NationStates Jolt Archive

Of course. The Church had power in the past, thus it will (like any conservative) look to change things back to the way they were in the past.
Well in the past few centuries they have been relatively liberal in some places. In the west the death penalty was widespread in the 18th and 19th centuries, yet the Catholic church was against it.

Well in the past few centuries they have been relatively liberal in some places. In the west the death penalty was widespread in the 18th and 19th centuries, yet the Catholic church was against it.

For that, I call them useful. Once.

They were useful.

So there.

Do you actually believe what you're writing?

No? Didn't think so?

I've seen your posts, you're just one of these guys who loves to bait liberals.

Baiting liberals or idiots? I'd bait conservatives more often, but there are very few of them on here.

...and I'm still waiting for that pro-homosexuality Pope.

Besides which: I was defending the Pope's RIGHT to have an opinion. Or are you that intolerant? :rolleyes:

Well, we all know that some people would rather live under the Taliban regime or its Christian counterpart, the regime depicted in The Handmaid's Tale. But, then again, some people are morons.

This is also true. Just as there are those that apparently don't think that a certain major religious leader is allowed to have a view contrary what what they feel is right.

But they cannot demand that legislation follows their religious believes. They cannot demand all butchers worldwide to close down on Fridays and not sell meat, and in the same way they can't demand that a government withholds rights form one group of citizens that it does grant to all others.

The Church can demand anything they want. As the head of a large organized religion, it is the Pope's duty to make the position of his faith very clear.
Can the Church expect nations to follow their all their demands? No, no more than anyone on this forum can expect the Church will change its dogma because of this discussion.

As an aside, the Church does allow people to eat meat on Fridays now, except for certain holy days and seasons.

This is also true. Just as there are those that apparently don't think that a certain major religious leader is allowed to have a view contrary what what they feel is right.

He's allowed to have that view, but it becomes offensive when he states that HIS opinion should trample the views of a democratic majority in Canada. Plain and simple.

He's allowed to have that view, but it becomes offensive when he states that HIS opinion should trample the views of a democratic majority in Canada. Plain and simple.

Canada is now a part of the Papal Lands of the Holy See??

Excellent! (Well, at least it'll keep "Le Quebecois" in line!)

Canada is now a part of the Papal Lands of the Holy See??

Excellent! (Well, at least it'll keep "Le Quebecois" in line!)

I've never seen someone stumble onto a point quite the way you just did.

Exactly: Canada is not a part of the Holy See. The Pope behaved as if it were.

He's allowed to have that view, but it becomes offensive when he states that HIS opinion should trample the views of a democratic majority in Canada. Plain and simple.

It cannot be claimed that the Pope's views are offensive because they trample the views of the majority. If that were true, most people that have changed the world dramatically (including Christ himself) should have kept quiet, and allowed the majority to continue thinking what they were. I realize that the fact he said his opinion was better than the majority's is what seems offensive, but is there really anyone, at any time, every, that believes or believed his or her opinion was not the right one?

It cannot be claimed that the Pope's views are offensive because they trample the views of the majority. If that were true, most people that have changed the world dramatically (including Christ himself) should have kept quiet, and allowed the majority to continue thinking what they were. I realize that the fact he said his opinion was better than the majority's is what seems offensive, but is there really anyone, at any time, every, that believes or believed his or her opinion was not the right one?

The point is, by urging on a secular congress as a pope he overstepped his boundaries. And no one here is calling for him to get punished or forcefully silenced, we're just saying it's bigoted and inadequate.

I've never seen someone stumble onto a point quite the way you just did.

Exactly: Canada is not a part of the Holy See. The Pope behaved as if it were.

Funny, I thought he was just opining on something like we do here. He just happens to represent one billion other people and is the direct hotline to G_d as well.

If you don't like it, I suggest you take some serious steps to combat it, as well as any other world leaders opining on anything else.
I'm sure Bush would be very happy not having to hear crap from the French or Iranians, for example. No more ragging on Kim about his little version of hell in North Korea, or on Israel or Palestine or... well, you get the idea.

Believe it or not, not everything Canada does is okay with everyone else.

I think this is precious -- Canadians suddenly realizing what it's like to be an American. LOL!

Das he vvas in ze Duetch Kreigsmachine!

Das he vvas in ze Duetch Kreigsmachine!

Und?

Funny, I thought he was just opining on something like we do here. He just happens to represent one billion other people and is the direct hotline to G_d as well.

If you don't like it, I suggest you take some serious steps to combat it, as well as any other world leaders opining on anything else.
I'm sure Bush would be very happy not having to hear crap from the French or Iranians, for example. No more ragging on Kim about his little version of hell in North Korea, or on Israel or Palestine or... well, you get the idea.

Believe it or not, not everything Canada does is okay with everyone else.

I think this is precious -- Canadians suddenly realizing what it's like to be an American. LOL!

Too bad for your other examples that in all of them, one or two out of these two things happened:

- The opinion was based on logic, not religion.

- The person did NOT urge congressmen or representatives to ignore majorities on his behalf.

The point is, by urging on a secular congress as a pope he overstepped his boundaries. And no one here is calling for him to get punished or forcefully silenced, we're just saying it's bigoted and inadequate.
I still don't understand: why can't the Pope address a secular congress? He sees himself as speaking the word of God, and so is not going to be stopped from proclaiming that because the congress is not affiliated with the Catholic Church. If someone is truly a good Christian, they will not only give alms to poor Christians, or turn the other cheek only if another Christian attacks them. It's the same situation here. In fact, addressing a congress affiliated with the Catholic Church would be unnecessary.
Lest you think I agree with the statements of the Pope, I don't. But to say the Pope has no right to proclaim what he has dedicated his life to is wrong even if the statements themselves are as well.

Too bad for your other examples that in all of them, one or two out of these two things happened:

- The opinion was based on logic, not religion.

- The person did NOT urge congressmen or representatives to ignore majorities on his behalf.

What so great about logic? Does logic dictate how we should treat eachother?

As for the second point, yes, but then again the majorities were with the people speaking (for good reason [usually {I'm running out of bracket symbols}]).

What so great about logic? Does logic dictate how we should treat eachother?


Yes.

Too bad for your other examples that in all of them, one or two out of these two things happened:

- The opinion was based on logic, not religion.

- The person did NOT urge congressmen or representatives to ignore majorities on his behalf.

Ah! One who believes religion to not be logical!
So, tell me... what makes your opinion more valid than Pope Benedicts? Can his reason for his (religious) belief not have a logical reason, or was the Church wrong for admitting the error it made regarding the excommunication of Galileo and admitting that the Earth goes around the Sun?

Bush didn't urge people to ignore majorities? Wow, that flies in the face of a whole lot of opinions on many, many boards like this on the 'net!

I still don't understand: why can't the Pope address a secular congress? He sees himself as speaking the word of God, and so is not going to be stopped from proclaiming that because the congress is not affiliated with the Catholic Church. If someone is truly a good Christian, they will not only give alms to poor Christians, or turn the other cheek only if another Christian attacks them. It's the same situation here. In fact, addressing a congress affiliated with the Catholic Church would be unnecessary.
Lest you think I agree with the statements of the Pope, I don't. But to say the Pope has no right to proclaim what he has dedicated his life to is wrong even if the statements themselves are as well.

As a pretty conservative Catholic, I'm sure you and I would disagree on many things. However, I salute you for this post. I think that understanding people (even those with whom you disagree), seeing things from their viewpoint, and learning about why they believe and do what they do are are extremely important things to do. You've demonstrated that you can do this. However, most other posters in this topic, because of their predispositions, seem determined to disagree with his every action and seem completely uninterested with understanding anybody else's position but their own.

Ah! One who believes religion to not be logical!
So, tell me... what makes your opinion more valid than Pope Benedicts? Can his reason for his (religious) belief not have a logical reason, or was the Church wrong for admitting the error it made regarding the excommunication of Galileo and admitting that the Earth goes around the Sun?

Bush didn't urge people to ignore majorities? Wow, that flies in the face of a whole lot of opinions on many, many boards like this on the 'net!

My opinions are based on logical reasoning. His are based on myth, because he did NOT back it up with logic, he backed it up with religion. The Church had the OBLIGATION to admit the error it made about Galileo.

Bush, like the pope, ignored majorities, and you see me criticizing him at every chance I get. Where's the incoherence?

As a pretty conservative Catholic, I'm sure you and I would disagree on many things. However, I salute you for this post. I think that understanding people (even those with whom you disagree), seeing things from their viewpoint, and learning about why they believe and do what they do are are extremely important things to do. You've demonstrated that you can do this. However, most other posters in this topic, because of their predispositions, seem determined to disagree with his every action and seem completely uninterested with understanding anybody else's position but their own.

Somehow it seems you are under the impression (or decided to assume in order to make a strawman) that we think Ratzlinger should be forced to shut up. We do not. We only say it was inadequate for him, using illogical reasoning from a church, to address a secular group elected by a majority and call on them to ignore that majority in the name of his god. Just like you'd feel it was inadequate if an atheist started a discourse on how it's a waste of time to pray because it yelds no visible result, at a church during mass.

For the record, not an atheist here.

I still don't understand: why can't the Pope address a secular congress? He sees himself as speaking the word of God, and so is not going to be stopped from proclaiming that because the congress is not affiliated with the Catholic Church. If someone is truly a good Christian, they will not only give alms to poor Christians, or turn the other cheek only if another Christian attacks them. It's the same situation here. In fact, addressing a congress affiliated with the Catholic Church would be unnecessary.
Lest you think I agree with the statements of the Pope, I don't. But to say the Pope has no right to proclaim what he has dedicated his life to is wrong even if the statements themselves are as well.

He has the right to address foreign sovereigns, certainly. But he is nevertheless overstepping the boundaries that past Christian thinkers feel need to be observed. Particularly, Augustine was a great proponent of the notion that a true Christian obeys the law so long as it does not directly interfere with his faith. In this case, so long as the law merely allows gay marriage and doesn't require the Christian to marry a gay, whether the law is in palce or not is completely immaterial to the Christian quest to achieve the Kingdom of God, and in the sovereign's view necessary to the purpose of the Kingdom of Man, namely the preservation of peace. By exhorting the Canadian Parliament to repeal a law he feels objectionable, he is also bringing about discord by forcing people to choose between allowing the sovereign's will to prevail and adhering to their religious faith; in other words, he's undermining the peace of the state. That is not his job, nor his call to make.

[QUOTE=Originally Posted by Markreich]
Ah! One who believes religion to not be logical!
So, tell me... what makes your opinion more valid than Pope Benedicts? Can his reason for his (religious) belief not have a logical reason, or was the Church wrong for admitting the error it made regarding the excommunication of Galileo and admitting that the Earth goes around the Sun?

My opinions are based on logical reasoning. His are based on myth, because he did NOT back it up with logic, he backed it up with religion. The Church had the OBLIGATION to admit the error it made about Galileo.

Really? You were THERE when the Pope made this decision? It is definately illogical? :rolleyes:

From the 1st post:
http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2006/09/08/pope-canada.html
"Pope Benedict lashed out Friday at Canada for allowing same-sex marriage and abortion, saying the policies resulted from Catholic politicians ignoring the values of their religion."
"In the name of tolerance, your country has had to endure the folly of the redefinition of spouse," the Pope told a group of bishops from Ontario. "In the name of freedom of choice, it is confronted with the daily destruction of unborn children."

...I fail to see what is wrong with this. He's the leader of the Chuch, and he addressed his own underlings, NOT Parliament!

So, as you agree that the Church WAS right to say it was wrong about the solar system and Galileo, you admit that his reason for this can be logical (and just not to your liking).

Bush, like the pope, ignored majorities, and you see me criticizing him at every chance I get. Where's the incoherence?

Incoherence? Look in the mirror! You criticize Bush, yet at the same time you're taking away the right of the Pope to do the same thing! If you have the right to complain, so does everyone else. QED.

[QUOTE=Heikoku;11669823]


Really? You were THERE when the Pope made this decision? It is definately illogical? :rolleyes:

From the 1st post:
http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2006/09/08/pope-canada.html
"Pope Benedict lashed out Friday at Canada for allowing same-sex marriage and abortion, saying the policies resulted from Catholic politicians ignoring the values of their religion."
"In the name of tolerance, your country has had to endure the folly of the redefinition of spouse," the Pope told a group of bishops from Ontario. "In the name of freedom of choice, it is confronted with the daily destruction of unborn children."

...I fail to see what is wrong with this. He's the leader of the Chuch, and he addressed his own underlings, NOT Parliament!

So, as you agree that the Church WAS right to say it was wrong about the solar system and Galileo, you admit that his reason for this can be logical (and just not to your liking).



Incoherence? Look in the mirror! You criticize Bush, yet at the same time you're taking away the right of the Pope to do the same thing! If you have the right to complain, so does everyone else. QED.

You tire me.

1- I never said the church is illogical all the time. It's only illogical whenever it's possible.

2- If you can read, you probably realized I did NOT want to take away his rights and said so at least four times. I said it was inadequate, not that it should be curtailed. It's like a woman in a purple and yellow polka-dot dress walking around with a poodle whose fur was dyed lime-green: Inadequate, but not something that should be curtailed. Did you understand now?

3- I criticize Bush for ignoring majorities and I criticize the pope for ignoring majorities. The only incoherence you can see here is because you agree with both and cannot fathom how one could disagree.

4- If he had backed it up with logic, rather than with faith or, simply put, CRAP about the "definition of family" , I'd consider the possibility of it all being based in logic. As it stands, it isn't. It is but the rantings of an old man that wants, out of pleasure, to prevent the happiness of other people.

5- Even if he was talking to fellow priests, berating a secular democracy for doing its job is STILL inadequate. Again, nothing that should be curtailed.

Baiting liberals or idiots? I'd bait conservatives more often, but there are very few of them on here.

...and I'm still waiting for that pro-homosexuality Pope.

Besides which: I was defending the Pope's RIGHT to have an opinion. Or are you that intolerant? :rolleyes:
Trolling again I see.

Whether the topic is war, Bush, slamming Europe, or homosexuality, ya just love buggin' the left!

BTW there are loads of conservatives here.

This is also true. Just as there are those that apparently don't think that a certain major religious leader is allowed to have a view contrary what what they feel is right.
You're the only one who has said that. Calling someone "intolerant" isn't the same as saying "we'#ve got to stop them".

For that, I call them useful. Once.

They were useful.

So there.
The promotion of the ideology of charity, non-violence, compassion, hope and all that other good stuff came - with varying degrees of success - from Christianity. Of course, many Christians didn't follow these doctrines, but the point is that the doctrines were there and many others did follow them.

Most atheists, hold post-Christian values. Which are often similar to Christian values without the faith part.

Without Christianity it would all be very different. I would speculate that the world would not be a better place.

So come, Christianity is no less useful than Islam which you (and I) regularly defend on this forum.

For the record, not an atheist here.
Which flavour of the great world religious soup are you?

Incoherence? Look in the mirror! You criticize Bush, yet at the same time you're taking away the right of the Pope to do the same thing! If you have the right to complain, so does everyone else. QED.
You're just trolling. Nobody, other than the His Holiness, proposing to take away any rights.

You tire me.

I can say the same.

1- I never said the church is illogical all the time. It's only illogical whenever it's possible.

That's a totally illogical statement, as it is always POSSIBLE to be illogical. You've yet to prove that anything he said was illogical, BTW. So far, it's just been railing against religion. Therefore, any claim to logic on your side of the house is so far spurious.

2- If you can read, you probably realized I did NOT want to take away his rights and said so at least four times. I said it was inadequate, not that it should be curtailed. It's like a woman in a purple and yellow polka-dot dress walking around with a poodle whose fur was dyed lime-green: Inadequate, but not something that should be curtailed. Did you understand now?

I've been reading, just not agreeing. You seem to have trouble differentiating between the two.

Four times? Like in post #256, where you say "He's allowed to have that view, but it becomes offensive when he states that HIS opinion should trample the views of a democratic majority in Canada. Plain and simple."?
LOL! My friend, you do NOT have the right to not be offended!! Further, that's NOT saying you agree he has the right to speak his mind!

3- I criticize Bush for ignoring majorities and I criticize the pope for ignoring majorities. The only incoherence you can see here is because you agree with both and cannot fathom how one could disagree.

Yet you affirm that you have the right to criticize the US President but that the Pope can't criticize the Canadian government, even though he leads ONE BILLION people, which is clearly larger than 33 MILLION Candians. Oh, wait. 12.6 million Canadians are Catholic. Oops. :rolleyes: You want majority opinion, there you are.

4- If he had backed it up with logic, rather than with faith or, simply put, CRAP about the "definition of family"

Did you read the speech? No, obviously not. I question if you even read the opening post's article, since you made point #5 below.

BTW, is everything in your world you don't agree with "illogical"?

5- Even if he was talking to fellow priests, berating a secular democracy for doing its job is STILL inadequate. Again, nothing that should be curtailed.

"Even if he was"?!? I stand by my response to #2 above.

And what do you mean, doing it's job? Was there a plebecite on this question? Is the will of the people REALLY known?

I can say the same.



That's a totally illogical statement, as it is always POSSIBLE to be illogical. You've yet to prove that anything he said was illogical, BTW. So far, it's just been railing against religion. Therefore, any claim to logic on your side of the house is so far spurious.



I've been reading, just not agreeing. You seem to have trouble differentiating between the two.

Four times? Like in post #256, where you say "He's allowed to have that view, but it becomes offensive when he states that HIS opinion should trample the views of a democratic majority in Canada. Plain and simple."?
LOL! My friend, you do NOT have the right to not be offended!! Further, that's NOT saying you agree he has the right to speak his mind!



Yet you affirm that you have the right to criticize the US President but that the Pope can't criticize the Canadian government, even though he leads ONE BILLION people, which is clearly larger than 33 MILLION Candians. Oh, wait. 12.6 million Canadians are Catholic. Oops. :rolleyes: You want majority opinion, there you are.



Did you read the speech? No, obviously not. I question if you even read the opening post's article, since you made point #5 below.

BTW, is everything in your world you don't agree with "illogical"?



"Even if he was"?!? I stand by my response to #2 above.

And what do you mean, doing it's job? Was there a plebecite on this question? Is the will of the people REALLY known?


He does offend me, but I never claimed the right not to be offended. He's offended me when he went against ecumenism, and I did not ask for his head either. But you're choosing not to understand it.

If you're so fond of the pope, do his job, which, so far, he did not, and name for me logical reasons to deny gays the right to marry. But the fact of the matter is, at that report, we only see the guy rambling about family, no actual point.

The "possible to be illogical" means "practical" to do so. The Church only apologized to Galileo after it became vexing not to.

I can criticize the shrub because my criticism is backed up by logic, not by a myth book. Ratzlinger ALSO can criticize the Canadian government. It's inadequate, but he CAN. Can you read it now or should I perhaps use bigger letters, or a voiceover to help?

Trolling again I see.

Whether the topic is war, Bush, slamming Europe, or homosexuality, ya just love buggin' the left!

BTW there are loads of conservatives here.

Trolling or baiting? You make the Beach MTV call! :D

Yeah, mostly because I haven't seen much positive that the left has been up to since the Johnson years. Carter was an abject failure and Clinton was the best President the GOP ever had.

Loads? Nah. It's about 3:1 or 4:1 liberal to conservative, perhaps more.
Besides, the conservatives rarely get so keyed up unless it's about gun control, and I'm with them on that one. (Few people debate from an anti-stem cell or pro war on drugs POV, so the liberals tend to get more threads.)

You're the only one who has said that. Calling someone "intolerant" isn't the same as saying "we'#ve got to stop them".

Actually, that's what all this amounts to. The Pope spoke to his own bishops about something which most certainly effects his congregation, yet is being chastised for it.

You're just trolling. Nobody, other than the His Holiness, proposing to take away any rights.

Hardly. The Pope (and Catholics) believe this to be a bad thing, like slavery and should be banned. That's not a taking away of rights, that's a taking away of a social evil. They certainly have the right to this belief.

Which flavour of the great world religious soup are you?

Agnostic/Occultist/Pagan.

Yes, that's three religions.

He does offend me, but I never claimed the right not to be offended. He's offended me when he went against ecumenism, and I did not ask for his head either. But you're choosing not to understand it.

If you're so fond of the pope, do his job, which, so far, he did not, and name for me logical reasons to deny gays the right to marry. But the fact of the matter is, at that report, we only see the guy rambling about family, no actual point.

The "possible to be illogical" means "practical" to do so. The Church only apologized to Galileo after it became vexing not to.

I can criticize the shrub because my criticism is backed up by logic, not by a myth book. Ratzlinger ALSO can criticize the Canadian government. It's inadequate, but he CAN. Can you read it now or should I perhaps use bigger letters, or a voiceover to help?

Simply amazing. Have a nice day.

Hardly. The Pope (and Catholics) believe this to be a bad thing, like slavery and should be banned. That's not a taking away of rights, that's a taking away of a social evil. They certainly have the right to this belief.

Just like preventing women from voting was once "preventing a social evil", right?

On what basis? On the basis that the main character of the pope's schizophrenia said so?

Simply amazing. Have a nice day.

Bravely running away, eh?

What exactly are you two arguing over, other than the fact that Markreich feels like posting some verbal aggression?

Yet you affirm that you have the right to criticize the US President but that the Pope can't criticize the Canadian government, even though he leads ONE BILLION people, which is clearly larger than 33 MILLION Candians.
I'm a Catholic and Benedict 16 speaks for the Church but that doesn't mean that all of us agree with everything he says or does.

What exactly are you two arguing over, other than the fact that Markreich feels like posting some verbal aggression?

I believe we're arguing because Markreich believes that I'm intolerant for feeling offended by a statement that came from the pope's scolex and he doesn't believe that the pope is intolerant for condemning tolerance to homosexuals.

Yeah, mostly because I haven't seen much positive that the left has been up to since the Johnson years. Carter was an abject failure and Clinton was the best President the GOP ever had.
The left on this forum is pretty disconnected from the US Democratic party and as a non-American they're irrelevant to me. So there's no reason to talk about them.


Actually, that's what all this amounts to. The Pope spoke to his own bishops about something which most certainly effects his congregation, yet is being chastised for it.
Free speech entitles people to react against other people's speech, but not to the point of banning it. Calling it "intolerant" is simply a criticism, nothing more.

Hardly. The Pope (and Catholics) believe this to be a bad thing, like slavery and should be banned. That's not a taking away of rights, that's a taking away of a social evil. They certainly have the right to this belief.
Not all rights are good. Rights can be used for evil purposes and in that case, taking them away is a good idea.

Are you "with the conservatives" on this issue as well?

Agnostic/Occultist/Pagan.

Yes, that's three religions.
Isn't paganism theistic? Agnosticism is the only logical part of that, the others are no more logical than Catholicism.

Isn't paganism theistic? Agnosticism is the only logical part of that, the others are no more logical than Catholicism.

Good question.

You'll notice that I back my views up with facts and opinions that are not based on any concept of either (any of the many fields of) occultism or paganism. The Pope believes gays are icky because God said so. I don't defend them on the basis of, say, karma, or because the pagan view of a god claims they're ok, I defend them because I reached the logical conclusion that it is ok.

The left on this forum is pretty disconnected from the US Democratic party and as a non-American they're irrelevant to me. So there's no reason to talk about them.

Yeah, but they are the majority of the population, and certainly skew the numbers. I'm pretty much dead center, and since the Eurolibs/Canlibs are so much further left maybe that's why I tend to sport on them more too.

Free speech entitles people to react against other people's speech, but not to the point of banning it. Calling it "intolerant" is simply a criticism, nothing more.

Yep, you're right. But I didn't react to Dobb's first post, but to those that DID call for the Pope to not be able to speak thusly.

Not all rights are good. Rights can be used for evil purposes and in that case, taking them away is a good idea.

Are you "with the conservatives" on this issue as well?

IMO, the Pope has every right to confer with his own Bishops and Priests as well as have them speak to their congregations. If the people want to allow or not allow homosexual marriages and/or abortions, that's on their heads.
AFAIK, there were no referendums on either matter, and thus I do not really believe that it is a majority decision.

Bravely running away, eh?

Not a matter of bravery, it's a matter of dealing with someone whom purports to be logical yet shows no proofs and skips points he doesn't want to discuss. I'm done debating with you on this because it's about as much fun as watching paint dry.

Yep, you're right. But I didn't react to Dobb's first post, but to those that DID call for the Pope to not be able to speak thusly.

In that case, why were you flaming me?

Not a matter of bravery, it's a matter of dealing with someone whom purports to be logical yet shows no proofs and skips points he doesn't want to discuss. I'm done debating with you on this because it's about as much fun as watching paint dry.

So far, you have succeeded at twisting my words, dodging my points, flaming me and nothing else, so you're one to talk.

I'm a Catholic and Benedict 16 speaks for the Church but that doesn't mean that all of us agree with everything he says or does.

So am I. And of course we don't. But that's hardly the point: being a Catholic doesn't mean you get to choose.

Yeah, but they are the majority of the population, and certainly skew the numbers. I'm pretty much dead center, and since the Eurolibs/Canlibs are so much further left maybe that's why I tend to sport on them more too.
I'm on the Irish centre-left and you look pretty damn right-wing to me. Mainly due to your support for the Iraq war, social conservatism, frequent Europe bashing and the like.

Yep, you're right. But I didn't react to Dobb's first post, but to those that DID call for the Pope to not be able to speak thusly.
who?

So am I. And of course we don't. But that's hardly the point: being a Catholic doesn't mean you get to choose.

Actually, unless your belief system is a dystopia, yes it does.

I'm on the Irish centre-left and you look pretty damn right-wing to me. Mainly due to your support for the Iraq war, social conservatism, frequent Europe bashing and the like.


who?

I can cite those 3 to:
1) Working in NYC, and having been 5 blocks from the WTC 5 years ago.
2) Being anti war on drugs, anti prohibition and pro birth control is socially conservative?
3) I don't bash Europe per se. I'm Slovak and love the place. I just bash some of the less-lovely aspects to Europe, since America bashing is so in vogue these days.


I think posts #239/240 and 254/256?

In that case, why were you flaming me?

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11669269&postcount=258

What flame? You said it yourself: the pope talking to his own clergy about what the Canadian government did was wrong.

Then you state that he's bigoted for his beliefs.
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11669269&postcount=260

So? You keep claiming that you are logical. Yet you failed to ever disprove "FYI, not everyone considers "affirming homosexuality to be good = advancement". in #239.

Fact: The Pope and Roman Catholicism hold homosexuality to be wrong.
Fact: I've posited this.
Fact: For this entire thread, every one of your replies has been to the effect on how WRONG that is, but not WHY. (Consider 270 or 274: You claim to be based on logic and the Church on myth, but never SHOW any of the though process!)

Congrats. You got one more post out of me. But I'm done debating you, feel free to take the last word. If nothing I've said has made the slightest impression by now, it's not like 3 or 30 more pages will.

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11669269&postcount=258

What flame? You said it yourself: the pope talking to his own clergy about what the Canadian government did was wrong.

Then you state that he's bigoted for his beliefs.
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11669269&postcount=260

So? You keep claiming that you are logical. Yet you failed to ever disprove "FYI, not everyone considers "affirming homosexuality to be good = advancement". in #239.

Fact: The Pope and Roman Catholicism hold homosexuality to be wrong.
Fact: I've posited this.
Fact: For this entire thread, every one of your replies has been to the effect on how WRONG that is, but not WHY. (Consider 270 or 274: You claim to be based on logic and the Church on myth, but never SHOW any of the though process!)

Congrats. You got one more post out of me. But I'm done debating you, feel free to take the last word. If nothing I've said has made the slightest impression by now, it's not like 3 or 30 more pages will.

In much the same way you believe homosexuality to be wrong but doesn't want to get it banned.

You never questioned me up to now, but here goes: Gay marriage would give gays the same rights regarding inheritage, hospital visitations and other rights that married couples have. Gays get together due to love, like married couples do. It is, thus, natural that they'd have such rights. As for their right to call it a marriage, the law will never prevent natural linguistics from taking its course. I know that because I studied that in linguistics. Thus it's wrong on the part of the pope to stand against it without logical basis. Yet I don't believe he should be prevented from doing so.

For Dogma we would kill even our founder.
-Father Maxwell, the Vatican's Section XIII Iscariot

Is that flavor text, or were you expecting that too few people read either the Catechism or Hellsing? ;)

Seems for a good many pages, you were right.

Canada's been so naughty. It needs a spanking.

*gets paddle*

who?

Me. Dobbs. The original poster.