|
Author
|
Topic: Pope still has a problem with women's rights
|
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323
|
posted 09 May 2007 12:35 PM
No communion for pro-abortion politicians quote:
Roman Catholic politicians who support a proposed law allowing woman to have abortions in Mexico City should no longer receive communion, the Pope said Wednesday in a statement clarifying earlier remarks.
How cool is that? Besides being able to support women's right to choose, Mexican politicians will no longer have to gorge themselves on Jesus Christ's already sufficiently cannibalized body! I think this Pope is far more progressive than he is given credit for.
From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323
|
posted 10 May 2007 03:37 AM
Is abortion linked with decline in Church membership?The Pope may have inadvertently let slip his true concern with abortion - the loss of all those potential tithe-paying members! I didn't make this up: quote:
Pope Benedict XVI has spoken out against abortion at the start of his five-day visit to Brazil, the world's most populous Roman Catholic nation. [...]Moments after arriving in Sao Paulo, the Pope stressed the need to respect life "from the moment of conception until natural death".[...] Speaking on his flight to Brazil, the Pope was critical of a recent move to legalise abortion in Mexico City. He also said his main concern in the region was the dwindling Church membership.
[ 10 May 2007: Message edited by: unionist ]
From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Malcolm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5168
|
posted 10 May 2007 08:35 PM
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
Besides being able to support women's right to choose, Mexican politicians will no longer have to gorge themselves on Jesus Christ's already sufficiently cannibalized body!
The latter part of your post is offensive. It may have been intended in jest, but it isn't funny.
It's bad enough that progressive people of faith have to put up with the hatemongering of the reactionaries who have tried (with varying degrees of success) to hijack our religious communities. Is it really necessary for us to face this kind of blatant bigotry on a supposedly progressive discussion board?
From: Regina, SK | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323
|
posted 10 May 2007 08:45 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Malcolm French, APR:
The latter part of your post is offensive. It may have been intended in jest, but it isn't funny.
I have nothing against Catholics. But I hate religion and I hate the Pope. You call that bigotry? Excellent. No, I didn't intend it in jest. I meant it quite seriously. This vicious anti-woman Pope threatens enlightened people with being forbidden from taking Communion (which, last time I checked, was the symbolic eating of Christ's body), and you call me a bigot? Get thee to a lexicography! Why wouldst thou be a breeder of synonyms?
From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323
|
posted 10 May 2007 09:16 PM
Pope spreads love, joy and family values wherever he goes - he's my hero, and he's not a cannibal! quote:
Pope Benedict XVI has urged young Catholics to resist the "snares of evil" and to promote life "from its beginning to its natural end".The Pope was speaking to a rally of about 40,000 young Catholics at a football stadium in Sao Paulo, Brazil. He used his speech to reinforce traditional Roman Catholic teachings against abortion and pre-marital sex.[...] The Pope entered Pacaembu stadium to a popstar's welcome from his young audience, says the BBC's Gary Duffy in Sao Paulo.
WTF is a popestar!? [ 10 May 2007: Message edited by: unionist ]
From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323
|
posted 11 May 2007 08:32 AM
Pope creates Brazil's first saint quote:
After canonising Friar Galvao, the Pope also hugged Sandra Grossi de Almeida and her seven-year-old son, Enzo.She is one of two Brazilian females who the Church says are evidence of divinely inspired miracles that justify Friar Galvao's sainthood. Friar Galvao is remembered for producing Latin prayers written on tiny balls of paper that, when swallowed, had the apparent effect of curing a range of ailments. After taking one of these pills, Ms Almeida, who had a uterine malformation that should have made it impossible for her to carry a child for more than four months, gave birth to Enzo.
Was that Miss Almeida or Mrs. Almeida? quote:
He lauded Friar Galvao as a model of rectitude and humility, and went on to criticise the elements of the media that ridiculed the sanctity of marriage and virginity before marriage.
Virginity before marriage, life after death, pie in the sky. Present pain, future gain. Religion is just ever so comforting.
From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323
|
posted 11 May 2007 10:22 AM
quote:
Originally posted by BetterRed:
Umm, maybe a popstar? Check the original spelling...
Thanks. I was being, like, cute. quote:
There are actually relgious ppl on this forum, and theyre not amused at your refreshing "cannibal" humour so could you, like chill out a bit?
You mean, religious people who agree with the Pope? Then let them say so and face the music. Or, religious people who believe in Communion but don't know what it symbolizes? Then let them look it up. Or, is it just the word "cannibal" that "they" don't like - because, like, it's a bad word? Clarify please. I love religious people - I was once one myself - and I hate religion. I mercilessly mock religion, just as there are people who mercilessly mock socialism (in which I believe). Do you think we should be "sensitive" to people's religious beliefs in some special kind of fuzzy way? Like for example, I shouldn't call George W. Bush's policy "bloodthirsty" because some people might like George W. Bush and be offended? There's a whole lot behind your simple comment which I either don't understand - or if I understand it properly, I vehemently disagree with it. This is a progressive website. I attack ideas and concepts which I view as anti-people, and I will never stop doing so, not for a nanosecond. I also attack criminals like His Holiness who cause tremendous suffering, by their anti-human precepts and because so many innocent people still foolishly believe in him.
From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
500_Apples
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12684
|
posted 11 May 2007 11:49 AM
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
Interesting that you managed to not even say, in your convoluted post, whether you are for or against women's right to choose. If you were "pro-life", you would be anti-woman. If you haven't figured that out by now, check out the recent spheroid-shaped globes of Earth - it ain't flat after all.
I'm prochoice. I have not really thought about it in a long time. When I did, my conclusion was based largely on the fact that I don't really consider fetuses a person. Of course if I believed in the existence of a soul, then that point would change, obviously?
From: Montreal, Quebec | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
500_Apples
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12684
|
posted 11 May 2007 12:07 PM
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
If I believed that only white people had souls, then I wouldn't be a racist - just a man of faith - right? I'm not sure if you understand why I reject your "logic", but keep trying. You seem to feel that religious superstition excuses sins (even though you yourself don't subscribe to such superstition). That's an awfully dangerous proposition.
I kind of see your point. A few weeks ago I had a debate with some people about Judaism. They said Judaism is a racist religion because the torah says the Jews are God's chosen people. I didn't see that as racist (for the record, my logic was that nobody knows what chosen means anyway) and I don't feel like having that argument again. And if you invented your own religion whereas only white people have souls... well, I see how that example is sort of analogous. I'll think about it... I think I'd question your motivations for inventing said religion.
From: Montreal, Quebec | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Malcolm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5168
|
posted 11 May 2007 10:42 PM
Hate the institution of religion all you want, unionist. Fill yer boots.But your comment was a deliberate and bigotted attack, not on an institution, but on people of faith. And not just religious conservatives, but progressives as well. There are, believe it or not, a lot of religious progressives. Why you and the rest of the arrogant secular jihadists feel it is necessary to drive them away from the left escapes me. It appears you are not only bigotted but stupid. A real secular leftist surely would seek to build connections with progressive people of faith. Instead, you insult them with your grotesque mockery. But then, it is well established from the rest of your rants on here that you are no progressive, but rather an unreconstructed apologist for the Liberals. A pretendy progressive, as it were. Had your filth been spewed at any other identifiable group, I have no doubt you'd have been suspended from the list, if not banned outright. The fact that the moderators choose to let your hatemongering go unaddressed pretty much sums it up, I guess. Religious progressives are no longer welcome on babble.
From: Regina, SK | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323
|
posted 12 May 2007 04:29 AM
Malcolm, while I hate religion in all its manifestations, I love you as a human being and as a progressive person.True love of humanity is incompatible with religious cultism, which divides human beings from each other as surely as patriotic and militarist fervour. While you and I share, no doubt, such love of humanity and basic ideals about how society can progress, just look at your own post - filled (in appearance anyway) with irrational hatred of myself, other atheists like me, and even of the moderators! It's just one small example of the evil perversion that religion works upon human beings. It is shocking that such ignorance and evil continues to darken humanity's path in the 21st century. I'm still confident that the advances of science and social justice will continue to narrow the scope of religious obscurantism.
From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323
|
posted 12 May 2007 04:39 AM
When I mercilessly ridicule religious beliefs (NOT religious people!), I do so to restore some balance. Religious beliefs are not worthy of "respect", any more than the political beliefs of Stephen Harper or of Gilles Duceppe. If they can't stand up to mockery, too bad for them.From an interview with Richard Dawkins: quote:
...the majority of religious people are perfectly nice people who don't do horrible things. Yet moderate religion makes the world safe for extremist religion by teaching that religious faith is a virtue, and by the immunity to criticism that religion enjoys. [...]... we've all been brainwashed to respect religious faith and not to criticize it with the same vigor we criticize political and other sorts of opinions that we disagree with. If you can say, "such and such a view is part of my religion," everybody tiptoes away with great respect. "Oh, it's part of your religion," then of course, you must go ahead. In a way, we've been asking for trouble by moderate people persuading us to give to all religion a respect, which it has never done anything to deserve.
From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289
|
posted 12 May 2007 01:21 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Malcolm French, APR:
..your comment was a deliberate and bigotted attack, not on an institution, but on people of faith. And not just religious conservatives, but progressives as well.[/B]
I call BS! Seriously because NO progressive, nor moderate "Christian" would say this: quote:
[qb] Why you and the rest of the arrogant secular jihadists feel it is necessary to drive them away from the left escapes me.
This is Dominionist phrasing, and nothing more than that. quote:
It appears you are not only bigotted but stupid.
Your calling people on the left 'secular jihadists' exhibits actual HATE. quote:
A real secular leftist surely would seek to build connections with progressive people of faith.
BS, a real secular leftist knows that people who would be offended by mocking the pope, for being his being a sexist bigot, are not progressive, especially when they are using dominionist hate speech. quote:
Instead, you insult them with your grotesque mockery.
Instead you insult us with your misrepresentation of self. quote:
Religious progressives are no longer welcome on babble.
Dominionists know how to play the false victim well. It is this phoney type of complaint in the USA, that allowed the dominionists as much sway as they have had. They too demanded that tolerant be tolerant of the intolerant religious fanatics. They too tried to coopt all moderates under the fundamentalist/dominionist banner.
From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Malcolm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5168
|
posted 12 May 2007 09:55 PM
I certainly don't have to defend my progressive credentials to a bunch of people who won't even post under real names. Like many of the intolerant people among the secular left, your essential "defence" is to argue that anyone who objects to the use of hateful language towards religious people must therefore be a hard-right religious conservative. Given the historical role of religious progressives in the advancement of the Canadian left, this is an utterly idiotic position.However, Michelle, please pay attention to the distinction I made. It was not unionist's criticisms of a certain bishop from central Italy that was the problem. I've been known to be quite critical of that bishop myself. It was the offensive reference to the sacrament. It was offensive and hateful. The fact that unionist isn't even prepared to acknowledge that is quite disturbing. That the moderators believe that such a comment is acceptable confirms the fact that there is a strong current of intolerance among many of the secular left towards any and all persons of faith, regardless of their political views. This intolerance expresses itself in a willingness, nay eagerness, to insult and alienate all religious folk, including religious progressives.
From: Regina, SK | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323
|
posted 12 May 2007 10:08 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Malcolm French, APR:
That the moderators believe that such a comment is acceptable confirms the fact that there is a strong current of intolerance among many of the secular left towards any and all persons of faith, regardless of their political views.
Wrong, Malcolm. Persons of faith (other than hypocrites) are generally speaking persons of love. Progressive people welcome them! We appeal to their humanitarian impulses in order to awaken in them the stirrings for social change. This is not easy to do, when religious people are subject to constant blackmail - such as the women-hating Pope who threatens public humiliation to those who dare speak out for women's rights. That's why you, too, are welcome, Malcolm - because one day, if properly nurtured, your progressive sentiments will vanquish your need to make such hurtful statements. Why, if I had my say, I would even welcome back your erstwhile sock-puppet "CCFer". No one is immune from forgiveness and absolution.
From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Malcolm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5168
|
posted 13 May 2007 07:23 PM
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
Persons of faith (other than hypocrites) are generally speaking persons of love. Progressive people welcome them!
One does not make people welcome by mocking their beliefs in the grotesque manner you did at the beginning of this thread.
From: Regina, SK | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Email this thread to someone!
lol, this is just getting better. Maybe we should start another thread on whether communion biscuits could be considered vegetarian or not. 
