then I am being political. But if you attack "Belief A" and denigrate Catholicism and Catholics in the process, then I would think that fair-minded people on this board would understand and accept an explanation of "Belief A," so long as it were not presented in political way--as if it were being forced by law.

I don't intend to argue with you about this any more. I will ask an admin or moderator about it. But in my opinion, if your attitude is representative of those who run the board, then it is sad and intellectually dishonest to state that there are groups allowing for the expression of religious beliefs.

[skepticscott]

61. You're sounding more and more

like a troll all the time. The phony appeal to "balance", and allowing all opinions is classic and transparent. But no one has stopped you from expressing your most deeply held beliefs here, if you are really as eager to do that as you pretend.

[Marrah_G]

138. The problem comes when a religion tries to force it's beliefs on others

The Catholic church is clearly doing that. Also... the value of life from birth to death, when exactly did that come about, because when I look at history, real history, the Catholic church is responsible for a heck of alot of death.

[rug]

66. "We've decided where we stand on those issues, and don't really give a rat what the RCC teaches."

Who died and made you Pope?

See if for once, just once, you can type a post not using the first person plural.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

78. "We've decided where we stand on those issues"

Skepticscott is using the Royal "We".

Lacrymosa -- what are you crying about? -- beware of skepticscott. He does not debate honestly.

[skepticscott]

82. Yes, there is a "we" here, even though you reject that notion

This is a website created to promote progressive ideals and values. The people who come here do so because they share those values, one of which is that religious opposition to same-sex marriage is a despicable thing. This is not to say that everyone here agrees on everything (obviously), but the people who think that lowering taxes on the rich, making abortion illegal or banning same-sex marriage are great things tend not to stick around. So yes, that leaves "we" on those issues. Unless you'd like to own up to holding the opposite views.

And as far as "debate", lachrymosa has offered nothing worth discussing, only right-wing fundy boilerplate on abortion. They were offered the chance to honestly, openly and without pretense express their views on same-sex marriage, and they refused. All they've done is offer the usual trollish whining about a Democratic website not being open to the touting of right-wing viewpoints. Well boo-fucking-hoo.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

83. And you have proclaimed yourself to be the sole spokescreature.

Believe it or not, yours is NOT the only voice that is allowed to set policy. Those who disagree with YOU are to be cast into outer darkness, unable to voice any opinion. For, after all, what opinion other than that of skepticscott is worthy?

Arrogance, thy name is skepticscott.

[skepticscott]

84. If you can show me any site policy that I have personally set

then do so. Otherwise your post is just so much dishonest blather.

As every intelligent person reading this thread knows, I have pointed out on more than one occasion that it is the admins who have declared what subjects are off-limits on DU. I have merely reported the existing state of affairs to someone apparently unaware of them. If I've misreported them, feel free to point out how. And if you don't like the restrictions that the admins have set, take it up with them.

Oh, wait...you did. How'd that work out, btw?

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

88. You proclaim what the policy is, and brook no oppositions

No, I know of no policy you have set. Nor did I say that you set it. What I said is that you proclaim the policy. And the policy, as stated by skepticscott will not be questioned, or else skepticscott will damn you and tell you to leave. Skepticscott is the infallible proclaimer of DU policy, at least when it comes to religion. All hail the decrees of skepticscott! No other voices need speak.

I was calling you on your arrogant presumption in attempting to silence a voice which disagreed with the policy that you proclaim has been set by "admins" unknown. It is clear that when you say, "People are free to state their views", you actually mean "People are free to state their views, but only insofar as I, the almighty skepticscott, approve of what they say".

Again, you are simply being arrogant.

[skepticscott]

96. Proclaim? Get over yourself

Last edited Sun Dec 1, 2013, 10:08 PM - Edit history (1)

I told someone new what kinds of policies exist concerning posts on this site (policies in place long before I got here). You were challenged to show where I got them wrong, and you failed miserably, as you always do when challenged to back up your crap with facts.

And this:

No, I know of no policy you have set. Nor did I say that you set it. When just above you said this:Believe it or not, yours is NOT the only voice that is allowed to set policy. Despite your dishonesty, I'm not allowed to set policy at all

And then this:

I was calling you on your arrogant presumption in attempting to silence a voice which disagreed with the policy that you proclaim has been set by "admins" unknown. When (again, in this thread) I asked, practically begged someone not once but twice to express an opinion that I knew differed from mine:

I'm perfectly happy to have you expound on your views on same-sex marriage. If you're as eager to express the totality of your religion as you claim, be my guest. I won't stop you. Have at it. Be honest, direct and complete. Post 57

But hey, if you have a solid, rational argument for why same-sex marriage shouldn't be allowed at all, feel free to make it. If you really want a no-holds-barred discussion, have at it..use both hands. Post 64

That's "attempting to silence" only in the bizarre fantasy world that you apparently inhabit. And no, the admins are not "unknown" You know perfectly well who they are, since you've gone running to them to complain on at least one occasion, and probably more.

The rest of your posts here are just as full of baloney, and I'm not going to weary myself demolishing them. But seriously, dude…it's pretty sad that you can't even attempt an argument without blatant dishonesty, and pretty scary that you do it despite knowing that everyone here can see that you're doing it. I think your obsession with atheists here and your frustration at having your goat gotten at every turn has unhinged whatever reason and good judgement you might once have had. Can't think of any other reason why you'd post such transparent and easily exposed whoppers.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

98. You are the one who needs to drop the arrogance

When Lachrymosa dared to disagree with you, you told her that what she wrote was unacceptable and that she should leave.

You claim that you are ready to listen to differing views, but when someone actually expresses a view differing from yours, you attack. You accuse me of being a liar, and you applauded those who called me a bigot. I suppose that calling you an arsehole will cause you to bring down the admins on me, but I'll say it anyway: You're an arsehole.

[Rob H.]

113. Next time you go on a whine about double standards, remember this post ^

This isn't the first time you've called a poster here an "arsehole"--although, to be fair, last time you referred to atheists generically as "arseholes"--and neither of the posts were hidden. Had any non-religious poster referred to believers, either individually or collectively, in the same terms, it's a pretty safe bet to say that poster would either get summarily PPR'ed or at the very least booted permanently from this group. (Maybe the hosts will at least give you another "time out"--which would be, what, your fourth?--but I'm not counting on it.)

There's a double standard in play here, all right, and given that you're still here you should be thanking your lucky stars that there is.

[cbayer]

125. To be fair, both of these guys have been "timed out" from this group.

There's no double standard, there just an apparent inability to be civil and to learn from previous mistakes.

[Heddi]

131. Sure there's a double standard

when a poster is repeatedly allowed to call other posters "you atheist arseholes" and, just in this thread alone, called another singular poster an "arsehole," and the jury repeatedly refuses to hide threads where atheists in general or specific posters who identify as atheist/agnostic are attacked, called "arseholes," "bigots" and other such stuff, then yes, there is a double standard.

Remember the old forum regulars like humblebum, and oh who was that other bigot who got booted here around the same time? Both of them got hearty pats on the heads from the religionists here and won numerous "great post!!!" and "good point!" awards. Yet they were ridiculously, over the top homophobic and had equal bigotry towards atheists/agnostics as well. All of that didn't matter as long as they dealt logically unsound blows to "Team Other Guys" (since you're so fond of dividing this groups into teams and points and scores and all that).

Despite their repeated nasty attacks on atheists and gays, they had to go full out, over the top, Free Republic level blowup before they were banned from the forum.

Double standard? Please. Don't even pretend to deny it doesn't exist.

You of all people love to call out Atheists for brushing believers with a broad brush. "NOT ALL CHRISTIANS ARE LIKE THAT" and yet, despite this very thing being pointed out to you numerous times, you DO NOT come to the defense or aid of Atheists/Agnostics when WE are painted with broad brushes by believers. POint to a time when you have rebuked Fornibras Armstrong the way that you constantly wag your finger at Trotsky or Skeptiscott. Point out a time where you called out Humblebum on his nasty attacks and slurs on gays AND OR atheists.

Strange how your'e never around to correct THAT bad action. But oh my god, phrase a sentence and don't put the qualifier "SOME" and holy shit, you come down like a ton of bricks to remind everyone "NOT ALL BELIVERS ARE LIKE THAT!!" NOT ALL CHRISTIANS ARE LIKE THAT!! MY DAD WAS A MINISTER AND NOT ALL CHURCHES ARE LIKE THAT

Double standard? Pot, meet my friend kettle

[Rob H.]

132. Your first paragraph sums it up perfectly

If people don't see the blindingly obvious double standard it's because they choose not to, not because there isn't one.

[cbayer]

133. Lol. I think there are those who would completely agree with you, but from

the opposite perspective.

And that's why the truth lies in the middle and I will maintain that there is no double standard.

There are wonderfully tolerant and civil believers and non-believers who post in this group. There are also a small handful of very intolerant and uncivil believers and non-believers who post in the group. It is the members of the second group who feel persecuted from both sides. No one else ever complains.

[Rob H.]

134. Since you say "the truth lies somewhere in the middle"

do you honestly believe that if a non-religious person had said something along the lines of "you (insert religious group) arseholes" even once, much less repeatedly, that person would have gotten the incredibly flaccid punishment (and it's generous to even call it a punishment) of being temporarily blocked and then allowed back in after simply deleting the offending post? Thanks for proving Heddi's point, and mine.

Edited for wrong word and clarity.

[cbayer]

135. I think things are left standing in this group by jury decision frequently

that I would prefer to see removed.

And I think they come from both directions.

Fortunately they come from only a few members and the hosts have dealt with the most egregious from both sides with an even hand, imo.

[trotsky]

136. Is accusing someone of advocating genocide a civil or uncivil action, cbayer?

Especially when the persons you've attacked in that way did no such thing?

Get your own house in order before you sit on your throne of judgment of others.

[trotsky]

137. Hey FA, your buddy was PPR'ed.

Repeat disruptor.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=310095&sub=trans

[longship]

38. Your post was alerted.

I was a jurist. I was torn by my vote. It was a difficult one, but I voted to hide it.

You won by 2-4, and I am okay with that. As I said, I was torn about suppressing contrary opinions.

But here's the thing. I have some problems with your post.

1. It is not supported by any science.

2. You have a very low post count.

3. You seem to like to post in the Catholicism forum.

I have no problems with any of those things individually. However, the combination is worrying to me that you might be an anti-choice, anti-contraceptive troll. So I voted Hide.

I am willing to give you the benefit of doubt here. But I would encourage you to prove yourself by posting in GD on other political issues.

And as long as you do that, Welcome to DU! However, if you continue down the path indicated by this post, you will not last long here, I predict.

[skepticscott]

40. There's certainly nothing wrong

with free and open discussion. But the fact remains that, on this site, the questions of whether abortion should be legal and whether a woman should be able to obtain one if she wishes are not welcomed for debate. And frankly, this poster has offered nothing new in the way of evidence or arguments that would warrant a rethinking of that policy by the admins.

If they wish to hold and preach an anti-choice viewpoint, that's certainly their right, but they would be well advised to seek another forum in which to do so. The sooner they grasp that, the longer they'll last here.

[longship]

41. That's precisely why I voted to uphold the alert.

[lachrymosa]

46. Thank you.

I appreciate your cordial warning.

But I'm confused.

I see that there is this religion group as well as a Catholic group. This particular group states that the purpose is to discuss religion and theology, etc. A natural element of a religious discussion is the idea of an "immortal soul" and when a body becomes "ensouled." If a particular religion believes that ensoulment occurs before birth or at conception, then abortion is certainly a relevant topic, and it would follow that some religions would forbid abortion based on the ideal of justice for all human persons.

Of course there is much disagreement about this, but I thought that in a religious group, one may express one's religious beliefs. After-all in this thread there is an attack against Catholicism for being "unjust" regarding reproduction, and as a Catholic, I wanted to make it clear that the Catholic teaching about that is based on her ideal of justice.

You don't have to agree with that, but in a religion thread, may not the totality of a religious belief system be expressed?

I ask the following with no sarcasm or disrespect. I simply want to understand.

Do you only permit Catholic posters who are willing to reject those parts of their faith that contradict the political ideals of this forum? (Please understand that for a Catholic, one is to accept it all--it's not a situation where one chooses the parts he likes and rejects those that are hard). Or do you allow them to post with the understanding that they must silence themselves regarding the totality of their faith?

I personally enjoy discussions about religion in general and Catholicism in particular. Politics...not so much. And there are many other aspects of religion I would enjoy discussing, especially what is more positive, such as the peace and order it can bring to one's life. But in a group about religion, it seems more than reasonable that one could express all his religious beliefs without fear of being banned.

[longship]

48. I appreciate your take although I disagree with your position.

I am a frequent poster in the Religion forum. Like me, many atheists frequent there. I can only speak for myself. I try to be respectful. But the discussions there can get contentious.

You should probably drop in and read what goes on there before you post. It is undoubtedly a different dynamic than in the Catholicism forum.

Also, pay attention to the forum rules and statement of purpose typically pinned at the top of the forum's main page. That's always a good thing for new DUers to learn.

And remember, this is a partisan Democratic Web site. Your apparent position on abortion is not likely to have widespread support here. I have known many Democrats who may agree with you and would call them good people.

With those caveats in mind, welcome.

[skepticscott]

53. So if you accept and agree with ALL of Catholic teaching, with NO picking and choosing

You must hold the position that same-sex marriage should never be permitted. Because that's down there in black and white.

Please save us all the trouble of alerting on you over and over. Just leave. Your attitudes are not welcome here.

[lachrymosa]

55. In other words...

According to you, this group is not for expressing religious views. Only "politically correct" religious views. According to you, if a person's faith displeases you, he or she may not post about it here, as your political beliefs trump their religious beliefs.

If you're right about this, I think it should be made plain in the various groups about religion that Catholics who believe in Catholicism are not welcome here. That would be more honest than a pretense of having an open discussion about religion--which it is not (IF you are correct and speak for the board).

[skepticscott]

57. Nice try, but as stated, not according to me

According to the admins of this site. I didn't set any standards for "political correctness" for DU.

I'm perfectly happy to have you expound on your views on same-sex marriage. If you're as eager to express the totality of your religion as you claim, be my guest. I won't stop you.

Have at it. Be honest, direct and complete. Or stop complaining.

[lachrymosa]

63. I think I'll wait awhile to do that.

I'm trying to get a feel for this board. But I don't think I've ever been on one that is so touchy and so quick to eliminate posts or call for people to be banned.

I'm attempting to post within the guidelines, though. Religious discussions are interesting, but I think even more interesting if they are unfettered, or if compared to a boxing match, are more interesting if both fighters get to use both hands instead of one of them having a hand tied behind his back.

[skepticscott]

64. I see you're not as eager to expound

on your sincerely held views as you claimed. But trust me, people with lower post counts than you get bounced from this site (and lots of others, for that matter) all the time.

But hey, if you have a solid, rational argument for why same-sex marriage shouldn't be allowed at all, feel free to make it. If you really want a no-holds-barred discussion, have at it..use both hands. Or, as I said, stop complaining and find another site.

[rug]

67. Do not do DU a disservice and think skepticscottt is either representative of, or speaks for, DU.

As you can see from his goading and baiting, he is adamantly opposed to things religious, and all things Catholic. The problem is he attempts to cloak his own views as that of DU.

This site actively supports many viewpoints, including the religious viewpoint. That is one thing that liberals do. It really is not a place for haters. It's unfortunate you have been exposed to it so quickly and so persistently.

[cbayer]

85. +1

[Lordquinton]

32. Why do people keep saying this tripe?

The RCC changed their stance in the early 20th century, from "Life begins at birth" to "Life begins at conception"

I see a very easy fix to this issue.

[rug]

68. I'm sure you can provide a citation for that assertion.

[Lordquinton]

72. Vatican councel?

Changed a lot in the church, but everyone forgets it.

Even if that weren't the case, why not do it anyways?

[rug]

73. The Vatican Council was pastoral. It had no doctrinal formulations.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

79. That's not true

It did give doctorinal formulations. Read Lumen Gentium, or Dignitatis Humanae. Both speak specifically to doctrine.

Gaudium et Spes 51 does say that human life begins at conception.

[rug]

86. Both were restatements of existing doctrine.

Lumen Gentium concerned ecclesiology and resurrected the role of the laity. That is pastoral, not doctrinal.

Dignitatis Humanae concerned church-state relations.

Gaudium et Spes 51 was stated as a "reminder".

Trent and Vatican I, on the other hand, did explicitly set doctrine. There is an ooverlap, though between pastoral concerns and doctrinal statements.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

89. Dignitatis Humanae

Overturned the previous doctrine that "Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true" was not only false, but pernicious. Now, the doctrine is that "Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true".

That, sir, is a change in doctrine. It was that change in doctrine that led the late and unlamented Archbishop Lefebvre into schism.

I could give other examples, but it's really not worth it.

[rug]

90. It's not worth it?

Then why did you reply?

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

91. It's not worth arguing about further.

I doubt I will change your mind, and you certainly won't change mine.

[rug]

92. I doubt the former but not the latter.

[Lordquinton]

139. Yeah, yeah,

Except that they base statements on it.

Everything this pope has said is Pastoral, therefore none of it means anything, right?

The Vatican counsel was a huge shift in the RCC, they noticed a shift in the church to be more liberal so they doubled down on the conservative, like making a statement about life beginning at conception, instead of birth.

[rug]

140. Muddle post of the week.

[Voice for Peace]

35. lachrymosa, do you think a woman should be trusted to make these decisions

on behalf of her own health and welfare, in consultation with her God of choice?

[AtheistCrusader]

13. If he does, he owes a SHITLOAD of apologies to the people of Argentina.

Attacking and calling the work of the people to legalize same-sex marriage literally the work of the devil itself.

“Let us not be naive: This is not simply a political struggle, but it is an attempt to destroy God’s plan," said the future pope. "It is not just a bill (a mere instrument) but a ‘move’ of the father of lies who seeks to confuse and deceive the children of God.”

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/pope-francis-same-sex-marriage-move-father-lies-total-rejection-gods-law#sthash.6DhXkyLz.dpuf


LITERALLY demonizing the work of social progressives, seeking equal treatment for same-sex partners.

[Voice for Peace]

15. Time will tell, I have no idea.

The link is from 2010. A lot can happen in a short time.
There is no reason not to hope for the best.

[AtheistCrusader]

16. I wouldn't hold my breath. There's explicit language in the bible that supports his

position on economics, as discussed upthread. This position should not come as a shock. He's 100% reflecting the black-letter law of his faith in that announcement about economic justice. (Red letter too, if you believe in the bits of the bible supposedly uttered by a person allegedly called 'Jesus')


But don't look for any social justice from him for gay people. That same black-letter law explicitly reinforces the sort of language he used in that statement about same sex marriage. The old testament is part and parcel of his faith, and it is quite explicit about the subject. He will not change. Don't wait for it. It won't happen. His commentary about 'do not judge' is also part and parcel of the red letter law of his faith, but it'll be a cold day in an alleged hell before he even considers supporting, or even stepping out of the way and not opposing same-sex marriage laws, or family planning, or a whole host of other issues that, unlike his comments on 'economic justice', run directly counter to the bedrock foundations of his faith.

[Voice for Peace]

17. I won't hold my breath..

but your argument for while he will never change is
based on him having an unshakeable faith in the
old testament which had nothing to do with Jesus.

If he is capable of self-reflection, at some point
he may be able to understand that he is doing
the opposite of what Jesus suggested.

Evolution is possible, I'm standing by it.
I don't know the man, so I have no idea how
open his mind and heart may be.

[AtheistCrusader]

18. Without the old testament, jesus is just some guy, that maybe pulled off a

parlor trick.

The old testament is the building the new testament is painted on the surface of. Take away the building and you have an uninteresting puddle of paint, and Christians wouldn't be Christians at all.

If in the end you are right, if he did change, he would fracture the church, because it's chock full of people who will not bend on this issue. And you'd end up with new sects of Christianity, like the Anglicans, Lutherans, protestants, etc.

[cbayer]

19. I am hopeful.

He has issued a survey to get information on how catholics feel about issues around families, including marriage equality.

Whether he then acts on this or not will be telling, of course.

[Voice for Peace]

20. thanks for your post.. I was starting to feel guilty about being hopeful

[cbayer]

21. You are not at all alone and have no reason to feel guilty.

[rug]

23. "Hope deferred makes the heart sick, but a desire fulfilled is a tree of life."

Proverbs 13:12

[skepticscott]

26. Yes, by gosh...a survey makes all the difference!

We all know how often the RCC has changed doctrine over the past 2000 years based on poll numbers.

Best if you continue to feel guilty..it would make more sense.

[Voice for Peace]

28. you must be catholic

? or ex-catholic?

or a Jewish mom?

[skepticscott]

30. Keep trying

One of these days you may hit the truth.

[Voice for Peace]

34. When I think of being encouraged to feel guilty, that's all I can come up with..

[skepticscott]

36. I can certainly understand

your deeply flawed leap of logic...religions specialize in controlling people through guilt, and Catholicism is better at it than just about any other.

But you'll have to look deeper than that.

[Voice for Peace]

37. most of my leaps of logic are deeply flawed.

Those are the only two groups I associate with being
encouraged to feel guilty.

The nature of the human heart is to be hopeful.
Life itself, in fact, has that nature. I see it in everything
living.

Guilt & its associates are a nasty waste of time, I will stick with hope.

"Ours is no caravan of despair."

[rug]

39. Speaking of flawed logic, you're embracing a ludicrous premise.

Again.

[lachrymosa]

44. The Catholic Church has not changed any doctrine.

Some doctrine has evolved, but none has been reversed or changed.

And "poll numbers" have nothing to do with the Catholic faith.

[skepticscott]

54. Exactly

Catholic Church doctrine will continue to be bigoted and sexist, no matter what people in the pews think, no matter how many PR photo ops the new pope stages, and no matter how many meaningless surveys he sends out.

[lachrymosa]

56. You're contradicting yourself.

You previously stated that the Catholic Church has changed doctrines according to polling.

[skepticscott]

58. Sheesh, adjust your sarcasm meter

Of course they haven't changed...who in their right mind would think I was claiming otherwise?

[lachrymosa]

60. That claim has been made many times and in this thread as well by others.

OK, I'll take you at your word about that. My apologies. But that's a common argument--that the Catholic Church has changed and/or reversed doctrine.

[skepticscott]

62. No, believe me

Anyone intelligent on this board is as aware as you are how closed-minded and unchanging the RCC is on matters of doctrine.

[rug]

69. You'd better tell Lordquinton above.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

80. No, doctrine has actually been changed.

I posted on exactly that in http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1221&pid=3768 giving four specific examples.

I said that one can only claim that Catholic doctrine has never changed by denying history

[Thinkingabout]

27. I am wondering when will his accusers evolve.

[Humanist_Activist]

42. Into what? Homophobe supporters? n/t

[Thinkingabout]

71. You want the pope to evolve into supporting LGBT but you refise to evolve in ceasing your

Accusations, now that is a fine solution.

[Humanist_Activist]

74. What accusations, I stated a fact, the Pope is a homophobe. n/t

[Thinkingabout]

75. I think you have perhaps you may have missed something here and without an open mind even if the

Pope should announce a total rethink on all issues you are not getting past of your opinion you carry. It's like scoring three touchdowns after the game is over it does not change the score.

[Act_of_Reparation]

109. You don't seem to understand cause and effect

If Francis ceases to be a homophobic bigot, I'll stop thinking of him as a homophobic bigot. Deal?

[Humanist_Activist]

111. I have a problem with a Homophobic Bigot being a homophobic bigot, if he changed his mind...

apologized for his past actions, then we would be cool, but until then, nothing has changed.

[Thinkingabout]

114. Perhaps I am having a problem with a heterphobic bigot who expects everyone to

apologize in order to give any credit to those who are compassionate for the poor and ill.

[Humanist_Activist]

115. Keep it up, you won't be here long with that kind of language, heterophobic?

So I'm self hating, or fear myself now? LOL

Are you going start complaining about reverse racism and other BS also, soon?

[Humanist_Activist]

117. Bullshit jury result, 3/3 split..

AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your alert
Mail Message
At Mon Dec 2, 2013, 02:23 PM you sent an alert on the following post:

Perhaps I am having a problem with a heterphobic bigot who expects everyone to
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=101780

REASON FOR ALERT:

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

YOUR COMMENTS:

This poster just called me a heterphobic bigot, which is not only stupid, considering I'm apparently self hating, but also is over the top, rude, a violation of TOS, and, just to emphasize, very similar to claims of "reverse racism".

JURY RESULTS

A randomly-selected Jury of DU members completed their review of this alert at Mon Dec 2, 2013, 02:29 PM, and voted 3-3 to LEAVE IT ALONE.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Both of you are attacking each other personally.

Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Alone, the comment is over the top. But in context, the exchange between posters is all over-the-top. So to remove this without removing the previous posts is selective and arbitrary.
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: I think the person who asked for the post to be hidden baited the person who responded. If you are going to hide one you need to hide them all. Granted, the person who responded should not have bitten the bait but all things considered one is not worse than the other.

I find it curious that not one, but two of the jurors lied about my posts, and I don't remember making any personal attacks as well. Yes, I alerted on the jury result.

[rug]

118. You should read the results and learn from them.

[Humanist_Activist]

119. That many people are DU are homophobes or homophobic enablers? I knew that for years...

too bad the admins still turn a blind eye to them.

[rug]

121. Oh, now the jurors are homophobes?

Do you think the administrators are homophobes too for enabling this situation?

[Humanist_Activist]

123. This board has a distinct anti-LGBT bias when it comes to criticizing religious leaders...

think back to the Donnie McClurkin fiasco, for example, and the supporters of assholes like him, or this Pope, end up exposing themselves as homophobes or just grossly ignorant, such as using "lifestyle choices", "heterophobic", and other red alert words.

Also, and I have to emphasize this, I did NOT personally attack this poster, and I certainly wasn't over the top calling a man who is AGAINST marriage equality a homophobe. You know, if someone came out as anti-miscegenation, we would call them a racist, no problem, but calling the Pope a homophobe, that is over the top!

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

81. Right "who am I to judge homosexuals" is a homophobic remark

Apparently, you are of the "my mind is made up, don't confuse me with facts" school.

[Humanist_Activist]

93. Until they form relationships, then their families are an "attack on God"...

you want to go toe to toe with this Pope's quotes? I welcome it, expose the asshole for being a fucking asshole, and his apologists for being apologists.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

94. You are determined to believe that Pope Francis is a "homophobic bigot"

I don't know why.

I have noticed that some -- I am not saying all -- DU atheists tend to make bigoted remarks. But they seem to hate it when they are called bigots for making these remarks.

[Humanist_Activist]

95. I find it illuminating that you say WE atheists are making bigoted remarks...

while denying that the Pope is a homophobic bigot.

ON EDIT: Let me put it this way, ANYONE who upholds the Catechism of the Catholic Church's teaching on homosexuality is a homophobic bigot, period. You can attempt to justify not calling them that, but you would be wrong.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

99. Thank you for calling essentially the entire Catholic Church bigots N/T

[Humanist_Activist]

100. Not every Catholic holds to that belief, the heirarchy, yes, but every Catholic?

No. But I have a question, do you think homosexuals are intrinsically disordered?

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

101. No, I do not

I should say that my younger brother, whom I love dearly, is gay. He feels, with reason, that he has been kicked out of the Catholic Church.

But that is neither here nor there. Your insistence that Pope Francis is "a homophobic bigot" is simply insulting to someone who appears to be that great rarity, a genuinely decent man.

[trotsky]

103. What is the reason your brother was kicked out of your church?

Is he not allowed to fully live and love as a homosexual man yet remain a Catholic in good standing?

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

104. No, he was not

But that does not mean that the Pope is a homophobic bigot.

[trotsky]

106. Oh of course he isn't.

He just doesn't believe that gay people can love who they want and raise a family without sinning.

Sure, nothing bigoted about that.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

107. To repeat, you have determined, on nothing more than your own prejudice,

That Pope Francis is a homophobic bigot. I have said that some DU atheists are bigots, and thank you for demonstrating that I am correct to say so.

Have a nice day!

[trotsky]

108. So you agree that your pope is a bigot.

Great! It is good you can admit that.

[Humanist_Activist]

110. A decent man who would reject your brother if he is in a relationship...

your definition of decent is the opposite of my definition of the same word.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

128. So basically, your standard for decency is

Does he support gay marriage or not? That seems a bit narrow-minded.

Pope Francis is not without flaws. But I truly believe, based on what he has said and done, that he is a basically decent man.

[Humanist_Activist]

129. He has openly attacked same sex relationships, using language that is just downright awful...

in any context. My standards for decency requires, at a minimum, being able to respect the right of people to seek and affirm healthy relationships.

[trotsky]

112. Do you think context is important, FA?

Because the full quote from your pope is this:

“If someone is gay and he searches for the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge?”

I noticed you left off the first clause. It's a conditional clause, so it's actually quite important to process when making a judgment about the second clause. What does it mean, from your pope's POV, for a gay person to search for the lord and have good will?

If George Wallace had said "If someone is black and doesn't mix the races or try to use whites-only facilities, who am I to judge him for his skin color?", would that have made him less of a racist?

[2banon]

29. I.M.H.O.

Personally I continue to be stunned at the breadth of his socio-economic awareness and attitude, given that he is an anointed leader of the Catholic Church.. But more to the point, that he had the courage to lay it out to the extent that he has, is astonishing and welcoming in my mind.

I'm just wondering how long the powers that be will allow him to draw more breath.. That he hasn't voiced recognition for LGBT community's socio-economic conditions/rights shouldn't come as a surprise, nor should he have ever been expected to convey such thoughts in that regard, imho. Given that he is a Religious Leader.

[Humanist_Activist]

43. Did you think the same things about Pope Benedict? He has talked about the same themes...

time and again when it comes to economics.

[2banon]

50. Well, I suppose I must have been listening with a jaundiced ear...

For some odd reason, I missed anything he ever said about anything. Probably because he was just another white male chosen as the anointed one, and one with a particularly dubious background. Probably couldn't tell me the time of day without mistrusting the information. but that's just me..

[Act_of_Reparation]

45. The Catholic Church has embraced economic progressivism for generations...

We were talking about the same issues when I was in Catholic school more than twenty years ago. Why some people think Francis' positions on capitalism are revolutionary is completely beyond me.

[2banon]

49. Curious as to why this time sounds so refreshingly new, then.

I grant you local Bishops and Priests have often voiced progressivism in regards to the needs of the poor and the sick, but I've never heard straight up, full throated attack on the corruption of the capitalists system articulated on this level before now. So, thanks for the correction!

[Act_of_Reparation]

105. That makes two of us...

I largely chalk it up to an uncritical media apparatus treating Francis like they do they British royal family.

[trotsky]

116. And a swooning liberal fanbase...

who will more readily turn on and attack their own than critically analyze what the new pope stands for.

[rug]

120. Where have I heard the phrase "swooning liberal fanbase" before?

[2banon]

126. hmm.

That's how I perceived the Media Treatment of Benedict.. interesting.

[Act_of_Reparation]

127. Perhaps you could explain why you got that impression...

... it is my memory that once the initial mystery of the papal elections had passed, the press was fairly critical of Benedict's papacy, especially his non-handling of sexual abuse cases.

[2banon]

130. Good question, I'd have to give that some thought

I'm sort of losing track with the stream of consciousness in this thread.. If we're still talking about the last Pope, (Benedict), if memory serves me accurately, it seems I recall a sort of 'all out' Media Glorification when Benedict had.. (what is the proper term?) ascended to the Vatican throne.. (lack of a better term).

And now that you mention it, the matter of sexual abuse cases were being given media attention (to the extent they give anything of any import much notice), as a sort of continuation from the past, what? two or more decades I think. I suppose my take in regards to these cases, was that these matters were not being treated any better or worse than Benedict's predecessor.. pretty much status quo it seemed to me. Denials, Cover Up, Enabling, Pay Offs, and so forth.

I have very low expectations of the Church (hierarchy) with regards to these matters, as I don't expect the Church to ever approve of Women as Priests, Contraception (much less the right to choose), Priest to marry, nor do I expect them to ever, ever recognize equality with the LGBT community. Not ever.

I rather consider the Church to be a mixed bag of humanity in all it's variants, but with a terribly out of touch and rather reactionary political bent among some in this country. The ones that end up as "spokespersons" on Cable "News" (which I no longer have) and whose sound bites occasionally find their way into PBS News Hour or NPR or in print.

My apologies if I've gotten off track with the question at hand, and it seems I've engaged in a bit of rambling, but this represents my general thinking on the subject.

[2banon]

51. I missed understood the forum this news item was in

I thought it was Breaking News.. Didn't look carefully to see that this was actually posted in a Religious Forum.

My Bad.

But I'm wondering if folks in this forum, have any interest in hearing other points of view on the subject of the Pope in general, or not so much?

When I say "other folks", I mean folks such as myself who have no religious affiliation of any stripe.

[skepticscott]

65. Opposing points of view on this pope

have already been posted to no small extent on this board, by both the religious and the non-religious, but you're more than welcome to toss yours into the ring as well.

[2banon]

70. Thanks, but I think I'll butt out of this one..

After all, I'm not a catholic, I don't identify with any religious organization. But I was partly raised in Catholic teachings, had to go to catechism school, but was never baptised so I never did communion as a youngster. My sister was baptised, but she never made confession, nor go to catechism, nor attended mass as often as I did, when I was a kid. Funny lot my family.

All that to say I have a passing interest in the subject...this particular Pope has been on my radar wrt to news articles containing quotes that have caught my interest and that I support.

But I'm not vested, nor am I knowledgeable enough to really weigh in other than as a casual observer standing on the sidelines in a manner of speaking.

[pinto]

76. I agree, all points of view are welcomed. Join in when you've the time.

[cbayer]

87. Please do not mistake volume for authority.

We have had many very lively and interesting debates about the pope which have included those who are supporters, those who are cautiously optimistic and those who are quite pessimistic. For the most part, they are civil and respectful of differing points of view.

As in pretty much any area of this board, you may run into those who do not appear to have any interest in engaging in a debate that encourages other POV's, but they are not representative of the group.

Believers and nonbelievers and everyone in between are welcome here, but not everyone has to be engaged.

[skepticscott]

97. No intelligent, productive debate welcomes points of view

that are repeated over and over and over, despite being shown to have no basis in fact or reason, but only wishful thinking. Every point of view has to earn the right to be taken and discussed seriously, and if it doesn't, it deserves to be swept aside in favor of something more in line with reality. You at least pretend to take that attitude with creationism, while clinging to notions of your own that are no better supported.

Yeah, that runs totally against your mantra of "all points of view are equally valid", but tough.

[rug]

124. I swear I've read this before.

Over and over.

And over.