Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

ITT: Vyc, Sara, Cedric and Sam go kaboom

The Catholic's Pope says that protecting the world from homosexuality and transgenderism is as important as protecting the environment.

Unreal. I cannot fucking believe he said this. See, normally, this wouldn't bother me; someone else hates gay people, yay, join the fucking club. But in a year where Proposition 8 and Ammendment 2 passed due to heavy influence and lies from the Churches (primarily the Mormons in CA), hateful homophobia is nearing a high in America, and even in Connecticut "pro family" groups continue to push for legislation eliminating the right for gays to marry or unionize despite polls stating that 2/3 the state would vote against legislation that harms gay marriage, and despite a resounding defeat of a measure that was so transparently worded that it fooled ME.

All this Kraut did was justify gay bashing, gay hating, and gave everyone from the nutjobs to the moderates even more reason to continue to make homosexuals second rate citizens. I've said before that these people won't stop until homosexuality is criminalized throughout America; now, they have even more ammunition, and from the top as well. Let me give a little lesson to you, Benny: if we prevent homosexuality, we affect a small group of people from being allowed to love or be with whoever they want. If we forget the environment, EVERYBODY DIES. But that's OK, since anyone that campaigns against gays is going to heaven, and those of us that actually believe in equality are going to hell, right? Right?

You fuckers want to go to extremes? Here's an extreme: the Catholic Church, and by extension the Mormon Church (who are hypocrites; it's OK to marry 10 women, but not one man. LOL), are hate organizations. How about that, fuckers. And now that I've made Dale and Paul go kaboom as well, I've done my work.


( 28 comments — Leave a comment )
Dec. 23rd, 2008 05:42 pm (UTC)
I won't get into the political aspect of homophobia because I disagree with it as well, but... what the Pope says is in accordance to his religion, and as the highest standing authority of that religion, he has to convey what the religion preaches. Behind the Pope's speeches are also the interests of the entire Vatican.

Then again, in my opinion, religion, being a choice, should never justify any kind of political action. Which... obviously doesn't happen, but... still.
Dec. 23rd, 2008 05:52 pm (UTC)
The reality of the situation is that the Vatican is, and always was, a political organization. Like the Churches in Medieval Europe, they were political organizations with the front of speaking for God. Forgetting my own personal opinion of religion and God, that's what their purpose is. Not only that, organizations like the Vatican, if you read back through history, have caused more wars in the name of "God" than anyone. This goes from the Catholics to the Muslims to the Protestants. Shit, Catholic vs. Protestant tension is still an issue in parts of Scotland and England. I support two Football teams: Sunderland (England) and Celtic (Scotland). Would you believe that there are people that tell me I shouldn't support Rangers because they're Catholic, and that because I was raised Protestant I should support Rangers instead? I don't think it bloody matters, but apparently, it does, and always will.

It's one thing to say "this is what I believe". It's another to say "this is what everyone should believe", then legislating it.
Dec. 23rd, 2008 06:08 pm (UTC)
The internal politics of the Vatican don't negate the fact that it represents a religion and not a nation. Also, in Medieval Europe, the Church was more intrinsically linked with government, and pretty much merged with it at some point or other - nowadays, although the Vatican remains independent, the Catholic Church itself doesn't get a vote in what happens politically (at least not in most countries anymore, there may still be some theocracies that I don't know of). This doesn't mean religion has stopped to play a part in people's lives in that kind of way, it only means that as an institution the Catholic Church does not govern anything anymore.

Ergo, they are not the ones pushing the legislations on people. If in the past they did stir wars, torture and kill thousands of innocents, and commit several other atrocities, in the present, you can't deny they are only preaching their own beliefs like every religion does. Hell, they are losing influence.

If a government chooses to use religion as a flag that's an issue with the government, not the religion they chose. Similarly, if muslim extremists ram planes into buildings and kill thousands of people in the name of religion, it's an issue with the extremists, not the religion itself. If you look at the scriptures of most religions, all of their teachings are either positive or harmless - it's how people interpret them that becomes twisted.

Note that I'm not defending any teachings. I'm a baptized Catholic but I willingly abandoned the religion because I don't personally agree with how it's conducted. But I have to at least defend their right to preach their beliefs. They have freedom of speech as much as the next person.
Dec. 23rd, 2008 06:35 pm (UTC)
The influence of the Vatican and the Pope is still extremely strong. They still have political sway over the United Nations, and by extension, to their groups in individual countries that DO push for the laws. They're proxy groups off of the main arm of the Church.

That said, I'm not saying these people shouldn't practise what they believe in; I believe in freedom of religion. But that's two way; their religion doesn't give them the right to influence and hurt other people, which is what they're doing. It's not even like the Pope said that Gay Marriage is bad; he said that just BEING gay is! BIG difference!

Part of the reason I'm freaking about this is because it's THE POPE~, and as Heather said below, a LOT of people treat this man's word as being from God itself. That sets in wave a feeling of hatred and strong emotion that is already plenty strong, and is already hurting people the world over who's only crime is loving the wrong person.
Dec. 23rd, 2008 06:48 pm (UTC)
The influence of the Vatican/Pope are still strong because Catholicism is still a major religion worldwide. However, notice this: the majority of my country is Catholic, has always been. I studied in a Catholic school, with a convent and nuns working in it, and had Religion as a school subject. Many people in my country are extremely devout. We observe all religious holidays. We have "Christian" political parties. You name it.

Is this statement by the Pope making people on the street hate on gays? Is the Pope saying condoms are bad stopping people from using them in the name of religion?


The religion is the same. Same church, same Pope, same Vatican. This holds true for a LOT of other countries.

Make no mistake about where the root of the homophobia in your country lies. It's cultural. It's mob mentality. If the Pope's statement has that much influence, it isn't because he's stopping by everyone's houses and drilling it into them. It's the people that are the problem. And if you would prefer the Pope and every other authority figure out there to be cautious because people suck - well, so would I, but that's not going to happen. If the head of a church says something against their own preachings, what does that say about the church?
Dec. 23rd, 2008 06:28 pm (UTC)

I wouldn't be so upset about this (after all, there's still a lot of intolerant people out there) except for the fact that there's still a TON of people who live and die by every word the pope breathes.

preventing evils of homosexuality = saving the environment? Seriously, man? SERIOUSLY?

Also, transgenderism shouldn't be something you can wave your hands around and pretend doesn't exist.
Dec. 23rd, 2008 06:50 pm (UTC)
That honestly sounds like a joke one would read in The Onion.

Prop 8 really annoyed me, being a citizen of California. I mean, aside from how unseemly it is to, in a secular country, ban gay marriage, etc, I just hated being bombarded with the campaigning by both sides. I don't even know what the other propositions were (there was some one about freeways that seemed cool!), all I heard about was this stupid proposition. And, not to sound insensitive, it affected the least amount of people too.

Dec. 23rd, 2008 06:56 pm (UTC)

...And "I Kissed a Girl" just came on as I was picking my icon. How appropriate.
Dec. 23rd, 2008 07:01 pm (UTC)
I could say what that asshole needs but I'd just offend people by going over the line in suggesting anyone would WANT sexual contact with that... XD

...seriously, though. He's a fucktard and I hope he gets a smack to the head like he deserves.
Dec. 23rd, 2008 07:32 pm (UTC)
Pope Palpatine strikes again.
Dec. 23rd, 2008 09:37 pm (UTC)
this is both apt and fucking hilarious
Dec. 23rd, 2008 07:49 pm (UTC)
I really don't know WHAT they were thinking picking this guy as Pope, because NONE of the Catholic churches i have experience with are ANYTHING like this.
Dec. 24th, 2008 12:29 am (UTC)
Time to kill a bitch.
Dec. 24th, 2008 01:14 am (UTC)
When you recall that the Catholic Church is officially against condom use (for instance) and pretty much preaches "sex: reproduction only", that actually makes complete sense.

He, as the head of a religion (which is optional, unlikea government), is supposed to do that. The followers and lower priests may compromise or even disregard that issue, but he can't.

Now, you could say that the Church's view on sex are wrong altogether. However, as long as that base stays, there's no way in hell that the Church is going to change their stand on homesexuality.
Dec. 24th, 2008 02:46 am (UTC)
It is wrong. Is food consumption only for survival? No, which is why we prepare food as much as we do. We have taste buds for a reason. The same reason there are nerve endings in genitalia, rather than making the whole process a LOT simpler (not that it's not simple enough already... though this is debatable).

Anyways, that's my views, though even though these are my views, I don't believe in promiscuity.
Dec. 24th, 2008 11:49 am (UTC)
The Church considers gluttony as a sin, just as lust is, so... yeah. We have taste buds and whatever else because God isn't a prick, but that doesn't mean we should drown in self-indulgence and forget Him.

That's the Church's doctrine. One should expect a conservative Pope to follow it very tightly.
Dec. 24th, 2008 07:59 pm (UTC)
Gluttony is overconsuming. Savoring several foods for their taste isn't gluttony, however eating several pounds of food is ._.

Why can't that same approach be taken for sex :O
Dec. 25th, 2008 04:18 am (UTC)
I'm late, but they do take the same approach for sex. Sex for reproduction is fine, sex for carnal pleasure only is a sin. Just like food for keeping you alive is fine, but eating for the sake of pleasure only is considered a sin.

ETA; we have taste buds AND sexual instinct both for the same reason - preservation of the species. Nature wants us to eat and have sex because that'll make us live and have children. Don't mistake that for what the Church wants us to do.

Right and wrong is subjective. You can take a naturalistic approach to something, but saying the next person is wrong for what they believe in only makes you as narrow-minded as they are when they reprimand you.

Edited at 2008-12-25 04:22 am (UTC)
Dec. 25th, 2008 05:47 am (UTC)

So eating a piece of cake simply because it tastes good is a sin? A SINGLE PIECE OF CAKE.
Dec. 25th, 2008 01:34 pm (UTC)
According to their definition of sin, yes.
Dec. 25th, 2008 05:50 pm (UTC)
That's fucked up. :/
Dec. 25th, 2008 06:00 pm (UTC)
Quote, "saying the next person is wrong for what they believe in only makes you as narrow-minded as they are when they reprimand you".
Dec. 25th, 2008 06:17 pm (UTC)
Yeah I know, but in my opinion, that's is way too strict.
Dec. 25th, 2008 11:53 pm (UTC)
You're entitled to having your opinion just as the churches you attended are entitled to having different approaches to things.

The only thing you really shouldn't be doing is insult someone else's opinion, is all. Personally, I'm of the opinion people can do whatever strikes their fancy as long as it's not harming someone else, barring extreme cases in which all logic goes out the window, anyway.
Dec. 26th, 2008 12:40 am (UTC)
Well, the reason I reacted like that is because to me, that opinion lacks any real logic behind it. And lack of logic makes me cringe. Yes, you might argue that's being closed minded, however, in real life, I would never say such a thing. I avoid conflict when talking to people face to face, but that doesn't change the fact that in my opinion, that is fucked up. XD
Dec. 27th, 2008 08:16 am (UTC)
There's plenty of logic behind it. There's rarely anything without logic behind it. It may not be your logic, or logic you can agree with, but nothing is without meaning.

You're entitled to having your opinion about people's opinions, too.
Dec. 25th, 2008 06:18 pm (UTC)
I would like to note though, that I was raised catholic, and the churches and schools I attended didn't have such a strict approach.
Dec. 24th, 2008 01:15 am (UTC)
You have somehow managed to aim a wide swath at Christianity in general, and not manage to hit anything I am affiliated with. A+

I am actually with Crystal on the Mormon issue, and a add a second point to it. There is a major trend of dissonance between what the higher up people in the LDS church believe and what the every day Mormon believes.

I also agree with yubsie. If you come to the Catholic churches around here, and through the more liberal parts of Quebec, you will find a majority of people on your side. Though, the amount of sway the pope has on the people around here is question because a Catholic woman and her nephews attend our church on alternating Sundays when we are considered a heresy by the Catholic church...

(Side tangent: also considered a heresy by the same people who thump the loudest in the US against homosexuality. Well, some of them anyway. They are also anti-catholic. And anti-mormon. It seems the is no unity gained by mutual hatred of other groups)

On the plus side, you could join in with the nutjobs who call him the Antichrist? Not the ones who are joking, but I mean the ones who actually mean it.
( 28 comments — Leave a comment )


Mr. Met
Superbus the BRAVE!!!

Latest Month

July 2013
Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Lilia Ahner