You know what? I thought we'd got past this five years ago.

[davywavy]

I don't know if you noticed, but the UK has recently had a visit from a figure who is, to say the least, quite controverial. Some people consider him to be an ethical and moral authority, but the vast majority look at pretty much everything he's said in the last half-decade with a sinking feeling of dismay at a smug, self-righteous poseur getting the oxygen of publicity.

That's right, I hear Michael Moore was in London for a few days.

But you know what I'm playing at here - the old bait and switch of expectation around the Pope visiting the UK and the somewhat predictable resultant online furure. I actually find it quite depresssing the number of people who I know and consider friends who've gone from being normally intelligent and reasonable folks to, well, not being that over the whole thing. We've even had the old 'pope was a member of the Hitler Youth' line dragged out ad infinitum again, and I swear that the next time someone spouts that old line of crap at me I'm going to go ape bonkers and punch their teeth out through their bottom.
The thing I hate about accusations of and comparisons with Hitler and the Nazis is that it is just incresidibly intellectually lazy shorthand; I'd've hoped that Rik Mayall in the Young ones thirty years ago had shown that up as the vacuous line of argument which it is. What it is basically saying is "I disagree with you but lack the will or ability to formulate an argument, so I'm just going to call you the worst thing I can think of." It's just tiresome. Stop it. I’m very disappointed in everyone who has done so. I thought you were more intelligent than that. All of you.

What's even more tooth-grindingly embarrassing was the open letter from the usual suspects like Richard Dawkins and Stephen Fry in which they "reject the masquerading of the Holy See as a State", pretty much because they don't like orthodox catholicism's views on condoms and homosexuality. Now, I didn't know that one could get away with unilaterally ceasing to recognise states which have things like UN ambassadors and a standing army just because one doesn't like their policies, but if you can then I don't recognise Zimbabwe because Robert Mugabe is a bit of a meanie and, um, hang on... Sweden - yes, Sweden - because, oh, I don't know. Because it's full of pinkoes.
There. That's just as good an argument as any.

There's plenty to disagree with Catholicism about and this sort of posturing does the opposing argument no good whatsoever. Indeed, I'd say that having Richard Dawkins in your corner in any argument about metaphysics makes you look a bit of a twat to the vast majority of 'plague on both your houses' people who just want to get on with their lives.

What's worse is that, reading LJ and FB, a great many people seem to feel that they are in some way morally superior to the Pope. Now with my record, for me to claim moral superiority over pretty much anyone is comedy and I think that’s true of most of the people I know as well. I know what a lot of you have done, you see.
To those who disagree with the Popes moral stance, my suggestion is this: if you feel your personal philosophy can bring greater spiritual peace, succour, and comfort to the poor and dispossessed of the world, then get out there and act, and I don't mean posting it to FB for a bunch of similarly minded people to agree with you like so many nodding dogs.
Who knows? If your philosophy is indeed superior, in two thousand years they may well be electing your spiritiual successor.

Anyway, rant over. It's back to jokes on Monday and I've got some good ones lined up for next week including - maybe - my first ever full musical.

Comments

[danfossydan.livejournal.com]

I not that suprisingly largely agree with your post.

I do feel that the pope is wonderfully larger than life. I think its astounding that figures such as him have this public persona that travel from City to city. I'm quite amazed by how many public engagments are being cramed into such a short space of time by this particualar "old timer".

Other such greats, are quite a short list. I think QE is possibly equally astounding. US presidents just don't have the same level of being head of such a massive orginiastion for their whole life, and being such a part of history. (they come close mind, but then also have more direct accountability and power than the Queen or Pope).

I think its strange, because these are very unique people in positions that I actually don't envy, but I think that do provide a very important focus for humanity. I think the focus that this visit brings with it on to a wide range of very important issues is valuable.

Sure I'm a bit annoyed about the uncertainty of travel disrurpution at the weekend for me personally, but I'm damn glad that there is a Pope (and a Queen) and wish them and their successors lots of luck.

[ms-daisy-cutter.livejournal.com]

I do feel that the pope is wonderfully larger than life.

So were Ian Brady and Myra Hindley, and they were responsible for the deaths of fewer people.

Yeah, I said it. Go clutch your rosaries pearls.

[danfossydan.livejournal.com]

I've never admired serial killers. Each to their own.

[ms-daisy-cutter.livejournal.com]

Who said anything about "admiring" them?

[beeblebear.livejournal.com]

So who is the pope supposed to have killed?
If you are going to harp on about his position on condoms causing the spread of AIDS, remember that he also preaches liflong mutual monogamy. Anyone using "I'm a catholic, I can't wear a condom" while sleeping with multiple partners is already ignoring the important part of the church's message about sex, and using the condom thing as an excuse.

[ms-daisy-cutter.livejournal.com]

Yes, let's pretend that the church's stance on sexuality is applicable to every human being on the planet, not to mention totally realistic.

Typical.

[(Anonymous)]

No, it's a wee bit more subtle than that, so I'll try to make it easy to understand.

If you're a Catholic you're supposed to be monogamous, and thus the proscription against condoms isn't a problem because you're not supposed to be shagging multiple people anyway.

If you're not a Catholic, it doesn't matter if you're monogamous or not because the rules don't apply to you. Shag to your parts' content.

There's no attempt to pretend that Catholicism applies to everyone regardless of minority status.

[ms-daisy-cutter.livejournal.com]

Uh-huh. It's not like the Catholic church attempts to interfere with public policy in ostensibly secular nations. So when comprehensive and secular sexual education is not permitted in a region filled with religiots, it's completely the fault of the students for believing their teachers when the teachers say that condoms cause AIDS.

Also, it's totally the fault of non-Catholic women when they go to the only pharmacy for miles around and some poison toad behind the counter slut-shames them and refuses to fill their birth control prescription. I'm sure, though, that "good conservatives" think that such women should just shut their legs and not have sex at all. Which is so easy if one is in a relationship, especially in countries in which marital rape is not legally recognized as rape. Or even desirable, given that, despite Catholicism's rigid and laughable views on sex, it was designed as much for bonding as it was for reproduction, and women do enjoy sex.

We won't even discuss GLBT relationships here, since the church apparently thinks that people who aren't straight should just be celibate for life. Yes, teh ebyl gaysecks is so much worse than protecting pedophiles. And I'm sure you'd tell me that the gay brothel in the Vatican (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/03/the_biggest_gayest_brothel_in.php) is immaterial, too, because clerics are human and therefore "they sin," so — despite being flaming (in both senses of the word) hypocrites — they're still "in the right." As the saying goes, "Hypocrisy is the tribute vice pays to virtue." So much better to mouth the correct pieties and call for their enforcement on others whilst flouting them continually, than to dare to call them nonsense and live as one wishes without harming anyone else...

[(Anonymous)]

Narrow-mindedness isn't the sole preserve of Catholics.

There's plenty of stupidity, bigotry, and hypocrisy outside of the One True Faith.

As for the Church's views on anything other than Saturday-night missionary -position hetero nookie, what of them? I'm not an adherent, so what the Pope might think of my deviant lusty habits is of supreme indifference to me. And so should they be to everyone else.

In short, if you're of the Faith, then do as you're told, because the man in the white dress knows all. If you're not of the Faith, don't pay the slightest bit of attention to the man in the white dress; instead, try to get on with your life, just like everyone else.

[ms-daisy-cutter.livejournal.com]

When the man in the white dress and his countless minions stop attempting to interfere with my rights to get on with my life in whatever way I see fit, I'll take your dismissive advice more seriously.

[(Anonymous)]

What form does this supposed interference take? According to your profile you're in the USA, home of the First Amendment, which protects you from any and all interference by Benedict and his minions. Unless you're voluntary a member of the Church I fail to see how anything he or his minions says or does could possibly affect you.

[ms-daisy-cutter.livejournal.com]

Apparently, Anony-coward, you didn't read what I wrote about the church's attempting to influence public policy w/r/t sexuality, regardless of what the Constitution says. And the number of politicians who agree with it, many of whom are Catholic. Which throws obstacles into the paths of American women who do not live in progressive areas and/or poorer American women who wish to use birth control or obtain abortions.

Which, I suppose, would lead back to a "close your legs" argument, given how poorly wingnuts understand sociological privilege and power differentials.

And, again, we haven't even broached the subject of GLBT people and their rights to exist and live as they see fit. Perhaps you'd like to ask my housemate, an activist, about the church's lobbying in favor of the odious Proposition 8 in California?

[(Anonymous)]

No thanks, your housemate does not have to justify themselves to me.

[sqlrob.livejournal.com]

Right, because no one is ever born with AIDS or gets it from transfusion or drug use.

[(Anonymous)]

One legitate conclusion which can be drawn from that statement is that people who don't follow catholic doctrine inflict suffering and misery on the unborn. As I don't think that's the comclusion you want people to draw, you might want to consider rewording it.

[(Anonymous)]

One legitimate conclusion which can be drawn from that statement is that people who don't follow catholic doctrine inflict suffering and misery on the unborn. As I don't think that's the comclusion you want people to draw, you might want to consider rewording it.

[ms-daisy-cutter.livejournal.com]

People who aren't Catho-fundies, and who therefore don't subscribe to the RCC's dogma, based on medieval concepts of sexuality, can grasp that condoms go a long way toward preventing these conditions. And can therefore apportion moral culpability on a powerful and wealthy religious institution that attempts to convince people that condoms don't work.

[sqlrob.livejournal.com]

Right, cause getting raped is not following doctrine. And (honest question), does doctrine require a catholic to marry a catholic?

But even ignoring that, you're saying if someone is born with AIDS, they shouldn't marry, it's against doctrine? And if they do, the spouse should suck it up and deal and get it?

[beeblebear.livejournal.com]

Let's pretend you are going to answer my question about who the pope is supposed to have killed.
Or should I expect you to pour more vitriol rather than attempt to seriously engage in any sort of debate?

[ms-daisy-cutter.livejournal.com]

I have limited patience for engaging apologists for oppressive religious organizations in serious debate. I suspect that any replies you would make would boil down to a pretense that everybody on earth is equally and sufficiently empowered to ignore church dogma and politicking and to take optimal care of their own health from a Western perspective. As I said to the anony-coward above, wingnuts are really not good at understanding sociological privilege and the resulting power differentials.

[beeblebear.livejournal.com]

So, because I asked you to give examples of the [pope killing people, I am a wingnut and not worthy of discussion with.

That tells me all I need to know about you.

[(Anonymous)]

Fancy doing your bit for empowering the underprivileged by offering up some carefully-rationed morsels of education? Or do you fear that educating the lesser beings might deprive you of targets for your scorn?

[ms-daisy-cutter.livejournal.com]

It's called Google. I've given you enough terms to search on, and these are well-discussed events in the United States, rather than obscure assertions that I would somehow need to prove.

If you can't be bothered and you're asking simply as an argumentative tactic, ah, well. It's not my job to educate you.

Also, as you're on the internet and you seem to be a conservative, I'm going to hedge a bet that you are, in sociological terms, rather privileged. Being ignorant about a certain topic of discussion does not make you less privileged; you can research it easily.

[(Anonymous)]

you seem to be a conservative

Pshaw. As if.

I'm hardly on the side of the Church and its oligarchy; I just fail to understand the opprobrium (look it up; it's not my job to educate you) heaped upon Emperor Papaltine and his organisation. His lot are supremely irrelevant, and should be treated as such.