[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
Plus, it’s not even working; we’re still arguing.
[/QUOTE]
No, I know; I’m just saying that’s his usual strategy, when he’s devil’s-advocating for the sheer thrill of winning an unwinnable argument. Impressive, but, to repeat, amoral and dishonest.
[QUOTE=Miller]
So what if he does? Earnestness is not a justification for bigotry. In the past, popes have issued a large number of edicts that we recognize as horribly prejudiced today. If Ratzinger went back and decided that the Popes who had commanded that the Jews be forcibly converted to Christianity were divinely guided, would that be a defence against charges of antisemitism?
Something in the character of the current pope makes him look at the older edicts against homosexuality and see value in them. What is this something, other than a predisposition to agree with the values reflected in those edicts? What is this predisposition, but bigotry?
[/QUOTE]
I believe words have meanings. And I believe those meanings are generally reasonably precise. I believe there are shades of meaning that distinguish stubborn from intransigent from mulish from pigheaded.
If not, then we may as well simply agree that animus against same-sex love is double-plus ungood, and leave it at that.
What is a bigot? It is:
When a person simply enforces the edicts of a higher authority, he may not be called a bigot. Bigotry arises when the person is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his own opinions and prejudices.
We (not you and I, but the board and I) had this same sort of discussion when Robert Bennett’s gambling came up. Hypocrite has a meaning; it was not a general perjorative. So, too, here. There are plenty of legiyimate criticisms that may be levelled against the Church and her various minions… but on this subject, being bigots simply isn’t one of them.
Now, I expect that the usual crowd will wail about how I’m being needlessly legalistic, or some such. Fine. Wail away. But words have meanings. Here, in a forum supposedly dedicated to fighting ignorance, I would hope that there would be some appreciation of the subtle nuances the English language provides us.
If not, that would be ungood indeed.
[QUOTE=lissener]
Likewise, redefining words (also to the point of absurdity) in order to get your view included under the word in question, you’re being amoral and dishonest.
[/QUOTE]
I am the one redefining words? I linked to a dictionary definition.
My opponents will no doubt be along to cavil about how language evolves, and the generally understood meaning of “bigot” encompasses what they’re trying to convey here, and I should focus so much on techincal definitions of a word.
And I am the one trying to redefine, eh?
[QUOTE=Bricker]
What is a bigot? It is:
When a person simply enforces the edicts of a higher authority, he may not be called a bigot. Bigotry arises when the person is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his own opinions and prejudices.
[/quote]
Yes, I’m aware of the definition of the word bigot, and that meaning is precisely what I intend when I have used it in conjunction with the Pope. I think his actions criticized in the OP, and towards gays in general, is supportive of that label.
I do not see the relevance of having a position in a hierarchy has to this discussion. I especially do not see how this is relevant to the Pope, who is at the top of the hierarchy of his particular organization. He is not following anyone else’s orders; he is the one issuing the orders, and deciding which social issues the Church will speak on, and what their position on those issues will be. The Pope has chosen to make a number of doctrinal statements condemning homosexuality, he has chosen to use the political weight of the Church to attempt to force Catholic doctrine into civil law, and he has chosen to force the Church as a whole to adopt a vastly more hostile and antagonistic attitude towards homosexuals serving in the clergy, regardless of their ability to remain celibate. Over and over, he has made overtly bigoted statements and actions against homosexuals, using the precise definition of “bigoted” you have provided, and he has done so at the behest of no higher authority than his own. He. Is. A. Bigot.
But, I do agree with you about William Bennet.
[QUOTE=Bricker]
When a person simply enforces the edicts of a higher authority, he may not be called a bigot. Bigotry arises when the person is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his own opinions and prejudices.
[/quote]
Oh, please. This is just the kind of word games you’ve been accused of. By that logic concentration camp guards and slave overseers weren’t engaged in bigotry because they were following orders.
Not to mention, the “enforcing the edicts of a higher authority” excuse makes little sense when they can’t even prove that authority exists. By your “logic” every bigot on Earth can absolve themselves of bigotry by saying “God made me do it”. It’s ridiculous.
[QUOTE=Bricker]
There are plenty of legiyimate criticisms that may be levelled against the Church and her various minions… but on this subject, being bigots simply isn’t one of them.
[/quote]
Wrong. Promoting bigoted beliefs is bigoted. There are no excuses, short of Martian mind control rays.
[QUOTE=Bricker]
But words have meanings.
[/quote]
Which you twist and distort.
I won’t comment on the redefining of words, but what is with the “ungood”?
You don’t get to make words up. In this thread(hell, on this board), it’s disingenous and specious.
Then again–my dictionary The Random House College Dictionary defines bigotry as:
stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief or opinion that differs from one’s own.
Why is your definition the only accepted one here? Words do indeed mean certain things–but language is not as precise as you would like. Your refusal to allow more temperate definitions says (to me) that your argument is weak.
Not to change the thread, but how do you defend the position of the Catholic church on women being priests? There is some evidence that women were priests in the early church–but custom and culture proscribed women contributing in that way to the faith. Or does that, too, depend on a picayune definition of some word or other?
There’s alot the Catholic church needs to look at and get rid of. Allowing female priests, and gays to take communion would not change its spiritual mission one iota. It is custom and love of status quo that keeps the Church in the dark ages.
Ratzinger is a harkening back to some nostalgic, sentimental time that never existed. His thoughts on Harry Potter, gays, women–show a Pope dangerously out of touch with the corporeal world.
Since the Pope’s higher authority is Jesus aka God, perhaps Bricker is hinting that God is a bigot?
Unless he truly believes that the Bible was written by God and not people over centuries and reflects cultural mores of the time etc.
Just a thought.
[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
I was actually referring to their interpretation in the second instance. Does the Church not recognise, say, the ten commandments as outlining sinful behaviour? I haven’t heard much about not working on sundays, recently. No Papal edicts i’ve seen on that. And that’s even one of the Big Ten; surely if gay issues were more or equal to importance than it, then we’d have eleven?
[/QUOTE]
Actually, there are more than 10 of the Ten Commandments; they’re listed in the Bible twice. And the lists don’t match.
Blame Moses for dropping that first set, I guess.
[QUOTE=eleanorigby]
I won’t comment on the redefining of words, but what is with the “ungood”?
You don’t get to make words up. In this thread(hell, on this board), it’s disingenous and specious.
[/QUOTE]
Can’t blame that one on Bricker, since it’s Orwellian Newspeak from 1984.
Back to discussion of the “sexcrime”. note: another Newspeak reference
I just meant his use of that term in this thread–guess I got whooshed with his subtle allusions to Orwell there.
:rolleyes:
Methinks the irony just might be on him.
Saturdays, actually. They’re not even good at being unfaithful to their own credo.
In this case, it’s selective enforcement; again, we find no Papal movement to criminalize working on the Sabbath or wearing two different fabrics at the same time or failing to give one’s field a year-long rest every seven years. The Pope is choosing which secular debates to snick his dirty fucking snout into. That’s his shit, not God’s.
No redefinition is needed. Gay marriage is his own cause.
[QUOTE=Bricker]
When a person simply enforces the edicts of a higher authority, he may not be called a bigot. Bigotry arises when the person is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his own opinions and prejudices.
[/QUOTE]
I was unaware that Popes claimed that either God or Jesus whispered into their ears every night. Perhaps you mean the Bible - but even you say that Catholics believe the Bible needs to be interpreted. So, the higher authority here seems to be the Pope himself. A priest following orders might be excused from the charge of bigotry, but not the Pope - and this does not depend upon the existence of God in any way. A Pope could easily use Polycarp’s interpretation, that the parts of the Bible calling for brotherhood outweigh those calling for antigay bigotry. But he chooses not to, so the charge stands.
[QUOTE=Voyager]
I was unaware that Popes claimed that either God or Jesus whispered into their ears every night.
[/QUOTE]
While not perhaps “every night” they DO claim that they are guided in their interpretation by the Holy Spirit, and that because of this their interpretation is authentic:
The task of interpreting the Word of God authentically has been entrusted solely to the Magisterium of the Church, that is, to the Pope and to the bishops in communion with him.
Entrusted by whom?
[QUOTE=fetus]
In this case, it’s selective enforcement; again, we find no Papal movement to criminalize working on the Sabbath or wearing two different fabrics at the same time or failing to give one’s field a year-long rest every seven years. The Pope is choosing which secular debates to snick his dirty fucking snout into. That’s his shit, not God’s.
[/QUOTE]
But he says – and believes – that’s it’s God’s shit, not his. In other words, the official position of the Church is that Scripture alone is not the source of guidance.
You bring up working on the sabbath and say, “See! Not enforcing the rules equally!” But you are missing the point. The Church doesn’t agree that the Scripture is the sole source of the rules. So you’re pointing to an authority that doesn’t carry the definitive weight here, as though it does.
Now, you do make a credible point – the Pope is not merely announcing a Church law… he is attempting to influence secular law as well. (“…snick his dirty fucking snout into…”) That IS his decision, not God’s, by any standard.
Actually, that’s what I’m objecting to. There are a lot of beliefs the Catholic Church holds which I disagree with. That’s why I didn’t convert when I had the chance to. For example, the Catholic Church believes women cannot be priests. I do, and have even considered entering the priesthood. People are free to hold whatever beliefs they hold, in my opinion, and, if they find they can no longer agree with the beliefs their religion holds, then they should be free to leave that faith as many around here have.
However, if the Catholic Church goes from saying, for example, “Women cannot be priests in the Catholic Church” to “It should be illegal for women to be priests in any church” and actively working towards that end, as, indeed, some bishops in my own Anglican Communion are doing with gay marriage, that’s when the church, Anglican or Catholic crosses the line. I do not impose my beliefs on others; I will not stand by while others use the law to impose their beliefs on me, and please, don’t bring up murder, theft, etc.
Respectfully,
CJ
[QUOTE=Siege]
Actually, that’s what I’m objecting to. There are a lot of beliefs the Catholic Church holds which I disagree with. That’s why I didn’t convert when I had the chance to. For example, the Catholic Church believes women cannot be priests. I do, and have even considered entering the priesthood. People are free to hold whatever beliefs they hold, in my opinion, and, if they find they can no longer agree with the beliefs their religion holds, then they should be free to leave that faith as many around here have.
However, if the Catholic Church goes from saying, for example, “Women cannot be priests in the Catholic Church” to “It should be illegal for women to be priests in any church” and actively working towards that end, as, indeed, some bishops in my own Anglican Communion are doing with gay marriage, that’s when the church, Anglican or Catholic crosses the line. I do not impose my beliefs on others; I will not stand by while others use the law to impose their beliefs on me, and please, don’t bring up murder, theft, etc.
[/QUOTE]
Well, fair enough. I agree that what is rock-solid when it comes to promulgating rules for your own club becomes very hinky when it’s used as the basis for secular law that must apply to all people.
In case it’s not clear form my post above, I withdraw the objections I raised earlier. I was focused myopically on the point that the Church’s own, internal rules do not permit them to be called either hypocritical or bigoted. But the focus of this thread’s complaint is the attempt to use those internal rules to craft secular law. That’s certainly an area fairly subject to those criticisms.
So in the words of Emily Latella, never mind…
[QUOTE=Bricker]
In case it’s not clear form my post above, I withdraw the objections I raised earlier. I was focused myopically on the point that the Church’s own, internal rules do not permit them to be called either hypocritical or bigoted. But the focus of this thread’s complaint is the attempt to use those internal rules to craft secular law. That’s certainly an area fairly subject to those criticisms.
So in the words of Emily Latella, never mind…
[/QUOTE]
Wow. Bookmarking this thread. Nice job, Brick.
. . . but you still misused “bereft.” 
[QUOTE=Bricker But the focus of this thread’s complaint is the attempt to use those internal rules to craft secular law. That’s certainly an area fairly subject to those criticisms. [/QUOTE]
Keep this thought in mind. Almost every time people complain about religion on this board it’s in regards to their pushing their beliefs onto the secular world. I don’t give a rat’s ass about your Christmas displays on your lawn. I just don’t want my government supporting it. I don’t care if you think I’m a sinner. I just don’t want my government discriminating against me because of that. I don’t care that your church thinks people shouldn’t be able to buy cars or beer on Sunday*. I just don’t want blue laws that enforce that.
Live your life any way your conscious leads you. You can be a bigot or a racist. You can think Muslims or Mormons or insane. You can be as prudish or libertine as you want. I don’t care. Just let me live mine the way I want and let the government treat us all as equals.
[QUOTE=Homebrew]
Keep this thought in mind. Almost every time people complain about religion on this board it’s in regards to their pushing their beliefs onto the secular world. I don’t give a rat’s ass about your Christmas displays on your lawn. I just don’t want my government supporting it. I don’t care if you think I’m a sinner. I just don’t want my government discriminating against me because of that. I don’t care that your church thinks people shouldn’t be able to buy cars or beer on Sunday*. I just don’t want blue laws that enforce that.
Live your life any way your conscious leads you. You can be a bigot or a racist. You can think Muslims or Mormons or insane. You can be as prudish or libertine as you want. I don’t care. Just let me live mine the way I want and let the government treat us all as equals.
[/QUOTE]
Not to hijack, especially after I’ve had to back away once mumbling apologies, but this is an interesting area to explore.
Joe comes along and says, “I’m going to vote in favor of the referendum prohibiting selling beer and cars on Sundays, because Sunday is the Lord’s Day.”
Mike comes along and says, “I’m going to vote in favor of the referendum prohibiting people being naked on the beach, because in Genesis Adam and Eve saw they were naked and were ashamed.”
Anna comes along and says, “I’m going to vote in favor of the referendum prohibiting selling beer and cars on Sundays, because as a matter of solicy policy I think the government should require all businesses to grant their employees one day off, and I know that there’s no chance, given our society, we’ll ever pick Tuesday or Friday as that day.”
Chris says, “I’m going to vote in favor of the referendum prohibiting people being naked on the beach, because I just think it’s not safe to do, what with all the weirdos running around.”
Now, I assume we agree that all four people should be given a vote, no matter what their reasoning.
So how should we handle the cases when secular law is made IN PART made religious concerns?