Fox News Goes After Pope

[MisterE]

lets just look at one of the smaller parts of what i've said. how can you consider an admittedly 'progressive' stance, that of gay PRIESTS being accepted as members of the clergy by this current pope, as a sign of logical progression, yet still be ok (ok enough to support him being declared person of the year) with the fact of the mere idea of having women ordained is just not even a topic? and when i say 'how can you' i dont necessarily mean someone specifically here, i mean anyone out there championing this guy as a progressive hero. doctrine pretty specifically goes against the idea of women being priests, but it could have been said that it went against the idea of gay priests. so why is one door a thing that can be kicked down, but the other one is still a solid nono? and me saying things about left-wing or liberals is just me being delirious, yet the topic says fox news right in it, making this whole thing a political issue. as if the mere topic of this thread i am posting in, itself, doesn't lay this out as a left vs right thing? limpy talking about the "religious right" and Teapartiers in the first page of his thread which was about fox news (a known right wing news outlet/propaganda machine) is AOK, but i say phrases like 'left wing' and words like liberal, and i'm pushing straw men.

 

that's hilarious and ridiculous at the same time.

 

you clearly wanted to talk politics when you started this thread limpy, so i finally stepped up and did just that. only thing is, the tolerance around here doesn't include opposing ideas. does it?

 

besides man, we've had what, 3 pages of atheists calling religion stupid now? i just thought maybe that angle was beat into the ground a bit and we could shift focus back to the OT.

[LimpyLoo]

lets just look at one of the smaller parts of what i've said. how can you consider an admittedly 'progressive' stance, that of gay PRIESTS being accepted as members of the clergy by this current pope, as a sign of logical progression, yet still be ok with the fact of the mere idea of having women ordained is just not even a topic? doctrine pretty specifically goes against the idea of women being priests, but it could have been said that it went against the idea of gay priests. so why is one door a thing that can be kicked down, but the other one is still a solid nono? and me saying things about left-wing or liberals is just me being delirious, yet the topic says fox news right in it, making this whole thing a political issue. as if the mere topic of this thread i am posting in, itself, doesn't lay this out as a left vs right thing? limpy talking about the "religious right" and Teapartiers in the first page of his thread which was about fox news (a known right wing news outlet/propaganda machine) is AOK, but i say phrases like 'left wing' and words like liberal, and i'm pushing straw men.

 

that's hilarious and ridiculous at the same time.

 

you clearly wanted to talk politics when you started this thread limpy, so i finally stepped up and did just that. only thing is, the tolerance around here doesn't include opposing ideas. does it?

 

As a far-left-leaning person I reject the church, I reject the pope, and I reject the news outlet you cited. And I reject the ideas of leftist religious people.

 

Why is it my job to apologize for allegedly leftist people that I don't respect or agree with?

[MisterE]

did i ever say it was your job? did i, in my first post of the day in this thread, call you, limpyloo out in some way?

 

did i ask you to explain anything for 'the left'?

 

i will ask you this though-

why is it ok for you to talk about fox news, tea partiers, and 'the religious right',

 

but not ok for me to talk about huffpo, left wing, and liberals? and if i do so, then i'm pushing straw men?

 

it seems to me like YOU are the one supposing that this place or you somehow represent the left wing and therefore if i or someone criticize them here, you must jump in to defend it. or you assume that i automatically expect some drooling party of left wing psychopaths to do so. why can't i just be expressing my opinions like you are? you made comments about the right, i made comments about the left. and somehow my doing that is taking you specifically, or watmm at large, to task? why is that limpy?

[LimpyLoo]

did i ever say it was your job? did i, in my first post of the day in this thread, call you, limpyloo out in some way?

 

did i ask you to explain anything for 'the left'?

 

i will ask you this though-

why is it ok for you to talk about fox news, tea partiers, and 'the religious right',

 

but not ok for me to talk about huffpo, left wing, and liberals? and if i do so, then i'm pushing straw men?

 

it seems to me like YOU are the one supposing that this place or you somehow represent the left wing and therefore if i or someone criticize them here, you must jump in to defend it. or you assume that i automatically expect some drooling party of left wing psychopaths to do so. why can't i just be expressing my opinions like you are? you made comments about the right, i made comments about the left. and somehow my doing that is taking you specifically, or watmm at large, to task? why is that limpy?

 

It is ok for you to talk about huffpo or left wing or anything you want. I would, however, argue that some of the things you refer to as left-wing I do not identify as left-wing.

 

I honestly thought you were at least in part referring to some of the people of this thread when you started your post with "why is it that left-wing people..." or something to that effect. Do not count me among the so called 'left-wing people' you are referring to.

[LimpyLoo]

It's like saying "Cthulhu is left-wing and hey you're left-wing too so why don't you provide justification for Cthulhu's left-wing behavior."

[Guest disparaissant]

mistere, the pope has spoken more than once about homosexuality. he has covered more than just gay priests. so your entire premise is flawed from the start. throw in the rest of what you said and yeah. you're basically a moron. sorry!

[MisterE]

ok but see, you didn't see me feel the need to jump into the thread when you mentioned right wingers or tea partiers or talked about fox news, to point out that i'm not a person who watches fox news, and that i may not subscribe to all of the same beliefs as those 'right wingers' you mentioned.

 

it seems to my perception that it's ok for you to talk about right wing stuff, and not ok for me to talk about left wing stuff. or at least that you're going to take it personal if i do. why should I have to give stipulations whenever i make 'left wing' comments that i'm not demanding answers from YOU specifically? i haven't defended fox at all in this thread, or probably any here ever, from the generally wide-held notion that they are a right wing outlet and have an agenda. they are and they do (unless they are shills/controlled opposition or something). you can badmouth them all day and i don't care. i'm not going to take personal offense if you say the worst possible generic thing about right wingers either. i mean i guess since you started the thread maybe you felt like i was targeting you and demanding answers. i felt like all i was doing was talking about other media outlets having agendas and biases besides fox, on the other side of the coin, and questioning why this pope is suddenly so popular with the left even though his seemingly general support of gays is based on a quote about gay priests being allowed in the church. if you don't want to answer you don't have to. we could even say it was rhetorical.

 

believe it or not, the other night i thought it would possibly be interesting if some of us shared a beer (or what have you) and had some kind of discussion like the religious one when it was focusing on the history of the church and doctrines etc. i feel like political stuff, yeah maybe it would get too heated to be comfortable, but who knows, in person maybe it could be civil. but i have no strong religious convictions, actually agree with lots of the criticisms you have with the portrayal of god in the religious texts, and think things like the histories of it are interesting, and it'd be cool if i had friends who ever talked about things like that in any depth irl these days. my current irl circle is more like when hank hill stands in front of a fence and says yup/mhmm. even if i disagree with you and/or sr4 on lots of things, i don't see you as my mortal enemy, or even think of you as scumbag commies. just regular ones. i talk with sr4 in chatmm sometimes, and we usually get along. i just disagree (maybe strongly) on SOME stuff (and agree on other things). but, it's not my mission at watmm to take you to task for being left leaning. sometimes i see political or social comments and they trigger me to say what i feel, but that's what you do too...

[LimpyLoo]

i thought you were addressing the people who have been dominating this thread for the last 5 pages. I didn't realize your post was a complete non sequitar and that you weren't paying attention to the content of the thread.

[MisterE]

mistere, the pope has spoken more than once about homosexuality. he has covered more than just gay priests. so your entire premise is flawed from the start. throw in the rest of what you said and yeah. you're basically a moron. sorry!

he has said some other things about homosexuality, but can you quote me some of the ones that you think have a lot of weight to them? it's a little beside my point which was that in that quote 'who am i to judge', which was the first big thing he said on it, he was talking specifically about priests, yet plenty in the media completely misrepresented it in their very headlines reporting it, and nothing changes that. and still to this day that is one of the biggest quotes used to show how progressive the guy is. the thread was about fox news so i felt like showing some bias/misleading reporting on the other side of spectrum, that was the main point of that post. but tbh i'm really not seeing anything he's said about gays that's really earth shattering or close to it.

 

but beyond that, he still is emphatically against women being ordained. untill he says otherwise, you have to assume that officially he still thinks gay sex is a sin because doctrine says so. he refers to doctrine with regards to womenpriests. so until he says otherwise, he iss still supportive of the doctrine that condemns gay sex. of course he's going to say that you are still supposed to love gays, as god still loves all sinners. probably benedict even would have said that. oh but he calls himself a sinner at the start of an interview knowing these questions will come up, just to make the comparison that even though the church considers gay sex a sin, that technically everyone is a sinner. doesn't reek of smooth talk PR to you? then he answers questions about abortion/birth control with questions of his own, dodging the questions posed to him. no. i think my question of how this guy is such a super progressive hero stands. it's not like he's put a gay bar in the vatican, or started handing out condoms to priests, or passing flyers around in churches.

 

i can't even find a quote where he says he's ok with gay marriage, but i see PLENTY of headlines *suggesting* he has. looks like he hasn't condoned it, but only refused to condemn it publicly, and then basically admits that it's because it would give the church bad PR to do that. to me it's a joke that he's being praised for just NOT CONDEMNING (and refusing to talk about) gay marriage. but maybe i'm missing it. you seem more familiar with what he's said, so maybe you can show me a quote where he's condoned gay marriage? i'd think a quick google would turn it up. if not, why person of the year?

 

he's a pope who inherited an empire that had suffered some poor PR for a decade, saying some often ambiguous things, all cleverly thought out to try to make everyone happy at the same time. he's like the used car salesmen of popes, and plenty are buying what he's selling. imo it's also funny that lots of people who never even cared about the catholic church or the pope suddenly do. on both sides.

 

btw no apology needed.

[Guest disparaissant]

google "pope gays"

it's a step in the right direction, especially when compared with the previous pope. that's about the strongest praise i've heard from my corner of the internet.

 

and rest assured, no apology was forthcoming.

[MisterE]

i thought you were addressing the people who have been dominating this thread for the last 5 pages. I didn't realize your post was a complete non sequitar and that you weren't paying attention to the content of the thread.

well, i DID ask why people are holding this guy up as a progressive hero, then gave some reason why i didn't get that, and previously you HAD said you'd be ok with him getting person of the year...

but that still doesn't mean i'm asking you specifically to explain why you feel that way. if you cared to, fine. then i might say something else. i didn't demand it or request it or really expect it. and i see by now that it's probably not going to happen, and not only that, but instead we are going to be talking about why i actually dared to say anything in this thread for however many posts.

[LimpyLoo]

 

i thought you were addressing the people who have been dominating this thread for the last 5 pages. I didn't realize your post was a complete non sequitar and that you weren't paying attention to the content of the thread.

well, i DID ask why people are holding this guy up as a progressive hero, then gave some reason why i didn't get that, and previously you HAD said you'd be ok with him getting person of the year...

but that still doesn't mean i'm asking you specifically to explain why you feel that way. if you cared to, fine. then i might say something else. i didn't demand it or request it or really expect it. and i see by now that it's probably not going to happen, and not only that, but instead we are going to be talking about why i actually dared to say anything in this thread for however many posts.

 

 

go back and read that post...i changed my mind by the end of it lol

[LimpyLoo]

here is the post:

 

(I'm very surprised to feel this way, but) I would be happy to see this pope winning shit like person of the year in Time magazine or whatever. Although I think Christianity is a dark cult that was originally based on blood sacrifices and torturing people who worshipped the wrong god or gods, or no god. Oh and it's anti-science tenets have held humanity back for centuries, and continue to in manyparts of the world. Somehow, in the 21st century, missionaries in Africa with their 'teachings' on contraception are responsible for the misery and death of who knows how many...tens, maybe hundreds of thousands of people. And somehow, in the 21st century, something like 40% of Americans believe that the devil literally exists. Like, the red guy with the horns. And something like 45% of Americans don't believe in Evolution...

 

wait nevermind I changed my mind

fuck Christianity

and as for the pope

I will reserve any praise

for when he miraculously fixes all of the problems caused by Christianity

[MisterE]

google "pope gays"

it's a step in the right direction, especially when compared with the previous pope. that's about the strongest praise i've heard from my corner of the internet.

 

and rest assured, no apology was forthcoming.

i have. and i've already said that i see nothing of real weight that should earn him 'person of the year' for his progressiveness. then i asked you to give specifics since maybe i missed something and you're suggesting i somehow have missed some big key statement.

 

i would think that if he condoned gay marriage it'd maybe be right at the top of google. like i said, he refused to talk about the issue. and if he were forced to, current church doctrine seems to demand that he'd have to condemn it. so by not talking about it, he's just avoiding looking like a dick to the best of his ability. how does that get him person of the year? i mean, you could easily just slap me with a quote that shows how open to homosexuality he is and i'd be like 'ok'. and again that still wouldn't change the fact that large swaths of the media are warping things he has said. i wouldn't think they'd even have to do that if he's really said something huge. i got 3 other relevant tabs open now. here's one:

http://thinkprogress.org/home/2013/12/11/3050681/pope-francis-think-2013/

 

thats dated two days ago. here's a quote:

"It remains to be seen whether Pope Francis will turn his more welcoming statements on issues such as gay marriage and womens role within the Catholic Church, and progressives are right to want to see proof." and again, even though this article mentiones 'statements' he has made about gay marriage and women in the church, it doesn't quote any! seems a common thread in these articles.

 

but the whole gist of it is that behind the scenes, within the church, the pope is polling priests to see if he can one day, MAYBE, actually come out and support these things publicly. 'progressives are right to want to see proof' to me sounds like some progressives at least, actually would agree that he hasn't quite earned person of the year, yet. shouldn't awards be given for actions done instead of motions made towards doing actions, and a handful of sometimes ambiguous statements?

[Guest disparaissant]

wait, are you under the impression that:

- i think he deserved to be person of the year

- i think that he has condoned gay marriage

- i think that he wants women to be ordained

because if so, i have no earthly idea where you're getting that. i'm just giving you shit for being a reactionary right-wing doof.

he's certainly come out in support of homosexuality stronger than you are letting on, but he definitely hasn't said anything terribly concrete. it's just better than the diaf garbage nazinger liked to throw around.

[LimpyLoo]

btw MisterE,

 

I "go after" conservatives and Fox News because they and their beliefs run contrary to the sort of world i want to live in.

[chenGOD]

This thread is full of win in so many ways.

[MisterE]

here is the post:

etc.. Evolution...[/i]

 

wait nevermind I changed my mind

fuck Christianity

and as for the pope

I will reserve any praise

for when he miraculously fixes all of the problems caused by Christianity

ok great, but again, and i've said this maybe 4 times now, i wasn't directly calling you out. i posted what i thought was relevant stuff, and i'd still say was very much OT, in the thread. then if anyone wants to respond to it they can. that's what forums are.

 

maybe you think this place would be that much more interesting and stimulating, if i just bow out, with my commonly less popular opinions (which i try to support with research and which i usually get replied to with personal attacks or just neverending posts nitpicking one not really relevant thing that i said to distract from whatever i did say), so the general feng shui of this place can be something a bit more towards a harmonious chorus of agreement and like-minded ideas?

[LimpyLoo]

This thread is full of win in so many ways.

 

 

[citation needed]

[MisterE]

wait, are you under the impression that:

- i think he deserved to be person of the year

- i think that he has condoned gay marriage

- i think that he wants women to be ordained

because if so, i have no earthly idea where you're getting that. i'm just giving you shit for being a reactionary right-wing doof.

he's certainly come out in support of homosexuality stronger than you are letting on, but he definitely hasn't said anything terribly concrete. it's just better than the diaf garbage nazinger liked to throw around.

nah i'm just under the impression that when you called me a moron for asking why the guy got person of the year, and showed how his quotes have been mischaracterized, that maybe you could say something- anything, to qualify that statement.

[LimpyLoo]

 

here is the post:

etc.. Evolution...[/i]

 

wait nevermind I changed my mind

fuck Christianity

and as for the pope

I will reserve any praise

for when he miraculously fixes all of the problems caused by Christianity

ok great, but again, and i've said this maybe 4 times now, i wasn't directly calling you out. i posted what i thought was relevant stuff, and i'd still say was very much OT, in the thread. then if anyone wants to respond to it they can. that's what forums are.

 

maybe you think this place would be that much more interesting and stimulating, if i just bow out, with my commonly less popular opinions (which i try to support with research and which i usually get replied to with personal attacks or just neverending posts nitpicking one not really relevant thing that i said to distract from whatever i did say), so the general feng shui of this place can be something a bit more towards a harmonious chorus of agreement and like-minded ideas?

 

 

No dude you're welcome here as much as any of us. I just thought when you burst into this thread shouting that you were addressing me and the strong men and women who have carried this thread for nigh on 9 pages with their own blood sweat and tears.

[Guest disparaissant]

nah i'm just under the impression that when you called me a moron for asking why the guy got person of the year, and showed how his quotes have been mischaracterized, that maybe you could say something- anything, to qualify that statement.

your initial post said that he has only ever spoken about gay priests.

i pointed out that this is untrue.

you actually agreed that it is untrue, but immediately started to move the goalposts.

derp.

 

You: rah rah rah left-wingers rah rah rah HE ONLY SAID GAY PRIESTS!

Me: Actually, moron, he has said more than gay priests.

You: Well okay but INSERT UNRELATED ARGUMENT HERE

[MisterE]

my first post was pretty clearly talking about the 'who am i to judge' quote and how it was mischaracterized, and made out like he was talking about something other than priests. i did say that he never actually said 'who am i to judge' in a wider sense, but i was talking about that quote, but even if you want to hold what i said there to other things he's said, i could play the same kind of language game and say 'well show me where he specifically said 'who am i to judge gays' in general'. he may have made some comments suggesting that he has less harsh or even more open views towards them compared to previous popes, but i think all modern popes would probably admit that it's not their place to judge anyone in some grand sense. it's just double talk and it doesn't really SAY anything, even if he actually had said something like that. but i don't see that he has...

or that he's really said anything with any real solid weight that should name him person of the year.

 

and sorry for the shouting limpy, and i hope my disruption doesn't undo this monument built by the collective bodily wastes of people who had posted in it. in fact i had hoped my bodily waste could add to it.

 

but now i gotta go poop and i don't know if i'm coming back (to this thread) (today)

 

edit- btw disparaissant, i may be coerced to come back and post again if you care to share one of those important things francis has said that you keep alluding to..

[Guest disparaissant]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/19/pope-francis-gay_n_3954776.html

gives a nice summary of the interview he did with some jesuit magazine.

it is different from the earlier incident where he talked about gay priests.

the point that i have been making is that while it is certainly not him being accepting of gay marriage or whatever the fuck idiotic thing you seem to think "left-wingers" think, it is a huge improvement over his predecessors, who seemed utterly bent on hating on queers.

[Guest disparaissant]

here's a relevant part for you:

"In Thursday's interview, Francis clarified that those comments [who am i to judge?] were about all gay people and not only priests."

so yeah. remarkably uninformed, it seems.