US Supreme Court rules same-sex marriage legal in all 50 states

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Fighting Banana Slug

I think the question of why the Pope met with her, what did they talk about and how you, as a Catholic, feel about it are legit discussions. As a non-Catholic, all I can think of is, "What the hell was he thinking?" Seriously wondering what you think.

It seems you are deftly avoiding the topic with the hate inferences. It is "irresponsible to read into it too much", but you are ready to paint CP with the anti-Catholicism brush? Pretty rich.

No, obviously just stirring the pot a little bit.

I am Lutheran, not Catholic, but I do feel that the Church is genuinely, and purposefully misunderstand as part of a centuries long propaganda campaign by secularists to smear both its past and present image.

All I would say is this. The Catholic Church is one of the biggest, if not the biggest Western institution, in our civilization's 2500 year long history. It is absolutely and brutally simplistic to boil the whole thing down to a "Idiots Guide to the Crimes and Perpetual Injustices of the Catholic Church." Simplifications of the Church's view on reproductive rights and marriage combined with the constant bleated accusations of bigotry are extraordinarily irritating, and also exhausting to counter. You are literally fighting the wave of an entire irrational culture here.

That said, this visit. I don't know why he met with her. If it was just to thank her for her courage, then I think that is probably the job of the Bishop of Rome to encourage, pray, and perhaps, correct the actions of ordinary Catholics. If we are just about boiling the Catholic Church down to "optics," as if the whole point of Christianity's largest church was just a public relations campaign, especially as it relates to widely-held sentiments regarding gay marriage, then the entire point of free discussion has been lost.

[Fighting Banana Slug]

I still find it strange that you see the church as the oppressed, rather than the oppressor over the majority of its existence. I also don't see it as a fight against an entire irrational culture. I think my questions were entirely reasonable, and those that accuse the church of bigotry aren't exactly making it up when they speak of homophobic words and actions out of the church and its followers.
Finally, I don't boil the point of Christianity's largest church to a public relations campaign, but in this case, what was the Pope's trip about, if it wasn't public relations?

[peter12]

Not sure I ever used that language. In fact, I think that kind of polarization is pretty meaningless. As I said, I wouldn't call the Church's opposition to the libertarian view on marriage to be just homophobic.

I also wanted to throw a line in there about how the Catholic Church doesn't really do itself any favours by playing to the PR game. But don't we all these days.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by peter12

Simplifications of the Church's view on reproductive rights and marriage combined with the constant bleated accusations of bigotry are extraordinarily irritating, and also exhausting to counter. You are literally fighting the wave of an entire irrational culture here.

A viewpoint that is wrong is not less wrong for being nuanced.

Also, "irrational culture"? The part of current Western culture that questions received wisdom and the nattering of ancients who had little more idea of the workings of the universe than capering cavemen in front of a fire is not irrational. There are many irrationalities at large in the cultural darkness, but questioning morality based upon magic fairy books and the mutterings of superstitious patriarchs is not one of them.

[peter12]

[QUOTE=jammies;5438854]A viewpoint that is wrong is not less wrong for being nuanced.

Also, "irrational culture"? The part of current Western culture that questions received wisdom and the nattering of ancients who had little more idea of the workings of the universe than capering cavemen in front of a fire is not irrational. There are many irrationalities at large in the cultural darkness, but questioning morality based upon magic fairy books and the mutterings of superstitious patriarchs is not one of them.[/QUOTE]

This is among the most masturbatory myths that modern individuals love to regale themselves with. Oh those Catholics, a bunch of dark ages cavemen!

When most everyone just holds the bare simplistic libertarian views on relationships then of course everything else looks like a bunch of natterings. Oh we are so sophisticated with our televisions, and super markets, and on-demand pornography! I read a book by Richard Dawkins, I know so much!

Please. Just because you don't recognize the importance of nuance in a free discussion about anything, doesn't entitle you to belittle, and sophistically simplify something you haven't even tried to understand with an element of anxious care.

[wittynickname]

[QUOTE=peter12;5438867]

Originally Posted by jammies

A viewpoint that is wrong is not less wrong for being nuanced.

Also, "irrational culture"? The part of current Western culture that questions received wisdom and the nattering of ancients who had little more idea of the workings of the universe than capering cavemen in front of a fire is not irrational. There are many irrationalities at large in the cultural darkness, but questioning morality based upon magic fairy books and the mutterings of superstitious patriarchs is not one of them.[/QUOTE]

This is among the most masturbatory myths that modern individuals love to regale themselves with. Oh those Catholics, a bunch of dark ages cavemen!

When most everyone just holds the bare simplistic libertarian views on relationships then of course everything else looks like a bunch of natterings. Oh we are so sophisticated with our televisions, and super markets, and on-demand pornography! I read a book by Richard Dawkins, I know so much!

Please. Just because you don't recognize the importance of nuance in a free discussion about anything, doesn't entitle you to belittle, and sophistically simplify something you haven't even tried to understand with an element of anxious care.

Yet we are incredibly more sophisticated than the men who (allegedly) wrote the books of the Bible, also we're far more sophisticated than the early members of the Catholic Church, who took their own liberal take on Biblical teachings. We now know more about all forms of science, evolution as a means of creation, homosexuality in nature, reproductive science, etc. And not just the wealthy elites have that kind of information, due to our fancy TVs and fancy Internet and fancy Smartphones we can do a lot more than access "pornography on demand." We can also access pretty much all current human understanding on demand.

That makes us a hell of a lot more sophisticated than the pillars of the original Catholic Church, and thus makes us far more aware of our place in the world and universe, and we realize how archaic many Catholic beliefs are.

Also I'll feel bad for Catholics when they start clamoring for the government to help the poor and the disenfranchised. That was Jesus entire message, to take care of those who can't take care of themselves. Catholics now seem far too concerned with keeping the LGBT community from having rights and keeping women from having abortions/birth control, while caring nothing for the emotional, physical, or financial well-being of those people.

As it is, the Catholic Church is a massive institution with an obscene amount of wealth and power across the globe. I can't feel all that sorry for their "hardship" because marginalized groups might be getting rights that have absolutely zero to do with Catholics' everyday lives.

[HotHotHeat]

Originally Posted by peter12

No, obviously just stirring the pot a little bit.

I am Lutheran, not Catholic, but I do feel that the Church is genuinely, and purposefully misunderstand as part of a centuries long propaganda campaign by secularists to smear both its past and present image.

Victim card.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by peter12

When most everyone just holds the bare simplistic libertarian views on relationships then of course everything else looks like a bunch of natterings. Oh we are so sophisticated with our televisions, and super markets, and on-demand pornography! I read a book by Richard Dawkins, I know so much!

You certainly have an obsession with Dawkins, he is your favorite straw man.

We are actually considerably more sophisticated, educated, and connected than the people of the past. Until very recently only elites were educated at all. A vast majority of people never went more than a few miles from their birthplace. They mostly lived in the countryside, having contact with neighbours who were more or less exactly like themselves.

Now people routinely encounter other people from faraway lands with different cultures and ideas. They think nothing of eating exotic foods, flying to exotic locales, and processing information that would leave your average 19th century gentleman catatonic. This *IS* sophistication, which is not a veneer of manners but the cosmopolitan acceptance of otherness.

When we look at thinkers of the past, we are looking at the elite of the elite over thousands of years. That they are parochial and limited despite that is not on them, but on the times they lived in. We will undoubtedly appear limited ourselves to thinkers of the future. And yet, at least given credit for beginning to move beyond patriarchy, hierarchy, and rigid class structure as eternal truths.

Originally Posted by peter12

lease. Just because you don't recognize the importance of nuance in a free discussion about anything, doesn't entitle you to belittle, and sophistically simplify something you haven't even tried to understand with an element of anxious care.

I was raised Catholic, and rejected their doctrines after realizing they were not only internally inconsistent, but often actively immoral. I understand very well the "nuances" of their positions - do you? How do you feel about the nuances of papal infallibility? Does that doctrine appeal to you, a Lutheran? i suspect not, else you'd convert... so if that is wrong, why is it a stretch to say that other doctrines might also be wrong regardless of their "nuanced" history and justification?

[peter12]

You certainly have an obsession with Dawkins, he is your favorite straw man.

And accusing me of reactionary nostalgia is yours. Truth be told things are always getting better and worse.

We are actually considerably more sophisticated, educated, and connected than the people of the past. Until very recently only elites were educated at all. A vast majority of people never went more than a few miles from their birthplace. They mostly lived in the countryside, having contact with neighbours who were more or less exactly like themselves.

Universal education was basically introduced by the Jesuits, and later the Puritans. For the Puritans particularly, it was important for everyone to read and understand the Bible in his own language, plus Latin, in order to make up his own mind about the Scriptures. Theological discussions were community events.

Now people routinely encounter other people from faraway lands with different cultures and ideas. They think nothing of eating exotic foods, flying to exotic locales, and processing information that would leave your average 19th century gentleman catatonic. This *IS* sophistication, which is not a veneer of manners but the cosmopolitan acceptance of otherness.

I would highly recommend you read Jacques Barzun, "From Dawn to Decadence," to get a picture as to how lively the late Middle Ages were, and how cosmopolitans parts of Europe were becoming under the universal mediation of the Catholic Church. Not to mention the incredibly sophisticated Eastern Roman Empire.

When we look at thinkers of the past, we are looking at the elite of the elite over thousands of years. That they are parochial and limited despite that is not on them, but on the times they lived in. We will undoubtedly appear limited ourselves to thinkers of the future. And yet, at least given credit for beginning to move beyond patriarchy, hierarchy, and rigid class structure as eternal truths.

Keep in mind, the burden of proof is on you here. What makes past thinkers less sophisticated than today's thinkers? I would also point out that Christianity was so successful in part because it absolutely demolished the Greco-Roman patriarchy, imposed equality between owners and slaves, and was the driving force behind the abolition movement.

I was raised Catholic, and rejected their doctrines after realizing they were not only internally inconsistent, but often actively immoral. I understand very well the "nuances" of their positions - do you? How do you feel about the nuances of papal infallibility? Does that doctrine appeal to you, a Lutheran? i suspect not, else you'd convert... so if that is wrong, why is it a stretch to say that other doctrines might also be wrong regardless of their "nuanced" history and justification?

I respect Catholicism mainly because I understand that such an incredibly massive institution (probably the biggest in human history) will be full of inconsistencies and things that I will find immoral. I can accept that difference, and engage with it all the same. And I am a Lutheran because I still respect the difference of opinion as two respectable sides in a continuing debate.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by peter12

And accusing me of reactionary nostalgia is yours. Truth be told things are always getting better and worse.

Except that I'm not actually "accusing" you of anything right now, but you are, yet again, bringing up Dawkins as if anyone referred to him as an authority, which nobody has.

Originally Posted by peter12

Universal education was basically introduced by the Jesuits, and later the Puritans. For the Puritans particularly, it was important for everyone to read and understand the Bible in his own language, plus Latin, in order to make up his own mind about the Scriptures. Theological discussions were community events.

You;re confusing education with Bible study.

Originally Posted by peter12

I would highly recommend you read Jacques Barzun, "From Dawn to Decadence," to get a picture as to how lively the late Middle Ages were, and how cosmopolitans parts of Europe were becoming under the universal mediation of the Catholic Church. Not to mention the incredibly sophisticated Eastern Roman Empire.

And who were these "cosmopolitan" people? Your average peasant? A skim of culture on top of a wallow of ignorance is not "cosmopolitan". You are not at all addressing the fact that your average person in the present has far more exposure to other cultures and viewpoints than the average person of the past. This is not debatable. And again, looking at, for example, the Eastern Roman Empire thru the lens of history will give you a false perspective of how sophisticated it was because you are only learning about those who made an impact on history, who by definition are extraordinary. It's akin to determining Canadians are fit by only looking at our Olympic medallists.

Originally Posted by peter12

Keep in mind, the burden of proof is on you here. What makes past thinkers less sophisticated than today's thinkers? I would also point out that Christianity was so successful in part because it absolutely demolished the Greco-Roman patriarchy, imposed equality between owners and slaves, and was the driving force behind the abolition movement.

Why is the burden of proof on me? I've already explained that the average person is more sophisticated now than in the past. This implies that the best thinkers today, being the most sophisticated of that more sophisticated population at large, are also going to be more sophisticated than their historical counterparts. That's leaving aside that the thinkers of today also have access to the thoughts of all those in the past, which is another decided advantage. And that far more than 2-4% of the population has the leisure time to think, and that you actually stand a better than 50% chance to live past age 30 and develop your theories fully.

If anything, you should be explaining what advantages historical thinkers have over modern ones, since you are so certain modernity is full of, how did you say it - "simplistic libertarian views".

Originally Posted by peter12

I respect Catholicism mainly because I understand that such an incredibly massive institution (probably the biggest in human history) will be full of inconsistencies and things that I will find immoral. I can accept that difference, and engage with it all the same. And I am a Lutheran because I still respect the difference of opinion as two respectable sides in a continuing debate.

That's nice, but that doesn't answer the question I asked. Do you, or do you not, accept the doctrine of papal infallibility? If not, how does your rejection of this doctrine differ in kind from my rejection of other doctrines, and specifically, how does that support your assertion that I don't accept these doctrines because I am insufficiently attuned to nuance?


This is ranging far afield from the thread's main thrust: does religious belief entitle you to ignore your duty as an agent of the government? Jesus says: "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's". He's a little unclear on what happens if Caesar and God both want the same thing, but if your conscience won't let Caesar have his due, then I would think the implication would be you stop working for Caesar. Jesus and I are pretty solid on that together, so both the modern and the ancient agree, and the Pope should've kept himself to himself unless he came to tell this kook to stop trying to play both sides.

[corporatejay]

[peter12]

I'll take this to PM, but in terms of actual truth, your post didn't contain much. Obviously, the great reach, and capacity of modern engineering and commerce has given us standards of living that couldn't even have been dreamed of by anyone living before the last 100 years.

But to tie sophistication (worldly wisdom) to the consumerist, globalized world that we live in, and that mainly benefits the top 1-2%, is pretty ignorant.

[photon]

Vatican releases statement distancing the Pope from Kim Davis.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34425450

"Was Pope Francis Actually Swindled into Meeting Kim Davis?"

http://www.esquire.com/news-politics...davis-meeting/

[peter12]

Originally Posted by photon

Vatican releases statement distancing the Pope from Kim Davis.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34425450

"Was Pope Francis Actually Swindled into Meeting Kim Davis?"

http://www.esquire.com/news-politics...davis-meeting/

That's not very surprising.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by photon

Vatican releases statement distancing the Pope from Kim Davis.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34425450

"Was Pope Francis Actually Swindled into Meeting Kim Davis?"

http://www.esquire.com/news-politics...davis-meeting/

Is it damage control, or naivety to the response?

[peter12]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

Is it damage control, or naivety to the response?

As I was trying to say before the tidal wave of rage started to build, there is nothing wrong with the Pope providing some comfort or words of encouragement to one of his parishioners. That alone should suffice for the visit. We don't actually know what he said to her. Anyway, it is not surprising to me that this was some sort of publicity hoax sprung on his staff by her legal staff.

I have been on two political campaigns - once with leadership - and I can attest to the high level of chaos surrounding these public appearances. Anyone, with some connection, can get through security cordons quite easily.

[FlamesAddiction]

I have to believe that he doesn't support her stance, but probably just sympathizes with incarceration. He also asked for mercy for a recent death row inmate, but I wouldn't take that as an endorsement of the murder that the person committed.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by peter12

As I was trying to say before the tidal wave of rage started to build, there is nothing wrong with the Pope providing some comfort or words of encouragement to one of his parishioners. That alone should suffice for the visit. We don't actually know what he said to her. Anyway, it is not surprising to me that this was some sort of publicity hoax sprung on his staff by her legal staff.

I have been on two political campaigns - once with leadership - and I can attest to the high level of chaos surrounding these public appearances. Anyone, with some connection, can get through security cordons quite easily.

Perhaps you are right, and as I said, I wouldn't be surprised if the message leaving the papal mouth was not the same message that was received by the bigot ears.

That being said, The Vatican is a smart political machine. IMO, they should have gotten out in front of this as soon as they knew what happened, if he was in fact hoodwinked.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by peter12

I'll take this to PM, but in terms of actual truth, your post didn't contain much.

This makes no sense. You love debating, taking things to pm is for posters having a childish spat that no one else wants to see.

Considering the amount of thanks on jammies reply to you (not saying thanks are the be all and end all) there's plenty of interest on this debate. That was a weird way to end it for those following along, especially considering you went on to get the last word in anyways.

It was basically like "Hey, I'm not interested in discussing this in front of people anymore with you, but by the way here's one more point I wanted to make in front of people, but I expect your response to be via PM, as I don't want people to see it".

[peter12]

Originally Posted by jayswin

This makes no sense. You love debating, taking things to pm is for posters having a childish spat that no one else wants to see.

Considering the amount of thanks on jammies reply to you (not saying thanks are the be all and end all) there's plenty of interest on this debate. That was a weird way to end it for those following along, especially considering you went on to get the last word in anyways.

It was basically like "Hey, I'm not interested in discussing this in front of people anymore with you, but by the way here's one more point I wanted to make in front of people, but I expect your response to be via PM, as I don't want people to see it".

I'm not a huge fan of the piling on that usually happens during these debates, and I also didn't want to add to a spat, which frankly is heated enough by its very nature. But sure, I can put a response together if people are interested.