# Why don't people consider the Catholic Church a hate group? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 1, 2009, 4:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-people-consider-the-catholic-church-a-hate-group/519558 "2009-12-01T04:40:19Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2009, 11:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-people-consider-the-catholic-church-a-hate-group/519558/141 "2009-12-02T23:36:34Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > Even if they want to impose things you agree with? I personally have many opinions that I _personally_ don’t want to see legislated. (For example, I wish the Catholics would all just shut up. But I do **not** want this codified into law.) Things I support but don’t want legislated, I don’t want the Catholics to impose legislatively either. I also have opinions that I do want imposed; for example, I want it to be (well, remain) illegal to shove me alive into a meat grinder. However. I also have philosophical problems with people making decisions based on bad arguments. In practice, the latter consideration matters more. I do not want _any_ laws made based on retarded logic. It’s a crappy way to run a government and society. My preference of things: Best: good logic supporting me Grudgingly accepted: good logic opposing me opposed: bad logic supporting me extremely opposed: bad logic opposing me ---
**Author:** ![Chessic\_Sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/7c8e57/32.png) [@Chessic\_Sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chessic_Sense)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2009, 12:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-people-consider-the-catholic-church-a-hate-group/519558/142 "2009-12-03T00:10:41Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > No, it isn’t. Certainly there may well be people who don’t wish to get married, for whatever reason. But there is, at least, for straight people the possibility of sinless sex. > > Beyond that, there is the possibility that a person who doesn’t wish to get married may change their mind; or, that they are willing to accept what they consider to be a bad thing, in order to avoid the greater bad of sin. A person can’t change their sexuality, on the other hand, and there are no compromises to be made for a gay person. Saying there’s a possibility for unmarried to have sinless sex is akin to saying it’s possible for a gay woman to get laid by a man. So? It ain’t gonna happen. If you can point to marriage and go “The marriage-hater _can_ get married.” then I’m perfectly justified, by the same logic, to say “the gay man _can_ marry a woman.” Of course, the latter statement would be a stupid avenue to argue, as would be the former. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2009, 12:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-people-consider-the-catholic-church-a-hate-group/519558/143 "2009-12-03T00:20:07Z")
> [@Chessic\_Sense](#): > > Saying there’s a possibility for unmarried to have sinless sex is akin to saying it’s possible for a gay woman to get laid by a man. So? It ain’t gonna happen. If you can point to marriage and go “The marriage-hater _can_ get married.” then I’m perfectly justified, by the same logic, to say “the gay man _can_ marry a woman.” > > Of course, the latter statement would be a stupid avenue to argue, as would be the former. Refresh my memory. What were you arguing again? Option 1: the non-legally-enforced Catholic disapproval of premarital sex is as big a problem for marriage-hating heterosexuals as it is for marriage-desiring homosexuals. Option 2: the legally-enforced Catholic disapproval of homosexual marriage is as big a problem for marriage-hating heterosexuals as it is for marriage-desiring homosexuals. Option 3: the non-legally-enforced Catholic disapproval of premarital sex is as big a problem for marriage-hating heterosexuals as the legally-enforced Catholic disapproval of homosexual marriage is for marriage-desiring homosexuals. Option 4: There _ **is** _ a disparity in the severity of the problems here, but that is somehow not a problem for the argument “if they’re not a hate group against marriage-hating heterosexuals, then by extrapolation they can’t be a hate group against marriage-desiring homosexuals.” ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2009, 12:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-people-consider-the-catholic-church-a-hate-group/519558/144 "2009-12-03T00:27:23Z")
> [@Chessic\_Sense](#): > > Saying there’s a possibility for unmarried to have sinless sex is akin to saying it’s possible for a gay woman to get laid by a man. So? It ain’t gonna happen. If you can point to marriage and go “The marriage-hater _can_ get married.” then I’m perfectly justified, by the same logic, to say “the gay man _can_ marry a woman.” > > Of course, the latter statement would be a stupid avenue to argue, as would be the former. But you’re not comparing like groups to like groups. Break it down this way. There are four groups here: 1. Straight people who want to get married 2. Gay people who want to get married 3. Straight people who don’t want to get married 4. Gay people who don’t want to get married. Groups 3 and 4 are treated the same. They’re not the issue here. Groups 1 and 2 \*are \*being treated differently. The difference in their treatment is due to the fact that people in group 2 are gay. That’s where the bigotry comes in. As I said, I do have issues with the Catholic attitude towards 3 and 4, but in the ranks of moral wrongs, not being sufficiently sex-positive ranks pretty well behind naked homophobia. ---
**Author:** ![tacoloco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7993a0/32.png) [@tacoloco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tacoloco)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2009, 12:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-people-consider-the-catholic-church-a-hate-group/519558/145 "2009-12-03T00:35:48Z")
Wow. The Catholic Church is the same as Nazis. The things I learn on the Dope. ---
**Author:** ![Superfluous\_Parentheses](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8edcca/32.png) [@Superfluous\_Parentheses](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Superfluous_Parentheses)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2009, 12:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-people-consider-the-catholic-church-a-hate-group/519558/146 "2009-12-03T00:37:31Z")
> [@tacoloco](#): > > Wow. The Catholic Church is the same as Nazis. > > The things I learn on the Dope. Cite? For both anyone claiming that the CC is “the same as Nazis”, and that you actually learned something. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2009, 12:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-people-consider-the-catholic-church-a-hate-group/519558/147 "2009-12-03T00:39:47Z")
> [@tacoloco](#): > > Wow. The Catholic Church is the same as Nazis. > > The things I learn on the Dope. And [over here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=541850&page=7), we learn that Muslims are the same as Nazis. Which means, using the transitive property, that Catholics are really Muslims. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2009, 12:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-people-consider-the-catholic-church-a-hate-group/519558/148 "2009-12-03T00:51:44Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > And [over here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=541850&page=7), we learn that Muslims are the same as Nazis. Which means, using the transitive property, that Catholics are really Muslims. Who want to build minarets. Stop Catholic minaret building before it’s too late! ---
**Author:** ![tacoloco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7993a0/32.png) [@tacoloco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tacoloco)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2009, 1:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-people-consider-the-catholic-church-a-hate-group/519558/149 "2009-12-03T01:29:14Z")
> [@Superfluous\_Parentheses](#): > > Cite? For both anyone claiming that the CC is “the same as Nazis”, and that you actually learned something. Why so serious? ---
**Author:** ![Superfluous\_Parentheses](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8edcca/32.png) [@Superfluous\_Parentheses](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Superfluous_Parentheses)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2009, 1:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-people-consider-the-catholic-church-a-hate-group/519558/150 "2009-12-03T01:31:34Z")
> [@tacoloco](#): > > Why so serious? Cause it wasn’t funny. ---
**Author:** ![tacoloco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7993a0/32.png) [@tacoloco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tacoloco)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2009, 1:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-people-consider-the-catholic-church-a-hate-group/519558/151 "2009-12-03T01:35:57Z")
> [@Superfluous\_Parentheses](#): > > Cause it wasn’t funny. Oh get over your big bad self. ---
**Author:** ![cwthree](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/9de0a6/32.png) [@cwthree](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cwthree)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2009, 2:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-people-consider-the-catholic-church-a-hate-group/519558/152 "2009-12-03T02:15:45Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > Even if they want to impose things you agree with? If they support these things purely as a matter of doctrine, then no, I don’t. Let me give you an example that doesn’t involve homosexuality or the Catholic Church. I make it a point to give money to various groups that help the poor.\* I believe that in a perfect world, everybody who could afford it would do the same, but I know that this isn’t a perfect world and not everyone does as I do. As it happens, charity (_zakat_) is also one of the five pillars of Islam. So, somewhere out there is an imam exhorting people to give money to organizations that help the poor, because it’s what observant Muslims do. The imam and I agree that it is good to give money in this way. Now suppose the imam gets his congressman to introduce a bill making it mandatory for every household and business to donate 2% of its gross income to a group specifically dedicated to helping the poor.\*\* “Allah commands it,” he says, “and this will ensure that His will is done.” I wouldn’t be able to support that, even if I already voluntarily donate more than that to the very same organizations, because it’s motivated by the desire to enforce the requirements of a religion. \*No arguing about the details, ethics, or efficacy of “helping the poor.” This is for illustrative purposes only. First, assume a spherical cow… \*\*No bitching about how the government already does this via taxation. This is for illustrative purposes only. Close your eyes and think of that spherical cow. ---
**Author:** ![Mapache](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/58956e/32.png) [@Mapache](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mapache)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2009, 2:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-people-consider-the-catholic-church-a-hate-group/519558/153 "2009-12-03T02:33:38Z")
> [@stuthehistoryguy](#): > > 1. Stepinac did not “run” Jasenovac. Though he did condone the Ustashe, he also condemned them periodically, and he spoke against Jasenovac specifically. I’m not a fan of Stepinac by any means–he was far too chummy with genocidal fascists for my tastes–but saying he “ran” Jasenovac is ludicrous. > > 2. The site you quote is utter crap. One of its prime sources is Alberto Rivera, known to us here on the dope for his work with one Jack T. Chick. Enough said about that. OK; you don’t like those sites. What do you think those photographs of starving, or dead, children are? Or the women with their eyes cut out? Anyway try ([Порнуха онлайн бесплатно! Смотреть новинки порно видео 2024 на dozrel.com](http://www.jerusalim.org/cd/index_en.html)) or just Google Jasenovic or Jasenovac, or Alperin vs Vatican Bank. You will get thousands of hits. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2009, 8:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-people-consider-the-catholic-church-a-hate-group/519558/154 "2009-12-03T08:00:09Z")
> [@Chessic\_Sense](#): > > Saying there’s a possibility for unmarried to have sinless sex is akin to saying it’s possible for a gay woman to get laid by a man. So? It ain’t gonna happen. If you can point to marriage and go “The marriage-hater _can_ get married.” then I’m perfectly justified, by the same logic, to say “the gay man _can_ marry a woman.” No, it isn’t. I see what you’re getting at - the idea that, a gay person cannot necessarily have sinless sex, but, neither can an unmarried straight person - but I still don’t disagree. The unmarried person might change their mind, as I said, and want marriage. They might conclude that marriage was still not what they wanted, but that they were willing to compromise for the benefits that also may come with it, even if it means the negatives, too. But a gay person cannot change their minds; they cannot alter their sexuality. And they can’t compromise; marrying a person of the opposite sex gets them nothing they want. Too, the comparable groups in your point aren’t gay people and straight people, but gay people and straight people who don’t want to get married. That too is an inequality, in that the problem affects one group less specifically; that is to say, one group must fulfil additional criteria in order to be acting sinfully. It’s like if I say that all I think all Canadians deserve a kick up the backside, but only all American men deserve a kick up the backside. That i’m treating all Canadians and American men the same doesn’t mean i’m not treating them inequally, or that i’m being fair and reasonable to both groups; i’m not. Of course, the latter statement would be a stupid avenue to argue, as would be the former. [/QUOTE] ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2009, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-people-consider-the-catholic-church-a-hate-group/519558/155 "2009-12-03T18:36:30Z")
> [@Mapache](#): > > Try Googling Jasenovic. ([http://www.reformation.org/archive.html](http://www.reformation.org/archive.html)). Uh huh. **Panache** asserted that the Roman Catholic Church is running “death camps” in the United States, right now, at the present time. What you’ve posted is a total non-sequiter, which my first impulse is to ignore. But since our board’s purpose is to fight ignorance, I’ll reluctantly swing into action. > [@Mapache](#): > > A genuine Nazi death camp, founded and managed and staffed by Franciscan monks and priests. (FRANCISCAN!!Named after the loving and peaceful St Franciis of Asisi!) Jasenovic was not staffed by Franciscan monks and priests. That’s a complete fiction. > [@Mapache](#): > > and overseen by Archbishop/Cardinal Stepanek, whom Wojtyla wanted to make a saint until protests by human rights groups made him give up the idea. Jasenovic was not overseen by Cardinal Stepanek. That’s another fiction on your poart. In truth, Cardinal Stepanek was the most outspoken opponent of the Ustashi and the Nazis in the entire country, putting himself in considerable danger in a bid to save lives. As a cite, read chapter 3 of [The Catholic Church and the Holocaust](http://books.google.com/books?id=Ik_6WgPPxsoC&dq=Poland+Croatia+Catholics+Holocaust&source=gbs_navlinks_s) One other thing that I want to mention, just because it’s too funny to pass up. The cite that you base your _entire_ post on is merely a hate-site run by some nutjobs, mostly dedicated to anti-Catholic hatred. But they do have other stuff. For example, [the site says that the earth is not moving and that the heliocentric theory of the Solar System is wrong.](http://www.reformation.org/stationary-earth.html)[It says that the entire western hemisphere is the property of England.](http://www.reformation.org/cabotia.html)[It endorses extreme anti-semitism.](http://www.reformation.org/synagogue-of-satan.html)[They endorse young-Earth creationism and Mayan calendar nonsense on the same page.](http://www.reformation.org/mayan-calendar.html) And then there’s [this page, which is too bizarre to describe but too bizarre not to link to.](http://www.reformation.org/mexicans.html) So, to summarize, you probably ought to think twice before you make any more posts based on that website. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2009, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-people-consider-the-catholic-church-a-hate-group/519558/156 "2009-12-03T20:13:38Z")
> [@Mr.Kobayashi](#): > > “Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder.” > > - Ratzinger. > [Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons](http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19861001_homosexual-persons_en.html) > > Replace ‘homosexual’ as you see fit. Being likened to ‘an intrinsic moral evil’ is pretty hateful no matter how you slice it. I think the pope is calling the homosexual act the intrinsic moral evil that homosexcuals have a tendency towards. This tendency is called an “objective disorder.” As far as I can tell, the pope is saying homosexuals are sick, an opinion held by the medical establishment until recent decades. Frankly, I stopped carting about homosexuality when I realized it wasn’t contagious. ---
**Author:** ![StusBlues](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/dc4da7/32.png) [@StusBlues](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/StusBlues)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2009, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-people-consider-the-catholic-church-a-hate-group/519558/157 "2009-12-03T21:11:20Z")
> [@Mapache](#): > > OK; you don’t like those sites. What do you think those photographs of starving, or dead, children are? Or the women with their eyes cut out? Anyway try ([Порнуха онлайн бесплатно! Смотреть новинки порно видео 2024 на dozrel.com](http://www.jerusalim.org/cd/index_en.html)) or just Google Jasenovic or Jasenovac, > or Alperin vs Vatican Bank. You will get thousands of hits. Jasenovac existed, and Jasenovac was every bit as bad as any camp in the war, but Stepinac didn’t run it. One the other hand, he didn’t excommunicate Filipovic or Pavelic. Stepinac was a bit of a bastard, but his greatest crime was tolerating pro-church fascism because the alternative was anti-church communism. He wasn’t Rudolf Höss. ---
**Author:** ![Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aji_de_gallina/32/260_2.png) [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2009, 1:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-people-consider-the-catholic-church-a-hate-group/519558/158 "2009-12-04T01:48:20Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > Uh huh. **Panache** asserted that the Roman Catholic Church is running “death camps” in the United States, right now, at the present time. What you’ve posted is a total non-sequiter, which my first impulse is to ignore. But since our board’s purpose is to fight ignorance, I’ll reluctantly swing into action. > > Jasenovic was not staffed by Franciscan monks and priests. That’s a complete fiction. > > Jasenovic was not overseen by Cardinal Stepanek. That’s another fiction on your poart. In truth, Cardinal Stepanek was the most outspoken opponent of the Ustashi and the Nazis in the entire country, putting himself in considerable danger in a bid to save lives. As a cite, read chapter 3 of [The Catholic Church and the Holocaust](http://books.google.com/books?id=Ik_6WgPPxsoC&dq=Poland+Croatia+Catholics+Holocaust&source=gbs_navlinks_s) > One other thing that I want to mention, just because it’s too funny to pass up. The cite that you base your _entire_ post on is merely a hate-site run by some nutjobs, mostly dedicated to anti-Catholic hatred. But they do have other stuff. For example, [the site says that the earth is not moving and that the heliocentric theory of the Solar System is wrong.](http://www.reformation.org/stationary-earth.html)[It says that the entire western hemisphere is the property of England.](http://www.reformation.org/cabotia.html)[It endorses extreme anti-semitism.](http://www.reformation.org/synagogue-of-satan.html)[They endorse young-Earth creationism and Mayan calendar nonsense on the same page.](http://www.reformation.org/mayan-calendar.html) And then there’s [this page, which is too bizarre to describe but too bizarre not to link to.](http://www.reformation.org/mexicans.html) So, to summarize, you probably ought to think twice before you make any more posts based on that website. Thanks for the gifts. I never thought that NAFTA was a plot by the Inquisition and the Pentagon ---
**Author:** ![clnilsen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecccb3/32.png) [@clnilsen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clnilsen)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2009, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-people-consider-the-catholic-church-a-hate-group/519558/159 "2009-12-04T16:05:24Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > Thanks for the gifts. I never thought that NAFTA was a plot by the Inquisition and the Pentagon Just to get this in… NOBODY EXPECTS THE SPANISH INQUISITION!😃 ---
**Author:** ![Chessic\_Sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/7c8e57/32.png) [@Chessic\_Sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chessic_Sense)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2009, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-people-consider-the-catholic-church-a-hate-group/519558/160 "2009-12-04T19:03:54Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > Refresh my memory. What were you arguing again? > > Option 1: the non-legally-enforced Catholic disapproval of premarital sex is as big a problem for marriage-hating heterosexuals as it is for marriage-desiring homosexuals. > > Option 2: the legally-enforced Catholic disapproval of homosexual marriage is as big a problem for marriage-hating heterosexuals as it is for marriage-desiring homosexuals. > > Option 3: the non-legally-enforced Catholic disapproval of premarital sex is as big a problem for marriage-hating heterosexuals as the legally-enforced Catholic disapproval of homosexual marriage is for marriage-desiring homosexuals. > > Option 4: There _ **is** _ a disparity in the severity of the problems here, but that is somehow not a problem for the argument “if they’re not a hate group against marriage-hating heterosexuals, then by extrapolation they can’t be a hate group against marriage-desiring homosexuals.” I can’t really answer that because I don’t know what you mean by “as big a problem”. Do you mean “has as big a scope” as in “affects as many people” or do you mean “is as severely problematic to the individual”? If you mean the latter, then I am arguing Option 1- the ban on premarital sex is problematic for both the marriage-hater and the homosexual, in equal proportion. If you define it as having as wide a scope, then I am arguing none of the above. I find the scope of the CC’s influence to be irrelevant to the discussion at hand, since religious decisions aren’t based on popular opinon. I can’t really expect them to change their dogma, attempting to influence or harm the least amount of people. To restate Option 1 so that I perfectly agree with it: The ban on premarital sex is terribly problematic and vexing for a sex-desiring Catholic man (or woman) if he is a) repulsed by marriage, or b) gay. It makes no difference if the reason is a) or b), as both men are unable to live their lives sin-free without making _drastic_ changes in their beliefs and lifestyles. I think that if you believe that reason A is less problematic than reason B, it’s because you’re not giving enough _gravitas_ to the man’s resistance to marriage. Like being gay, it’s not something you can just choose to change your mind on. It’s not something you can compromise on, nor should anyone expect it of you. I mean, you can point to self-hating gays, but I can point to a bajillion people that hate their marriages. And if you stick with Catholic doctrine that says you can only have one marriage, forever and ever and ever, then it’s probably over 6 bajillion troubled souls. > [@Miller](#): > > And [over here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=541850&page=7), we learn that Muslims are the same as Nazis. Which means, using the transitive property, that Catholics are really Muslims. That doesn’t work! If I’m a Doper, and you’re a Doper, it doesn’t make me you. -5 math points for you. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-people-consider-the-catholic-church-a-hate-group/519558.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-dont-people-consider-the-catholic-church-a-hate-group/519558.md?page=9)