majormd:
They don’t do that Sue. They are very intolerant of any religious views. If they can’t measure it, it can’t be out there. Otto, NeutronStar and David b are all this way. Bash Christians, that’s all they do.
Patrick Ashley
‘The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.’ -Edmund Burke
Besides, look at this stupid OP. Why not say “Christianity is stupid, you believers!” I mean, c’mon.
But boy, say anything about atheism, and you’re branded as intolerant and ignorant.
Patrick Ashley
‘The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.’ -Edmund Burke
Turning again to the M-W online dictionary under “intolerant” I find:
Since I have stated repeatedly that I am not only willing to grant equality to religions as long as they do not violate the rights of others, but affirmitvely defend those rights, your insistence on labelling me as “intolerant” is transparantly and patently false.
Otto, you are free to express your views. A responsible person would confine that expression to his own views, and refrain from labelling other peoples’ beliefs as hogwash. But you are free to express all of your beliefs. Since you view tolerance as not interfering with with another person’s beliefs, and I have not, and cannot interfere with your ability to express yourself, I cannot, by your definition of tolerance, and your logic, be guilty of intolerance.
But guess what? I am also free to express my beliefs. One of my beliefs is that denigrating another person’s beliefs is one form of intolerance. And when you choose to express your views denigrating other peoples’ beliefs, I am free to express my belief that you are an intolerant jerk.
The OP is not an attack, but a valid question about your beliefs and how or if they would change if such a situation arose. Both of my recent threads about religion were directed towards Catholics because I happen to live in an area that is VERY Catholic (and my family, though they live on the other side of the country, is Catholic too) and their practices are what I see on a day to day basis, so that’s what I’m commenting on. I took a drive down a busy road today and couldn’t find a single restaurant that didn’t have a big sign advertising a lent special.
I will concede, however, that I have been a bit bitchy towards the religious people in recent days, perhaps due to the fact that I no longer have a constant stream of nicotine running through my veins. (I quit smoking 7 weeks ago with the patch, but just discontinued the patch this past week).
No, I can’t even pretend to understand why you believe what you do, and why you ignore science for rhetoric, but that’s your business. I just wish more Christians could KEEP IT TO THEMSELVES instead of trying to push it on the rest of the country. For example, if every Christian was like Polycarp, I would not have a problem in the least. It’s just that when you storm out of the woodwork and proclaim that homosexuals cannot marrry because your black book says so, I get angry. When you say a television show should not air because it conflicts with your belief system, I get angry. When you advocate a theocracy, I get VERY angry! Believe what you want, just don’t expect me to buy into it.
Windows 95: 32-bit extensions and a graphical shell for a 16-bit patch to an 8-bit operating system originally coded for a 4-bit microprocessor, written by a 2-bit company that can’t stand for 1 bit of competition.
[Moderator Hat: ON]
MajorMD said:
Not in Great Debates, you aren’t. You are free to express your belief that he is intolerant. But if you want to move past that to the insult of “jerk,” you should have taken it to the Pit, or, better yet, just not said it at all.
David B, SDMB Great Debates Moderator
[Moderator Hat: OFF]
Pashley said:
Jeez, man, in how many threads are you going to whine about this? Every time you’ve said it, I’ve called you on it. Are you looking around trying to find a receptive audience who hasn’t seen me ask you to prove your statements, and who hasn’t seen you avoid the issue every single time? Like I said in another thread, the people around here aren’t stupid enough to fall for this BS. So why don’t you just address the issues already or give it up?
You think that the only people who are against homosexual marriages are “Christian”? And that the only people who are accepting of it are non-Christian? Perhaps you need to examine your sterotypes.
-Melin
Voted Best Moderator (Emeritus)
So if someone expresses her religious belief that people of color are sub-human, I in the name of “responsibility” should refrain from labelling that belief as hogwash? If someone expresses his religious belief that women were put on this earth expressly for his sexual pleasure whether they want to have sex with him or not, I should refrain, as a responsible person, from labelling that view as hogwash?
The idea that refraining from expressing one’s opposing viewpoint is uniformly a responsible act is hogwash. Why are you in Great Debates if you believe this?
David, since I’m sure you don’t mean to single out MajorMD here, you’ll probably want to chastise the other contributors to this thread who have also used personal insults in their posts.
-Melin
Voted Best Moderator (Emeritus)
Did I SAY that? Did you read my post at all? Why are you putting words into my mouth and making these odd assumptions?
The vast majority of people against homosexual marriage, and I don’t think you can deny this, ARE against it for religious reasons. Really, why else would they be against it? Blind hatred?
[Moderator Hat: ON]
Melin said:
Anyone who finds insults in this thread or others in this forum should feel free to e-mail me or Gaudere so that we may take appropriate steps. Otherwise, please leave the moderating to the moderators.
David B, SDMB Great Debates Moderator
[Moderator Hat: OFF]
David B posts:
I’ll leave aside the hair-splitting issue of whether I actually called Otto a jerk, or merely asserted my freedom to express my belief in that regard.
I will, however, question your motives, David, and your values, if you believe that calling someone a jerk is more disruptive to constructive debate than labelling as crazy both the core beliefs of Catholicism and the Pope in a debate in which the OP presupposes the original sanity of the Pope. This is NOT a debate about the rationality, or lack thereof, of Catholic or other religious faith, in which Otto’s post would still be inappropriately hostile & judgmental. This debate, as framed by the OP, was about the limits of Papal infallibility, and whether the Catholic church had any provisions for a Pope who became affected by dementia or other mental illness. Otto’s post was a) not constructive, b) a major hijack, and c) demonstrative of intolerance and Christian-bashing.
It is as if there were a debate taking place about some finer point of evolutionary theory, and a creationist jumped in with “Bwahahahahahahaha. You people are all going to hell. Why don’t you quit reading those Satan-guided scientific journals and pick up a Bible and read the Truth? You expect anyone to believe that a bunch of atoms spontaneously formed proteins & million base pair chains of DNA? And that amoebae aspired to become earthworms? That’s crazy.” I can’t believe you would not respond to that. Yet not only do you fail to challenge the appropriateness of Otto’s post, you defend it! For someone as sensitive to the label Christian-basher as you appear to be, you might want to consider how Otto’s post looks from the Christian viewpoint, re-read your defense of it, and see if you don’t get some idea of why some posters make that charge against you. Oh, and spare me the bit about how well you get along with a handful of Christian posters on this board. I give you credit for too much intelligence to actually believe that the old “I’m not a ______-hater. Some of my best friends are ____________s.” argument holds any water at all.
Otto posts:
I will agree that in those instances, speaking out would be appropriate. Once one begins espousing & expressing beliefs that infringe upon other peoples’ right to live as they choose and believe as they choose (which in turn is limited by non-infringement on other peoples rights…) those beliefs can and should be labelled as intolerant, and as racist/sexist/Christian-bashing as appropriate, and those expressing such beliefs should be subject to censure, and depending on the forum in which those views were expressed, possibly restricted in his/her freedom to express such beliefs in the future (e.g. One may spew anti-Semitic hate if one chooses. One may not do so in front of a synagogue)
The line I am drawing, Otto, is simply that, as long as one’s expressions of his beliefs does not attack other people, or other peoples’ beliefs, they should not be attacked themselves, or ridiculed, although they may be questioned in an appropriate setting & in a respectful way.
In a debate about the rationality of religious beliefs, your questioning the credibility of a virgin birth, or of transubstantiation would be absolutely acceptable. Your labelling such beliefs as crazy would be inappropriate.
In a debate about the limits of Papal infallibilty, however, your post ridiculing other beliefs held by Catholics was plain and simply gratuitous Catholic-bashing, in my opinion.
Please either show me where I said that “refraining from expressing a contrary viewpoint is uniformly a responsible act” or retract that assertion. What I said (as quoted above) is that responsible debaters refrain from labelling other peoples’ views as hogwash. I have NOT labelled your views that Catholic doctrine strains credibility as hogwash. I have labelled some of your posts which call those beliefs crazy as intolerant and as Christian-bashing.
I participate in Great Debates because a majority of posters here can discuss issues of interest to me without resorting to intolerance and ridicule. I learn from reading other posters views. I re-think some opinions I formed at a young age and sometimes change those opinions. I grow as a person. And maybe I post something that helps someone else become more accepting of other viewpoints.
pashley posts:
I have to disagree with you here, Patrick. I’ll agree that the OP went a little overboard in coming up with hypothetical examples of Papal craziness. And I’m aware that in another thread, he made more direct allegations of illogicality of certain Catholic practices. Not that there’s not plenty of that to go around 
The Catholic church never claimed it’s doctrine was the most logical credo around…
But I think that he did really mean to stimulate some discussion about Papal infallibility in this thread, and so responded to the OP as I did.
I hope you’re not referring to me in this. I merely suggested a play on words that was funny at the time, and I don’t think “Pope Soap on a Rope” implies hanging, but rather I was poking fun at the “I Saw the Pope” t-shirts and other marketing promotions…
If, however, it was misinterpreted as a serious attack on the RCC, I sincerely apologize as that was not my intent.
Constructiveness: well, it certainly got the thread moving, so I guess it all depends on your definition. Hijack: asserting that the condition posited by the OP is already a reality is a “hijack”? How so? If the condition asserted by the OP already exists, then pointing it out allows those who are interested in discussing it to examine a real-life example of it. “What if the Earth had a moon?” The Earth already has a moon." “Hijack!” Spare me. Intolerant and Christian-bashing: spare me again. I’ve already shot down your “intolerant” riff, and criticizing something does not automatically equal “bashing.”
A debate on the subject of the consequences of an insane pope strikes me as an appropriate place for a discussion of the mental health of the pope. Your belief that one should refrain from “ridiculing” the beliefs of others under some circumstances is fine and dandy; that I do not subscribe to your belief does not give you justification for labelling something you disagree with as “bashing.”
So it’s all right to express a belief that these elements of Catholic doctrine are irrational, but not crazy? Since we all love the M-W online dictionary so, here is its definition of “irrational”:
Sounds like a synonym for “crazy” to me…
You said
“A responsible person would confine that expression to his own views” is what I took to express your views on the responsibility of expressing oneself about the views of others. Of course, not expressing oneself about the views of others makes for awfully short debates. If you meant something else when you said that responsible people don’t comment on views other than their own, please elucidate.
To neutron star:
I’m sorry that your thread has been hijacked so badly, and that I’m contributing to that. Thank-you for acknowledging that recent events in your life have affected your posting style; your OP was a little over-the-top, but an intersting question nonetheless.
Otto posts:
Yeah on multiple other tangents (history of the Church) that you repeatedly whined had “bugger-all” to do with your post.
As I have already explained, the OP framed the question so that the Pope was functioning normally, then started preaching things contradictory to Catholic doctrine. Nowhere in the OP was the validity of Catholic doctrine made an issue to be debated. Thus your coming in and saying that the whole debate is moot because the Pope and by extension all Catholics is crazy is a major hijack.
Shot down my "intolerant riff? Hah!
Here’s a lesson in remedial logic:
Statement A (Denigrating another’s beliefs is one form of intolerance) is either true or false.
If Statement A is true, my claims that you are intolerant are true, and therefore your labelling me as intolerant for saying so is not true, and just whining.
If statement A is false, however, my expressing my belief that you are intolerant (false or not) in no way interferes with your ability to make outrageous statements about other peoples beliefs. Therefore, my statement that you are intolerant cannot be used as proof that I am intolerant, and your asserting that it does is disingenuous at best, and hypocritical at worst.
So, do you say things that are untrue, or do you apply one definition of a word to you, and another definition to me? Which is it, Otto?
The difference between intolerance and bashing is in degree, and whether or not malice is intended. IMO, I was being conservative in initially labelling your posts as intolerant, and after further exchanges with you feel that your posts meet MY standard of bashing. ymmv.
Except that you aren’t really just talking about the Pope’s insanity, are you? No, if your posit were true, Otto, all of the people on the Vatican staff would be similarly afflicted. And all of the Cardinals. And all Catholics world-wide would be crazy. In which case why would anyone care about the Pope at all if all of his followers were insane lunatics? A debate about the consequences of an insane or more likely demented Pope only makes sense if the Pope and Vatican staff and Cardinals, and Catholics worldwide are sane (if misguided in some people’s minds) to begin with. And that is why your post serves no purpose at all in furthering discussion along the lines of the OP, and hence is just an opportunity for you to express your anti-Catholic views. To bash, in my opinion.
We go from remedial logic to remedial reading.
What I said would be “all right” was questioning the credibility of beliefs of other religions. That does not equal labelling those beliefs as either irrational or crazy. Please try not to twist my words, Otto.
Responsible debaters discuss the issues defined in the original premise. They argue about the relative validity and bearing of facts or logic brought up in support or in opposition to either position.
For religious debates, however, the rules are a little bit different. This board has more or less accepted as a given in all religious debates that facts alone will never be able to prove nor refute the existence of a Supreme Being. Thus what is left is discussing issues either within the context of a Supreme Being, or in the context of atheism. Or debating about where the line separating church and state should be drawn. Or debating about creationism vs. evolution. Or discussing the myriad of ways in which we are all affected by each other’s beliefs. But these debates require a high level of mutual respect and trust before many people will feel comfortable opening up and sharing this big a piece of themselves with so many
I am going to weigh in here with a reaction limited to the question of Otto’s tolerance or lack thereof.
If someone were to take Otto’s responses and re-word them so as to characterize homosexual marriage as a crazy belief, I have little doubt that Otto and others would be very willing to label such views as intolerant.
Now, that leaves unanswered the basic question: would they be intolerant? It’s a knee-jerk reactionary word, easily tossed around.
I suppose in a strict technical sense of the word, merely labelling beliefs as crazy or inane, without arguing that they should be suppressed, does not constitute intolerance. And this would be true regardless of the belief in question being a virgin birth, or the right of all persons to marry whomever they wish.
But - words are rarely read in a strict hypertechnical context. If I say, “Hey, I never slept with your sister,” it’s disingenuous - indeed, Clintonesque - for me to later say, “Well, OK, we did have sex, yes - but we never went to sleep.”
In this case, the derisive and insulting comments Otto made, while not fitting the technical definition of ‘intolerant’, constitute rhetoric that goes a long way towards persuading his listener to be intolerant. As such, it is not outside the bounds of reason to characterize the sentiments as intolerant, as the word is normally used and understood.
Sheesh.
As far as the OP goes…
If the Pope were to start spewing some statements that were way off base, e.g., “Christ and Satan are brothers” or “There is no God”, I’m sure there are protocols to have him resigned or removed.
It is my GUESS, that God shows a special grace on the Pope to protect him from “going nuts”.
Patrick Ashley
‘The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.’ -Edmund Burke