Why should I concern my "beautiful mind", :-), about Pope Benedict?

[MoonRiver]

After all I'm not Catholic and have no relatives who are. I've felt alienated from and dismayed by papal positions on issues like abortion and birth control most of my life. Unless it's a very subtle influence, I haven't felt direct effects on me from any Pope. Anyway, the board is consumed with worry and curiosity about how this new Pope will impact our political and social situation. I am deeply worried about neo-cons, but a Pope?
:shrug:

[Carolab]

1. The Pope is a former Hitler Nazi youth.

n/t

[MoonRiver]

2. I read several posts here stating that was false.

[BattyDem]

4. It's true ... Google it

It's in Ratzinger's autobiography, though he says he only served because it was compulsory and he actually opposed the Nazis.

On edit: I'd be willing to overlook his involvment in the Hitler Youth - after all, it was wartime and he was a kid - but the fact that the man is against dissent and is known as the Vatican's "enforcer" makes his youthful activities a bit more difficult to ignore. JMHO


"The Vatican's Enforcer"

BBC profile of Joseph Ratzinger

[Carolab]

24. Andrew Sullivan sez this guy will make JP II look like a liberal.

Andrew Sullivan: "And so the Catholic church accelerates its turn toward authoritarianism, hostility to modernity, assertion of papal supremacy and quashing of internal debate and dissent. We are back to the nineteenth century. Maybe this is a necessary moment. Maybe pressing this movement to its logical conclusion will clarify things. But those of us who are struggling against what our Church is becoming, and the repressive priorities it is embracing, can only contemplate a form of despair. The Grand Inquisitor, who has essentially run the Church for the last few years, is now the public face. John Paul II will soon be seen as a liberal. The hard right has now cemented its complete control of the Catholic church. And so ... to prayer. What else do we now have?"

[Inland]

29. Andrew Sullivan is speaking as a catholic about being a catholic.

The OP is expressly saying he isn't one. So he wouldn't share any of Sullivan's concerns, not becaue they aren't true, but because he isn't catholic.

[Carolab]

30. Well, if the right wing extremists have the Catholics as WELL as fundies,

GOD HELP US ALL!

Cuz, after that, who's left (on the left, I mean)...Episcopalians?

[Rich Hunt]

46. Sullivan

I'd prefer to read someone other than Sullivan on this new pope. Sullivan isn't the most reliably liberal commentator himself.

[dsc]

3. He is the religious leader of one sixth of the world's population

and around one fourth of the US population. He directly interfered in our election by ordering priests not to give Kerry communion. The Pope is a very important figure.

[MoonRiver]

5. OK, I'll give you all of that.

But it's really an issue for American Catholics to work out. If he's extremely conservative perhaps we'll see the beginning of a true rebellion.

[dsc]

17. Apparently he is

but religion is a strong force. Kerry lost the Catholic vote this time and Ratzinger may well be why. This is a terrible day.

[Inland]

6. There are some, but not as many as many think.

Many posters seem shocked that the conservative catholic conclave picked a conservative catholic pope, many seem personally offended that this pope, like the last pope, thinks they are sinnners.

BFD and so what.


But some matter.
A few are worried that this pope is going to directly influence elections through slamming catholic liberals, and that's a problem worth addressing. Others have brought up opposition to international efforts at birth control, and a continuing failure at the Vatican to recognize how pissed Americans are about the pedophilia scandals and to help stop the complicity, if not help by allowing married priests.

[MoonRiver]

10. At this point I'd be doing some serious soul searching, were I Catholic.

But of course I'm not so it's impossible for me to put myself in their place.

[Inland]

16. And if I cared, I'd be interested in the result.

But I'm not. That's someone else's religious problem, not mine, although half the atheists in DU can't contain their outrage, and I've seen at least one post proselytizing for the episcopalians.

It's a poltical forum. Just saying. My interest is sympathy of the individual trying to belong to a group. However they resolve it is A-OK with me.

[MoonRiver]

20. I know. But the Catholic church has been anathema to many progressive

causes (apologies to DU Catholics, jmho), for as long as I can remember. What is new and different, in terms of a threat to Democrats, from this Pope?

[Inland]

27. Politically?

Not too much. This pope seems rooted in the fifties, like Bush, but unlike Bush, his powers are limited in the US.

I would think the biggest threat is trying to discipline catholic politicians, which I think would fail anyway.

[beam me up scottie]

34. You seem to have issues with atheists.

nt

[Inland]

36. If I do

I'm going to keep it to myself, like all my personal beliefs or lack thereof in religion.

[beam me up scottie]

38. But you said half of us can't contain our outrage.

I want to know if you mean my outrage at what the church is doing in third world countries or if I'm not in the half you are talking about.

[Inland]

39. Outrage at the Pope's religious beliefs.

As an example, there have been several posts indignant that the Pope may think all non-Catholics are going to hell--which shouldn't bother an atheist anyway, and should hardly surprise anyone else.

Fact is, most religious think the other religious of other religions are full of shit. Yet the republicans keep fundies, catholics, and to a growing extent AA christians in their party, and reach out to orthodox jews and even muslims. How do they do it? I suggest they do it by not bringing it up a lot and not taking different beliefs personally.

There's more religious discussion here in DU GD than I get anywhere fucking else in the world, with more dogmatism, and more lecturing, and more absolute intolerance than I get anywhere. And that's a fact, and it sickens me as another Dem self destruction on its way. Who gives a shit if I believe in leprechauns and fairies if I vote blue? Why, DU does, and nobody else.

You could begin and end every discussion with separation of church and state, but no. First we have to go to the validity of belief, to destroy it as the enemy. Nothing like setting up a thousand year task when there is an election in two years. Another loss on the way. See you there.

[beam me up scottie]

40. I don't attack

anyone's beliefs.

I don't care
what anyone else believes.

I care
when I am told to shut up and not complain about the fact religion is encroaching on my life.

I care
when the religious beliefs of some advocate the harm of others.

I care
when the religious beliefs of some cause them to deny human rights to others.

Should I not?

Isn't that what this country used to be all about?

Or did I miss something?



edit: punc

[Inland]

42. You missed what plenty of others are doing.

I'm sorry, but I can't read the posts to you.

There is a shitload of discussion over precisely religious beliefs, almost all of it negative if not derisive.

That would be someone else's problem--not caring much what other people's beliefs are about my beliefs--if not for the fact that religous liberal democrats are made to feel that there is no place for them. That's great, if you are a theocon: they say the same thing. Why anyone would do that is beyond me.

[beam me up scottie]

43. I have seen some intolerance

on BOTH sides. That, unfortunately is par for the course.

But no way are christians being discriminated against because of their beliefs.

All I have to do is listen to who else is crying me a river about the rights of "people of faith" these days to get an idea of what a ridiculous statement that is.

None of the atheists I have seen on du have ever told religious liberals that they are not welcome. Intolerance is something WE have had to endure, why would we practice it on others?

Criticism is not intolerance, it is not hate, it is not "bashing".
Until people learn the difference and quit stereotyping others, that's a moot point.

You can start by alerting on any atheists that you see being intolerant and derisive and not accusing those of us that aren't.

edit sp

[Inland]

44. Why indeed. Yet its certainly here.

Why anyone would even bring the validity of religion beliefs into a discussion in a poltical forum is beyond me, even for "criticism" and not "bashing". It isn't a relgious forum, but a liberal democratic one, and still there isn't much doubt that there is an enormous amount of pure, unadulterated venting about whether religion is just bullshit or not.

The question remains: why talk about religious beliefs in personal and provocative terms, if at all? What does it matter if the politics are right?

Why would someone bother to state that religious belief is "delusional" or the source of evil in the world? You say that religious intolerance is something you have had to endure, why would you practice it on others? Ask the pilgrims, who escaped a land where they were religiously persecuted to found a new land where they were the religious persecutors. In DU, the anti-religious are in big enough numbers that they get to beat the religious for their association he piestic Bush and Falwell and Robertson.

Nor do I care to press alerts. One, because I don't run to mommy, and two, for every idiot post I would alert there are ten liberal democrat christians who see it and probably just get the picture they aren't welcome, because some would rather bust their balls over religion than have a common liberal democrat identity. I just say what I mean to say and hope people believe it, namely, that none of that shit matters to me enough to raise it as a divisive issue. There are more important fish to fry. But like I said, DU GD is the only place you can't escape religious discussion.

[beam me up scottie]

45. Why make it worse?

I read a post from a catholic that called another religion a "joke" as well as saying "the Son of God founded this religion. When you go to church, you don't have some guy who decided to be a preacher for the 4th Church of God or anything."
THAT was from a catholic. I did not go around throwing that in the face of other catholics because one of them is an idiot.
My point is this:
1)You are going to see religion on du and on gd, unfortunately it is part of the political landscape, just ask frist
2)TRUST ME when I tell you it irritates me WAY more than it does you
3)Don't paint atheists or anyone else with a broad brush, it limits the value of your other opinions (which are insightful and informed from what I've seen-good point about priests in other countries having women on the side, by the way)

I happily get in snarkouts with fundies that call me out, and I'll admit I enjoy it sometimes, but when it comes to exchanging ideas and learning from everyone else on du, religion doesn't get in my way.

JMHO is all.

[Inland]

47. Yes, I read that...to a post asking why anyone would be a catholic

It isn't "throwing it in your face" when you are cruising other people's threads and somebody responds to somebody actually raising religion in a hostile manner. Same with the post proselytizing catholics for the episcopalians. Real crap for a political forum

And I'm missing the part that irritates you: is it that there is a pissy little discussion of religion going on, or the fact of the religion? I suggest the latter, because--just to clue you in--catholics really do believe their church was founded by Jesus. If you find that horrific, you haven't the temperament for a grownup religious debate. I find it more boring and besides the point of a political forum, a danger, and it ISN'T part of a political landscape anywhere except on DU and, sadly, some right wing christian groups.

Nor do I think it irritates you more than me, since I can ignore it, tell it to go to the theology forum, and see it for what it is--the usual circle jerk democratic self destruction. I don't have a dog in the fight, so I'm not getting any rocks off in points being scored. I just want it to stop. One suggestion was that christians be given the same respect as any other loopy belief system, like astrology. I think that sort of turning the other way would be fine--you know, like tolerance. The republicans, incredibly enough, have found a way to keep different beliefs in the same party while DU is intolerant.

[beam me up scottie]

48. I didn't accuse you of

throwing anything in anybody's face.

And as far as responding "to somebody actually raising religion in a hostile manner", that is why I asked you about your issues with atheists. You brought it up, not me.

The reason it irritates ME is because I never had to discuss religion or defend my lack of it UNTIL NOW, not because "there is a pissy little discussion of religion going on".
Religion does not irritate me, having my nose rubbed in it everyday does. I see you agree with the post I quoted, surprisingly enough.
I referenced that post to illustrate that intolerance comes from BOTH sides, not because I give a shit if "catholics really do believe their church was founded by Jesus". What the hell does that have to do with anything I was talking about?
I suggest you re-read the part where I say "I don't care what anyone else believes" before you accuse me of intolerance.

I, do not find it necessary make snide back-handed insults at religious people, something you seem to do on a regular basis to atheists.

[Inland]

49. Defend it at DU? Of course not.

It's the people outside, and you do have to defend at least your civil rights TO THEM.

Out there, you are defendING. Here, I suggest you are defenSIVE.

Some think that discussions of religious belief in GD are fine. But by and large, by the numbers and voltage of posts, you can see that they are not.

If it seems that I am giving snide and backhanded insults to atheists, let's be clear--I am giving snide and completely forward insults to the inability to discuss religious beliefs without flaming. It's snide and critical for a good reason, and if it falls mostly on atheists, it's because they are more likely to post in the area of discussing the validity of beliefs, which are pointless and divisive.

In fact, the discussion of religious beliefs, in which I include atheism, is accepted as long as it ends up in a negative conclusion and not otherwise, and the justification is always what's going on out there--in other words, giving a DUer a little heat because they are liberal democrats and available, whereas Bush and Falwell aren't. That's incredibly contrary and unfair. The DU believer is here because they AREN'T Bush and Falwell, and would like to be on your side in political matters, if they are allowed.

[beam me up scottie]

50. You admit you have issues with atheists on DU.

That's all I needed to hear.
Thank you for answering my question. I won't try to discuss anything else with you since you are unable to get past your prejudice.
I will continue to respond when I see you call out atheists but I won't waste anymore of your time trying to convince you not to stereotype us.

[DELUSIONAL]

7. I could care less what a bunch of men wearing dresses

opinion is on anything.

Besides which the guy is UGGGLLLLLY really ugly.

But then I'm not a member of any organized religion -- I consider most organized religions to be cults anyway. But then -- that's just my opinion.

[Quixote1818]

8. Sadly because of his stance on birth control several million

Africans will likely come down with AIDS (who might not have otherwise) because they think they are not suposed to use birth control. A new Pope could have influenced that dramaticaly. But as long as you are safe and happy that is all that matters.


:P

[MoonRiver]

14. I care intensely about AIDS in Africa.

I just never had any expectation that a Catholic Pope would help to alleviate the situation. Should I have expected something else?

[beam me up scottie]

18. Did you expect him to exacerbate the situation?

nt

[MoonRiver]

23. Do you think that will happen?

I consider the situation in Africa to be a problem which should be addressed monetarily and through education by the international political community.

[beam me up scottie]

31. Well, considering it IS happening, yes.

I am sure you are aware of the decision of the church to inform their followers in third world countries that condoms do not prevent AIDS, are you not?
And that many priests are also telling these people that condoms are actually laced with the virus, yes?

Again, are you being purposely obtuse?

[MoonRiver]

33. The church has ALWAYS, to my knowledge, been against birth control.

[beam me up scottie]

35. Did you not read my post?

:wtf:
How does lying to poor uneducated people about something that can literally save their lives constitute being "against birth control"?
It seems that they are AGAINST SAVING LIVES, not birth control.
But as long as their "souls" are saved, well, that's all that matters.
THEY ARE KILLING PEOPLE.

edit: Nevermind, you obviously really don't want to waste your "beautiful" mind learning about anything that doesn't directly affect you.
Go back to whatever you were doing.

[Quixote1818]

22. I am just giving you a hard time.

Don't take what I say to heart. Here, have a beer :beer:

[MoonRiver]

25. OK!

:D

[GainesT1958]

9. My biggest concerns about him are:

1) What he'll do to turn much of the world (even more) against us;

2) How much he'll set his own church back (especially re: women);

3) What kinds of alliances he'll form with U.S. Protestant Fundies in the process;

4) Whether he'll change his Church's foundation of "love-based" preaching into one of fear and hate-based doctrine...

Let's face it, there's not much positive and very few "acts out of love" one can say one has heard about this new Pope--VERY much UNLIKE his predecessor!

B-)

[beam me up scottie]

11. I am concerned because of the

great harm the last pope did in the name of the church and the great probability that this one will be no better.
(not to me personally but as progressives aren't we supposed to care about others?)

[MoonRiver]

15. It's about expectations.

I never expected anything from a Pope. It's not like a political election, where somebody will be controlling a country, or two, or three.

[beam me up scottie]

19. Ummmm, being responsible for the deaths

of thousands, possibly millions is a wee bit more than controlling a country or two or three, don't you think?

Are you being obtuse?

[MoonRiver]

32. No, I'm not being deliberately obtuse!

I grant that he will have some effect on Catholics. But has the Catholic church ever contributed to AIDS education and prevention? Did the church ever seriously address the issue of pedophilia among its own? The one and only good aspect of recent Vatican activism, as far as I can see, was its stand against the death penalty. I think this guy has basically the same ole same ole in terms of positions. I'm open to information otherwise, though. And I do recognize that the Pope has a huge following which may be negatively influenced/affected by him. Yes, that could be very significant to world peace etc. I'm just not sure if its such a huge amount that we should be wringing our hands.

[beam me up scottie]

37. Sorry, but I "wring my hands" about injustice

every damn day I'm alive.
Especially when it is on such a grand scale and is so EVIL.
I am an atheist, I don't believe in "evil" in and of itself, but this is as close to evil as anyone can get.
They can save lives.
They don't.
And they don't just look the other way while people are dying,
THEY ACTUALLY HELP THEM DIE.
Don't worry about it, it really doesn't concern you.

[Smarmie Doofus]

12. People worry that he will team-up with the political right....

in a more complete and more overt way than his predecessor.
This seems like a real possibility; but it will hurt them both in the long term.

BTW... are you referencing our beloved First Mother ? For shame.

[noamnety]

21. The vatican is already teamed up with the radical right

They founded the christian coalition. In view of that, I think it's fair to say the vatican has had more influence on our most recent elections - and the direction our country is moving in - than any other entity. It was the American Catholic Bishops who came up with the master plan to form a pact with other religious fundies to co-opt our elections with an anti-abortion agenda above all else.

Anyone who thinks the vatican doesn't affect their lives because they aren't personally catholic hasn't been paying attention.

I don't know how they could be more completely teamed up with the political right. But I guess they could be more overt instead of using noncatholic front folks for it.

[Smarmie Doofus]

41. Well, yes. But the RC church has been off the reservation....

on several issues: Iraq, death penalty, duty of wealthy nations toward the poor, etc. Mostly, to be sure, talk and not action. (Unlike USA "social issues" where the church mobilizes politically on abortion, sexual minorities,etc.)

There is a hint in the air that Ratzinger will drop even lip service to the " off the reservation" issues, making it more difficult for people who take the church seriously but at the same time support progressive politics, to continue to try to reconcile the two.

Maybe this will be good in the long run. But it will be difficult for those so conflicted in the short term.

[Mr_Spock]

13. You must fill your mind with Popey!

What a crappy subject this is :rofl:

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MoonRiver]

28. Lol, but that Easter Bunny is real cute and cuddly!

I think he means a lot more to me that ugly old Benedict.