Something for the Catholic-bashers on DU

[FightinNewDem]

Since Catholic-bashing has become rampant since the death of Pope John Paul and the election of Pope Benedict, I wanted to remind everyone that Catholic voters are a major part of any successful Democratic coalition. If you think we can succeed solely with Unitarians, atheists and Wiccans, you are mistaken.

Let's take a look at the Catholic Democrats in Congress:

Sen. Joe Biden
Sen. Chris Dodd
Sen. Maria Cantwell
Sen. Dick Durbin
Sen. Tom Harkin
Sen. Ted Kennedy
Sen. John Kerry
Sen. Pat Leahy
Sen. Mary Landrieu
Sen. Barbara Mikulski
Sen. Patty Murray
Sen. Jack Reed
Sen. Ken Salazar
Rep. Joe Baca
Rep. Xavier Becerra
Rep. Timothy Bishop
Rep. Robert Brady
Del. Madeline Bordallo
Rep. Mike Capuano
Rep. Dennis Cardoza
Rep. William Clay
Rep. Jim Costa
Rep. Jerry Costello
Rep. Henry Cuellar
Rep. Joe Crowley
Rep. Peter DeFazio
Rep. Mike Doyle
Rep. John Dingell
Rep. Rosa DeLauro
Rep. Bill Delahunt
Rep. Anna Eshoo
Rep. Lane Evans
Rep. Charlie Gonzalez
Rep. Raul Grijalva
Rep. Luis Gutierrez
Rep. Brian Higgens
Rep. Maurice Hinchey
Rep. Ruben Hinojosa
Rep. Tim Holden
Rep. Paul Kanjorski
Rep.Marcy Kaptur
Rep. Patrick Kennedy
Rep. Dale Kildee
Rep. Dennis Kucinich
Rep. Jim Langevin
Rep. John Larson
Rep. Stephen Lynch
Rep. Ed Markey
Rep. Carolyn McCarthy
Rep. Betty McCollum
Rep. Jim McGovern
Rep. Mike McNulty
Rep. Cynthia McKinney
Rep. Marty Meehan
Rep. Bob Menendez
Rep. Mike Michaud
Rep. George Miller
Rep. Jim Moran
Rep. John Murtha
Rep. Grace Napolitano
Rep. Richard Neal
Rep. James Oberstar
Rep. David Obey
Rep. Frank Pallone
Rep. Bill Pascrell
Rep. Ed Pastor
Rep. Nancy Pelosi
Rep. Charlie Rangell
Rep. Silvestre Reyes
Rep. Lucille Roybal-Allard
Rep. Tim Ryan
Rep. John Salazar
Rep. Loretta Sanchez
Rep. Linda Sanchez
Rep. Jose Serrano
Rep. Hilda Solis
Rep. Bart Stupak
Rep. Ellen Tauscher
Rep. Gene Taylor
Rep. Mike Thompson
Rep. Nydia Velasquez
Rep. Peter Visclosky
Rep. Diane Watson

New Democrats, Progressives, Black, White, Hispanic, Anglo, Male, Female, Baby Boomers, Gen-X. This is as good an example of the diversity (and strength) of the Democratic Party as you will ever find.

Please, let's tone down the hatered a notch or two.

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

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

[izzybeans]

7. I Agree. It's kind of like confusing Americans for George Bush.

One way to turn off a potential political alliance is by conflating their "being" with that of the leadership they had no part in selecting. If DUers are mad at the Church for the new Pope and previous blunders/bigotry on part of the past Pope then they should be focusing their critique on the Cardinals who voted for such people.

[FightinNewDem]

31. Or, in the alternative...

...don't join the Catholic Church.

Nobody is forcing anyone to become a Catholic. What galls me is to hear the bitter, angry denunciations of the Church from people who aren't members.

In the past people have asked me what I thought about the Gene Robinson/Episcopal Diocese of NH controversy. My answer was that since I am not an Episcopalian, it's not my problem. I have enough issues with how Bishop mcCormack has run the Diocese of Manchester without mucking around in other folk's business.

[Liberal Veteran]

36. Sorry, but people don't get a free pass to promote bigotry and intolerance

....simply because they where a funny hat and claim to be religious.

I am not a member of Westboro Baptist Church, but that doesn't mean that I have no right to call Fred Phelps and his insane progeny are not the vilest and most disgusting scum on the face of the earth.

If the Pope feels a need to attack me and mine, I am not about to sit back and say "Well, screw that...I'm not catholic". I am going to fight back. That isn't bashing....that's self-defense.

[arwalden]

43. Wow...

<< Nobody is forcing anyone to become a Catholic. >>

Yet the Catholic church and its leaders FORCE themselves into US and global politics to the extent that they influence public policy and laws and elections with results that DO have an effect on non-Catholics. They create and contribute to the atmosphere of hatred and intolerance and bigotry with their bigoted, regressive and backward way of thinking.

Yet your response is "nobody is forcing anyone to become a Catholic"??

<< What galls me is to hear the bitter, angry denunciations of the Church from people who aren't members. >>

That's an astoundingly arrogant statement to make. Why would anyone suggest that ONLY Catholics should have the right to criticize the church, its leaders and its policies?

[izzybeans]

62. Hence, critique the leaders. That was my message.

I agree that anyone has that right. I'm not Catholic but I think its not wise to paint in broad strokes on this subject. Keep the rhetoric pointed in the proper direction at the those on top of the church bureaucracy. They set the agenda. Otherwise we are going to start alienating the many Catholics who are allied with us on matters of importance. The Pope is a bigot. That's plain. But to extrapolate that to characterize millions of people is dangerously naive. Even to speak in terms of probability sill doesn't get the point (i.e. the likelihood of a Catholic being anti-choice is greater than for other denominations (except for the rabidly protestant) or something). We'll be forcing Catholics further to the right.

I think this is what the poster is responding to (clumsily maybe). Many on this board are painting with too large a brush. it would be like abandoning the l/b/g/t employees of Microsoft just because their board backed out of supporting progressive civil rights legislation. Well they could just quit, right? Perhaps its not that easy.

[arwalden]

63. Well...

<< "Hence, critique the leaders. That was my message." >>

But we should say nothing about those who support the leaders? Shall we remain silent around those who give their approval because we risk "offending" them?

What about those folks? Is there any room to criticize them as well?

<< I agree that anyone has that right. >>

That's good.

<< I'm not Catholic but I think its not wise to paint in broad strokes on this subject. Keep the rhetoric pointed in the proper direction at the those on top of the church bureaucracy. >>

That's a good place to start... but ought not the supporters of such backward, regressive, anti-intellectual, bigoted and hateful rhetoric also be addressed. For what harm is the rhetoric itself but not for the followers and those who succumb to the atmosphere of intolerance and hatred and violence.

<< They set the agenda. Otherwise we are going to start alienating the many Catholics who are allied with us on matters of importance. The Pope is a bigot. That's plain. But to extrapolate that to characterize millions of people is dangerously naive. Even to speak in terms of probability sill doesn't get the point (i.e. the likelihood of a Catholic being anti-choice is greater than for other denominations (except for the rabidly protestant) or something). We'll be forcing Catholics further to the right.>>

So the ones who are "allied with us" will move to the right? They will abandon their principles because they feel insulted at someone's misdirected anger at their leader?

Wow... touchy bunch of folks, aren't they? :eyes:

<< I think this is what the poster is responding to (clumsily maybe). Many on this board are painting with too large a brush. >>

I haven't seen the wholesale bashing of Catholics that you and others are referring to. But if such things exist, and if such people are here, then they and their posts like that should be handled on a case-by-case basis. DU has rules against such behavior.

The demands that I keep hearing amount to demands for SPECIAL treatment and that people pay-respects to a church and its leaders for no other reason than the fact that it is a religious institution and religious leaders.

<< it would be like abandoning the l/b/g/t employees of Microsoft just because their board backed out of supporting progressive civil rights legislation. Well they could just quit, right? Perhaps its not that easy. >>

No, it would not be like that at all. Comparing the church to someone's employer is a bit of a stretch. Perhaps your example might work if someone made a career out of their religion, and one relied on their church to pay their bills and provide their insurance, etc.

[izzybeans]

82. I've seen it here.

<<but ought not the supporters of such backward, regressive, anti-intellectual, bigoted and hateful rhetoric also be addressed.>>

But I wasn't referring to you. I was referring to the now too many to count threads that don't account for the fact that there are many Catholics who don't support such things. They ignore the reformers. I'm all for challenging the regressive inquisitor and those who follow him. However, what gets lost on this name calling is that the largest progressive church reform group in this country happens to be Catholic. Your concern is being addressed right here and by members, priests, and cardinals of the catholic church even:

http://www.cta-usa.org/index2.php?dest=mission.html

And here's a story about the aspirations for what a progressive Pope would have looked like. Something the very few Catholics I know were praying for (not in the "born-again" sense, in a metaphorical bad pun sort of way) and when they found out who the Pope was they were put off.

http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=45457

These snips summarize it well enough for me:

-snip

The new pope must recognize that there is wisdom to be shared by the laity which will assist him in confronting those matters left undone by the previous pope, especially on issues of human sexuality. He may also need to distance himself from some of the positions taken by Pope John Paul II in order to deal with the important issues facing the institution."

The women's role in the Church will continue to be a major issue despite the previous pope's ban on discussing women's ordination. "According to a recent AP poll, most American Catholics, 60 percent, said women should be allowed to become priests," Pieczynski pointed out. "The importance of integrating women fully into all church ministries is not only an issue of justice and equality for all members of the Church, but an acceptance of God's calling of women to the priesthood, which will not go away. The Church needs the fullness of the gifts women bring to the Church," declared Pieczynski. "Women will be closely monitoring how the next pope approaches this issue."

end snip-

It wasn't just non-Catholics who hoped for a breath of non-inquisitorial fresh air. When you hear people like Ratzinger decry reformers he is vilifying these Catholics who are seeking to democratize the church and bring the excluded back in.

My only point in bringing this up is my belief that there is nothing weaker and more tragic than fractured allies. Especially when that division is grounded in meaningless terms. But then again DU can keep conflating the office of the inquisitor with the progressive reformers. This will just embroil them in the endless tu quoque.

[readmoreoften]

105. No one is bashing progressive Catholics

But don't assume all Catholics on DU are progressive. Catholics who support Ratzinger and apologize for him... yes, we are critical of them and for good reason.

[izzybeans]

124. I'm just asking for clarity. I'm on your side here. n/t

[readmoreoften]

125. I understand. But nobody is bashing individuals Catholics.

This has been more than established. There are definitely many faithful however on DU who feel that all criticism of the RCC's policies is some resurgence of late 19th and early 20th century anti-catholic pro-protestant nativism. By merely criticizing the RCC's position that characterizes us as EVIL, we are religion-hating bashers of wealthy protestant stock re-igniting an old darkness festering in our soul...

We are being denied the right to self-defense. We are being called triple-evil.

*Intrinsically Evil by the Church
*Evil Haters of Religion
*Evil Destroyers of the Democratic Party.

The word 'bash' is out of control on this board.
I know what bashing means. My partner has a chipped front tooth from being curbed by a gang of god-fearing southern boys. Criticism of hate is not hate.

[izzybeans]

131. That's not at all what I'm saying. And I thought I was directing this

to posters who understood that because they themselves weren't engaged in unfair characterizations as far as I read from the thread. I was speaking of the malicious sort that perhaps I've paid too close attention to (see below). I'm coming to realize I apparently have been reading selectively (my excuse is in the following sentence).

Anyway this is how I've been reading the DU lately: The reason why I choose to comment, which as you can see by my post count I do not do frequently, because this sort of essentialization should not occur on a progressive website. (period). You would not like it if it were happening to you.

When a critique starts out with an unqualified noun, and a proper one at that, it lumps far too many people together. You could probably do a search and count up how many times this sentence structure occurs; if you feel the need to prove this is unimportant you're free to do so. Here it is: "Catholics are X becuase Y." It's function is the same as "Blacks are X because Y." And you obviously understand the extent of mischaracterization that sort of gross reification represents. I've used the same argument in defense of others before-in a different form. I personally don't care what the identity label is. My argument will be the same.

I've seen passionate pleas from progressive members of the catholic church on this board to stop with the "Catholics are X" formula. And I agree that it shouldn't be here. These are the people who have stopped posting or remain silent more so then the others.

I've said stuff like this: "The pope is X" becuase there is all this information to indicate he is exactly what X includes. You and I know what that is. I am hoping that when people point out the hypocracy they don't mischaracterize their progressive allies who aren't biggots by confusing this one person for millions of others. The Pope is X critique can be extended to include those cardinals voting for him, and then to his followers in the laity. But I get really uncomfortable when it moves into places where it does not belong. That's when it becomes unnecessarily divisive and counterproductive.

I've been told that somehow this is placating some mythical critique. I interpret it as begging for more precision. If you disagree then that's fine.

[readmoreoften]

137. I agree with the Catholics are X

Catholics are not ANYTHING. They are individual people. But if I say 'Catholics on DU who support Ratzinger', I'm being clear. But, you must admit that's a mouthful. I'm starting to say Ratzinger Apologists.

But I reserve my right to speak directly about Ratzinger himself. I can say Ratzinger is wrong, Ratzinger is dangerous. I could say he's a Nazi, but it would be untrue from what I've seen. I could say he was an HJ and that would be correct regardless of his reason for affiliation.

I can say:

Ratzinger is X if X=

*involved in hate speech against gays
*partially responsible for the death of many Africans due to AIDS
*partially responsible for the death of women who die during botched, unsafe abortions.

That algebra is fair. I'm allowed to make people accountable for their political positions. Ratzinger is a pope, he's not a powerless victim.

[izzybeans]

138. I must apologize. I read this thread in its infancy and didn't realize

the direction it went. I am embarrassed. I think I see why there is some confusion here.

I completely agree and support what you are saying. Again I apologize.

[Charon]

196. Bashing Individual Catholics

You must have missed most of the threads on Cardinal Ratzinger/Pope Benedict XVI

[Kathy in Cambridge]

146. That's exactly how I feel

go over to the Catholic Forum and watch them defend the actions of the Vatican during WWII. I stare the wrongdoings of my Church in the face, and I don't make excuses for them.

[Scurrilous]

184. People in the Catholic Forum...

...defending the Vatican? Egads!

[Kathy in Cambridge]

198. No. Defending a Pope whose actions during WWII were less than noble

laundering money for the Nazis? facilitating their escape to South America? If someone defends that, then they have REAL problems. :eyes:

[arwalden]

106. Thanks For Sharing Your Thoughts...

<< But I wasn't referring to you. >>

Yes, I know. Thanks for the reassurance though.

<< I was referring to the now too many to count threads that don't account for the fact that there are many Catholics who don't support such things. They ignore the reformers.>>

That's a bit impractical to do in a forum such as this. It's not very realistic to expect every message (or thread) which scorns the Pope and those who support him to offer equal-time "disclaimers" that acknowledge those progressive Catholics who also oppose his bigotry.

When I post an angry message because the Pope says (insert-bigoted-statement-here). Do you honestly expect me to add an equal-time paragraph to thank and pay homage to those Catholics who agree with me? Are these folks that emotionally needy or insecure?

<< I'm all for challenging the regressive inquisitor and those who follow him. However, what gets lost on this name calling is that the largest progressive church reform group in this country happens to be Catholic. >>

Then why are they silent? Or why to they appear to be silent? Are their "tactics" not working? Are they just grumbling among themselves and posting messages to invisible blogs? (While still contributing money to the church and allowing their names to remain on the church membership list?) Clearly, whatever it is that they are doing isn't very effective.

Instead sitting around with hurt feelings and pretending that they are the "victims" of the ill-will that's being generated by their church leaders... perhaps they should try to adopt the same tactics and methods being used by those that actively oppose them.

<< Your concern is being addressed right here and by members, priests, and cardinals of the catholic church even: >>

It's a start, and it's good, but it's not good enough. And it's certainly not enough to shut me up.

By pointing this out to me, it seems that your purpose is to placate and to put an end to the deserved criticism. In a way, I'm reminded of people who tried to defend Pope JP2 by saying "but-he-opposed-the-war".

Yes... opposing the war is a good thing, but that's not enough to keep silent against his charges that my relationship is an ideology of evil. Now the new pope thinks we're wicked. Not even a week into his new job and he johnny-on-the-spot to condemn the queers.

Many of these touchy-Catholics will just have to develop thicker skin when I criticize the new pope and the church for their idiotic policies, and when I criticize those who support those idiotic policies.

And on a slight tangent, I often wonder: why are some Catholics so upset that people scorn the pope's bigotry and the supporters of the bigotry unless they include themselves as supporters? Does this have something to do with the demand that ONLY Catholics are in a position to criticize the Pope? Or the specious argument that if I'm not Catholic then it doesn't affect me?

Anyway... to continue...

<< It wasn't just non-Catholics who hoped for a breath of non-inquisitorial fresh air. When you hear people like Ratzinger decry reformers he is vilifying these Catholics who are seeking to democratize the church and bring the excluded back in. >>

I'm aware of that.

<< My only point in bringing this up is my belief that there is nothing weaker and more tragic than fractured allies. >>

I will not coddle or temper my condemnation of the Pope and church leaders because the overly-sensitives might be offended. I'm have no plans to offer counter-point balancing-act words of gratitude and praise for every word of scorn that I deliver to the Pope.

<< Especially when that division is grounded in meaningless terms. >>

I'm afraid I don't understand what you're referring to when you say "meaningless terms".

<< But then again DU can keep conflating the office of the inquisitor with the progressive reformers. This will just embroil them in the endless tu quoque.>>

Nope, I don't believe that DU is confusing the two. I think the hypersensitives here are confusing them. I think that they are personalizing it too much. I think that they are INCAPABLE from separating themselves from the church. They are so "into" their religion and adoration of its leaders that they have "become" the religion themselves. So naturally, in their mind, an attack on the religious institution or it's leaders is considered to be personally "bashing" them.

This is something of their OWN making. They INVENT things to be upset at. They pretend to be victims. They whine and petition the administrators en masse to get special privileges and special protections.

Too bad for them. Their hypersensitivity and their psychological persecuted martyr complex are not my problem. Those folks who think that they they are special need to get over themselves. They are not entitled to anything from me by virtue of their religion. --- I will not be held to a different standard because of their special needs. I will not be BULLIED by them into paying respects to their religion, their holy leaders, or their religious institution.

I'll stop now... I'm starting to argue and repeat points that have already been covered elsewhere in this thread.

Thanks again for your response.

[izzybeans]

123. You obviously misread me. n/t

[arwalden]

154. No, I Don't Believe I Misread You.

But if I did, then I am heartily sorry and I give you my apologies. What makes you think that I misread you?

I think you made some good points, and that you presented them in a thoughtful and thorough way. It's just that I didn't agree with you 100%. Other than total agreement, what more could I have said to acknowledge the points you made, and indicate that I understood them? What does my reply lack? What would convince you that I didn't misread you?

In my reply to you, I also reiterated some of the points I had made earlier--to contrast them with your points, and with some of the arguments being made elsewhere in this thread. Perhaps that's where you think I misread you. I don't know. Your brief one-line response didn't give much of a clue.

Oh well. I tried.

[izzybeans]

201. I didn't realize what went on in this thread. I had read it when it first

started but left it at that and so my points were embarassingly mute. If I had known it went in the direction it did I would have not wasted your time and sat back and watched silently. My only comments when I finally got around to reading the rest of the thread were only limited to things like "I agree completely" and other similar things.

I actually agree with pretty much all you had to say on the subject. I responded to you specifically because of that. I only hoped to build a consensus on being very specific with the critique. You already were very specific in your critique. I was inspired by reading threads that spiraled out of control into what appeared to be people agreeing with each other in principle but bickering nonetheless.

I wasn't trying to placate what you were doing.(that was the only comment I responded to because it was the only one I could disagree with). It did inspire me to finish the thread. I wish I could retract the whole thing because I didn't want to argue the side you were arguing against. But it certainly appears that way in the context of this thread. But I suppose it might be a good lesson for someone reading the thread: "Read the whole thing" so you don't sidetrack somebody with something important to say.

sorry.

[Zenlitened]

112. Isn't calling ratzinger "the regressive inquisitor "...

... an example of bashing, itself?

Certainly there are some on DU who would seem quite ready to cry "foul" over that phrase, were it posted in a thread titled "This pope stinks" or something along those lines.

What makes it permissable for one person to use that language, but not another?

[izzybeans]

122. Surely I don't care. If that's the way they want to parse words

then let them.

On edit: He did work for the office formerly known as the inquisition. My characterization seems spot on in my opinion. If pointing that out is offensive then I'm at a loss. I confined my critique to the pope, his former post, and what it stands for. If that offends someone then I'm offended for them in turn. They should know how offensive this man is. His biography and his first actions really lend themselves to that conclusion. But I'm no authority on the matter. I just don't like it when friends of mine are lumped together with this person unreflectively.

[Zenlitened]

155. We agree on that, certainly: I'm at a loss, too, to explain...

... how some people take personal offense over criticism of ratzinger, the previous pope, or vatican policies that clearly are at-odds with progressive ideals.

[MollyStark]

177. The Pope is a Nazi threads even offended me

It is possible to say what you have to say without name calling.

[Zenlitened]

199. Unfortunately, the parallels are disturbingly close.

Here is a man, ratzinger, who seems all too willing to use a page right out of the nazi playbook: demonizing entire groups of people as "evil" or "immoral" or "disordered"... and blaming them for all that's wrong in the world today.

That's horrifying. And it's got to stop. There is simply no excuse for that sort of behavior from a political leader, let alone a religious leader.



(edit spelling)

[hiley]

203. Zenlitened

"Unfortunately, the parallels are disturbingly close." Exactly !

[hiley]

204. Besides hate speech toward gays

Pope Secret

Ratzinger is also the author of a May 2001 letter to bishops stating the law regarding strict secrecy in sex abuse cases. Issued by Pope John XXIII 40 years ago the law is chilling.
snip---
http://innworldreport.net/index.htm



enough said..

[JackRiddler]

158. Well, it's questionable.

He is regressive, but he is not technically the "regressive inquisitor." Actually, he IS the Grand Inquisitor, nowadays under a different title, but sitting in that position and running the exact same church office of the Inquisition that killed Tycho Brahe, burned thousands of "heretics" at the stake, censured Galileo, and censored books down to this day. Thus he was the head of a criminal organization within the larger church. Which has a long history of crime even aside from the Inquisition. But you're right, "regressive inquisitor" is not an official title.

[muriel_volestrangler]

174. Just for historical accuracy - the Inquisition didn't kill Tycho Brahe

http://www.nada.kth.se/~fred/tycho/index.html

but then he said the earth didn't move - just that the other planets orbited around the Sun. He died either from bladder complications or mercury poisoning.

Perhaps you're thinking of Giordano Bruno, burnt at the stake in 1600 for various heresies, including astronomical ones.

[JackRiddler]

205. correction accepted...

I should look up things before posting - Bruno, yes.

[foreigncorrespondent]

116. Right...

Nobody is forcing anyone to become a Catholic.

...but the Catholic church IS forcing their beliefs on the world.

I personally do not have problems with people who are Catholic. My problem with the church lies with its bigoted leaders, and those who support them. And from what I have seen since the death of JPII and the election of the new Pope on DU has been people expressing their disgust for leaders of the church, and those who support the leaders, rather than ALL Catholics. There is a HUGE difference.

So I might not be Catholic, but damned if I will sit by and let some church I am not a member of call me evil for simply loving another person.

Sorry, mate, there are NO free passes. If you belong to a church that dishes out the kind of bigoted remarks it has in the past, then you had better get used to hearing peoples fillings on the issue.

On edit: Typo

[readmoreoften]

117. Courageous people take stands on injustice.

I don't apologize for slavery, early 20th century nativism or the Catholic-bashing that goes on by Southern freepers, jim crow democrats of the early 20th century, or the (often ethnic) cops who raped and battered lesbians and gay men in the 1950s and 60s. I don't apologize for people who tell 'nigger jokes' or who say that some women deserve to be raped.

So if you apologize for a gay-bashing head of state with an enormous constituency who extends beyond his national gates, then you are giving your tacit support. And if you don't agree and don't at least SPEAK OUT AGAINST IT ON AN ANONYMOUS MESSAGE BOARD then I find this more than a bit cowardly.

[foreigncorrespondent]

130. Um!

I really don't know how to take your reply. Only because I can't work out if you are saying I should be speaking out, or I am a coward. Or those who have been calling us bashers are the cowards. :shrug:

I DO speak out about any injustice my community faces. I DO speak out about any injustice other minority communities may face.

I haven't said as much as I would like simply because if I let my true feelings known, I would be banned from DU.

Sorry to cut this short, but I am leaving for work very shortly.

On edit: typo

[readmoreoften]

134. SORRY FOREIGN! MISDIRECTED POST

That post toooooootally landed in the wrong place!
I know who you are and what you've been doing!
I know that you fight the good fight!
:hi: :pals:

[foreigncorrespondent]

189. No worries!!!

We have all done it in the past!

Have a good one. :pals:

[izzybeans]

132. I concur completely.

[JackRiddler]

157. When the church...

stops interfering in politics and stops brainwashing people into creating more people than the planet can support, I might stop denouncing the Church. Get out of my life, I'll get out of yours. When the church issues an apology to all the victims of the Inquisition and the Conquistadors, I might stop denouncing the Church.

Until then, you can pretend all you like that the Church has no impact on the 5 billion people who are free of it (most of them imprisoned in other, similar institutions) but pretending won't make it so.

[jdj]

160. wow, how pc.

comparison of homosexuality
to the pedophilia scandal in the catholic church.

it's true that probably all patriarchal churches have their pedophilia problems since paternalistic religion is all about the care and feeding of the penis, first and foremost, but the catholic church leaders should and will be held to the highest level of contempt for their protection of the pederasty, and their followers will just have to suck it up and deal with it.

remember, the 'sins of the fathers' is more than just genetic.

[kool aid man]

24. biggots

Come on there are no bigots in our party .. .. ..

[Freedom_from_Chains]

2. Everytime I see one of these post

I can't help but think of the old saying "respect is earned, not demanded".

[otohara]

107. One of These "You People" Posts

Dems are supposed to have a sense of humor. These "you people" posts remind me of those people on the other side.

[Freedom_from_Chains]

110. These "you people" posts remind me of those people on the other side.

I guess someone here has to take responsibility to make sure that the sinners are kept in line.

[Atman]

3. How many are REAL Catholics?

You know, the kind that go to church regularly, and actually follow the teachings of their church? That italicized part is the most important.

I was raised Catholic. On alternate weekends I was raised Protestant (ah, mixed marriages!). Now I'm an atheist. But I will tell you what, I'm having a hard time with all these people saying The Rat was a bad choice, because he is old skool and won't adapt to the changing mores of society. But hey, it is not the church's role to adapt. If you use a scripture as your guide, that scripture is the guide, period. You can't say you worship based upon the teachings of a 2000 year old book, but then want the book to adapt to modern times. Either get a new book that has the stuff you want, or leave the Catholic church.

IMO, THAT is the real "problem" with the Catholic church...too many people like me were raised Catholic, still call themselves Catholic, still go to church on Easter and Christmas, but otherwise are about as "Catholic" as I am. In fact, I'd bet in many ways, I'm far more in line with the teachings of the Christ than many of the names on the list above...how many of them voted to allow Bush to kill 100,000 Iraqi men, women and children? How many of them voted to support the predatory practices of the credit card industry? I could go on and on, but you get my point.

AND, one last thing I'm tired of...people telling me that if I question what is going on I'm a "Catholic hater." Why can't I completely disagree and disapprove of something and not "hate" it?

[arwalden]

4. And This Is Supposed To EXCUSE The Bigotry Of The Church And Its Leaders?

Is your little list the equivalent to people saying "but-he-opposed-the-war" when the Pope was scorned for his regressive and backward and hateful statements about homos?

Sorry... NO FREE PASSES on the bigots or those who support them.

-- Allen

PS: Heh-heh... you said "Catholic Bashers"... that cracks me up every time I hear it. "How dare you criticize the Pope? You're bashing me!"

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

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

[arwalden]

16. Oh Brother! -- Here's Your Reply, FightinNewDem...

<< "Let me get this straight..." >>

Heh-heh... you said "straight". Funny!

<< Anyone who disagrees with your worldview must be a bigot? >>

What did I say that would make you jump to that erroneous conclusion and absurd accusation?

What "worldview" are you talking about? Can you be more specific? I understand the connotations behind that word and such a question... did you have something particular in mind, or did you just want to toss out inflamatory rhetoric to heat things up a little bit?

<< People who are strongly committed to their faith tradition are bigots, despite all evidence to the contrary? >>

No anyone who thinks that is incorrect. Only those who support the bigotry of the church and its leaders. I don't care if it's "active" support ("Yay-pope! Go-get-those-wicked-faggots!"), or if they give their permission and consent by remaining silent and doing nothing.

<< I suggest you take a long look in the mirror. >>

Why should I do that? Why are you asking that? Is that a clever attempt to get around DU's rule against name-calling? Are you calling me a bigot?

<< A glib, worldly air might go over well at a cocktail party, but when you use it as an excuse to belittle and demean the beliefs of millions of Americans, you have indeed stooped to the level of James Dobson and Fred Phelps. >>

I will always (ALWAYS!) "belittle and demean" the beliefs of anyone (ANYONE!) who believes, or supports the notion, that I do not deserve the same rights as others. I'll always speak harshly about and scorn those who do nothing and say nothing when their leaders call my relationship part of an ideology of evil, or wicked.

Kwitcherbellyachin! The "Whaaa-you-criticized-the-Pope-so-I'm-a-victim" routine is tiresome. :eyes:

[Liberal Veteran]

23. I call "BULLSHIT".

How dare the catholic church try to play the role of the injured party on this issue of homosexuality!!!!!

Pope JP called my 15 year relationship part of an "ideology of evil" and for responding that he (and his church doctrine) is bigotted, I am branded a "Catholic Basher"?

[Eloriel]

44. I was thinking about this issue a little earlier today

I myself was raised Catholic but left the Church when I was in 7th grade for a number of reasons I've posted on at length here at DU and won't go into again. I have MANY issues with the Church, not the least of which is the continued refusal to join the Late 20th Century and ordain women.

My issues are WITH THE CHURCH and a few select individuals (JP2, Benedict, Cardinal Law) who are so visibly responsible for perpetrating what I consider -- what most progressives, including liberal and progressive Catholics consider -- horrible wrongs. I don't bash the laity, people who may find their own fault(s) with the Church but find comfort and solace in the religion. I don't agree with it, but they're welcome to it for my part (as long as they don't insist on waving their faith in front of MY nose, which too many here DUers have been wont to do lately).

I will continue to have serious, bitter resentment about the Church and the active harm it causes millions of people -- a good many of them women -- around the world on a daily basis. And if the subject is brought up, I will exercise MY right to voice my criticisms of the Church and whichever of its leaders is appropriate to criticize.

That ain't Catholic-bashing in my book.

[izzybeans]

133. I hope you didn't interpret me as thinking that

up above. I responded to you precisely because we agree. I think however that this idea of Bashing is getting picked up because others on this forum are doing just that. Not you. I was only trying to point that out. People are becoming very defensive and for good reason. We all have reason to be angry, especially after the comments about Spain. There are others who have taken this as opportunity to pretend their atheism comes without idols and therefore superior to religion.-these were the folk I directed my comments to.

I won't waste anymore of your time.

[Lindacooks]

88. Yep! We're not bashing Catholics, just

right wing whackos who condemn gays, women, children, and birth control, causing misery and strife around the world.

[ananda]

5. If..

.. the new pope is so bashable, that's not my fault.

Ratzinger is a rat in pope's clothing, with apologies to all rats.

Ratzy should be apologizing to all Spaniards and all gays right about now.

Sue

[zanne]

8. Enough of the religious victim mentality already!

We hear enough of that from the right wing!

[LeftCoast]

9. Hey! I just want to say that this Wiccan does not Catholic bash

I may criticize aspects of the religion (handling of the Priest scandal, etc), but I respect all faiths including atheism. It drives me batty to see people on DU cast blanket aspersions on any group. This sort of behavior is something one would expect from the right wing. I hold my liberal peers to a higher standard of conduct.

[FightinNewDem]

12. Thank You!

You have hit the nail on the head.

No one is demanding complete agreement with all aspects of Catholic doctrine. All I want to see is a reasonable level of respect for the faith traditions of a lot of progressive folks.

Even within the Catholic Church there is disagreement over matters of doctrine. Would I have preferred to see Cardinal Mahoney, Cardinal Maradiega or Cardinal Daneels elected Pope? Sure. But I also understand that my viewpoint is not the only one within the Church, and that there are times when other views will hold the upper hand.

[donco6]

17. I don't get it.

Why on earth should I respect any religion - Catholicism or otherwise - that doesn't respect me? It's a two-way street. They teach their billions of followers that gay people are evil and aberrant, but I'm supposed to respect them because they're big?

Makes no sense.

And no, I'm not trying to say that it's OK to make jokes about dead popes or whatever - that's just childish and silly. But I definitely will not be "respecting" them any time soon.

[LeftCoast]

25. Forgot to mention - I'm a big flamin' homo too

I think there is a difference between valid criticism and blanket condemnation of an entire belief system and its followers. There are many issues in the Catholic faith that I disagree vehemently with just as I think there are some Catholics who are pure evil - but do the works of people such as Mother Theresa mean nothing? Do the positive teachings of their church count for nothing?

Nobody and no ideology is perfect. Some are farther from perfect than others. The problem is that when you "bash" you attack the entire edifce, the good with the bad. I think that's intelectually lazy and hurtful to the many good people who follow that faith.

[donco6]

28. As long as that is the def. of "bash"

I can go with that. Some seem to think that saying ANYTHING bad about Catholicism is "bashing." That's where I draw the line. Legitimate complaints and arguments against specific doctrines - fair game.

[LeftCoast]

32. Sounds like we're in agreement!

:hi:

[cap]

42. there are people within the church working on outreach

Father Curran put healthy homosexual relations on a par with hetero... There are gay ministries... unfortunately, this Pope has stifled these efforts.

[kool aid man]

19. aspersions

Is'nt that what we do best ??, cast aspersions of guilt and doubt on our political opponents to win elections .. .. ..

[LeftCoast]

27. No - that's what Republicans do

And welcome to DU! :toast:

[ruggerson]

56. Why do I get the feeling

the Viking Dogs (we have dogs, you guys have kittens) are just about to be unleashed.

[Scurrilous]

10. Impressive list...

...thanks for posting. :thumbsup:

[MollyStark]

11. 55 percent of Catholics voted for Bush in 2004

That's some Catholic coalition.

[FightinNewDem]

15. Look at the numbers

Compare the percentage of non-Hispanic Catholics voting for Kerry to that of other Christian denominations.

By the way, you have proved my point. When a Democratic candidate does not resonate with Catholic voters, the Democratic candidate is sunk. Clinton, a Baptist, had a message that appealed to Catholics, and he won. Kerry, despite being a regular communicant at the Paulist Center in Boston, experienced a cultural disconnect, and suffered at the polls.

If the image of the Democratic Party is one of militant secularism and hostility to organized religion, then the task of appealing to church-going voters- be they Catholic, Orthodox, Evengelical, or mainline Protestant- becomes nearly impossible.

[Atman]

20. How quickly you forget history...

"Kerry, despite being a regular communicant at the Paulist Center in Boston, experienced a cultural disconnect, and suffered at the polls."


Really? You don't seem to recall that the new Pope, (amazingly, with business connections to the Bush family via Neil), DENOUNCED KERRY and told Catholics he was not worthy of taking communion.

You left that part out. Don't you think maybe this event also has SOME impact on Kerry's standing with Catholics?

[kwassa]

33. If 55% of Catholics voted for Bush, 45% did not, and we need them

Simple as that.

[Atman]

38. It is "simple as that" when you try to ignore the other factors

You can't ignore Ratzinger's actions and say they weren't involved in Kerry's standing among Catholics. If Ratzinger, a business associate of Bush's, is going to denounce every opponent of Bush's -- as I suspect he might well be inclined to do -- then your "simple as that" argument isn't so simple, is it?

[Zynx]

66. Once again - No Catholic majority, no Democrat President

It is *impossible* for the Democrats to win without carrying a decent majority of Catholic voters.

Catholics are a historic Democratic core group - that they voted for Bush in 2004 was a disaster. Hurling invective is not going to make this better - it will make it worse though, because Catholics are from demographics that tend to vote in high numbers.

[arwalden]

68. So These Catholics Will Abandon Their True Principles...

... and seek "revenge" on Democrats, and vote against their own best interests, because the feel "slighted" or "offended"? Or because they take it personally when someone "bashes" (sic) the Pope, or when someone's anger at the Pope is misdirected at them with unfair broad-brush comments?

Wow... they're an awfully touchy bunch, aren't they?

I'd not be surprised if the next thing you'll be saying is that the homos should just sit down and shut up because they are too flamboyant and offensive and that they lose the votes of "middle America".

[Zynx]

71. We need more Catholic voters on our side, not ANY fewer.

Kerry gets a historical % of the Catholic vote for Dems in 2004, he is President right now.

Attacking Catholics gets you NO additional votes and even if one or two percent of them switch votes or stay home, we are in a bigger hole than we already were with what they did in 2004 because what we got then was lousy from a historical point of view and already crippling. Gore won Catholics. Clinton won Catholics. Both won the popular vote. Kerry did not win Catholics. Kerry did not win the popular vote.

And yes, you will certainly offend a decent % of Catholics by going after the pope as a "Nazi" or going after religion in general.

[sonicx]

73. What about the gay thing?

Are more people of faith in general going to overlook the fact that Democrats stand up for gay and reproductive rights?

[arwalden]

74. And If The Homos Would Just Shut Up... We Could Get Even MORE Votes, Eh?

Sorry... your arguments aren't compelling enough to convince me to give a free pass to bigoted leaders, or their active and passive supporters.

[kwassa]

111. Your response sounds bigoted in and of itself

You seen Catholicism through very narrow blinders, in my opinion.

The Catholic church does enormous amount of good in the world in areas not related to the controversial stands on birth control, abortion, and homosexuality.

[readmoreoften]

113. Yes, he does see Catholicism through narrow blinders

He sees it through the narrow blinders of a gay man who is being demonized by the Church.

Are Democrats supposed to forgive fundamentalists for the "enormous amount of charity" they provide in their early church canned goods drives?

The Nation of Islam does a tremendous amount of good for the esteem of young black men. Am I supposed to accept their stance on Jews?

American Jews have a long history of social justice causes, am I supposed to stop criticizing Sharon?

You certainly see gay people in the world through pretty narrow blinders in my opinion. We're just people who are expendable and unimportant. We can be rationalized away.

You're an apologist.

[arwalden]

187. Sorry... NO FREE PASSES!

I want to hold them accountable, but it seems that many here want to do nothing but make excuses and look the other way. Why?

<< The Catholic church does enormous amount of good in the world in areas not related to the controversial stands on birth control, abortion, and homosexuality. >>

Not to mention being anti-science, anti-woman, anti-disease prevention, anti-research, anti-intellectual, anti-progressive.

[MollyStark]

176. Kerry did not lose the Catholic vote because of non Catholics "bashing"

He lost the vote because of the Cathlolics bashing everyone else. Women and gays in particular have been targeted by the hierarchy.

[Atman]

191. Why do you continue to ignore the Pope Rat connection?

You seem to almost intentionally want to miss the point. "Gore won Catholics. Clinton won Catholics. Both won the popular vote. Kerry did not win Catholics." Did EITHER of them have a leader of the Catholic church - -a business partner of the BFEE -- come out and tell Catholics NOT TO VOTE FOR THEM?

You've conveniently tossed this aside, as if it had no bearing on Kerry's standing with Catholics. Christ! What we really need to do, then, is convince the Pope to shut the hell up, and not get involved in politics! But to tell everyone else to change their approach to wooing Catholics because that is the only way to win their vote is totally wrong...it is like saying to stop the boat from sinking we just need to don life jackets, and not plug the leak in the boat.

[arwalden]

193. People Ignore That Because It's Inconvenient To Face Facts...

... and because it flies in the face of their claims to the contrary.

[MissWaverly]

84. Look, I am Catholic

I can take the howls of anguish from anyone who's be labeled "inherently evil due to being a homosexual." As I have stated elsewhere on DU Catholic doctrine that I was taught said that "the body is just the temple for the spirit." If being gay is genetic which I believe it is, then it cannot be sinful. Since the physical body itself does not have the power to choose right over wrong.

The failure of the Catholic leadership in American on the issue of child sexual abuse is something horrendous which I do not for 1 minute excuse or try to explain. May justice be carried out for every shameful act not matter where it leads.

Did I vote for Kerry, yes, I know nuns that were big Kerry supporters, the Catholic doctrine has many good qualities that I have supported and continue to support. "What does it benefit a man, if he gains the world but loses his soul?"

[readmoreoften]

93. Thanks for the support!

:hi:

[MissWaverly]

94. thank you

having to memorize every word in the Baltimore catechism makes one
read the fine print, liberty and justice for ALL includes you too!

[arwalden]

108. I Wish There Were More Like You...

... or that the existing ones like you would to speak out more forcefully and let their voices be heard. :hi:

[MissWaverly]

135. me too!

Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto a net, that was cast into the sea, and gathered of every kind. Matthew 13:47.

[MollyStark]

119. we need more that that and we used to get more than that

even long after abortion became legal. However the RCC has proceeded to make abortion a weekly issue at every mass. Now look where we are.

[MollyStark]

118. The anti-choice rhetoric is what caused the RCC to vote for Bush

in the majority. Because the church targets democrats for loss due to the issue of choice we have 4 more years of bush.
If the church was more concerned with war or poverty issues Kerry would have won.

[readmoreoften]

120. We're not losing Catholic votes because of angry gays on DU

We're losing Catholic votes because the Church highlights platforms that the RW party supports: anti-choice, and anti-gay family. So long as the RCC chooses to focus on these issues in their rhetoric and individual American catholics choose to agree, the Democrats will lose Catholics.

We may, however, gain fiscally moderate females with teenage daughters or men who enjoy their reproductive freedom.

Really, it's up to the Catholics if they want to stay in the party. Catholics started the slow slide to the GOP in the 1980 election, only one election past Roe. The only way we can get Catholics back is to become the GOP, and we'll still lose.

[MollyStark]

178. Exactly

it is not for progressive to cave in to the anti-choice anti-gay marriage voters. I would much rather pursue the fiscally moderate pro-choice voters.

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

60. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

67. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

95. Deleted message

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

[noamnety]

14. disagreeing with church policy or the pope

is not the same as "bashing all catholics".

A large number of us disagree with the US invasion of Iraq, and we understand that our democrats voted for it. This isn't much different. I'm not going to pretend to respect a set of policies that I feel is detrimental and small-minded, whether they are policies being promoted by congress or by a church. To me, there's no difference. They are policies that affect people's well-being, that is all.

I'm not in favor of name calling and such, but many of us either are gay, or have friends or family that are. When the pope starts calling those people inherently evil, it's not realistic to expect us to turn around and treat him with the reverence you feel we owe him.

Not being catholic, I don't view him as being any more or less valuable or important, or infallible as any other person. If another person called all gays evil, I would call them homophobic and consider them a probable freeper. I don't have any reason to view the pope differently on that matter.

[donco6]

18. Hear, hear

Total agreement.

[Liberal Veteran]

30. Apparently, you can be as bigotted as you want as long as you...

...hide behind religion to justify it.

One wonders how Catholics feel about the quasi-religious "Christian Identity" movement that is inherently the church of white supremecists.

If I called them a bunch of bigots, do you suppose we'd have a bunch of people rushing to defend them as "good people of faith"?

[MollyStark]

179. Your democrats may have voted for the invasion.

Mine voted against it.

[Bill McBlueState]

21. about bashing

When a Catholic has been beat up, tied to a fence post, and left to die, simply for being Catholic, then you can come talk to me about bashing.

The long list of openly Catholic Senators and Representatives you posted is a sign that Catholics are not persecuted in this country.

When you can show me a similar list of Unitarians, atheists, and Wiccans in positions of power, then they will be treated the same as Catholics.

Those in power deserve to be questioned.

[Scurrilous]

26. I 'know nothing'....

...about the persecution of Catholics in this country. Never happened.

[Bill McBlueState]

34. hah, hah

Yeah, I get your little reference there. I'm sure the list of openly Catholic Senators and Representatives was considerably shorter in the nineteenth century.

[arwalden]

37. Rick Santorum Is Catholic, Isn't He?

[Bill McBlueState]

40. yes!

As I recall from a recent Washington Post article, he brought his dead baby home from the hospital, dressed him up, and had his kids pose for pictures with it.

That's not entirely relevant to the discussion, but yes, Santorum is a Catholic.

I guess he gets a free pass.

[IronLionZion]

80. Gavin Newsom is Catholic, isn't he?

a lot of Catholic liberals support gay rights. We have no argument with you Allen.

Rick Santorum is rumored to be a member of Opus Dei. That piece of shit defies the church on everything except abortion. And he's an all-around asshole. He may call himself a Catholic, but I'm sure he's going straight to hell.

[MollyStark]

180. were there any Catholic bishops or priests calling for refusing Ricky

communion? Did they write articles about it in the paper?

[IronLionZion]

195. The Bishops in this country are notoriously partisan Republicans

for some reason. They will always attack the Democrats and ignore or even praise the Republicans. It's sick.

The priests in Rome are not going to refuse communion to Ricky just like they didn't refuse communion to John Kerry or our other politicians. Our newly elected Pope said its OK to vote for pro-choice or pro-gay rights politicians as long as they are good on other issues like poverty and health care.

[FightinNewDem]

22. Sme numbers to chew on

Here asome numbers from Beliefnet.com, a non-denominational site:

2000

Catholics:

Gore 50
Bush 46
Nader 2
Buchanan 1

White Protestants:

Bush 62
Gore 35
Nader 2
Buchanan 1

Black Protestants:

Gore 90
Bush 8
Nader 1
Buchanan 1

Jews:

Gore 81
Bush 17
Nader 1
Buchanan 1 (if you find this person, let me know)

1996 (categories are somewhat different)

White Catholic:

Clinton: 48
Dole: 41
Perot: 10

Non-White Catholic:

Clinton 78
Dole 17
Perot 3

White non-Religious Right Protestant:

Clinton 42
Dole 46
Perot 10

Religious Right Protestant:

Clinton 21
Dole 70
Perot 8

http://beliefnet.com/story/155/story_15515_1.html

[earth mom]

29. Lots of Catholics don't agree with the pope...

but they aren't about to give up their religion based on that. My DH and MIL are Catholics and they see the pope as a figurehead, not as someone that controls or influences their daily lives. MIL is a devout Catholic, but she has common sense and compassion as do most of the Catholics I know. That's why this firestorm over the new pope doesn't make sense to me, because I'm sure most Catholics don't agree with any of the popes oppressive views. So why make a big deal about it? :shrug:

Instead, I think we need to worry about those who are fundies-of whatever religion-who support * and his evil regime. That's the enemy! Not people who have no bone to pick with anyone and who just want to continue practicing their religion in spite of it's flaws. Nothing is perfect in this world after all. :shrug:

[Cleita]

35. I don't know what you consider Catholic bashing, but

legitimate criticism of an institution that isn't showing it's best side is not bashing. It's known as exposing the truth.

[IChing]

39. religious bashing

So it is ok for Catholic religious leaders to bash my religion (Buddhism) and yoga?
I don't bash catholics but your new leader is a little scary.

[H2O Man]

41. It's interesting

that while you posted a rather generic message, a number of people took it mighty personal.

There are valid complaints about the Catholic church and about the religious extremists in the republican party. The democraic party has the ability to confront and deal with these issues.

The democratic party is largely Christian; of the democratic Christians, a large segment are Catholic. The "Catholic-bashers" are a small minority within a minority within the party.

By "bashing" religious people in general or Catholics in particular, a minority within a minority risks losing political power. It is important to keep in mind that the word power comes directly from the Latin "posse" -- which means "to be able." And while the Constitution is supposed to guarantee all people in this nation the rights needed to provide for the opportunity to reach their full development as citizens, it doesn't.

It has always been a case of the powerful versus the powerless. The rich against the poor. The white against the black, brown, red, and yellow. Male against female. The educated versus the miseducated and uneducated.

Those groups who have been powerless -- meaning they did not possess the ability to access their Constitutional rights -- have only been able to achieve political power by means of unity. And so when we see the excessive "Catholic-bashing" that distracts from the serious issues, we need to recognize that it is a behavior that the religious right benefits from.

[coeur_de_lion]

61. well said. eom

[H2O Man]

101. Well thank you.

It's reassuring to know that one out of 68,000 DUers agrees with me.

[readmoreoften]

121. Yet, once again, you fail to see

The Catholics who scream 'Bashing' are simply people who want no criticism by non-catholic gays or women about their religion's culpable stance. The progressive Catholics get it and aren't making these claims.

The RCC is driving people away from the Democratic Party, not DU progressives.

Your claims of 'catholic bashing' are offensive and unfounded. Your religion calls us evil. Until you stop making excuses, then the policies of your Church will be critizes and rightfully so.

[H2O Man]

127. Your error

begins when you assume I am Catholic. I do, however, agree that DU progressives are not driving people away from the democratic party. I'll take it a step further, and say that even the Catholic-bashers aren't driving people away from the democratic party. Kerry had more people vote for him than any other candidate in history. However, I see a few people on DU who enjoy insulting all Catholics, and I have no agenda that requires me to pretend otherwise.

My religion calls the extreme religious right wing which is festering within the republican party evil. My religion calls anyone who hates anyone because of their sexuality (except child- and other rapists) morally corrupt. My religion says that it is harder for a rich person to enter the kingdom of heaven than it is for George W. Bush to convince you that there were WMDs in Iraq that posed a threat to American cities.

The last time I can remember being at a Catholic church, excepting the funerals of relatives and friends, was on Christmas Eve in 1983. Some cohorts and I were handing out a YIPPIE! holiday message, saying that Reagan was Herod, and that killing the brown-skinned people in Central America was a sin. This was in a community that was home to a substantial defense industry plant. The message was mixed with the lyrics to Lennon's "Merry X-Mas: War Is Over!" The other local ministers liked the paper we handed out, and encouraged people getting out of church to read it. The Catholic priest, a retired military chaplain, freaked. He called the police to have us arrested. It made for great street theater. The police said there was no reason for him to demand an arrest. Older women were saying, "Father, you are wrong; this is a great message." He started calling it pornography, and asked how I would like it if he handed out pornography on my porch? I asked if he had a collection? Again, he freaked, and said I could never come in the church again. Borrowing from friend Abbie, I said that I just might ride into church on a donkey that spring. Ah, to be young again.

The priest started calling me, several times over the next week. I could tell that he was a very disturbed person.

Three years later, I participated at work in an investigation which resulted in his being charged with sexually abusing a troubled teen-ager. Within hours -- and I mean hours! -- Albany had the charges dropped, and the priest escaped all legal consequences.

So while you are absolutely entitled to your opinion, I think you are sadly misinformed. I do not stick up in any way for scum like that priest. I do, however, not classify those older women in the same category as him. I recognize them as decent people. Of course, I like almost everybody.

[H2O Man]

129. PS:

A fellow named Mark Catone from near Ithaca, NY, asked me for permission to use the YIPPIE! X-mas message in a limited edition, leather-bound book he was publishing on Lennon. I'm not sure if it was included in his book or not.

[readmoreoften]

142. Yes, you are right. I should not have assumed you are Catholic.

But the only post that I have seen that poked fun at Catholics was the Virgin Mary siting post, and I agree that it was offensive and I said as much.

But there was also a Catholic poster who called Protestants 'prune-faced' and then, when asked to apologize, she said "I apologize to all the prune-faced puritans". Yet there have been no "Catholics bashing Protestants" threads.

According to a recent DU poll, 23% of Catholic DUers like Ratzinger's positions and 10% are unsure. That makes 1/4 of DU Catholics in agreement with Ratzinger on gays or perfectly fine with it and 10% unsure about where they stand on the evilness of gays. So, I wholeheartedly embrace 2/3rds of the wonderful Catholic progressives on this board and I will continue to argue with the Ratzinger supporters.

I have heard every gay person that I know on this board say "I support progressive Catholics" yet I have not heard one Ratzinger supporter say, "I denounce what he says. Gays are not evil."

I support whatever your religion is. You have a right to it. But GLBT people on this board have a right to defend themselves against people who support their total dehumanization.

Sorry to assume you're Catholic! (Not that there's anything wroooong with that.)

[H2O Man]

161. A person can not

justify being anti-gay. Not for "religious" reasons. Not for any other reason. Years ago, in fact while I was at the job that involved investigating the priest, I became good friends with a woman who worked in another department. Her office was near mine. She was a lesbian. It was something that didn't occure to me to be any more or less significant than anything else about her: I wasn't raised hating or fearing people who were different than me.

It really shocked me to hear other co-workers talk about her, behind her back. Male and female. Educated people, in human services. The specific things they said are not important. They were ignorant and stupid things to say. But that doesn't make it where I think all people employed in human services are hateful.

When my friend left that job, to work for an AIDS Task Force, we kept in touch. A few months later, she asked me if I would serve on the board of directors. Now obviously, AIDS is not only a disease that affects the homosexual community, but that is a big part of it. I did serve on the B.o.D. for several years, and I'm not asking for a pat on my humbly bowed head. What I do wish to point out is that for me, investing my time and energy in an AIDS program that served eight counties is part of what my religion is about. Not to try to push my views on anyone, but rather to listen to other people's views.

The vast majority of the DUers who are non-religious, no matter if it is a response to the immoral "teachings" of a church that is anti-gay, or if it is simply an intellectual concept based on science, are not offensive when they challenge the foolishness of the Catholic or any other church. I have no problem with that. In fact, I think I am perfectly capable of pin-pointing more errors in church policy than 99.999% of DUers. At the same time, I've read a few things that I consider ignorant and stupid, being said about Catholics, and they are what I was responding to on this thread.

[readmoreoften]

162. No, I totally agree.

There have been a few inflammatory things said and I have stood up against those things. But GLBT people have a right to stand up against this pope. I mean, there is nothing more basic than the right to say: "Hey, Fuck You. I'm not evil."

Sorry about what happened to your co-worker. I know the deal all to well. My partner is a transgendered butch lesbian from Texas. People want to fight us when we walk down the street. It's pretty much non-stop.

[H2O Man]

190. I find you

a rational and decent person to talk to, and I hope you find me the same. I can relate, in some ways, to what you describe in terms of people wanting to fight when you walk down the street. I've described on DU how in 1998, my nephew was viciously attacked in a dark parking lot by a racist hate group .... and this group of 15 men left my teen-aged nephew for dead .... simply because they did not like a brown-skinned human being getting media attention for his high school achievements. (The leader of the gang, a 280 lb steriod-raging thug who kicked and punched my unconscious nephew more than a dozen times, got a $50 fine for having an open beer, but no penalty for the assault.)

And like you say, it is indeed non-stop. So don't ever stop, and don't ever let your guard down. Keep up the good fight with the knowledge that you are doing good, and your enemy is evil.

[Bridget Burke]

169. I NEVER called Protestants "prune-faced"....

I made a specific reference to "prune-faced Puritan parents" as the sources of some of the old-tyme Catholic hating noted. This would be a very small subset of Protestants.

Alas, some did not catch the distinction. Definitely over-sensitive.

[readmoreoften]

170. It was rude coming from a person who was complaining

about cultural sensitivity. I could personally give a crap. I have no puritans in my bloodline. I just think you should hold yourself to the high standards that you demand of others. Too much to ask?

[H2O Man]

192. Now maybe it is no

coincidence, but when these eyes look at this face in the mirror, I see more wrinkles than any box of prunes. But I have convinced myself that -- should I ever learn to keep my mouth shut and bluff -- a person could mistake my wrinkled silence for something approaching wisdom. (grin)

If I could ask a favor of you two, and I absolutely mean this, I would ask that you go to the "religion & theology" forum, and look down a ways, to my otherwise ignored thread on discussing differences of opinion. And I'm not pointing fingers at anyone, except myself .... but I posted some information on a non-religious method for helping people to discuss/debate effectively, while reducing un-necessary hostility.

And should you read it and conclude I am a wrinkled fool, so be it. But I think that both of you might find it of interest.

Peace to both of you. Let's focus on the good fight.

[ima_sinnic]

45. so what? I will denounce evil in whatever disguise it assumes

Pope Ratzo is trying to pass himself off as "god's representative on earth" (which by the way is another crock o shit in itself that I won't get into here) but hiding behind those 65 pounds of gold chains is something hideously evil. If that's what god looks like, we're F---ed.

[Scurrilous]

47. "I pity the fool...

..who calls me hideously evil."

[Name removed]

48. Deleted message

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

[ima_sinnic]

52. whatever. and they are disguised as something they're not, also.

--do you mean to say you actually believe Pope Ratzo is a representative of god?

[sonicx]

72. Yes, like saying homosexuality is evil.

oh wait...

[seabeyond]

46. i know there are catholic bashers, religion bashers, christian

bashers. hell there are even parent and children bashers on this board

but as we now have another group of bashers, bashers of bashers, i hope because i mention things about the pope or religion that are wrong in my view, like create a gay as a sinner, that doesnt make me a basher. and if all people that saying anything about any policy or belief as wrong, become a basher, havent you created a much bigger world of basher than really is

i am saying, now i am seeing threads about religion basher, catholic bashers, because i have said things, i feel like it is addressing me. and i am not a basher.

i do talk about issues. i thought this is what the board was

but that does not make a basher

[MrPrax]

49. So it's bad?

Um...I am confused...as someone posted. You don't have to be a Catholic or belong to the Church?

Of course, this being a free society, you don't have to subscribe to any group. In the bad old days, and still in certain quarters of the world, being enrolled into a 'Faith' was automatic--as mandatory as citizenship is now.

So belonging to a Church or any organization (democrats, NRA, YMCA, etc) is a 'choice' and presumes a 'responsible' act.

That is why I am somewhat taken aback that people who CHOOSE to be part of the Catholic Church and it's History (in many many cases enable it through donations!), then want to change the 'rules' to accommodate their particular acts of conscience.

Moreover, I find it rather childish that those that are critical of the Catholic Church (the historic genocide, the burnings, the torture, the wars, pathological political ambitions, plenary indulgences, the ambiguity in support for democracy, the anti-women, anti-gay, anti-sex, etc etc unto the Ages), then want to students of history to pass over this legacy and extend tolerance to individual Catholic supporters?

Why? Tolerance has always been a dirty word to members of the Faith for 2000 years and right now the people in charge of your organization favor THAT legacy and THAT history. Their Church is timeless and ahistorical...and IF you are a member (by choice!), then that is the organization that you support.

Get over it!!

No dice, guys

[seventythree]

152. well said

[aeolian]

50. Meh.

:shrug:

If anything, that list is MORE of a reason for me to dislike the yahwe worshipers. But, whatever.

Hey, let's see how many of those congress-people listed voted for the love-thy-neighbor bankruptcy bill! C'mon, it'll be fun.

[Junkdrawer]

51. If I'm deeply suspicious of Cardinal Ratzinger (aka Pope Benedict XVI)...

does that make me a Catholic Basher?

Because, the more I learn about the infamous Deny-Kerry-Communion incident, the more it appears to me that Ratzinger tried his damnedest to stick it to Kerry and the overwhelming majority of US Bishops would have none of it.

But that stiff backbone by the US Bishops was in response to Cardinal Ratzinger - it remains to be seen if they can resist Pope Benedict XVI.

[lonestarnot]

53. Nope it doesn't qualify you for basher of the week. LOL

[calico1]

57. No, it doesn't. I don't like him either,

and I certainly don't like Santorum! I think the problem some people have (including myself) is with the generalizations. Catholics do this, Catholics do that. If you say "Ratzinger is an ass" that doesn't bother me. But if you say "Catholics are evil" or something like that, then I can't help but take it personally. JMO.

[LdyGuique]

54. I've had Christianity shoved at me all of my life

It has mattered little whether it was RCC or some form of Protestantism. Since I cannot see what it is about the bible that would cause one to believe, it's always been a surprise each and every time I meet someone who professes belief, especially wholesale, lock-stock-and-barrel belief in the entire thing, which is full of contradictions. The biggest contradiction is to continue to accept the Old Testament as equally valid as the New Testament, most especially the "red letter" teachings of Christ. The OT covers both a longer term oral tradition that was eventually written down, and the NT covers both Christ's teachings as well as so-called Church fathers' teachings (and no church mothers).

If one is going to is going to accept Christ's teachings as valid, then one must ignore most of the secondary NT teachings, such as those of Paul as they are in conflict. If one is going to accept Christ's teachings, then one must set aside the older traditions of the OT as being replaced by Christ's view of a "God of Love" versus a God of Vengence and Mayhem. However, since the entire book is deemed god-inspired dictation, in order to validate Christ, the entire book must be accepted with all of its contradictions, which leads to pretzel-like mental pertubations.

The Catholic Church has a long history of being intolerant and autocratic. I see nothing today that hasn't been present throughout most of its history, including the determinations of the Council of Nicea, which dogmatized what was scriptual and what wasn't. The only difference has been that they no longer have the power to enforce their beliefs through bloodletting of "heresies."

Christ said not one word about homosexuals or birth control. To enforce a dogmatic belief that isn't in the Bible is more of a fear of losing control over the patriarchal structure of the church, rather than any bibilically-supported instructions.

The Church can cling to its set of "scriptual" texts as their purpose and history -- the rest of us can remember the true history of the Church.

[aeolian]

58. Nicely put.

:toast:

[Rich Hunt]

85. what about the Irish?

You have nothing to say about that history.

[readmoreoften]

90. What does her post have to do with the Irish?

Or African-Americans, Mexicans, the French, Laotians, the British or ANY OTHER RACIAL/ETHNIC group?

How much do you know about the history of Native Americans in the US? How much do you know about Texas/Mexico relations? How much do you know about tensions between West Indians and African-Americans? How much do you know about working class American Jews?

What about the Czech and Polish immigrants residing in NJ?

What does this have to do with the post?

[Rich Hunt]

148. you know what it means

I know plenty about ethnic groups in the US. That's why I'm asking.

But the ethnic group of which I speak is predominantly Catholic.

Are you saying you didn't know that, or are you just buying time?

[muriel_volestrangler]

182. Seriously, we haven't the faintest idea why you're talking about the Irish

Why have you brought up one of the several ethnic groups that are predominantly Catholic - especially in response to a post about the consistency of the Bible, which said it regarded Catholic and Protestant views as much of a muchness?

Did you mean it in reply to some other post?

[FredScuttle]

55. "Love the sinner, hate the sin"

Sound familiar?

[bush_is_wacko]

59. They are ALSO and have ALWAYS been a MAJOR target for fundies

Evangelicals, and Bigots! Many people believe the reason Kennedy was assassinated had more to do with his ties to the Catholic church than anything else. Fundies and Evangelicals HATE Catholics. They HATE the pope. They believe Catholicism is THE false religion. The Pope is THE false leader.

Catholics have been condemned by fundies and Evangelicals from day one! Don't ever forget that! If there is a "dueling theocracy" war going on right now. It is not JUST a duel with Muslims! The Catholic religion is as much of a target as Muslims are!

It is EXTREMELY important that Catholics learn to recognize the fact that they are TARGETS of other "Christian" religions. Most of these religions were formed as a result of a fundamental disagreement with the Catholic church! They have never STOPPED being targets! those religions don't believe in "confession" and redemption the way the Catholic church does. They believe in being "reborn" into the unforgiving and self condemning world of the OLD testament. IMO, they really don't believe in the legitimacy of Jesus Christ, who FRAMED the Christan religion. They really ought to call themselves something other than Christians because they CLEARLY do not follow the New testament in ANY complete form. Even John the Baptist wouldn't recognize the religious group that he promoted!

On edit: Non-Catholics ALSO need to realize that what the Pope says isn't necessarily and really never has been the reality that the average Catholic priest re-iterates to his parishioners. I haven't been to church in quite some time, but I honestly have NEVER attended a Catholic service where homosexuality, pedophilia, abortion, or NAY other controversial subject like this has been the topic of the sermon! In fact, I HAVE attended the baptism of SEVERAL children of "homosexual" parents and there was NEVER even a hint of disdain from the Catholic priest who performed the service. If you are not a Catholic and you believe Catholics really follow the Pope's every wish and doctrine, you really ought to attend a few services to figure out for yourselves how FAR from reality that view is!

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

64. It isn't fair to call people who take issue with Catholic leadership

Catholic bashers.

[stray cat]

65. Rove loves it when democrats bash people of faith.

We prove him right that democrats hate people of faith and send people that in every other way would vote democrat straight into the republican party. If I took all the posts at DU seriously on faith and believed all democrats were like that I would have to leave the party as well.

[arwalden]

69. "So All You Queers Out There Just Shut Up And Take One For The Team!"

That's pretty much the message I'm getting from many here... is that about right? Am I getting a good read on this?

[Cleita]

79. Welcome to the club.

First for me it was the gender wars. We women eventually had to fold on this one under the threat of being tombstoned. Then it was the recent race war regarding the Minutemen/Mexican border dispute. Racism raised it's ugly head and basically, those of us of Hispanic ancestry have more or less been made to understand that we stepped out of our place. You have to know your place you know if you are in the minority. I guess now it's the gays turn. I am behind you all 100% myself.

[readmoreoften]

92. Thank you, Cleita

And know that I am not a latina queer, but I will fight for Hispanic people as well. On the street level, I have seen interesting alliances made: families who have immigrated from Mexico attending gay pride parades because they were not hassled within the gay community. And then there are all the gay latino people, of course. As communities, our needs overlap.

I have noticed a conspicuous silence on DU regarding women's issues (particularly straight women's issues) beyond abortion and birth control (which is not just a women's issue because it attacks male freedom too).

[Rich Hunt]

87. yes

That's the message I got about being Irish.

[readmoreoften]

89. Anti-Irish DU. I'd like some confirmation on that.

Can you link to some recent statistics about violence against the Irish? Exclusion of Irish people by Democrats within the past 10 years? Hate crimes against the Irish within the past 10 years? Articles by Democrats against the Irish?

I can give you numbers of violence against gays. I can cite articles about gay teachers fired from Catholic schools. GLBT student groups closed down at Catholic schools. Representatives of Catholic Organizations spouting anti-gay rhetoric on MSNBC.

Maybe it's just because I grew up in an Italian/Irish neighborhood, but I do not see what you are talking about, either on DU or the world at large. I see a little more in the Italian community. Definitely there is discrimination against Latinos, but that is defined as a racial issue in the US.

If you don't have numbers, can you give some specific anecdotal evidence of how you or someone you love has been harmed by nativism in the democratic party or by someone on DU or how posts relating to the Church's stance on gay people relate to the IRISH, specifically.

I know that there is terrible discrimination of Catholics by freepers in the South. But if there is mass discrimination against the Irish by democrats, I'd like to see it.

(No referring to any nativist attacks before 1980 please. Keep it within the last 25 years)

[Rich Hunt]

150. you're a big fan of my posts, I see

That's why you've taken to the word 'nativism' so well, and why you follow me from thread to thread.

Point is, whenever someone brings up the 'history' of the RCC, I'll bring up the 'history' of the Irish. At my expense.

[readmoreoften]

153. but you can't bring up Irish American history

at the expense of other groups who have historically battled and continue to battle. Is disagreeing with a German pope on issues of sexuality an act of violence against the Irish?

[arwalden]

188. You're Right, RMO...

... I too am having difficulty in understanding the significance or relevance of his comments in this particular thread. :shrug: They seem out of place. Oh well.

[readmoreoften]

76. Rove loves it when Catholics tell queers to shut the fuck up.

Follow the "Gays Should Apologize" clip and you'll see what we're up against.

[Wizard777]

70. Can you walk on water?

If the Catholic Church wants to participate in American politics without getting any criticism. I suggest they first practice with something a Lil easier like walking on water. It's the same concept. Except you will be doing it physically instead of philosophically. What makes it easier is that either you will or you will not walk upon water. It's very black & white. There is no middle ground or confusion of gray. Once you have mastered that. Then we can go on to the first amendment aspects of any Church participating in American politics when hell freezes over.

But on the more positive side of things. Since Catholic means "Liberal." I did have a lot of fun going to conservative sites to inform them that the worlds 1.1 Billion LIBERALS have elected a new leader. :wow:

[readmoreoften]

103. That's funny!

It's not true, but let 'em think it is. I love to see freepers burned by their own rhetoric.

[Wizard777]

109. According to my dictionary it is.

Catholic 1. Liberal. I asked a friend of mine in the Catholic Church why that was. He said that even the most conservative Catholic would be a very liberal Jew. LMAO You've gotta love their sence of humor.

[readmoreoften]

75. Something for the Gay Bashers on DU:

This is pretty explicit stuff. Tell me how you're not feeding into Rove's tactics by perpetuating this 'Gays are Victimizing Catholics' position. Last time I checked, the nativists were the same RW types that are bashing us all. Not DU liberals.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=3529136&mesg_id=3529136

[lesab]

77. Not all Catholics dislike gays

I happen to be Catholic and I chose this religion because of
what it means to me personally.  I don't give a rat's ass what
the priest, bishop, cardinal, or pope is deciding at the
moment.  I believe in what the basic fundamental teachings of
Christ were and the ceremony and beauty of the mass helps me
feel close to God.  I am smart enough to know that the church
leaders are men and fully fallable.  I don't put stock into
men, only God.  Some of my favorite people are gay/lesbian,
blacks, hispanics, other races, groups, and religions.  I will
do everything in my power to make sure that alll of you have
equal rights, opportunities, respect, and are treated decently
as that is what I believe is what Christ wants of me as his
follower.  

I have to tell you that I read this board every day and lately
because of some of the things that are being said about me
because I'm Catholic has made me NOT want to come here
anymore.  Hate speech comes from all groups to all groups and
now it is just being focused on me.

By the way, I can take it.  I am liberal in my views and ideas
and I understand the Hate.  I live in the south at the moment
and Catholics here are treated like the devil incarnate.  So
please, extend your hand to me in friendship and understanding
and stop saying things about Catholics.  I will not leave the
church I love anymore than I will leave the country I love. 
Both may be corrupt but I want to stay and make things better.

[Scurrilous]

78. Welcome to DU lesab...

...:hi:

[lesab]

81. Newbie....

Thanks for the welcome.

[readmoreoften]

86. Hate Speech

Certainly not all Catholics on DU dislike gays and vote against the interests of gays. The vast majority do not. The majority understand that Ratzinger is a frighting choice for their religion. I feel for those Catholics and I stand beside them.

However, there are some Catholics on this board (and some non-catholics too) who want gay people to shut up, who want gay people to disappear from the party, who agree with Ratzinger's stance on GLBT rights. We are speaking out against them and we have a right to do so.

What you are seeing on DU is not hate speech. It is criticism. It is sometime hyperbole. (Ratzinger is a Nazi! is HYPERBOLE, not hate speech. It is a misunderstand and a rush to judgement. Especially considering that he was a Hitler Youth and a German Soldier, it is a misunderstanding. If someone were to say ALL CATHOLICS ARE NAZIS, that is hate speech.)

Hate Speech, legally, is a category of speech that implies a threat of violence to an entire group. "KILL NIGGERS" "GOD HATES FAGS" "CATHOLICS RAPE KIDS" "LIBERALS SHOULD BE THROWN IN PRISON" "DYKES JUST NEED A GOOD RAPE" are all examples of hate speech. They all imply a course of action that needs to be taken.

Criticism of a political figure or a set of doctrines is NOT HATE SPEECH. It is a co-option and a minimization of the word. Understand that those criticizing Catholicism here are not the freepers who bash Catholics in the South (the same way they bash jews, gays, and feminists)

Welcome to DU and let's stick together. We need each other.

[MollyStark]

183. The money you give supports bigotry

Whether you are a bigot or not, your donation goes to support the church so that it can attack choice and gays another day.

[norml]

83. The only thing that bothers me are some of the right wing fundie Anti-Pope

talking points that I've seen repeated. I've no problem with those going overboard with their attacks on his conservatism, except to say that I think they might be surprised by how liberal he turns out to be, in the reforms his reputation for conservatism makes him able to make, and in his strong opposition to unjust wars of aggression.

[Misunderestimator]

91. Please provide some links to some Catholic bashing.

I've seen some legitimate arguments against specific issues that the catholic church and/or the pope hold that are diametrically opposed to progressive values, but I haven't seen any "bashing" at all.

What hatred? The pope's hatred for gay people? Is that what you mean?

[Solly Mack]

96. So?

It doesn't matter who is or isn't Catholic in Congress.

It doesn't matter what religion voters may or may not be...

America is a secular nation. Stop mixing religion with government.

As a secular nation, America doesn't need Catholic or Protestant or Wiccan or Jewish or Muslim members of Congress...what America needs is a Congress that understands the importance of separation of church and state. When you go to DC, you govern with secular law...not with
religious law.

America needs Americans who understand that too.

What America doesn't need is people who use their religion as a weapon and a threat. We get enough of that from the right wing.

[Hoping4Change]

97. "Challenge Authority" - Pope-bashing goes with the authoritarian territory

I hope TahitiNut doesn't mind my reposting his post that I bookmarked but his comments are dead on.


"It's easy (and most often wrong) to claim that anyone criticizing ("bashing"?) the Pope or the Roman Catholic Church is somehow biased. In my view, however, a global power structure that is openly and unapologetically authoritarian and dogmatic doesn't need my protection. "Bashing" goes with their territory.

Let's take it from a "logical" standpoint. An authoritarian rests on the presumption that the 'boss' (highest authority) is Right™ solely by virtue of their hierarchical role, irrespective of the other merits of their position. The Pope is regarded as 'infallible' when speaking ex cathedra on matters of faith and morals, and all Catholics are expected to accept all such pronouncements on pain of excommunication. It's a posture of explicit messenger-centrism: if the messenger is an authority, the message is accepted irrespective of content.

Live by the sword; die by the sword. Turnabout is fair play.

A "basher" plays a game of refutation, taking the contradictory stance against the same argument structure. By obtaining agreement that one or more pronouncements of an Authority™ are not Right™, the one who Challenges Authority puts the authoritarian in an untenable position: they cannot logically accept both the authoritarian posture and their own disagreement with the pronouncement.

In my view, this is a Good Thing™ - since I'm in favor of stamping out authoritarianism in favor of self-determination.

It's absolutely natural for an authoritarian to feel discomfited. Think about it: a military authoritarian is 'uncomfortable' when presented with behavior on the part of the military that they agree is Wrong™. After all, when an authoritarian is presented with the conundrum of either rejecting their own opinion or that of someone they accept as an Authority, what happens? So.........challenge authority."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=3409057#3409219



:applause:

[DiverDave]

98. Lets ask the people that where RAPED as children if your

premise is a valid one, shall we?

[wyldwolf]

100. only if we can compare the number of protestant rapists vs. catholic and..

... non-religious.

[Rich Hunt]

151. and now we're making assumptions

...about who was and wasn't raped as a child.

[wyldwolf]

99. We must also remember that FDR's New Deal coalition ...

... was partially powered by Catholics as well.

[readmoreoften]

102. What does any of this have to do with fighting the platform

of the Catholic Church on gays and women and despising what the pope says on these topics?

There were also pro-segregation Catholics, black Catholics, good Catholics, Bad Catholics, Catholics in a House, Catholics with a Mouse, Catholics neither here nor there, there are Catholics everywhere.

But GLBT people will not brook the nonsense of Catholics who defend or apologize for or minimize the anti-gay stance of their church.

(Oh, and neither will many progressive Catholics)

[dxstone]

115. Yay! Catholics everywhere!

Nice alliteration, rmo!
This is really something, isn't it? They just keep changing the subject and pointing to the fine work Catholic Meals on Wheels has been doing for 75 years, or how Pope Papal the Palpitant XXVII, Arch-Bishop of Glotsbury, was rumored to keep gay pets...
A Nazi pope...
Let me repeat that:

A Nazi pope!

God must find this all terribly amusing.



More rampant hater-bashing and basher-hating at
http://presidentevilonline.com

[Scurrilous]

128. Why is the Pope juggling? n/t

[dxstone]

140. Cuz that's what clowns do... n/t

[Scurrilous]

141. OK...

...thanks for winning me a bet. :thumbsup:

[PassingFair]

104. Oh for the love of Mike!

Go sell victimization somewhere else!

Hint: Try Religion and Theology or a related topic room.



PLEASE!

[ComerPerro]

114. Thank you

[Behind the Aegis]

126. Try some perspective

First, I don't think it is appropriate to call someone a "Catholic-basher", as we are not supposed to call each other "bigots" and the like. Although, you don't call any one poster in particular a "Catholic basher."

Now, to the matter at hand. Let's try some perspective. One can criticize the state of Israel and not be an anti-Semite. One can also criticize Sharon and not be an anti-Semite. So, why can't the converse be true? Therefore, I maintain that one can criticize the Vatican OR the Catholic Church and not be a "Catholic basher." One can also criticize the Pope and not be a "Catholic basher." See how that works? If not, I will explain more. The state of Israel and the Vatican (and in some sense, the Catholic Church) are "entities" and not individuals, although they may represent a collective of individuals. Therefore, one can critique them and not intend for the criticism to extend to all of the individuals of said "entity." Furthermore, Sharon and the Pope are leaders. Neither are above criticism! As foreign leaders, they hold power that ordinary people do not have. They can make and/or influence policy, and therefore, are at the mercy of critics. This is not to say that some who criticize Israel and Sharon are not anti-Semites or that some critics of the Vatican/Catholic Church and the Pope are not anti-Catholic, BUT you must learn the difference between criticism and bigotry. Crying "bigotry" or "Catholic bashing" at every turn just weakens your position.

Diversity is important to the Democratic Party and progressives, but that diversity also includes diversity of ideas. And, these ideas and criticisms should not be stifled by cries of "bigotry." If bigotry does raise its ugly head, alert! Confront the person with factual information and why YOU feel it is anti-Catholic. But, the constant "whining" about how members of DU hate this group or that one has grown pretty tiresome. There are a few bigots of every shade here, not unusual for a forum of 65,000+ members! Disagreement is not bigotry.

[izzybeans]

136. Wow this thread

certainly took a turn. I should read the updates next time. Wow. I would have been talking about something entirely different. Silly me.

I agree. Couldn't have said it better.

[readmoreoften]

143. No, you're cool izzybeans. It's all good.

I like your name by the way. I've always liked the name Izzy. :hi:

[izzybeans]

144. Thanks. That's my son's name.

I nearly :nuke: your good work on this thread. If the keyboard could blush. Oh wait it can. :blush:

[OldLeftieLawyer]

139. I saw no Catholic bashing

I saw, and took part in, plenty of Vatican bashing.

Please don't even confuse the Vatican with anything having to do with the Roman Catholic religion.

[w4rma]

145. I hope not one of them supports the Nazi policies of the Popenfuhrer. (nt)

[regnaD kciN]

147. BOTH my senators (Murray and Cantwell) are Roman Catholic???

That does it -- whenever the Republicans start attacking them during campaigns, we should accuse them of "anti-Catholic" bigotry!

;-)

[raysr]

149. Makes you

wonder doesn't it?

[JackRiddler]

156. There has been no Catholic bashing at DU

There has been criticism of the Vatican, the church hierarchy, and Catholic mythology, just as one might criticize any other institution.

If you want to call that "Catholic bashing," be my guest, but this looks like a resort to the victim's role in the absence of an argument. Not unlike those who respond to criticism of Israel by crying "anti-Semitism."

Or you could try an argument. Go ahead, be specific, and defend Vatican policy and Catholic mythology.

List all the legislators you like. Are you saying that Catholicism is the motivator for all of them? Please.

The biggest basher of Catholics is the Church itself, which subjects them to an obviously fraudulent horror story about how they are hell-bound if they don't conform to the wishes of an absolutist hierarchy, pokes into their private lives, and supports the most repressive elements in their societies.

[Bridget Burke]

168. Yes, there has. The worst threads have been deleted....

Or they were locked & sank like stones.

You, for example, take issue with far more than recent objectionable policies; you regard the entire Church as objectionable, going back into the distant past. Yes, one could say there is a "Catholic mythology"--one could say that of any religion. Or, do you believe that Catholicism is a false religion & others are true?

[readmoreoften]

171. The worst deletes were from all the homophobes. PLEASE!

[JackRiddler]

206. nope, they're pretty much all false...

insofar as they are not based on assertions or principles based on universally apprehensible reason.

Don't you worry, I can smell the scam whenever ANYONE claims to speak for a God who happens to speak only to them and who wants them to dictate to the rest of us - I don't care whether the alleged self-reporting spokesperson is an Arabian merchant, a rabid Protestant Irish preacher, a member of the chosen people, a televangelist, an Ayatollah, a science fiction writer or a "pope."

When God comes and speaks to all of us, I will listen. When someone in a costume says God just spoke to him and said what I should do, I will laugh.

[JNelson6563]

159. I agree, it's made me cringe

The Catholic bashing has been out of hand and decidedly UN-progressive. Disappointing.

Julie

[progressoid]

163. Well, that cinches it for me.

I'm a gonna go out and join the Catholic Church. If'na ya cain't beat 'em, join em.

Maybe we can do for the Dems what fundies did for the repugs.

[Skittles]

164. I don't care for sexist, homophobic assholes

and I make no exceptions if they hold the title POPE.

[rman]

165. Let's tone down the generalizations a notch or two.

There are Catholics and then there are Catholics, wouldn't you agree?

There are catholics who act and vote in much the same way as the fundamentalist right-wing evengelicals, born-again christians etc. Those are being bashed a lot on DU - and they should be bashed, along with the corporatists and the neocons.

And then there are the left-wing religious types, some of which are christians. Those are our allies, and they're generally not being hated or bashed here on DU.
I know that, i can't imagine you don't know that, so why would you make such a broad sweeping statement about "christian-bashing on DU"?

[readmoreoften]

172. Because many people who are complaining

are not progressives. Did you see the poll where 23% of the Catholic respondents on DU actually LIKE Ratzinger. Then another 10% were undecided?

There are many many many progressive Catholics on this board. Some of the people on this thread aren't progressive.

[rman]

175. Very true. It's almost as though some people are trying to create wedge-

issues to devide the DU community.
But that can't be can it? I mean, who could possibly benefit from that? Also it's not that certain forces in society have a track record of doing such a thing.

[Scurrilous]

181. We need to weed these people out.

Can't have any Pope Benedict...err..Ratzi...likers about. It ain't progressive. :thumbsdown:

[hiley]

166. Frankly, Who cares what kind of church

Senators and Congressmen are affiliated with ! I care about how they vote on issues. Church and State are to be separate and I am fucking tired of Religion getting shoved down my throat ! You should tone it down. Tell the Pope to tone it down ! Gay human beings are not evil and their private sex life is not evil and I will defend them and others until I die.




http://www.seo-blog.org/5755_omfg_rageagainstthegop_machine

[readmoreoften]

173. Thank you, Hiley.

We appreciate the support.

[hiley]

202. readmoreoften

you are most certainly welcome however it is not necessary to thank me. Humans are to care about others and what goes on around the world and especially here in America toward the GLBT's community is appalling and in fact that is were the Bashing lies and the Hate Speech ! It is spewed daily toward's individuals who are simply born.
I did not choose to be heterosexual anymore than my brother chose to be Gay.
There are many problems in this world and gay hating is extremely vile and leads to beatings, murder and even suicide.
Since the "doctrine" or "writings" of a Leader like the Pope are divisive and hate mongering than all should stand up and be heard !
We have to protect one another from this assault by "Religious Institutions" and of course, I don't just speak of the Pope !
hiley

[Is It Fascism Yet]

167. We can suceed anytime we get a legitimate election, and cannot

with Diebold, EES and KKKRove cheating. It's that simple. Personally, I was baptised into the Catholic Crutch as an infant, before I had any say in the matter, and abandoned them as soon as I grew into a little sense. It was a fine decision I never regretted for a moment.

[mopaul]

185. respectfully, I'll bash anyone or anything I damn well please

religion of all institutions is not automatically immune from bashing.

[Discord]

208. Not to mention that generally, we only bash the DU

Christians who bash us, for critisizing religion.

If an Atheist critisizes an aspect of religion or religious policy that we find offensive, not only to us, but to all progressives, and someone attacks us for posting our critisism, then they are fair game, and incidently, started the "bashing".


People love to whine and bitch that people are bashing DU christians, when in fact it is quite the other way around. They simply take offense to ANY critisism of religion reguardless of how valid the critisism may be. They lash out at the poster, and then whine and bitch some more that we are bashing them, when in fact, in most cases, we are simply defending ourselves and our right to critisize something that has earned its critisism.

[eek MD]

186. I have no hatred......that said...

My parents, and most of my living relatives whom i know are catholic. Every one of them voted for bush in the last election, because the catholic church is against abortion. (and yes, most of them live in Wisconsin which is a swing state)

So what if there's a long list of democratic catholic politicians. Religion is what keeps moving our country further and further to the right. I'd LOVE to see a politician run while claiming themselves to be an atheist. However, i know that it would doom their fate, because many christians would not vote for them based solely on the fact that they don't believe god exists.

I don't have a hatred of religion. I just think that religion tends to push a conservative agenda in many areas, which causes our country to shift rightward.

Edited for spelling

[lesab]

194. generalizations

I have to say.....you aren't considering that 90% of America consider themselves to be Christian. If what you are saying is true then where are the 50% of this country that are Democrats? I am Catholic, my entire family is Catholic and everybody in my family voted for Kerry. And my family is from OK and KS and TX. I personally don't know of any Catholics from my Church who voted for Bush although there must obviously be some. Why always these generalizations?

Most Catholics I know are concerned about the war and the general alienation of our country from the world and the bad policies of this administration and their affect on the poor and less fortunate of the world. Yes we hate abortion, but most of us are smart enough to know that keeping it legal gives a women more options and keeps everybody safe and facts show that abortion numbers go down when the lines of communication are open and the women has more viable options. I believe that is a good thing. I understand the abortion is a symptom of a problem not the problem. I am religious, therefore I know that my job on earth is not to judge others, that is for God alone.

I love people.....all people. I have very close personal friends who are gay/lesbian, atheist, Jewish, Muslim, Hispanic, African American, and Asian. I don't and won't judge people BECAUSE that is what my religion teaches. Some people chose which part of the religion they want to adhere to and ignore the most important parts.

Love and understanding of others and most importantly TOLERANCE is something that all true Christians understand.

[IChing]

197. Tolerance of Intolerance is no virtue

I think the original or official poster's title, is of course a baiting title and ignores
the real problem that people of all faiths have with this pope.

His record and thoughts have been laid out in his writing's and actions and we don't see him as having a change of heart through the 40 years he had a change of heart on liberal student protest of the 60s. Since the pope is infallible, how can he have a change of heart?
l
My father is Catholic and I don't bash him or Robert Kennedy both have been moral leaders in my life

I am very suspicious of anyone that has dealings with the Bush Crime Family.

Off topic, but isn't it a bit ironic that a fetus must know me kept alive according to the administration after an abortion. Why was this enacted at this time?

[lesab]

200. fetus

Bush's brain is so full of holes from the drugs that he simply forgot about the past legislation that he put into effect.

[JackRiddler]

207. 90 percent do NOT consider themselves Christian!

At least one-quarter of the people in this country have dropped all institutionalized religions, and it's about time they were acknowledged!

And these numbers are not absolute for all time.

I'm all for Ratzinger since he is guaranteed to drive more people away from the Church.

I can hardly wait for the new Swaggart-style scandal that brings down a few of the fundamentalist sects. It's guaranteed that one of these guys will be caught stealing or fucking something that will expose their hypocrisy.