The Pope is not evil

[Clark2008]

He comes from a different culture.
He is steadfast in his protection of all life, whether we agree with the circumstances or not (and I don't always).
He's a pretty good guy, for the most part.
Why is there so much anomosity for the papal - or is that the fundie shit in this country has turned so many off to the Pope?

[coloradodem2005]

1. I think in part that he does not care for homosexuality.

That and the circumstances of his pro-life stance. I never thought The Pope was evil. I do believe he is seriously misguided on a number of issues. But I have never known him to speak with the same vitriol as Jerry Falwell.

[JVS]

4. The pope doesn't have to use the same vitriol to be comparable to JF

Remember that every proclamation that JPII issues will be with us until the end of civilization as we know it. Falwell can yell himself blue in the face and in 50 years nobody will care. JPII simply signs his name on a document prepared by underlings and it becomes part of the massive bulk of Catholic teachings which are collected and kept for all time

[lenidog]

10. He doesn't but that never stopped a pope from using it before

[imenja]

15. he opposes homosexual marriage

not homosexuals. The distinction is an important one since a large portion of priests are gay. My theory, only half in jest, is that the pope issued the statement about the evils of gay marriage because he was afraid if it were widely allowed, the Church would face a significant decline in initiates into the priesthood.

[Pawel K]

70. No, he has never spole like Falwell, to me personally that is an insult

The pope has never been political, he always stood for what he believed in and lived his life that way, he didn't just expect his followers to. He never lived his life on polls and he never said anything hateful like Falwell did. I'm not sure if you think he is a homophobe but that idea is certainly wrong. He does not support homosexuality as you say, but that is because the bible doesn't. Yes, many (like me) disagree with this. But if you don't like it you have to be upset with the Catholic religion, not the pope. T

[autorank]

2. The Pope did a great deal of good and I'm no "thumper," believe me!

Fought for freedom for Eastern Europe, recognized the need for a social gospel critical of capitalism and it's excesses, made a major move to end the anti-semitism dormant in the Church, was consistent about opposing BOTH the death penalty and abortion.

Best of health and good luck in your treatment.

I'm not a member of any organized religion (none would have me, haha...was actually asked to leave a very liberal church for beeing too liberal) but I do see the Pope as a person with many good points and some with which I disagree.

On edit: Nominated :hi:

[coloradodem2005]

7. A church can ask you to leave?

I would have thought they would have wanted as many people, for whatever purpose, who knows. Damn.

[Ken Burch]

9. They usually can't forbid you to set foot in a church

but they can deny you the Sacraments.

For many, that is just as bad as being physically excluded.

[autorank]

32. It was a UU Church too!

[coloradodem2005]

33. A UU church asked you to leave because you're too liberal?

That makes no sense.

[autorank]

35. Well...

I was teaching Sunday school and their Dir. of Education sat in to 'evaluate' my teaching. The topic was Noah's Arc. The kids had been hyper lately so I told the start of the Noah story about God's promise to save Noah. I then held up a box of doughnuts and said if they behaved my promise to them was they could have all the doughnuts they wanted when I was done. I told the story, the kids were perfect, and they went on a doughnut high at the end. I got a call to come to a meeting to discuss my disrespect for the story from the bible due to my "promise" to the kids -- equating the story promise to my promise of food. I said I didn't join the church to be told I had to be PC about a bible story and they said I had to reflect on my attitude to keep teaching. I said does this mean I can't teach unless I admit I did something wrong and they said yes. That was it. Never went back. So, see, it can happen! All over a :donut:

I did get a call a couple of months later asking why I had ceased my rather generous pledge on a monthly basis. haha...should also note that holy water burns my skin.

[coloradodem2005]

36. Oh that's cold.

[autorank]

41. Yeah, but it saved me some money and told me what the "real deal" was with

that particular group. It was some time ago and I've had all those great Sunday's as the true day of sloth.

[Stuckinthebush]

45. That doesn't sound like a UU church to me

Are you sure you didn't do anything else?

UUs would never ask someone to leave over such an incident. Hell, the UUs don't hold the Noah's Ark story as something that must be revered. The UUs question everything. Either there were a number of instances where you and they disagreed, and this was just an excuse by the church to get you to leave, or it wasn't a UU church. Are you sure it wasn't a UCC church?

I'm just baffled.

[autorank]

48. I was at the time but it did happen and it was reasonably

annoying at the time. It was a UU church. I grew up in an Episcopal Church that was highly tolerant and attended the same denomination back East and it was an entirely different deal. "Liberal" groups can have their own dogma as well; and their own intollerance. In this case, it wasn't about the accuracy of the story it was about my so called attitude in making a joke with the kids and equating doughnuts with gods promise--disrespectful I was told. When they had their 'chat' with me, I felt like someone had put acid in my coffee. But afterwards, I had an enlightenment which was I did not need to belong to a church or drag my kid to a church to feel as though I were a good parent and to give her what she needed form a moral perspective. No church after that for her (at age 6) and my daughter is now college age and one of the most ethical, considerate people you'd ever want to meet (takes after her mother).

This crap happens all the time, it's just for different reasons and with a different style. Intolerance is intolerance.

[DoYouEverWonder]

50. There are bad apples in every group

even UU. I know some UU's that are real sickos.

[autorank]

53. Good point. I have nothing against UU, in fact I kind of like it. They

helped me because I just don't go for the 'structured' approach to my ethical and spiritual convictions or those of my family. I mean seriously, if I piss these guys off, it's time to hang it up. I have gone to CRS on occasion (when the spirit moves me). They have NO dogma other than believing in an experiential relationship with something you believe it. When I go, I just do their meditations and exercises, which are cool.

[imenja]

51. not the best pedagogy you have to admit

bribing kids to listen with donuts?

My grandparents are/were members of a UU church. For their Church, science is far more important than biblical scripture. To be honest, I don't know if the Bible plays any role in their community. I attended a number of meetings and most of the discussions were about reason and politics. My grandfather's funeral was also held in that Church and it was lovely. The minister spoke about his life and very little if anything about scripture. I have always wondered if church is quite the appropriate term to refer to the UU. Now evidently particular churches vary, as your discussion of Noah would seem to indicate.

[autorank]

54. Ahmm...imenja. One persons doughnuts are another's spiritual experience.

I was surprised to even get an answer on my comment but it caused me to recall what I said: "All right kids, God promised Noah that he'd survive the flood if he did what he asked and I'm promising you that we'll eat these doughnuts if you pay attention to the story of Noah's Arc..." The kids were great and then joyful when they got the food. I can see objecting to this on dietary grounds, although these kids were a healthy lot. I could argue that I was actually making an alusion to the sacrament rather than disrespecting the bible. Ah well,


:hi:

[imenja]

55. I can imagine a lot of parents would be upset

given the high sugar content of donuts.

[autorank]

56. Well, if I'd promised tofu, they wouldn't have paid attention

[imenja]

57. no doubt true

If fact, you'd probably have emptied out the Sunday school.

[kwassa]

66. My entire Biblical learning experience growing up UU

I learned that the Hammurabi Code rhymes with "Ham on Rye, with Coke". Somehow, this relates to your doughnut story. This is all that I remember from Sunday School.

I learned nothing related to Christianity. I didn't know that Good Friday celebrated the Crucifixion, or that Easter celebrated Christ's rising from the dead, until I was an adult, long after leaving UU.

[unsavedtrash]

63. guess you have never been to the south

yes, they can "ask" you to leave.

[tuvor]

3. Not dealing with the priest-buggery scandals is a pretty big deal.

I'm more or less indifferent about the Pope, but ignoring them was a huge mistake, and continues to be.

[trotsky]

31. I feel the same way.

Horrible, terrible crimes perpetuated on children, and the church actively worked to shuffle priests around rather than deal with the problem.

While there's lots of policy positions of the Catholic Church I disagree with, that one stands out as possibly the worst.

[Maple]

5. While millions starved

and died of disease in Africa...he refused to condone condoms.

That is not 'protection of life'

War and death is everywhere.

Yet he chose to talk about sex.

That is not 'protection of life'

While the world moved on to the 21st century, he lived in the 12th

That is not 'protection of life'

Ite, missa est

[Ken Burch]

6. While I salute the Holy Father for his general support of peace

and social justice(and his opposition to the death penalty)I personally have been greatly disturbed by his longstanding and extreme opposition to women's equality in the Church and his determination to suppress and silence dissidents in the Catholic intellectual world(his treatment of Hans Kung, for example).

Also I find it greatly regrettable that, while he called for justice for the world's poor, he did everything he could to suppress and destroy the Liberation Theology movement within Catholicism that had greater promise than anything else for emancipating "the wretched of the Earth."

His opposition to the Sandinistas and to virtually all movements of the poor and the workers in Central America also was unfortunate, in my view.

I did like it that he gave Dylan a papal audience though. And he was probably the keenest thinker of any Bishop of Rome in recent memory.

He'll be missed, but hopefully the next Pope will allow more breathing space and intellectual life within the Church.

[dxstone]

49. I think it's other way around...

He was the lucky one, getting an audience with Dylan... I'm guessing there was some sort of economic arrangement there...
I'll bet neither could understand a word the other said...
For better or worse, the pope will soon be with Terri Schiavo soon... and then those protesters can go rush Heaven's Gates, see if they can't liberate a few poor souls from the cold, cold embrace of God, the Biggest Life-Hater of all.
Who will replace the Holy Ol' Hat? Normally it would be another bishop; but since the neocons have gotten so tight with the Vatican, I hear they're thinking of putting Tom Delay in there. That way, he can claim the right of sanctuary and escape any prosecution for his many crimes in office...
Either that or Wolfowitz. He can handle the World Bank and the New World Church at once, they're practically perfectly entwined, you couldn't seperate 'em with crowbars.
Pooooor pope... time to meet God All-Meany...
I don't believe in that stuff... but if I did?
I sure wouldn't wanna be him...
DXS
"I LOVE horror movies, man... I just don't want to LIVE in one."

[Dookus]

8. Protection of all life?

are you familiar with the church's policy on the Death Penalty? You should check it out.

As for protection of all life, perhaps they do try to protect it. But I would prefer they focus a little more on NOT creating millions of poor people who suffer lives of desperation and pain. But yeah, the church does give good lip service to those people once they're born.

[lenidog]

11. Side note question to you

Has your cat returned home yet?

[Dookus]

13. I'm afraid not

thank you for asking.

[lenidog]

16. I am so sorry

I hope she shows up soon. If my cat Jena ever managed to get out and get lost I would positively be bouncing off the walls with worry.

[Dookus]

17. thanks

I'm worried, but not panicked. She never goes very far. She might've gone in my neighbor's house for the night, or she could be hiding somewhere in the house or the yard. She has NEVER been a cat who comes when called. She lives in her own world.

[lenidog]

21. No problem I totally understand

my pets have always been a part of my family if they go missing then its like a kid of mine has gone missing. She will probably show up on your doorstep tomorrow scratching to be let in or be doing a little dance on your head in the morning to wake you up.

[imenja]

29. The Catholic Church opposes the death penalty

unless there has been yet another change in doctrine as a result of Jerry Falwell's takeover of the Vatican.

[Zynx]

65. John Paul II condemned the Death Penalty in every case it came up.

Check it out for yourself.

[imenja]

12. Anyone have an idea of why the Church has moved so far to the Right?

It is far more conservative than it was 15 years ago. The Vatican's statements on Terri Schiavo's death are but one example.

[Dookus]

14. Because it has been led for a long time

by a very right-wing man.

[imenja]

18. it's not just Rome

the American Catholic Church has become, at least in its most public statements, extremely conservative. When I was growing up, the priests and nuns I knew were all progressives or leftist radicals. Most still may be, but there clearly is a strong movement to the Right among the American Bishops. Their almost complete turnaround on artificial life support is a key example.

Pope John Paul II can't explain all of it.

[Dookus]

20. Why can't it?

This pope has named almost every cardinal working today. Those cardinals choose the bishops.

[imenja]

22. great man theory of history

It's like arguing that Abraham Lincoln freed the slaves. Of course one can make that argument, but there is always a great deal more to the story.

[Dookus]

23. I don't understand

my thesis is that the American church has become conservative because we've had a conservative pope for 27 years who chose conservative cardinals who chose conservative bishops.

Where's the flaw in that argument?

[imenja]

24. I'm not saying the argument is flawed

I'm saying it's incomplete. If your vision of history is that it is all about individuals, that's the argument to take. History was told that way for a very long time: kings, popes, and presidents were the extent of the story. For the past 40-70 years (depending on whether we consider just the US or the French as well), historians have examined cultural and social forces that create a context in which individuals like a pope or a president rise to leadership. (Howard Zinn is an example of a social historian familiar to many DUers). If I actually had any significant knowledge of the Church in the last 25 years, I might make such an argument, but of course I don't. Now if it came to the Church in 16th-19th Latin America, I'm ready to go.

So I'm not saying that you're wrong, rather that there are different ways of looking at history and society.


Edit: Or course Karl Marx examined social forces in the mid 19th century, far earlier than those refereed to above.

[Spider Jerusalem]

25. The "philosophy of history" approach...

which is the one I take, myself. There's more to history than just simple facts, names and dates. In order to get any real sense of how and why events followed the path they did, it's necessary to examine the social and cultural context. And the "great man" theory of history is wanting, because it treats notable leaders as primary actors when in fact their role is as much REACTIVE as active. Popes, kings and presidents are the product of their sociocultural milieu, and their actions are best understood in that context and viewed against the backdrop of the historical and cultural forces that make up their respective eras.

The problem with the common perception of history is that all too frequently, it it's viewed as free of associative context, and those factors which led to a specific outcome are poorly understood and popularly ignored.

The importance of the social aspect is what caused Santayana to famously say "those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it"; he was referring to knowledge not just of WHAT happened (the brute facts of names, dates and places) but also to the WHY.

[imenja]

28. common perceptions of history

I agree entirely. The why is every bit as important as who.


It's worth noting that common perceptions of history, in terms of public awareness, bares little resemblance to what professional historians practice. I'm always struck by oft repeated claims that the history of the poor and peoples of color are neglected. Since the 1970s, social history has been overwhelmingly dominant in the history profession. A keyword search under slavery or workers at any major university library will turn up thousands of books. Despite the impression Howard Zinn gives, people's history is common place in academia and is in fact considered old-fashioned today. Works on culture, identity, or discourse are far more likely to find willing academic publishers. Despite this, most Americans maintain a Rankean view of history--the great men, names, and dates, as you say. There are a number of reasons for this: high school and the ridiculous textbook committees that limit the kind of knowledge to which children are exposed. Television presents history in largely traditional ways, with some notable exceptions on PBS. While commercial publishing houses seem interested only in books in three general categories: Nazis, the Civil War, and presidents, in that order of popularity. (People do love their Nazis.) It's unfortunate, because history, like other academic disciplines, encourages analytical thought. As the conception of what constitutes history has expanded, we look at the world in increasingly complex and nuanced ways. That kind of examination is also useful for understanding current political and cultural developments. When only traditional interpretations of history are transmitted beyond universities, that kind of questioning and exploration is denied the public at large. So even some on the political left, who one would think would be the last to cling to positivist ideas, express hostility, as the poster above does, to the very suggestion of considering a wider view.

How's that for getting off topic of whether the pope is evil?

[Spider Jerusalem]

30. To return to topic...

within the framework of this discussion:

I'd say that the reactionary stance taken by the current Pope on many issues is the result of over a millenium of Catholic tradition and dogma colliding with the messiness of the modern world. The past century has been the most transformative in human history, with great strides in technology completely changing the traditional structure of Western society (which, not coincidentally, is where there is greatest debate over the role of religion and the social positions of the Church).

A generally raised standard of living, coupled with advances in medical technology, now mean that many moral and ethical questions within the purview of the Church have been rendered irrelevant. The arguments against abortion, birth control, and homosexuality, for instance, may make a certain sense within the context of an agrarian society with poor sanitation and hygiene and a high rate of childhood mortality and death due to disease; however, in an affluent industrialised society, the social structure is supported quite well absent high birthrates and large families, and there's no need for everyone who CAN breed to do so.

The present Church's reactionary position is the result of institutional inertia in adapting to the accelerated pace of social change, not of inherent "evil" or malevolence.

[imenja]

34. though its more than institutional inertia

I posted a few days ago a topic in the theology forum discusses changes in Catholic views of artificial life support. The recent statements out of the Vatican contradict with positions, including that of the US Council of Bishops (2001) and Capital Hospital Association for the past thirty years. I provide in that thread a link to a 2001 health care directive for Catholic Hospitals and Hospices.

So while in general I think you're point about the institutional inertia of the Church is true for a great number of matters, they seem to have gone backward in some areas, such as artificial life support.

The Pope has also banned clergy from formal political activity. To run for office, one must now seek dispensation from the Pope himself. This restricts both left and right wing priest, but in the US and Central America, it was targeted against leftists and liberation theologians in particular. He's also taken positions against liberation theology explicitly, but I'm not familiar with the details. Dookus, I believe, is correct in attributing part of this to the Pope himself, but his advisory council of Cardianls is very powerful. Given the state of the Pope's health these last couple of years, its likely that many of these wittings we attribute to the pope come from the Cardinals instead,

I happened across this website containing a letter decrying the modern degradation of the Church and abandonment of traditional teaching. If there are more such letters, it would appear that Pope John Paul II faced pressure to rem impose orthodoxy on it's followers.

http://www.traditioninaction.org/bestof/bst002pauw.htm

[Beetwasher]

38. I Prefer The Psychohistorical Approach To History

Child rearing practices are the basic formative influences that lead to the prevailing group psychology and group psychoses and fantasies. Group dynamics follow prevalent child rearing practices (in general) and are acting out of group fantasies. Most group dynamics have emotional/psychological motivations as opposed to the rational/reasoned motivation usually ascribed by historians.

[Spider Jerusalem]

58. I don't buy that.

Partly because the same patterns emerge across cultures and eras. The basic human group dynamic doesn't vary that much, really. Some things seem to be culturally independent.

[aneerkoinos]

60. Psychohistory

So which things in your view seem to be culturally independent, or universal cultural tendencies to put it in other words? Or can you point even some absolute universals, with no exceptions?

I offer one suggestion: we people generally don't understand our own psyche and what (unconsciouss) factors and axioms motivate our emotions and actions, so we have a universal tendency to act emotionally and irrationally instead of rationally. :)

[Beetwasher]

68. Actually, That Supports Psychohistory

The same patterns emerge because of similar child rearing techniques across culutures and eras; most of child rearing up until relatively recently was quite abusive and that's why there are similar patterns. The biggest divergences happened in societies where there was a change in child rearing techniques (the techniques evolved and became less abusive).

There's a decent body of work on the subject if you're really interested.

[Dookus]

26. OK

then it's something else. Conservatism is not caused by conservative leadership. Maybe it's something in the holy water.

[imenja]

27. that is an ontological argument

obviously conservatism is NOT caused by conservative leadership. No more than the sun is caused by the fact it's light outside.

It's fine for you to conceive of society and history in traditional ways. Lots of people are still educated in the great white man view of history, because high school history books are written by committees dedicated to promoting traditional views of the world. But to ridicule the idea that there may be other, more complex and comprehensive ways of looking at things is less than open-minded.

[lenidog]

19. I think part of it is they believe they are under siege

the culture of the world has change so much in just the 20 years that they believe that their power, prestige and their world view is slipping away from them. So much like any human they usually try and retrench themselves and give not an inch feeling if they do they will head down that slippery slope.

[Beetwasher]

37. What Makes You So Sure?

You know him personally? :shrug:

[Renew Deal]

39. That's not really a fair question.

The Pope is a major public person that has been a pope for 27 years. It's not really a secret who he is.

[Beetwasher]

42. Really?

Sure it is, we have no idea what the pope is really like or what he really thinks or what really motivates him.

[Arugula Latte]

40. The policies he espouses have caused much death and suffering.

That's a fact.

Birth control goes a long way to making this world a better place.

[PATRICK]

43. The turnaround

The Pope was chosen to co-opt the splits post Vatican II and take the wind out of the sails of the conservatives as much as rein in the liberals. Then in turn the world stage(for which also he was chosen with the captive Church in the Communist world in mind) the papacy was co-opted for political social agendas of the Reagan Bush cabals(as have so many good people in this country).

It would have been or BE better to destroy this whole dialectic which so far has enabled all the ills of systems to incredible and mortal heights.
Into fear has stepped the fear makers and a lot of good men and leaders hadn't the faintest clue. Those exploiters care not a whit about any of the goals or values conservative people stubbornly fight for against the facts of progress, the will of the majority or the true ideals of their traditional sources(e.g., Jesus of Nazareth). They see a deluded people ignorant of the ideal divided against itself. Suckers waiting to be taken.

[Taverner]

44. I agree

I don't agree with him, but his heart IS in the right place

He's just wrong. I wish him well...and I wish him peace.

And I'm not even Catholic

[Resin]

46. People are asking too much

This guy is one of the few real christians out there, that worries about the sick and poor. But I think criticizing the freaking pope for not supporting the right to abortion or the equal protection of homosexuals is asking a little too much. HE'S THE POPE. What, you want him to be a Marxist or something?

[Clark2008]

47. This is my point. Thank you.

The Pope is the leader of Catholic dogma and that dogma is one against birth control and abortion.
In the perfect world that the Pope would ascribe to, no one would need such things because they would be chaste until married and wealthy enough to afford all the children they wanted and not have it over-populate the world.
No one would be homosexual (or, at least, not marry as homosexuals. The Pope is not against "homosexuals," he's against homosexual marriage and/or the practice of same-sex acts, which is only part of a homosexual's life).
And no one would murder or start wars or do anything that was evil.
Is this realistic? No, of course not.
Is it dogma? Yes.
Now, of issues that isn't dogma, his ignoring the pedophilia problem in the Church, yes, he definitely should have done more to rid the Church of these priests. I think that was his only real failing as the leader of the Church.
He, however, did more for the fall of communism than Ronald Reagan (who really was only in the right place at the right time) and his heart does seem to be in the right place.
And, let's be honest - Pope John Paul II is one of the few leaders who have publically stood up to George W. Bush and other world leaders who needed chastising.
Is he perfect? No, but even he would tell you that as a man, no man is excepting Jesus.

[riverwalker]

52. Pope John Paul and The Dalai Lama

met 8 times, each with long intimate talks. Imagine these two very spiritual and holy people and the conversations they must have had.
The world will be a darker place without John Paul.

[aneerkoinos]

59. Pope's lies about Buddhism

He calls himself just an ordinary monk, but as a High Lama no doubt very advanced spiritual teacher. But most of all he is the political leader of a nation in exile, a politician, and many have the opinion that Dalai Lama's (politically motivated) role in the Karmapa controversy has not been helpfull, to say the least. It should be noted that the political controversy between Karmapa and Dalai Lama lines goes back many centuries, on a very personal level, as one thing Tulkus have is a very long memory... ;)

Being a politician is something both Dalai Lama and the Pope share. One big difference is that Dalai Lama does not claim to be holy and even less infallible. As for the discussions between Dalai Lama and Pope, it is very sad that the Pope, who obviously "has no ears the hear", should give such gross misrepresentation of Buddhism (and prove his infallibility) in the book "Crossing the Threshold of Hope":
http://www.zip.com.au/~lyallg/PopeNose.htm
(see also the two responses to Pope from the links at the bottom of the page)

Obviously Pope's take on Buddhism echo the maliciouss attack of the Catholic Encyclopedia's consciouss lies about Buddhism, but fortunately pale in comparison to the viciousness of CE. Just couple of quotes from the CE:
"Another fatal defect of Buddhism is its false pessimism. A strong and healthy mind revolts against the morbid view that life is not worth living, that every form of conscious existence is an evil. Buddhism stands condemned by the voice of nature the dominant tone of which is hope and joy. It is a protest against nature for possessing the perfection of rational life. The highest ambition of Buddhism is to destroy that perfection by bringing all living beings to the unconscious repose of Nirvana. Buddhism is thus guilty of a capital crime against nature, and in consequence does injustice to the individual."

"In short, Buddhism is all but dead. In its huge organism the faint pulsations of life are still discernible, but its power of activity is gone. The spread of European civilization over the East will inevitably bring about its extinction."
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03028b.htm

To me this sounds very much like an adolescent male talking big to hide his unsecurity about his sexuality... :D

So it should come as no wonder that many Buddhist put the Catholic dogma in the same unilateralist basket as fundamentalist Evangelicism and fundamentalist Islamic doctrines, and consider them more harmfull than beneficient. This of course goes only for the doctrine, not the followers, all of whom have the same Buddha-(or Christ-)nature as every sentient being.

[liberal43110]

61. I have thought that the pope was evil longer than I've known about

fundie insanity. I have thought the pope was evil since I was in college (10-15 years ago). I think the religion he represents is seriously flawed, hypocritical, archaic, hateful. This does not mean that all people who follow that religion are those things, but I do think the religion itself is those things.

So, to answer your question about my dislike of the pope: the current fundie phenomenon has not at all influenced my dislike of the pope.

[puddycat]

62. This Pope absolutely HATED women. Its appalling to see so much support.

Its incredibly sad that here at DU, amongst people who are supposed to be progressive, there is so much applause for this Pope, who was so regressive in his policies towards the fundamental rights of women.

[moobu2]

64. I'm also very surprised at the support for this very backwards person...

[Disturbed]

67. Illusion vs. Reality

Illusion wins by a large majority.

[Modem Butterfly]

69. The Pope isn't anything anymore other than dead

The next Pope will be a human being, just like the last Pope. He'll be fallable and full of shit, but he'll also be capable of great nobility. Just like the last Pope, and the next one, too.

In the end, there are no "good" or "evil" humans. Just humans period.