Slashdot Mirror
New Pope Selected
Freshly Exhumed sends this quote from CBC:
"Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio of Argentina has been selected as Pope of the world's 1.2 billion Catholics. He will be known as Pope Francis. He is the first Pope from the Americas. The 76-year-old was the runner-up to Benedict XVI during the last conclave. He is well-known for his humility and espouses church teachings on homosexuality, abortion and contraception. He has no Vatican experience."
"Goes back to work"
espouses church teachings on homosexuality, abortion and contraception
So nothing important is going to change then? Or am i misreading that?
This Space Intentionally Left Blank
10 interpretations which will try to connect bertoglio with the prophecy of the popes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prophecy_of_the_popes
Long live petrus romanus!
stuff that matters
What is his favorite distro? views on FOSS?
"Treasures? Nah, the Vatican was already empty when I arrived."
First time ive heard that the old pope gave up being the pope for lent. Wonder what the new guy has up his sleeve!
Don't blame me, I voted for Father Guido Sarducci. Screw the rest of the conclave.
"News for nerds, stuff that matters"
The same people who hated Benedict XVI and John Paul II will hate Pope Francis. How dare he believe in 2000 years worth of teachings about the sanctity of life and marriage being between a man and a woman when it's all so unfashionable?
Why did liberal atheist's care so much what the Pope thinks. No one is holding a gun to your head to force you to be a Catholic. Why do so many liberals feel threatened by any source of power outside of government?
Best keep that straw and chimney handy.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Devotees of Ireland's 12th century Saint Malachy believe that he predicted back then that the new Pope will be the very last one:
http://www.irishcentral.com/roots/St-Malachy-predicted-Pope-Benedicts-successor-will-be-last-pope-190715001.html
I deny that I have not avoided attaining the opposite of that which I do not want.
I'm Argentine and proud that the first non-european pope is from Argentina!!! congratulations Bergolio!!
Soy argentino y es un orgullo que el primer papa no europeo sea argentino!!! felicidades Bergolio!!
linux, mac, vi, or emacs? :)
Does anyone know why they don't go by their real name?
Aww such a victim.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jorge_Bergoglio
"As cardinal, Bergoglio was appointed to several administrative positions in the Roman Curia. He served on the Congregation of Clergy, Congregation of Divine Worship and Sacraments, Congregation of Institutes of Consecrated Life and the Congregation of Societies of Apostolic Life. Bergoglio became a member of the Commission on Latin American and the Family Council."
I'm curious to hear YOUR definition of humility. Really, I'd like to know.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Speak for yourself! I hardly know what's going on in the world. I get most of my news from people telling me about stuff and wondering how I haven't already heard about it.
As Sergeant "Big Toe" Hulka Said, "Lighten up, Francis!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0OnpkDWbeJs
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
Please explain how they are not compatible?
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Now will he renounce the current Catholic stance on condoms, so that perhaps we can save, oh, hundres of thousands or even millions of lives?
Will he: Disawow the insane and puerile dogma of original sin?
(Etc.)
HAND.
Here they come, Anti-Catholics as only Slashdot can provide.
Who would have thought that nerds might not unanimously believe that an old man voted in by some other old men might not be Gods representative on earth?
In a cybernetic fit of rage she pissed off to another age...
it's just what the world needs. another stupid pope...
This guy has said that allowing gay couples to adopt children is a form of discrimination against the children.
So a lot's going to change in Vatican City
The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
That word, it does not mean what you think it means.
Catholics that no longer think highly of the papacy or the Vatican; are they "Bigots"? Does being bigoted often involve support for womens rights, gay rights and birth control in developing nations whilst condemning the Vatican's long history of covering up child abuse?
I suggest you find a new adjective!
Cue the idiots who can't spell "Cue."
Humility and Pope are not compatible already. The guy is a bloody Pope. Head of state of Vatican, declares what is moral and what is not. Infallible apparently. So clearly, if you open up a dictionary and go to the word 'humility', you'll see a link to Pope there.
Same as if you open a dictionary for the definition of 'Nobel Peace Prize Winner', you'll see Obama.
You can't handle the truth.
No, this is A Website for Advertisers, and one of the easiest ways to get a lot of page views is to post an article where all the angry atheists can come argue about who is the most bitter toward religion.
Being humble, but also believing that your views on how other people should live their lives are so righteous that others shouldn't even be able to decide for themselves, are mutually exclusive.
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
Real Vatican news-for-nerds would give us a more detailed account of the likely impacts on the internal workings of the Roman Curia, though!
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Well, I was amazed how fast his article in Wikipedia got updated. It didn't take more than a minute. Also, many big news websites in my country are down. That never happened before, as far as I know.
Page views?
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
The woods, however, are still the traditional choice.
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
"Lighten up, Francis."
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
Better luck next time Richard Stallman.
It has everything to do with homophobic, misogynistic, pedophilic, and racist organization which puts on airs of setting out to do good but in reality protects child diddlers and extorting money from gullible followers
The church or Xbox Live?
espouses church teachings on homosexuality, abortion and contraception
Guess he'll continue the long, proud tradition of covering for child molesters too.
Your political party doesn't care about your rights and only represents corporate interests.
Presuming to know what's good for homosexuals, inadvertently pregnant women and people who want to have sex without getting pregnant and then forcing those views upon them through a large, well organized, well resourced church is not exhibiting humility. An approach imbued with humility would go alone the lines of - I think these things are true, but I might be wrong, so I'll exercise caution and be mindful of contrary opinions. Depending on context, 'pride', 'egotism' or 'arrogance' would serve as opposites to 'humility'. This chap appears to exhibit at least two of the three. I've never met him though, so I'm not sure about the first one.
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
"Bergoglio often rode the bus to work, cooked his own meals and regularly visited the slums that ring Argentina's capital. He considers social outreach, rather than doctrinal battles, to be the essential business of the church.
He accused fellow church leaders of hypocrisy and forgetting that Jesus Christ bathed lepers and ate with prostitutes."
http://news.yahoo.com/francis-first-pope-americas-193844474.html
Some people die at 25 and aren't buried until 75. -Benjamin Franklin
The usual one.
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
Have gnu, will travel.
Because it has a substantial impact on the world.
Ah, the yang to Black Francis' yin has been revealed.
I find it interesting he was initially trained as a chemist. "Bergoglio taught literature, psychology, philosophy and theology before taking over as Buenos Aires archbishop in 1998."
http://news.yahoo.com/francis-first-pope-americas-193844474.html
Some people die at 25 and aren't buried until 75. -Benjamin Franklin
For Catholics this is big deal.. So congrats to them. I'm only really commenting because of an accidental moderation up there ^. Anyway, in world that increasingly tries to tear things down, at least the Catholics know where he stands on some issues. Nothing will change, and they'll stand by their beliefs and that's okay because it's a free world..... So with that... See ya.
Because being a prideful prick damning the world from his ivory tower based on the superstitions from a book emboldening bronze age morality is the opposite of humility?
I think Francis is kind of a lame name for a pope. You would name a pet pig or a badger Francis.
I think Steve would be a good name. It sounds like a nice safe name. We should call him Pope Steve!
ALL HAIL THE GREAT AND POWERFUL STEVE!
Wait, where did that come from? Ok, Hypnopope Steve, then. Any better names?
...yet another old right-wing homo-phobic Pope that will have to retire in less than 10 years.
Though I'm actually surprised they've chosen him considering the suspicions on his involvement in the forced disappearances during the last dictatorship in Argentina.
... but I must be mistaken.
That covers just about anything that happens anywhere, so "news for nerds" must not really mean anything.
to stress his collusion with the Pinochet regime in Argentina.
Get informed: Pinochet == Chile
But yes, he was presumably involved with the Argentine military government of 1976.
Does Slashdot really need to carry this story? It has nothing to do with science, tech, gaming, or anything relevant.
It has everything to do with homophobic, misogynistic, pedophilic, and racist organization which puts on airs of setting out to do good but in reality protects child diddlers and extorting money from gullible followers while ignoring the bible which it purports to follow, nothing to do with science or tech. Why again is this on slashdot?
Know thine enemy.
He is the Jesuit and he names himself Francisus. Quite extreme.
"Forcing"?
Sounds like you are talking about some government policy about only having one child, where you are forcibly taken to a Hospital (if you are lucky) and the second child is aborted. Is that what you are talking about when you say "force"?
No one is forced to be a Catholic. No one is forced to follow their teachings. It's not the Eleventh Century anymore.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
That word, it does not mean what you think it means.
What, Slashdot? Who knows what Slashdot really means...
I'm thinking it might just start with not thinking that you are the single official conduit for the transmission of Gods word to earth.
that such a hate filled post is rated as high. It is an irrational venomous posting and nothing more that contributes nothing to the conversation.
While you may not like the Church or its elected leaders they exert a large influence good and bad throughout the world and acknowledging changes in their structure are worthy our time. Through the actions of Popes and the structures within the Church many leading scientist look for both spiritual guidance and in some cases cover in the form of acceptance of what their life's work entails.
Yes they have bad people in the Church, guess what there are people who think a similar problem but on a much larger scale exists within the public school systems, it is no reason for your hate filled diatribe.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
I was trying to be snarky towards all those conspiracy nuts i hear all around me :)
Wait, I thought this guy was a Jesuit....
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Religions appear to prefer stagnation, at least at their upper levels.
Do Jehovah's Witnesses buck this trend? Look at some of the "new light" that has come from their cardinals as they have grown in understanding of the Bible.
You may have noticed over the years that us Slashdotters really, really enjoy being indignant.
Why rounds of voting? Surely all these men are close enough to god to know his will and reach consensus on the first try.
Nullius in verba
We wouldn't be such angry atheists if those catholics didn't keep raping children and starting wars.
You're a temporary arrangement of matter sliding towards oblivion in a cold, uncaring universe
Note the claim about "world-wide significance." Things that happen to me, for example, are relatively insignificant. But this website often puts up articles when a new U.S. President is elected, if for no other reason than the fact that it will give different nerds an opportunity to discuss the matter and/or troll about it. As often as we discuss matters of science and religion here, one would think the election of the most influential religious leader in the world would be sufficiently newsworthy. This is particularly true when that leader's views will have direct bearing on how some science is funded and conducted. Lest one might wonder how the pope's views has such direct bearing as I claim, I would point to how strong popular opinions can be about matters such as embryonic stem-cell research. This is worth knowing about and talking about.
He is a Jesuit, supposedly more the thinking type of priest. Let's see how long it takes him to figure out that his employer never shows up at the office, never gives any instruction, and doesn't pay his salary. How long will it take him to doubt the existence of his employer and tell the world about that?
Bert
The pope is a testament to humility in comparison to your church leader.
Anyone who refuses to see that your opinions are the only morally correct ones is insufferably arrogant? Yes, that is generally the most usual definition.
Just make hypno-toad pope, call it hypno-toad, and have done with it. Then at least none of us would be on here arguing about it....
Bzzzzzz.....
This tagline was transcoded to result in at least one smirk. If you experience failure to smirk, please consult your Gen
And the current President of the United States use to be a community Organizer and teach Constitutional law. These days his administration uses drones to bomb communities and seems to look the other way when Constitutional rights are stripped from US citizens.
I guess people can change, or they play a great act.
In the new Pope's world, being truly humble would be following the examples of Christ without the power of being a Cardinal. Perhaps it may be better to say the Pop was less egotistical then other Cardinals. Mother Teresa was humble, Pope Francis I is a powerful man who's done good deeds.
Life is a great ride, the vehicle doesn't matter
Comment removed based on user account deletion
He might make statements that are held to be authoritative by 1.2billion people?
there was plenty of good shit smoked by all... judging by what came out the chimney
not to mention the fun they had with the whores they keep locked away in their dungeon... erm... i mean "archives"
Oh yeah? When did the public school teacher pedophiles get a colossal religious organization to devote its efforts to moving them between schools so they could continue to victimize children?
Catholics do, and there are a billion of those.
No one is forced to be a Catholic. No one is forced to follow their teachings. It's not the Eleventh Century anymore.
The new pope has done everything in his power to force his beliefs on the people of Argentina. He has openly faught against homesexual marriage and even tried to prevent them from being able to adopt children. Just because he has been unsuccessful in many of his attempts does not mean he isn't trying to force his opinions on others.
You don't have to be catholic to be affected by the beliefs of one of the major religions still practiced today.
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
cue 1 |kyoo| [Mac OS X's Dictionary.app]
noun
1. a thing said or done that serves as a signal to an actor or other performer to enter or to begin their speech or performance.
2. a signal for action: any conversational lull was my cue for asking a question.
3. a piece of information or circumstance that aids the memory in retrieving details not recalled spontaneously.
As in: Bigots, it's time to do your thing. This is your cue.
What is not compatible about thinking that God thinks that homosexual behavior, abortions, and contraception are wrong while also having a humble opinion of yourself and submitting to God and others?
I thought this was Slashdot, where we avoid false nonsense and focus on true nonsense.
-Ultimate Stickman Game Developer Infinite World Puzzler
Point taken, but I still think that "news for nerds" is meaningless with all miscellaneous "news" that gets lumped in under the "because I'm a nerd and I'm interested in this sort of stuff" banner.
LOL! I found it interesting that any organization, in 2013, still communicates by smoke signals.
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
Which country do you live in? In the United States - and plenty other countries - the Catholics are encouraged to vote for policies that outlaw abortion, outlaw contraception or at least outlaw public funding for contraception, outlaw marriage for homosexuals, and outlaw adoption rights for homosexuals.
If the Catholics just believed that Catholics were not to have abortions, Catholics were not to have homosexual marriage, and Catholic homosexuals were not to adopt children, there would be no problem.
Sociologically, they operate in similar ways as well. I say this as both a Star * fan and a religious fellow (though not a Catholic). In both groups, identity is tied to adherence ("Are you a Buddhist too?" is not far from "Are you a Trekkie too?"), consumption patterns reflect attachment (one has X-Wing models, the other crucifixes), intense debates occur over canon (the Gnostic gospels and the SW prequels have much in common, except one has better acting), and both groups hold in high regard those who have specialized knowledge about the object of their interest.
Funny thing is, most of the Higher level Catholics involved in Politics are Democrats, and they vote against their religion all the time.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
You just proved you don't need to be any of those things to be a prideful prick damning people.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
That makes him a formidable academic type. I wonder if we have had a STEM Pope before.
A guy from my MIT class is also a Jesuit and Vatican Astronomer. Spends a lot of research time in an Arizona telescope complex the Vatican co-owns. I've only ran into him once since graduation.
Academic types are necessiarily the best fro running something as large and injured as the Catholic Church. Probably they chose him for other qualities. The last pope was too much like a college porfessor and considered too quiet.
He considers social outreach, rather than doctrinal battles, to be the essential business of the church.
If a new focus on outreach catches on in the Catholic Church, will Catholics start bearing witness from door to door like Jesus recommended (Matthew 10:5-15) and like first-century Christians did (Acts 5:42)? They have to stop the rapid growth of Jehovah's Witnesses somehow.
Fair enough. I think you're quite right about this latter comment. I only made the original comment (which has now been voted into oblivion) because I hoped some productive conversation could come about. I suppose I could have worded it more diplomatically though.
"As a humble human, it is not my place to pass judgement on others' behaviors"
"Thou shalt not murder" is passing judgement on other people's behavior. You're not against that ... are you? Or is your selective argument not as broad as you'd like it to be.
My point is, everyone judges people on their behavior, we're just arguing on where to draw the line ;)
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
The followers of Pope Francis have nowhere near the drive of some followers of other religions. We frequently see the results of the devoted followers of a religion that holds itself supreme above all others, whose followers will tirelessly repeat the religious mantras regardless of being confronted with facts that show parts of their beliefs to be based on lies and nonsense. These followers want nothing less than to see the world burn and to see nonbelievers first in the fire. We even have followers of that religion posting frequently here on slashdot, this religion is lead by an American.
This religion is fascism, the product of concentrating power into the hands of very few while trampling on the rights and opportunities of the masses. The leader of the religion of fascism is none other than slashdot sweetheart Ron Paul. It is through religious devotion that his followers aim to deliver fascism for the people.
My name is Francis you insensitive clod!
Linux?
Privacy is terrorism.
I completely agree. I AM partial to "Gozar The Key Master", but hey, whatever. Now, on to more pressing matters: The Pope Mobile. I'm thinking more of a Rocket Powered, Monkey Driven, Batmobile type vehicle... alright fine, and it's white. But the monkey is drunk.
Catholics have just as much right to vote for candidates and policies that they believe to be in the best interest of the country as anyone else.
Everyone else who advocates for a particular political position is voting based on their beliefs, whether they are derived from religion, philosophy or just plain self interest, are they not?
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
What do you mean, this does above on slashdot?
From what I read, he is fine with others being homosexual. He just doesn't think they should marry or adopt children.
Not taking sides; just stating that what I read may contradict your view of him
Here in Germany the Catholic and Protestant Churches run many hospitals, kindergartens and other welfare services which are funded not by the churches but entirely by the public, yet they impose rules on their employees based on their respective faith, ie. people have lost their jobs for getting a divorce, remarrying, outing themselves as homosexuals etc. The churches make a shitload of money through this system, and because they can publicly claim that they run soandso many percent of welfare services they get to influence public policy and politics. This all works so well because as religious organisations the churches get preferred treatment with regard to taxation, exemption from labour regulations and union rates etc. so they can undercut the private-sector competition. And since they are so good at it there are areas where the churches have a quasi-monopoly in welfare services, leaving workers dependent on them. And as long as the Conservatives are in office this will not change, since the churches offer them, well, let us call it PR support in exchange for keeping their special status intact.
So many people in social industries essentially are forced to live by religious rules without actually being a member of those religions just to be able to get a job. And we all get to pay for it.
Rudolf Hess edited Mein Kampf. He was the very first grammar nazi.
If he reestablishes the martial orders and calls a crusade, if consider conversion.
-- Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong. - Dire Straits
They didn't they got two colossal teacher's unions to devote efforts to moving them between schools so they could continue to molest children. If you examine the incidence of child sexual abuse between the Catholic Church in the United States and the public schools in the United States at the time the sexual abuse in the Catholic Church was at its highest the incidents were higher on a per child basis in the public schools involving teachers than in the Catholic Church.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
they still think that I shouldn't have a blood transfusion after I crash my motorcycle and lose a couple pints
Not consuming blood is in the Bible (Acts 15:29), and theoretically, it applies to all Christians. In practice, there's nothing wrong with having an expander transfusion to keep your blood volume up until your bone marrow has spit out more red blood cells. In fact, it's safer that way because there's no need for an antigen type match and no chance of catching an STD or other blood-borne infection.
He's likely to be quite intelligent.
Just not very moral.
HAND.
And all the Seahawks got in the draft was Percy Harvin.
Billions of McDonald's burgers have been sold. What does that tell you?
Come back with something substantive and maybe we'll talk like adults.
HAND.
Being humble, but also believing that your views on how other people should live their lives are so righteous that others shouldn't even be able to decide for themselves, are mutually exclusive.
What about being so humble that one doesn't even consider one's own views on how people should live, and simply accepts the long accepted wisdom of the church as being greater than your own.
Sorry, we can argue that it may be 'stupid' or 'wrong' but its definitely not mutually exclusive with 'humility'.
whoosh?
Marriage is a religious institution, when you redefine it in such a way that it is transforming society into something that has NEVER existed before, you're going to run into opposition. The only reason gay people want marriage, is not for love (they can have that!) , but for "benefits" from the state. Rather than redefine marriage, why not re-define (nullify) the laws that create those benefits? Wouldn't that be better for all involved? No discrimination at all! Polygamy, Polyandry and Incestuous marriages will be all be equal.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
So, if I oppose homosexual marriage, I am condemning others? But your condemnation of my views is not really condemnation? I'm not sure how that works. Could you explain this further please.
BTW, I'm supporting the repeal of all government granted "benefits" of marriage, rather than re-define what marriage is. Would you support me in supporting that version of equality?
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Just an oldish variation of a rather common name.
Know any Catholic (or Catholic-raised person) named Frank? He may very well have been baptized Francis.
Similarly, do you know anyone named Benedict?
Well, guess what, I am not sure I know one, because they probably go by Ben.
If you have ever had the pleasure of debating with a Jesuit, you'll know what I'm talking about. I'm not being sarcastic or ironic in the least. If the Church is the Federation, the Jesuits are the Vulcans. Jesuit scholars have made many contributions to our collective store of knowlege, especially in math, astronomy, and philosophy.. These are the guys that invented propaganda, and are trained in logic, analysis, and debate in support of their faith. Speaking of their faith, it is the most rarefied, intellectualized faith on the planet. I'm looking forward to a vigorous debate between secularism and theism over the next several decades, and it's good to know that the opposition is putting their best foot forward.
Yes, you are condemning others. Yes, I am condemning you for that. I operate from a moral framework with more than a single axis of "condemnation=bad, anticondemnation=good," rather considering the whole network of impacts from who and/or what is being condemned (btw, I am a Christian).
I would not support you in repealing all government granted benefits of marriage, because that would be "throwing the baby out with the bathwater" --- I think there are great societal benefits to government-recognized marriage, but none that specifically require a male+female couple. Likewise, I do not think it would have been a good idea to fix Jim Crow era discriminatory voting laws by revoking everyone's right to vote.
Cue excommunication of the Falkland Islands/UK in 3...2....1
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
They made a cardinal error.
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
Even practicing Christians don't unanimously believe that the Pope is God's representative on Earth.
A higher % of Christians believe it than slashdoters. No I don't have a citation, but I'd put my house on it, and yours.
In a cybernetic fit of rage she pissed off to another age...
The dark side of the new pope (Google translation of Google cache, original 2006 italian report is being DOSed).
There's a browser safer than Firefox, it is Firefox, with NoScript
I'm against homosexual marriage and especially against homosexual adoption. I don't think it is good for kids to be told that they don't need a mommy and a daddy, that mommy and mommy are fine and we don't need a daddy. I think it is harmful on a level that will not manifest itself for a long time, but will eventually. Kids do need both a Mommy and a Daddy, that is optimal. It is sad when we don't strive for Optimal because of selfish desires of people in a relationship that is destined to be sterile.
Personally, I suspect exclusive parenthood by biological progenitors might do more harm then good. We're herd animals, and it's best if there's a whole tribe that takes care of our young. That there's a male and female in privileged position is just an artifact of how reproduction used to work, and science has fixed that.
Being humble, but also believing that your views on how other people should live their lives are so righteous that others shouldn't even be able to decide for themselves, are mutually exclusive.
So, nobody who supports, say, laws against murder can ever possibly be humble?
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
anybody else see the resemblance? http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10200833929959387&set=a.1123167208210.19559.1497996634&type=1&relevant_count=1
Because it has a substantial impact on the world.
Nerds != The World.
To let the (sizeable) theophobic subpopulation of Slashdot members have an opportunity for a rant, perhaps?
I'm a little drunk, so I read that as "the efficient conduit for the transmission of God's word to earth". Which still kind of works.
Out of curiosity, why is he Pope Francis, not Pope Bergoglio? And why was Pope Benedict called that, not Pope Ratzinger?
Is "Francis" basically his IRC nick?
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
He's a theological conservative, although I think I read somewhere that he has divergent views on contraception for preventing disease.
Curia-wise, he's not done a lot of time in the Curia, so he's going to probably shake up the personnel a bit. Still, the Curia is probably the most adept and ancient bureaucracy in the entire world, filled with people with advanced degrees and who speak at least two languages, minimum. Not including Latin. It will take even a Pope a few decades to make a dent in that unless he goes in crucifixes blazing.
Honestly, it's you who are saying that one. As far as I am aware, the Pope mostly gets his positions from church tradition and the Bible. His job is merely application of those ideas to specific instances. No one believes that the Pope talks to God. Except maybe my grandmother, and I think she says that just to mess with me.
logical fail.
Whether you agree or disagree, you can be humble and have those beliefs.
Phew! Another dysfunctional authoritarian institution was doing worse, so everything's O.K.! No need to hate on the Catholic hierarchy for enabling pedophiles, because they weren't America's #1 Child Abuser (#2 or #3 is perfectly alright).
I guess it's also OK for me to start a rape/murder spree, because There's Always Someone Doing Even Worse Shit (TM).
Cue the idiots who can't spell "Cue."
The word you're looking for is "illiterates".
no, it won't. The church policies will be the same. The church will not change one bit under this pope, aside form maybe some window dressing. Anyone who thinks the pope really matters needs to examine how the church has worked in the last 200 years.
I agree that marriage should probably not have a civil component at this point. The big problem with gay marriage is that everyone is arguing that the government needs to recognize their love for one another. WTF do I need the government to recognize that I am in love? Do I even believe that the government should even get to weigh in on that?
The state interest in marriage has always been making sure that dumbfuck #1 who screws dumbfuck #2 and who can accidentally produce a kid in the process stays with dumbfuck #2 so that we don't have to deal with your kids being a disaster. They provide certain benefits to make sure that you have an easy time staying together and penalties to make sure you avoid breaking up. As it stands, all being "civilly" married does is make it hard for you to break up, and if you can't have kids anyway, then why bother?
If the ability to produce children at will is no longer the deciding factor, then the overriding state interest in regulating couples is nigh near pointless. You might as well pass laws creating "child rearing partnerships" and create tax incentives under separate cover. Just stay out of the whole mess.
Right, let's just continue to ignore the problem with pedophilia in the schools (where most of us have a say and can actually do something) and continue to yell and holler about pedophilia in the Roman Catholic Church (where, not only do few of us have any say, but only a few more are actually connected in any way). Yeah. that's the ticket. If I make fun of the Roman Catholic Church for its failures on this issue I don't have to spend any time thinking that maybe I should do something about it where I can.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
But of course, as people continually point out to Catholic apologists, who basically just blissfully ignore this, the Public School system administration does not set itself up as a moral authority on how to obtain eternal life, which the Catholic Church does.
The school system can't be accused of hypocrisy, because they are not setting themselves up as moral authorities. In short, why should the average human being listen to what church leaders say on morality when they protect those who are clearly immoral on a regular basis?
I would totally be for ending marriage benifits and returning it to a religious institution. But it will never happen.
Also, you have to consider the problem of shared resources. You cant get rid of civil unions totally because it would create massive issues from child custody and finances all the way down to spousal immunity. So you could in theory call all marriages civil unions and save the word marriage for non civil ceremonies.
But it won't change anything.
As for raising children, there is no scientific evidence of children raised by gay couple being better or worse off. I suppose it is possible that some situation could arise, but I am willing to bet a very large amount of money that anything that arose would fall into the normal deviation of child rearing. I am certainly not going to go on your gut instinct.
You mean "forced" as in running campaigns to change public policy? What part of what he did is not completely legitimate under the democratic process?
I don't have to be Catholic to be against abortion or even contraception. Those are simply policy points. In a democracy, you have the ability to get elected and the majority picks your policy. You may well oppose the Church's teachings, but they are hardly forcing it on you by working through the same political process that everyone else does.
These priests believe that they are right. And you believe you are right. All you have there is a simple difference of opinion. Unless you are arguing that he's using thugs on you, then there's no forcing of anything.
More like news for turds. I don't come here for religious bullshit.
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
marriage is not a religious institution in the U.S. It is a purely civil one, even if held in a church.
But you avoided his point. Being humble and denying other people the rights that you have because you believe your views are correct are not compatible.
You're a fucking asshole and I hope you die.
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
Not precisely.
If you took away abortion and contraception, the Catholic Church is positively pacifist and even sort of leftist. There's nothing weird about being a Catholic and a Democrat, they just differ on specific policies. The problem is that the issues at hand happen to be life and death ones with abortion so they become hot button issues.
The Church isn't on one wing or another, it's more of a blue-orange sort of scale. It is moral to give money to the poor. Material wealth is meaningless, but at the same time, it needs to be given freely. You don't get morality points by taxing people who are unwilling and spending their money on charitable causes. Communism was bad because it was forced and atheistic, but the Church has no inherent issue "from each according to his ability, to each according to their need" as long as it is voluntary. The Popes in the past have been as guarded about capitalism as they ever were about Communism.
The only real saving grace of capitalism for the Church is that it did not presume to tell you how to spend your money, or who you can believe in. That's why the Church seems to align a bit with capitalism, but if you took out the shittier and the anti-clerical aspects of socialism, you wouldn't see them complain at all if it was employed.
Trust me, ditch one or two points on the Democratic party platform like abortion and forcing the Church to pay for things it doesn't believe in, and you will see the Church much more in favor of Democratic candidates.
Few people are aware of this system. They believe that the churches actually pay for those institutions. The ones in the position to educate the people about the truth are those who benefit from keeping the status quo: conservative politicians.
Rudolf Hess edited Mein Kampf. He was the very first grammar nazi.
Is there some reason you think people can't handle criticizing/dismantling both? In fact, the Catholic church might be the "easier" place to start, because they have a central authority vulnerable to outrage over obvious moral failings who might, with enough concerted public pressure, actually make sweeping changes to dangerous institutional practices. Abuse in schools is a much more diffuse/localized issue (harder to fix "everywhere" when it's many separate regional groups turning a blind eye); there is no "Edu-Pope" who can enforce systematic changes by decree.
Really Slashdot? I get the whole Libertarian "take away marriage benefits from everyone" argument, but did you have to mod up the guy that just reduced gay relationships to the "selfish desires of people in a relationship that is destined to be sterile"?
I know this place has been going downhill for a while, but I didn't think we'd stooped THAT low. How about we make our arguments without implying that LGBT people should just suck it up, stop being "selfish" and be heteronormative for the sake of the children?
Well the Church is very "act" oriented. Everyone is tempted to do things that are immoral, but the temptation itself doesn't make you immoral. If there is such a thing as a "gay gene" and you have it, you're perfectly 100% okay with the Church unless you start acting on those impulses. And to be fair, they also believe that people who are heterosexual should control themselves too.
And really, although a lot is made out of it, homosexuality might be a "sin", but so is lying, stealing and fornication. People do that all the time. At worst, carrying out homosexual acts is no worse than that to them, although admittedly, it is no better. Gays are not "extra-evil" by being gay, but it does tend to compound because if you are in a homosexual relationship, you're not just sinning here or there, you're committing to sinning constantly. There is also the idea that gay marriage is seen as a direct counterpoint to a sacramental marriage.
Point being, the Pope doesn't hate gay people at all. In fact, I think that when people go to those simplistic arguments, they miss the point. The Pope has a set of beliefs from the Bible and the accumulated scholarship of the Church. There is no doubt that he probably knows that one or two of the doctrines are liable to offend, but since they represent the will of God, he has a duty to teach those doctrines. As one person put it, he's not *trying* to offend them, but he thinks living the gay lifestyle is wrong, and he's less concerned with gays' opinion of him than he is of God's opinion of him. That doesn't mean that he thinks that they are more wrong than someone else who may sin in other ways.
I have no idea. Do you listen to what Catholic leaders say? Did you before you knew about the sex scandals?
Of course, I would also argue that you are wrong about public school administrators. Most of them do set themselves up as moral authorities. They are frequently heard talking about how important it is to be "tolerant" (as they define tolerance). Most public school administrators tell children how they should behave.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Holy shit. The amount of cogitative dissonance required to construct this post is staggering. Do you even read what you write? What kind of person has to construct such elaborate mulch-layered lies to tell /themselves/ just to validate their world view? Do you realize you've attempted to argue against personal freedom, using personal freedom as justification? .. Ah. There. Second to last paragraph. A self-described libertarian and a proud one no less. That explains while this empty drivel has been modded up so much.
For that matter, there are plenty of legitimate studies showing that adopted children of homosexual couples grow up just fine. (Technically they're much better off, because generally only financially successful homosexual couples have the resources to adopt, but that skew is accounted for in said studies)
Fuck. Slashdot is dead. Everyone with a clue has left, and all that's left is a bunch of clueless blowhards lusting for an audience that won't laugh at them.
And you would be right, if they believed that they are actually making the rules.
If someone handed me a procedure that told me how to do something, and I need to follow it, I'm not the one who is telling you what to do, the guy who wrote the manual is. At most, I might use my long experience talking to other experts on that procedure to clarify the instructions for you in an edge case, but in the end, I can't make shit up.
What you don't get is that the priests and the Pope actually *believe* that God said you can't do this or that. In some cases, the rules are not so clear, so they have to clarify. However, they don't think they are allowed to make this stuff up on their own, the rules are merely their best guess at what they think God would want them to do.
Now, it is certainly possible for priests to be arrogant or overbearing or whatever, but many of these positions come from a sincere attempt to follow the rules as they were laid down. That's not arrogance, it is obedience. I know that the Pope and the Church in general seem like some unaccountable people who make rules, but in the end, they really believe that when they die, they WILL be held accountable now and forever, for the decisions that they make.
If Leviticus 21:20-23 is "no longer applicable", why does the Catholic Church claim that Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 are still applicable?
The letter of the Mosaic Law no longer applies to Christians, but its spirit is helpful in interpret the principles explained in the Greek Scriptures. See what Paul wrote in his letters to the Romans 1:26-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, and 1 Timothy 1:9-10. The second and third of these use the Greek word arsenokoítês, literally "going to bed with a male", which even looks like "arse coitus". Homosexual sex still squicks YHWH out.
Is there some reason you think people can't handle criticizing/dismantling both?
Perhaps the fact that I have seen very little attention paid to the epidemic of sexual abuse in public schools, while there are press articles about the significantly fewer number of priest sex scandals. As an example, I am only aware of one news source which discussed the involvement of Graham Spanier in the cover up of child sex abuse accusations that occurred before the Jerry Sandusky case came up.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
People have power because things need to be done. There is nothing wrong with being a Cardinal if you use the power for what it is meant for. There is something called "false humility". The now-current Pope did not feel he needed a chauffeur or a palace to do his job, but it would be difficult to argue that he didn't need his authority as Archbishop to teach doctrine and run the maintenance and charity ends of the Archdiocese.
Additionally, if you refuse a humble man the power of a Cardinal, then how will you ever elect a humble Pope?
Christians include the Hebrew Scriptures, including Leviticus and Deuteronomy, in their Bible for two reasons: 1. to show the history of YHWH's people and the prophecies that Jesus fulfilled, and 2. to show YHWH's principles that show how to apply the common-sense "love YHWH with your whole soul and love your neighbor as yourself" law that Jesus taught. Paul wrote that a few things mentioned in the Mosaic Law were still disgusting to God even under the new covenant, including arse coitus (1 Corinthians 6:9-10; 1 Timothy 1:9-10) and consuming blood (Acts 15:29).
One of the nice things about being a Catholic is there is a nice clear rule book. It's called the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
Catholics aren't the only Christian denomination to have a rule-book-style aid to studying the Bible. Jehovah's Witnesses have one too: Reasoning from the Scriptures .
The Catholic Church considers marriage between non-Catholics to be valid. The sacrament, as it is described, does not require the administration of a priest, it is administered to one another. Therefore, a non Catholic can generate a perfectly valid and moral marriage without being a Catholic. They aren't going to preach against those sorts of people because they don't believe they are wrong.
And I can't believe you think that fornication doesn't get as much preaching as gays do. What do you think the whole contraception debate is about, in large part? The Church is pretty darn upfront about people being virgins until marriage and all of that.
I think the focus on gays from an outsider perspective is because of the political battle. I don't recall any time that a priest spent more time on homosexuality than anything else. Yes, they are against it for sure, but no, I don't think that internally it is particularly more covered than anything else. It's a sin, but so is not respecting your parents. They cover pretty much everything.
Will he: Disawow the insane and puerile dogma of original sin?
I don't see how original sin is "insane". Adam and Eve stole fruit from God; their punishment was to become imperfect and die. Everybody since then has inherited imperfection in his DNA. Jesus died in part to pay for the original sin, so that people who obey his Father can be resurrected to everlasting life in bodies that don't have this imperfection anymore.
Good for you for working to raise attention on this issue --- I don't want to stop that. With many different activists raising attention on many different problems in society, changes can be made on many fronts at once. Only, you seemed to be more interested here in indicating that the Catholic church wasn't so bad compared to this --- so their abuse deserves *less* attention --- more than pushing for other systematic abuses to get *more* attention.
I'm against homosexual marriage and especially against homosexual adoption. I don't think it is good for kids to be told that they don't need a mommy and a daddy, that mommy and mommy are fine and we don't need a daddy. I think it is harmful on a level that will not manifest itself for a long time, but will eventually. Kids do need both a Mommy and a Daddy, that is optimal. It is sad when we don't strive for Optimal because of selfish desires of people in a relationship that is destined to be sterile.
Do you have any evidence for this, or do you just want to restrict people's freedoms based on what you think?
I explicitly release the above into the public domain.
And Acts [15:29] doesn't say "consuming", it says "eating",
In the copy I have, it's "keep abstaining [...] from blood", with nothing about the route of administration. Look at it this way: if you wouldn't take mind-altering drugs orally, why would you shoot them up? Likewise, if you wouldn't take blood orally, why would you shoot it up?
I'm against homosexual marriage
Yes. It's more generally known as being a bigot.
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
I'd say that he'll have no more success than you would in the general population. Pedophiles are everywhere in the population and if we could have cleaned them out already, we would have.
What I would say is 100% in his power is cleaning out the the sickness in the Church which is the hierarchy *covering for* pedophiles. I understand why they did it, but they made a huge mistake. They believed they needed to forgive, and that is proper for Christianity, but they also needed to make sure that forgiveness came both with penance and with ensuring that they were not put in a position to sin again and hurt someone else. In that, they failed miserably.
I didn't mention molestation. Where did you get that from?
The truth is boring, but the still the truth. Bigotry is bigotry. These things are simple. People's thoughts are muddled by tradition.
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
Yes. That's exactly what I meant. People read a lot into things.
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
Most of those things are exaggerations and hyperbole about the Catholic Church.
However, they are spot-on for Xbox Live.
I ride a bicycle to work and cook for both myself and my family. Can I be pope?
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
I can't believe you would say that. How insulting!
I didn't get up in arms about anything. It critiqued the semantics of the article.
What makes you think I'm a liberal?
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
It's an existential problem. God doesn't exist.
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
>logical fail.
>Whether you agree or disagree, you can be humble and have those beliefs.
But you can't be humble and exercise those beliefs.
I'm arrogant, but at least I admit it.
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
On that note, Darth Francis is sort of a disappointing selection. Perhaps he can go back into Conclave and get a do-over. I'm going to suggest he goes with Darth Supremus or Darth Pontifex.
Where does that 1.2 Billion figure come from? My neighbour claims to be Catholic. She doesn't go to church or even believe in the God, she just says she is because her parents were and she was baptised as a baby. How many other people in the world fall under this category? If we classified religious people as" willing to die for their cause" rather than "I think it sounds good to say I am" then I think the number would be closer to 1.2 thousand. And lets face it, if you really believed in a big man in the sky who made everything, and can make you live forever you would happily die for it, because ultimately you actually believe you're not going to die your actually going somewhere better. I call poppycock on this so called "belief" (unless you're a radical muslim, those dudes actually truly do believe that shit).
There is no thing as a humble Pope. The Pope is a political figure and as such, cannot be humble. A Pope can never be humble, at least in this day and age, for he would be dead. He can do good acts, he can say good thoughts, but humble, leader of 1.1B, nope , not humble.
Life is a great ride, the vehicle doesn't matter
Congratulations and may I be the first to say "Et patrem nolite vocare vobis super terram: unus est enim Pater vester, qui in cælis est.".
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
And how does God not existing make those two beliefs incompatible?
Your opinion on adoption by same-sex couples isn't supported by social science.
Should infertile heterosexual couples be permitted to marry and adopt children? Their relationships are also "destined to be sterile."
That's nice. In the Garden of Eden every child had precisely one mommy and one daddy and everyone was white.
Then we let black people vote we knew it was only a matter of time before it meant we had to let people marry cows and fuck their children.
Cool story bro. How can I subscribe to your newsletter?
I don't know. He believes in a God who created the Universe. I would have a lot of trouble *not* being humble in that situation. He knows he is dust and knows that he is nothing without the will of his Creator.
It is his *job* to make decisions, and insofar as he is the chief representative of God as head of the church, he needs to speak with authority so that he carries out the job effectively, but if he realizes that he's just a cog in the scheme of things, I don't see how he could not be humble.
Every day, I could probably find an anthill and massacre hundreds, maybe thousands of ant at will. Does that mean I don't know that to someone else, I'm just an ant? Sure, I can forget that I am not a speck, but my life and death power over those ants does not preclude me from understanding my true place in the Universe.
There were several saints named Francis. The popular one is St. Francis of Assisi, the hippie pacifist monk dude, but there's also St. Francis Xavier, a cofounder of the Jesuits. And the new pope is a Jesuit.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
Why, because he doesn't think government should be in the marriage business, or favoring a guy who's married with special financial treats that a guy who's single has to subsidize?
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Both beliefs are incompatible with reality. Relativism between two false beliefs is moot.
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
Marriage is and always was a civic institution, that incorporated religious components in societies where some religion was official or simply dominant (which is most of them). It had significant religious overtones in Western culture in particular just because of the extremely prominent role of Christianity in it in Middle Ages and beyond.
And, yes, it would be better to get the government entirely out of the marriage business. However, realistically, it's just not happening anytime soon, as there would be far more opposition from conservatives and moderates alike. So from a pragmatic point of view, people in favor of equality should support the next best thing that is actually achievable (as we've seen last year in WA and CO) - which is the recognition of gay marriage.
I don't think it is good for kids to be told that they don't need a mommy and a daddy, that mommy and mommy are fine and we don't need a daddy. I think it is harmful on a level that will not manifest itself for a long time, but will eventually. Kids do need both a Mommy and a Daddy, that is optimal.
How do you know? Can you cite any studies to this effect?
I wasn't sure if I should even respond to such obvious flamebait, but some of what you say is unfortunately believed by quite a few people (even gay rights supporters) so it is still worth debunking.
If you're saying that Marriage is purely secular, you're not being intellectually honest.
Marriage is a secular institution. First off it is a ceremony that is recognized by almost every culture in history, including athiest societies such as the former USSR. Christmas and barmitzvahs are religious in nature, but marriages certainly are not. A marriage is a legal union that society recognizes as forming a single household from what was once two independent individuals. Marriages are useful for defining laws and traditions that govern how these unions are handled. Things like property rights can turn into difficult matters so it is important to have concrete laws to settle disputes (just look how messy most divorces or some inheritance splits can become).
Most religions throughout history have also added non-secular meaning to the institution of marriage, but that is a separate matter. Would you want the government to stop you from getting married if the Koran said that all marriages not recognized by Allah were null and void? That is the same argument used by anyone who says someone cannot be married because their religion is against it.
I'm against homosexual marriage and especially against homosexual adoption. I don't think it is good for kids to be told that they don't need a mommy and a daddy, that mommy and mommy are fine and we don't need a daddy. I think it is harmful on a level that will not manifest itself for a long time, but will eventually. Kids do need both a Mommy and a Daddy, that is optimal.
I agree that having homosexual parents is probably not a 100% optimal situation. The "optimal" situation is probably something like two upper middle class well educated parents who don't divorce and live in one of the best school districts in the country. But should lower middle class people not be allowed to adopt because it is not optimal to have kids in a household with money problems? Should parents who never went to college not be allowed to adopt because they are less likely to provide the same enriching educational environment as two parents with post-graduate degrees?
All studies I have seen conclusively shown that homosexual parents can raise emotionally mature, intelligent, and well rounded adults. I am pretty sure studies show that they do much better than average even. Any opinion that homosexual parents cannot to an adequate job is either very ignorant or very bigoted.
If the point of homosexual marriage is for "love" then I don't have a problem with it. Get married. However if you want additional "benefits" from government, you're going to have to be much clearer that it is ONLY about these things that you care about, and that it isn't about "love" at all.
Why is it mutually exclusive? This is such an incoherent rambling I am not even sure how to respond. I love my neices and nephews, but if my brother requests a legal document that states I take care of his children if he dies that does not mean I love them less because I asked the government to make it legal. I feel silly even writing something like that, but I think you may actually believe the comments you are making so it is worth pointing out how erroneous these opinions are.
AND if you extend those "rights" to gay people, then you must also allow for other non-traditional marriages like polygamy, polyandry and incestuous marriages as well. If not, then you're just as discriminatory as you claim people like me are.
Society is overwhelming against non-traditional marriages in cases of polygamy and incenteous marriages not because they are just untraditional. It is because of the female oppression that accompanies societies that practice the former, and the medical problems inherent in the latter.
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
Actually, all Christians are by definition God's representatives on Earth. To bad we don't do a better job.
Ah so you had no point all then. And left of "with reality" in order to make sure you made no sense I guess?
OK, to each his own.
The president is a successful Chicago Politician and lawyer who was able to brand himself as a "community organizer". All kinds of lawyers have various funny ideas about what the constitution means, and what can be gotten away with.
So... I fail to see the inconsistency, personally.
(I think he's actually less-bad than I had feared when he was elected. This still doesn't excuse many of his policies. I'm more concerned with the unconscionable leaks from White House staff. I don't believe Obama is really that stupid, but someone working for him is/was.)
I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
Contrary to the summary, the new Pope has had plenty of Vatican experience since his creation as a cardinal in 2001.
He's not a true insider of the Curia, but he knows his way around.
"As cardinal, Bergoglio was appointed to several administrative positions in the Roman Curia
Member of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments
Member of the Congregation for the Clergy
Member of the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life
Member of the Pontifical Council for the Family
Member of the Commission for Latin America"
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Francis#Cardinal
Your argument seems to be that past the age of 40 or so our views no longer keep up with the values of society. In which case how can selecting a 40 year old pope who stays in office for 40 years and is woefully outdated for the last 10 years of his reign be worse than selecting a 70 year old pope who is woefully out of date for all 10 years of his reign? With the younger person you at least have 10-20 years in-sync with society instead of permanently being at least a generation behind society which is very clearly where the Catholic church is.
He might make statements that are held to be authoritative by some fraction of 1.2 billion people?
FTFY
(A considerable percentage of Catholics are very, very non-practicing. But they still call themselves Catholic, and appear on church records. It's like that with all organized Faiths, but seems to be more-so with the Roman Catholics.)
I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
Many organizations have official spokespeople; is it arrogant of the official spokesperson to think he's the single official conduit for communication from that organization, when that is the role the organization has asked him to fill?
I don't see why a church leader should be viewed any differently.
too bad there is no oppposing party or philosophy to expose them
Whenever opposing parties try to do anything about it the churches and the conservatives both play the "They hate Christians! They want to destroy the church!" card. There currently is quite a controversy around certain religious figures publicly complaining about an anti-Christian campaign and even pogrom-like persecution when in fact it is the institution and not the faith that is attacked, and rightly so, for their role in the ongoing child molestation scandal.
Rudolf Hess edited Mein Kampf. He was the very first grammar nazi.
So another geriatric ultra-conservative in exactly the same mould as Benedict and John-Paul II. Cynics might say he has been elected in an attempt to halt the decline in Catholicism in Latin America, one of the sects most important regions. Otherwise the only place in the world it would seem to be growing is Africa. How relevant is it in the developed world? What percentage of Catholics actually attend mass each week? How many Catholics solely practice "natural" birth control methods or have issues with gay marriage? Oh, and interesting to see that this supposed bastion of morality has no problem, again, with someone who has cosied up to a fascist regime.
Marriage is a religious institution
No...no it isn't - marriage predates that. Religious organisations have _adopted_ marriage, much as they have adopted many other ceremonies that were nothing to do with the organisation in question; but even so, you can have a nonreligious wedding and many (possibly most?) people do these days. Admittedly (in the UK at least) there are lots of legal restrictions on civil ceremonies that were clearly imposed in an attempt to keep the church relevant, but if you want a totally non-religious wedding you can do just that.
The only reason gay people want marriage, is not for love (they can have that!) , but for "benefits" from the state.
I'm sure _some_ want it for that reason (and hell, why shouldn't they - if a hetrosexual couple is entitled to various state benefits then WTF shouldn't a gay couple be entitiled to the same?), but the idea that that's the general reason why people want to marry is just BS. Marriage isn't love, its a _declaration_ of love, which is completely different and has nothing to do with any state benefits.
http://blog.nexusuk.org
There won't be now, but when I saw this story there were exactly 666 comments *giggles*
The first few posts contain no references to paedophile priests.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
When my children's school principal starts telling them that he has an ancient divinely inspired book and 2000 years of sacred tradition that should inform everyone how God wants them to live, then I'll consider his claim to moral authority on par with the Catholic Church. Until then, the Church's claim is effectively infinitely stronger (by claiming authority from divinity instead of just secular appointments) - which makes their involvement in a pedophile problem infinitely worse.
Because it has a substantial impact on the world.
Nerds != The World.
Nerds are a subset of the world, genius.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Right now the church needs deep reforms, but they chose a stubbornly conservative Pope. It is time for the church to get out of the Middle Ages and liberalize its stance on abortion and gay marriage and it is way past due to drop the celibacy requirement for clergy
Thanks for trying to distract us from the main argument. Do you see anyone here suggesting that pedophiles in public schools should be ignored, or released without prosecution, or are morally acceptable?
The Church doesn't just claim authority granted by secular appointment (like election to a school board or getting hired by a school district), they claim authority from God. It is a terrible evil when someone in a position of authority by secular appointment abuses children, and that person should be prosecuted. But it is a worse evil when someone claiming to be a representative of divinity does the same, and absolutely unconscionable that someone higher in the religious hierarchy would do anything other than report the activities to legal authorities.
There are plenty of homophobic, misogynistic, pedophilic and racist posters on slashdot too, so an article on the Pope should suit quite a lot of readers.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
As an atheist I can't be theophobic, since it's illogical to be afraid of (or hate) something imaginary.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Look at what the Catholic Church believes, and then what its followers try to get laws passed regarding. The Catholic Church forbids fornication, divorce (only a very small subset of all divorces would qualify for a Catholic anulment), and homosexuality. Catholics routinely try to pass laws impacting the rights of homosexuals. They absolutely do not routinely try to pass laws outlawing fornication or divorce. This is a case where, regardless of what the supposed official theological position is, the Church has made gays a target and other sins less important.
Well, school administrators routinely claim greater moral authority than anyone else on the basis of, well nothing other than the fact that they are school administrators. They routinely claim that your children should follow their moral guidance because they are school administrators. The Catholic Church at least relies on claiming that their moral authority derives from another source, a source you can go to to compare their moral claims to. Your child's school principal bases his or her claim to moral authority on the fact that they are a school principal. There is no place your child can turn to to see if they are living up to the moral claims that they are making. I would argue that the school principal is making the infinitely stronger claim to moral authority since they are not offering any source to which you can turn to test their pronouncement of moral right and wrong.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
It must vary by region. In my section of Pennsylvania, the predominant political issue for Catholics is abortion, so my colossal Catholic extended family is almost entirely Republican.
Aside from "Higher level Catholics" - I wonder which version of Dungeons and Dragons that's from. ;) a lot of Catholics are Republican because of their pro-life position.
Now, it is certainly possible for priests to be arrogant or overbearing or whatever, but many of these positions come from a sincere attempt to follow the rules as they were laid down. That's not arrogance, it is obedience.
Yes but he asked for an explanation of how they are not compatible.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Right. And I support freedom of speech and freedom of religion. But I am responding to sycodon's comment "No one is forced to be a Catholic. No one is forced to follow their teachings." People aren't forced to be Catholic, but if Catholics help pass laws that, for example, ban gay marriage, then the general population is forced to follow Catholic teachings.
I disagree with the Catholic Church on those key issues - gay rights, contraception, abortion, sexuality in general - and on a number of theological ones but fortunately my theological disputes have no impact on secular law. I think Catholics, at least in the US, have unfairly singled out gays as a target. The Church forbids divorce (except in rare cases where an anulment applies) and fornication, but Catholics in the US do not try to outlaw either thing - just gay marriage and gay adoption rights. That's unequal application of Catholic teachings regarding sexuality.
But more generally, I'm responding to the people who seem annoyed that non-Catholics have strong opinions on the Catholic Church. We have strong opinions because, as you said, religious beliefs are inherently intermingled with political beliefs, so what the Catholic Church teaches impacts our political landscape very heavily.
Right, according to you when someone claims to represent a moral authority that says that abusing children is wrong abuses children (or covers up the abuse of children) that is worse than someone who claims to be looking out for children the interests of children, even against their own parents, abuses children (or covers up the abuse of children) since that latter someone is claiming to be able to make moral determinations on their own authority. I disagree.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Being humble, but also believing that your views on how other people should live their lives are so righteous that others shouldn't even be able to decide for themselves, are mutually exclusive.
What about being so humble that one doesn't even consider one's own views on how people should live, and simply accepts the long accepted wisdom of the church as being greater than your own.
Sorry, we can argue that it may be 'stupid' or 'wrong' but its definitely not mutually exclusive with 'humility'.
Presumably anyone who believes in God must be humble? The incorrect assumption is that humility is inherently a good thing. I think of it more as a quality like courage: if you're a brave terrorist or Nazi, you're still a terrorist or Nazi.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
I'm against homosexual marriage and especially against homosexual adoption. I don't think it is good for kids to be told that they don't need a mommy and a daddy, that mommy and mommy are fine and we don't need a daddy. I think it is harmful on a level that will not manifest itself for a long time, but will eventually. Kids do need both a Mommy and a Daddy, that is optimal. It is sad when we don't strive for Optimal because of selfish desires of people in a relationship that is destined to be sterile.
Even ignoring your anti-gay prejudices, this means that you would have to prohibit single parenthood. Also, as soon as someone's husband/wife died or they were divorced, their kids would have to be taken away for adoption. You would have to enforce marriage (or the equivalent legally binding contract) on would-be parents, or else they would just be single parents who happened to live with someone else.
Even if there were no gay people in the world, your idea is full of problems.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Yes, but the believers won't allow a fair debate about what they believe in. They fall back on "because the Church/God/Pope/Bible says so and if you disagree you're trying to impinge on my religious freedom", which is pathetically inadequate.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Jeez, I thought that, whatever their faults, the Nazis (a) built good straight roads and (b) destroyed the power of organised religion. So now we're down to just the Autobahns.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Exactly how does this fall in to either category, the choosing of a new pope has nothing to do with "nerdery".
Unless one of his first edicts as pope is to bring the Vatican into the 21st century, create the first fully paperless state, and to ensure 100% "IT literacy" among all the inhabitants of the Papal state (and no this is not a misspelling of Paypal(tm) ).
So that would leave "stuff that matters"..... nope, it fails there too!! Because YES "1.2 billion Catholics", along with all other religious people, CAN be WRONG :)
Some people can't handled a reasoned argument that is counter to their own, and lash out with violent tendencies. And they think they are more "civilized".
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
> What about being so humble that one doesn't even consider one's own views on how people should live, and simply accepts the long accepted wisdom of the church as being greater than your own.
Spoken like a good member of the flock.
What is not compatible about thinking that God thinks that homosexual behavior, abortions, and contraception are wrong while also having a humble opinion of yourself and submitting to God and others?
Nothing. Humility is a useful tool for the power elite: "look, it's nothing personal, I'm just following the will of God/our Great Leader while I torture you to death".
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
" but did you have to mod up the guy that just reduced gay relationships to the "selfish desires of people in a relationship that is destined to be sterile"?"
That is not what I said. You have reading comprehension problems, probably because my views differ from your own you have to try to shove me into some category that fits your predisposed paranoia.
I said that gay relationships are fine, and I don't give a shit about them. I said that gay people adopting kids is probably not the best thing for kids. Until you provide evidence to the contrary, then my views are just opinions and not actually dangerous. I'm not preventing them from doing anything.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
I don't see how you can eat meat without consuming some blood
For one thing, the red stuff you see coming out of properly drained meat is not blood; it's myoglobin. For another, God doesn't appear to look down on eating the trace of blood in well-drained meat. God told Noah as he was getting off the ark: "Every moving animal that is alive may serve as food for you. As in the case of green vegetation, I do give it all to you. Only flesh with its life--its blood--you must not eat." (Genesis 9:3-4) There are some people who won't eat meat at all, perhaps because of this trace of blood, but one shouldn't judge them for that.--Romans 14:2-3.
Also, since when is having a blood transfusion the same thing as eating blood?
Please see my other comment.
The whole thing is just another ridiculous hangover from dietary laws dreamed up in a hot, desert society.
For one thing, the area Paul preached in wasn't quite as hot and arid. For another, as is common with passages in the Christian Greek Scriptures, there's something in the Hebrew Scriptures to help interpret it, such as the instructions given to Noah mentioned above.
filled with people with advanced degrees and who speak at least two languages
Most educated people in Europe speak their own language and English. Here in the UK we also follow this rule.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/06/12/mark-regnerus-s-gay-parenting-study-starts-a-political-war.html
Of course, you're free to disagree.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
I explained that I don't care if gay people are together. How does my view that marriage being religious institution make me a bigot? Or is it just because it doesn't suit your political agenda?
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
They didn't they got two colossal teacher's unions to devote efforts to moving them between schools so they could continue to molest children. If you examine the incidence of child sexual abuse between the Catholic Church in the United States and the public schools in the United States at the time the sexual abuse in the Catholic Church was at its highest the incidents were higher on a per child basis in the public schools involving teachers than in the Catholic Church.
Maybe in the US. In countries with a decent state education system, the Catholic priests had a far higher hit rate.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/06/12/mark-regnerus-s-gay-parenting-study-starts-a-political-war.html
Or maybe it is. Depends on which "survey" you view.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
If the Roman Catholic church wants to remain relevant, the Pope should sound like it's someone you'd go out on the lash with after the match.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
"Also, as soon as someone's husband/wife died or they were divorced, their kids would have to be taken away for adoption. "
I never said anything of the sort. I said that two parent families are optimal. We should strive for optimal, not the opposite. We should as society make it easier to have children raised in optimal situations.
I know plenty of people raising kids in single parent homes, and a few people who have three kids from four fathers, and I can tell you that it is NOT optimal. In every case, the kids are not well adjusted and have emotional and psychological issues. Parenting is hard. And people have been making light of it, and passing it off onto the state for the last two generations in increasing numbers. Our society is not better because of it.
I would not want kids to be raise in a single parent home, but sometimes shit happens. The moment it becomes a "choice", rather than crappy circumstances, we've degraded our society. IF you believe that single parent families are equal to two parent families the by all means prove it to me they go ahead, and try it yourself. Parenting is hard.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
I think you need to look at history and battles won and lost.
The Church used to be very much against civil divorce in politics, but that battle was fought and lost between the 18th and 20th Centuries. Trust me, they are still very much against divorce, and they make it a pain in the ass to get annulled, if they even allow it at all. I found this out trying to marry someone who had been divorced once. Don't think for a second that they reserve being strict for homosexual situations.
As far as "rights" I am not sure what rights you are talking about in terms of laws being passed. I know there are certain benefits that gay individuals want, but I don't think those items are universally agreed to be "rights". If the Church wanted gays to be executed or not allowed to do what they wanted in their own homes via a law, then I might see your point. As far as I know, that's not on the agenda, unless you seriously believe that opposition to gay marriage is going to slippery slope back to executing gays. They just don't think marriage is proper between two people of the same sex, and they don't think children should be raised in that sort of household. Neither of those are rights, that I am aware of, unless you happen to be a natural parent of the children in question, which at least one of the two individuals in a gay relationship is not.
Again, it seems like it would be more important from an external observer, but I have never seen any particular internal focus on homosexuals inside the church. Gay marriage is just the latest issue de jure, and you could consider that the Church's opposition to those provisions is likely going to mirror the increasing level of focus by gay activists in obtaining those benefits. If one side is trying harder, the other side is going to try harder too, or they have to concede.
We are not "herd" animals. We are, if you want to classify it, family pod animals (aka tribal). We have a long history of having extended families (mutually related helpmates). We have no such thing in our current "culture" and make no attempts to keep that kind of structure intact.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Please point to any "homosexual marriage" that was accepted (had legal benefits) in any society anywhere in the world, prior to 1960. If you can't then you are redefining marriage to suit your political agenda. Re-defining marriage to suit a political agenda is proof that it isn't about "love" but gaining access to government granted benefits.
If it is about granting those government granted benefits, then you have to explain to me why it is beneficial to society to re-define marriage to give benefits to people who otherwise don't need them (if it is only about love).
You see, I'm not condemning others to anything, I want to be clear, I don't support redefining marriage on the sole basis of granting government benefits to gay people. I would rather repeal those benefits from marriage. The fact that you won't support this view makes it clear, it isn't about love or equality or anything else, it is about getting benefits from government.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
I have no way to determine if that is true, maybe the difference was a more thorough cover up in those countries (since I am not in those countries and you did not specify which countries they were in the first place, I have no way to evaluate your claim).
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Presumably anyone who believes in God must be humble?
I can't see how that would follow.
The incorrect assumption is that humility is inherently a good thing.
You are going to have to make some sort of case for that. Just declaring that all along we were all wrong about humility being a virtue isn't going to cut it.
I think of it more as a quality like courage: if you're a brave terrorist or Nazi, you're still a terrorist or Nazi.
Godwinning the thread is not the best way to make your case. And the argument doesn't really work either; wasn't George Washington a brave terrorist?
Spoken like a good member of the flock.
Or anyone else who can see the truth of the matter. Some Catholics are humble, others are arrogant.
Belonging to a religion and beleiving its dogma doesn't somehow automatically make one 'arrogant'. That's absurd on the face of it.
I take offence to this! It is an outrage! /froth
http://marsandmore.com - Posters of space, spacecraft, and astronomy.
There is nothing worse than having religion "jammed down your throat" as the "born agains" do.
I call poppycock on this so called "belief"
Thats probably because you neither know your history nor much about contemporary missionary work.
There are a great deal more than 1.2 thousand people "willing to die for their cause"; China has 60 million people who claim to be christian, in a country that will arrest you for proseletyzing and bar you from public office for claiming Christ. Im not sure how many practicing Jews were killed during the holocaust, but Im sure it was more than 1.2 thousand. Even during the first 4 centuries, particularly 200-350AD, im sure more than 1.2 thousand christians were deprived of property, judicial rights, and even their lives due to refusing to give up their faith.
So call poppycock all you like; if youd ever like to join reality, I suggest you read about the persecutions in China, under Diocletian, in many parts of southeast Asia, in the Middle East, and in Africa for people who refuse to give up their faith.
You are correct of course, that 1.2billion is probably the official, inflated number, but there really isnt a better number that Im aware of, and technically "calling yourself catholic" is to make the claim that you hold the Pope's words to have some degree of authority; its not my place to say "they lie", nor is it yours.
Here is a good starting point for learning about historical legal homosexual marragies, http://http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage#Ancient.
War doesn't show who is right - just who is left.
that study doesn't compare children of two-parent opposite-sex couples to children of two-parent same-sex couples, so it doesn't support your position because it's simply not measuring the relevant information.
This is Slashdot.
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
If he thunk hard enough, he'd be an atheist.
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
You seek to deny homosexuals the option of marriage because they are gay, but don't seek to deny heterosexuals the option of marriage because they are no gay, on the basis of your religious beliefs.
That is bigoted. It fits the definition exactly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigotry
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
Homosexuality, abortion, and contraception don't have victims (unless you make up some imaginary ones).
Aborted fetuses are imaginary, in your view? Or is it your position that they are not victims?
Please point to any "homosexual marriage" that was accepted (had legal benefits) in any society anywhere in the world, prior to 1960.
Why the artificial limitation to before 1960? More importantly, what does whether or not a preceding society has adopted a practice have to do with whether the practice itself would be beneficial to adopt? Can you point to any examples where the polio vaccine was beneficial before 1950 --- and if you can't, does that mean the polio vaccine was a bad thing?
So, ignoring the sophistry of the silly 1960 limitation, I'll tell you what I've personally see in same-sex committed unions, that indicate these are a good thing to further uplift and uphold with the benefits of law afforded their opposite-sex counterparts:
I've seen people who might have faced an angry and isolating world alone instead find the joy of human love and companionship. I've seen children who might have grown up in an orphanage (and later a prison) instead receive parents and a loving family. I've seen the the young flourishing with the passion of new love to serve their community, and the elderly supported in their infirmity with the strength of a lifetime relationship.
If it is about granting those government granted benefits, then you have to explain to me why it is beneficial to society to re-define marriage to give benefits to people who otherwise don't need them (if it is only about love).
See the above. Aiding to strengthen those institutions that form the "infrastructure" of a flourishing society --- marriage, family, friendship, education, community --- is a noble goal for directing government benefits. Your extreme libertarianism might see no reason for any government functions; but I don't buy that --- I see both bad and good done by governmental structures, and seek to uplift the good while undermining the bad.
But to someone who does believe, you are every bit the theophobe. Your perspective is as irrelevant to their assessment as theirs is to yours.
No legally recognized same sex marriages. Nice try though.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
When you're making shit up, it is important to stop the sophistry. Homosexual Marriage is not a "right" never has been, and is a modern invention.
" I'll tell you what I've personally see in same-sex committed unions," as have I.
" that indicate these are a good thing to further uplift and uphold with the benefits of law afforded their opposite-sex counterparts:"
Namely government granted benefits. So, you believe in making up new rights, that never existed before, to grant government benefits to people? How do you feel about polygamy, polyandry and heterosexual incestuous marriages, for the purposes of gaining government benefits?
Because, I can see how your whole argument doesn't require homosexuality at all.
As for my libertarian views, they are based on the premise that we need to protect the "rights" of people to believe what they want, as long as it doesn't affect others. You obviously don't care about my beliefs, and thus want to dictate to me what I must accept, even when it doesn't affect anyone else but me what I believe.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
When did I say it was a right, and not a modern invention? I just think it's a great modern invention; an excellent way to bring the benefits of a very old invention (two-person lifetime committed heterosexual unions) to even more people in the world.
How do you feel about polygamy, polyandry and heterosexual incestuous marriages, for the purposes of gaining government benefits?
I've seen little demonstrated evidence of the general benefits of these; however, I'd be willing to change my mind in the presence of actual evidence from the lives of those impacted. More-than-two-person close relationships don't seem to work out stably --- totally loving one person is hard enough (already a high failure rate, but managed very well by some), and adding more generally leads to messy disastrous conflict. Many polygamous practices also occur under conditions of extreme power inequality between male and female participants, which negate marriage as a freely undertaken endeavor of love. Incestuous heterosexual relations have the downside of potential cruelty and suffering from children born with the genetic disadvantages of inbreeding; discouragement of at least this aspect is probably best. Again, however, I will be loving and charitable to my fellow humans, and willing to change my views in response to the cries and struggles of others who lie outside my preconceived sphere of propriety --- if a brother/sister pair truly want to "marry" and start a childless or adoptive family, perhaps I need a change of heart.
(oops... duplicate of response to wrong post, re-posted below in correct location)
When did I say it was a right, and not a modern invention? I just think it's a great modern invention; an excellent way to bring the benefits of a very old invention (two-person lifetime committed heterosexual unions) to even more people in the world.
How do you feel about polygamy, polyandry and heterosexual incestuous marriages, for the purposes of gaining government benefits?
I've seen little demonstrated evidence of the general benefits of these; however, I'd be willing to change my mind in the presence of actual evidence from the lives of those impacted. More-than-two-person close relationships don't seem to work out stably --- totally loving one person is hard enough (already a high failure rate, but managed very well by some), and adding more generally leads to messy disastrous conflict. Many polygamous practices also occur under conditions of extreme power inequality between male and female participants, which negate marriage as a freely undertaken endeavor of love. Incestuous heterosexual relations have the downside of potential cruelty and suffering from children born with the genetic disadvantages of inbreeding; discouragement of at least this aspect is probably best. Again, however, I will be loving and charitable to my fellow humans, and willing to change my views in response to the cries and struggles of others who lie outside my preconceived sphere of propriety --- if a brother/sister pair truly want to "marry" and start a childless or adoptive family, perhaps I need a change of heart.
Reading my /. email feed, I got "New pope selected using truth serum" - think of the questions you'd ask a prospective pope under the influence!
Two infertile people that happen to be of opposite sexes are permitted to enter a legal contract, marriage, in the US and receive certain legal benefits - shared medical coverage from employers, automatic visitation privileges if one is hospitalized, shared Social Security benefits, etc... Those same privileges are not afforded if the two people are of the same sex.
Now if you want to be pedantic, you can say that it's not rights taken away from gays, it's just privileges afforded to heterosexual couples that are not extended to homosexual couples. But whether the unfair treatment is rights taken away or privileges extended, either way it's unfair.
Now, I would be quite satisfied with a level playing field - the legal institution of marriage is abolished, and marriage is strictly a religious ceremony. Or make marriage a civil contract between any two people that want to share tax and insurance benefits, whether they be heterosexual, homosexual, or just two siblings (not in an incestuous relationship) that live together. Or make marriage a civil contract that only extends benefits to two people partnering to raise children under the age of 18, and when the children reach age 18 the benefits end. In any of those cases, it's fair. But right now the law gives heterosexuals advantages over homosexuals that have nothing to do with parenting and everything to do with religious beliefs.
In order to argue against raising children in a homosexual household, you need to provide evidence that children raised that way suffer in some respect compared to children raised in a heterosexual household. No such evidence exists - except in the cases when the children are abused solely because their parents are gay, and then the problem is not the parents but the bigoted community.
The Catholic Church has not given up its battle over abortion rights in the US despite the fact that it is lost. I honestly don't believe they've dropped the ball on divorce and fornication because they can't win. I honestly believe they dropped the ball because they consider homosexuality more seriously wrong.
You are seriously making the claim that someone elected or hired to run a school is claiming more moral authority than someone claiming they are teaching rules handed down directly from God according to the will of God?
If you're a Catholic and you don't agree with Catholic teaching, to whom are you supposed to appeal? You can't pick up a phone or write a letter to an Archangel or one of the saints for guidance if you think the Pope is incorrect. With a school principal or other administrator, you can compare what he or she teaches for ethics to other administrators in other schools, including schools in other countries. You can also find, quite easily, respected secular authorities that disagree with each other. But most don't consider themselves the final authority on the topic of ethics or education and none teach students that failing to follow their direction could lead to eternal damnation.
So "if you tell anyone I'm hurting you, I will kill someone in your family" is worse than "God wants me to do this to you, and if you tell anyone you will all go to hell and suffer for all eternity"? Sorry, I disagree. As bad as the first one is, the second is worse.
The pope claims that his moral authority comes from God and that the teachings of the Church are based on the Bible. You can go to the Bible and see if it supports his claims. The school administrator claims that his authority is based on ??? what good does it do you, if your child is attending the school run by a particular school administrator that some other school administrator teaches a different set of moral rules from the one where your child attends?
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Never mind. You are convinced that it is more important to attack an organization that you have no connection with than worrying about people who technically work for you.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
But you avoided his point. Being humble and denying other people the rights that you have because you believe your views are correct are not compatible.
He's not making that stuff up, though, those are the Bible's views. He's not arrogant enough to go against God's teachings.
Why, because he doesn't think government should be in the marriage business, or favoring a guy who's married with special financial treats that a guy who's single has to subsidize?
I don't think it was that. It was more his implication that if the homosexual couple wants to have the same benefits that married couples get, that their relationship isn't a relationship based on love. Worse, he flat out characterizes gay couples, regardless of marriage views, as "selfish desires of people in a relationship that is destined to be sterile." I'd say that's offensive, yeah.
So, we're going to give more benefits to more people, because you feel that is government's role? We're doomed. We can't even afford the benefits we currently are giving away. This affects everything, more than most people know.
I'm going to register me and my sons and daughters as "domestic partners" (polygamy/incestuous/gay) so that I can bypass inheritance and make sure she can be covered on my insurance for ever. I mean, if we're handing out benefits based on random criteria, why not?
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
"He no playa the game, he no maka the rules."
Have gnu, will travel.
Other Christian Churches, not the Catholic Church, give the Bible ultimate authority. The Catholic Church gives the Bible equal weight with Tradition (capital 'T' intentional), and for Tradition you have to trust... Catholic Church teachings.
Besides, the Bible contradicts itself. Two of the Gospels have incompatible genealogies for Jesus. There are two separate creation stories in Genesis. In one Gospel Judas hanged himself, in another he jumped to his death. In one Gospel Mary Magdalene discovered Jesus' was not present in the tomb on her own, in others she had other women with her. And for example, the most commonly cited Bible passage for condemning homosexuality is in Leviticus, right alongside passages discussing the execution of adulterers and disobedient children and the buying and selling of slaves. Paul also condemned homosexuality, but he was specifically condemning homosexual prostitutes in pagan temples - so some scholars have argued he was in fact railing against the pagan religions and religions with prostitution, not homosexuality.
If you just needed the Bible, the Pope would be superfluous. Try telling that to Catholics.
I was raised Catholic, studied for the Catholic priesthood for a year, and had one of my former mentors imprisoned for pedophilia - though I was not among his victims.
I think that's just grounds for both understanding the Catholic Church, and also for attacking it. This institution claims authority from God, the Creator, the Omnipotent, the Omniscient, and they claim God is more good than we can possibly understand and God created the Catholic Church to be God's specific instrument in the world. For a neutral observer, evil is evil whether it's carried out by an atheist or a religious fanatic. But as someone raised Catholic, to see my institution that I loved and trusted to carry out acts as despicable as any secular institution... God's institution in the world for the spread of forgiveness has done unforgivable things.
So, I know people who think the same thing about May-December marriages, or people who marry immigrants, etc. Getting the government out of the business of financially favoring one set of people (the married ones) over another, it all goes away.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
So, we're going to give more benefits to more people, because you feel that is government's role?
I'm looking for ways to bring more benefits to more people because, ultimately, benefiting people is a *good* thing. The role of *every* institution --- government, family, markets, etc. --- should be to benefit people. If something beneficial can be done through government, then let it be done! Of course, I'm not a total idiot, and realize that beneficial actions may have associated detriments against which they should be weighed. While you think that all government recognition of marriage should be eliminated, I think that male-female government-recognized marriage is a good thing (provides worthwhile societal benefits compared to its cost), so it would be just as good to expand those benefits to the few percent of humanity not already included. If you're worried about cost, there are plenty of other government "benefits" I think we could cut back on --- like dropping bombs on folks in distant lands, or subsidizing unlimited corn syrup production, or handing out free land to mining corporations, or protecting too-big-to-fail banks.
I'm going to register me and my sons and daughters as "domestic partners" (polygamy/incestuous/gay) so that I can bypass inheritance and make sure she can be covered on my insurance for ever. I mean, if we're handing out benefits based on random criteria, why not?
In coming up with revised, more inclusive marital institutions, we will need to be careful that self-serving asshole sociopaths like you aren't simply given a free pass to abuse the system at everyone else' expense. You personally seem to be "the reason we can't have nice things" as a society. There certainly are several details to hash out. I'm not personally in favor of more-than-2-person units (which would require a whole different legal can of worms from mediating inheritance/divorce/etc between 2 people) or incest (especially trans-generational). An immediate extension of existing marriage with no change but the male+female restriction (which is itself the "random criteria" here) would not introduce any new problems not already present under the existing system.
" I'm not personally in favor of more-than-2-person units"
That seems quite arbitrary. Plenty of cultures have plural marriages. So why do you hate so much?
" An immediate extension of existing marriage with no change but the male+female restriction (which is itself the "random criteria" here) would not introduce any new problems not already present under the existing system."
But again, you're a hater of people who love more than one other person. Why do you hate them so much?
You see, the lame arguments used by proponents of Gay marriage, also apply elsewhere, including the "hate" rhetoric. Or do you not see this obvious point yet? You're going to have to do better than "I feel", which is subject to change.
Trust me, the easier solution is to repeal the benefits granted by government, and it is much fairer to all.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
If you had been paying attention to my previous posts, you would have already seen my answers as to why I consider n>2 plural marriages in a separate category (for reasons besides blind hate); I will summarize them again for you in one place:
1) Applicability of existing legal statutes: many existing statutes for n=2 marriage are simply inapplicable for n>2 marriage, since they rely on the fact that 2-1=1 to assign rights/responsibilities to a single unique party relative to the other party. Example: In n=2 marriage, when one person is unconscious in the hospital, there is a unique answer to who gets to make decisions for them --- for n>2, you'd need a whole new set of laws to decide how decisions are distributed among several spouses. Thus, n>2 marriage would require a new, different set of legal regulations --- while existing law can be trivially modified to allow n=2 cases not consisting of male+female.
2) Stability of n>2 family units: there is less evidence for long-term stability of n>2 relationships (more likely for destabilizing conflict to erupt between the greater number of participants). An advantage to promoting n=2 pairings is providing reasonably stable family units, who can spend more time going about the business of daily life than tying up courtrooms.
3) Inequality in existing polygamous arrangements: most existing polygamous units exist in and because of cultures with severe gender inequalities, and do not reflect egalitarian unions between consenting adults. Thus, the existence of polygamous marriages in other cultures is not a "selling point" for extending n=2 egalitarian gender-nondiscriminatory unions.
Another not previously stated: while there is abundant evidence that people are born with attractions to same or opposite gender individuals (where substituting a partner of the "wrong" gender is not not remotely attractive), there is no evidence that I know of for people who deeply desire a life-long n=3 committed relationship, and yet would be utterly appalled at "settling" for n=2.
With all these reasons, the I leave my heart open to change from the cries of the oppressed --- where there is actual evidence for benefits outweighing difficulties of n>2 groupings, I'd take that into consideration.
Repealing all marriage might be "easy" and "fair," but that's irrelevant if it's not *good* for society (especially when it's also "easy" and "fair" to switch to n=2 non-gender-discriminatory marriage). My underlying argument *for* n=2 marriage (which you seem to keep on trying to replace with a multitude of straw-men that I have never mentioned, whether that's "rights" or "anything goes!" or "hater!", etc.) is that existing male+female marriage is a good thing (which doesn't rely in any critical way on the shape of the participants' genitalia), so we should gain a bit more of a good thing by simply striking the arbitrary male+female limitation. If you want to address my arguments instead of straw-men, you need to either explain why male+female marriage is bad, or specifically why identical n=2 except for the male+female restriction (not n=58, or n=man+goat, or n=woman+daughter, or any other irrelevant category) deserves fundamentally different treatment.
Well, I was amazed how fast his article in Wikipedia got updated. It didn't take more than a minute. Also, many big news websites in my country are down. That never happened before, as far as I know.
What are you, a teenager?
Slashdot was pretty much the only news site accessible on Sep 11th 2001.
Homosexuality used to be in the DSM as a mental illness.
They removed it in later revisions. Society has changed to the point where being immoral is no long abnormal.
I only look human.
My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
Just a note about the ciphers: Most natives of "Catholic" countries know about the fact that no matter what religion or non-religion they really belong to they are getting counted as Catholics.
A good example is Belgium or my country, the Netherlands, country with a 60% of non-believers. It is however enough that you parents had you baptised to count officially as a Catholic, even if you are like most in this country non-believer (which is BTW quite usual among the right wing that would more or less correspond to the USian republicans). In order to stop being counted as a Catholic you need to send a letter to the corresponding bishop.
There are countries like Spain, where at a 25% of the population declare themselves openly agnostic where even muslim converts are counted as "Catholics" because they have been baptised as babies.
I know that in South America Protestant and Evengelical creeds are increasingly popular...
I wouldn't be able to say what the real figures might be, but just make you aware that you need to take the figures handled by the Vatican with a very very high amount of salt.
-- 29A the number of the Beast
Neither are blacks - at least, not to many ethicists in the 1700s. It's always easy to justify your actions when you can just define "human" to suit your own needs.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
Well, he is now. But before, "espousing" the canonical beliefs of the church instead of your own sounds closer to humility than arrogance.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
the next pope won't be a catholic.