that religious people can hold multiple incompatible views.

There are many Catholics who are feminist and either gay or for gay rights. Yet they belong to and support an institution that is both misogynistic and homophobic. Thus the incompatible nature of their views.

yes. I place the blame mostly on the clergy and the hierarchy, but I don't think the congregation to be blameless.

And BTW I am not saying ONLY religious people have incompatible views like stated in the OP or that ALL religious people have views that are sharply incompatible.

That is incompatible with the prior statement that Catholics are not per se misogynistic or homophobic.

that want Gay marriage yet support a party that does everything it can to stop it. Do you think they are not complicit?

Though for some Catholics it may be something other than incompatible views. One might feel that they are supporting a Church that is those things but that other religious considerations might carry more weight.

And just because I think they are complicit, even in a minor way, I understand that is through my atheist POV.

I'm the last person to speak for republicans, gay or straight, but I imagine some of them think they're changing their party from within. In any event, what logically flows from those incompatible statements is that gay republicans, per se, are homophobic. I don't think that is a sustainable position.

Human beings, human behavior, and human thought are much more fertile and diverse than labels suggest.

That is why I do not label all Catholics as misogynistic and homophobic, but say they do belong an institution that is.

But i also think (this is more about Republicans than Catholics) that people have to own up to what the institution they support does.
But I think that is more a GD discussion.

but being members of and voting with the RNC certainly furthers regressive, bigoted causes, like homophobia and much more.

If people are giving the RCC money in any capacity, and if they belong to the church in a manner where the church can somehow claim force of numbers with some credibility while lobbying, that in and of itself is a material contribution. Doesn't make the member a homophobe and a bigot, but they are certainly working against equal treatment, and possibly against their own interests as a consequence.

Just like a Log Cabin Republican voting for a Republican candidate that supports DOMA, for instance.

Being a member of the Catholic Church does not necessarily make one misogynist and homophobic.

In post 4, I specified the degree to which any complicity can be extended. The model is not different from log cabin republicans. They endorse candidates and belong to a party that actively work against their interests.

They hold out hope of 'changing' the party.

The point being, by supporting and enabling an institution through one's attendance at meetings and/or monetary donations, one is supporting whatever deeds are done by that institution.


Associating those that patronize a business that use their wealth and power for ends contrary to human decency is a common tactic. Calling for boycotts of Hobby Lobby, Chic-fil-A, etc. are examples of this. We tell people that if you support these businesses, you are also supporting (insert abhorrent behavior here).

On edit:

"If you're a Republican, you're a racist" proclaimed loudly right here on DU.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5052332

Not that I agree with that statement, but if one is a Republican, one IS supporting racist (bigoted would be a better word) policy and enabling racist (bigoted) ideology to flourish.

Why can't the same be said about the laity and the RCC?

Stay in a bigoted origination to change it's written in stone, handed from god laws from within!

I thought you had internet skilz.

Further, the notion that religious belief is akin to peddling, or consuming heroin, is just plain stupid.

As for the rest, you can take it up with busterbrown.

Whoosh!


All you got out of that was "religious belief is akin to peddling, or consuming heroin"? Really?

Et cetera.

Double whoosh.

How on earth did I miss that?

Better luck next time.

It's the nature of the human beast.

I was commenting on the Op, not saying it was exclusive.

Happy that you clarified.

happens when making snappy replies.

but sometimes it's just innocuous.

I think the incompatibility in the OP pales in comparison with many other examples you would find with some religious people.
Just look at some right wing Republican evangelists.

someone I am getting to know and really like is a staunch republican or conservative.

But I have to be hones, if that information also comes with someone who describes themselves as very religious, I am much less surprised than when it comes from someone who describes themselves as atheist.

I know that both being a theist or being a theist should be narrowly defined and few assumptions should be made beyond whether they believe in a god or not.

But whether it be due to demographics or an assumption about atheism being linked with humanism, I expect a more progressive view from a non-believer.

These are the kinds of assumptions that should probably be discarded on all sides and the term "incompatibility" not used, because to do so means that one has more broadly interpreted the terms religious or atheist than they merit.

those that support "science" while attacking evolution and Climate Change theory.
Those that say they are loving Christians while supporting the Death penalty and attacking the poor.
That kind of thing.

this a religious thing.

There is hypocrisy everywhere and many, many flavors of believers and non-believers.

Let's challenge people that deny evolution and climate change based on their positions, not their religion.

Let's work towards helping the poor and fighting against those that would deny them justice based on their positions, not their religion.

Let's stop attacking religious people just for being religious and support a person's right to believe or not to believe.

If people without beliefs want to be free from the current prejudices, let's recognize that that is what all people want and not transfer those prejudices to believers.

I am sure there is hypocrisy in any other subjected forum as well. But i don't have a problem with pointing to religious hypocrisy in the Religion Forum.

It seems to absent religious beliefs from the debate, when those debates are the crux of the believers position is fruitless.

And for the record, denial of evolution is primarily about religion. So that is necessarily a large part of the discussion.

Climate Change denial has a religious correlation, but I think the main opponents are fueled by the Oil and Coal Industry.

affiliation or lack of affiliations should not be the basis for judging them.

And as the religion group includes discussion of both religious and non-religious people, I don't have a problem with pointing out possible hypocrisy by individuals in either of these groups.

When we are talking about the institutional positions of organizations, that's a different matter. I strongly support challenging many of the RCC's positions, for example. But I also support challenging the some of the positions taken by American Atheists and their president.

when those affiliations ARE THE FOUNDATION of their position in the matter at hand.

As ed says...

Things here are religious things.

You don't get to decide what is or isn't an appropriate topic or discussion.

You also don't get to demonize those who want to discuss things that you don't want discussed.

If the answer is "yes", then any and all other possibilities are a "go".

It's all in how you use (or choose not to use) your religious/non-religious position to support your POV.

In the end, it's the political position and actions that flow from that position that any individual should be judge on, not their religious persuasion.

We are all part of groups that hold positions with which may disagree, even vehemently.

they also identify as tea partiers. In short they are delusional bigoted jerks.

cognitive dissonance and intellectual dishonesty to proclaim the label.

So yeah, you can. Your views just shouldn't be taken seriously, like any fundamentally inconsistent and dishonest view.

Most Catholics in the US don't believe many parts of their own dogma they identify with. And they certainly don't follow it. Birth control being one flashing red light.

Then again, if someone did really believe everything the Catholic Church requires they'd be homophobic misogynistic assholes like the Pope, thinking the devil was working with the gays to promote marriage equality.

intelligence, and warmth.

You're wrong and don't want to defend shit beliefs. Can't blame you.

As it is, this

and many of the texts it venerates aren't explicitly bigoted, misogynistic and homophobic are either intellectually dishonest or completely delusional.

If you think criticism of such explicit bigotry isn't "worthy of response", well I can't say I'm surprised.

Which is why you can't even bring yourself to say, "yeah, thinking the devil is behind gay marriage is wrong".

All you can reply with is attacks on me. Pathetic.

[div class="excerpt" style="margin-left:1em; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-radius:0.4615em; box-shadow:-1px -1px 3px #999999 inset;"]2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

A follow up question, how are these statements NOT bigoted?

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm

As to 2359, that applies to everyone.

To be wrong or incorrect does not always equate to bigotry.

I do not thing that anyone who posts wrong, incorrect or ignorant statements about the RCC is necessarily bigoted.

Worshipping cult, they may be making that statement in ignorance, but also bigotry, particularly since, at least in modern western society, ignorance is no excuse. The misconception, itself, was rooted in bigotry, and that bigotry is perpetuated.

I don't see how that is different from calling those who are homosexual objectively disordered, particularly today, when there is much more information available about the nature of sexuality. In addition calling homosexual acts a "grave depravity" goes far beyond simply being wrong to being bigoted, using "Sacred Scripture" as the source of that is no excuse. Tradition isn't an excuse to commit to bigotry.

Another example I can think of would be people who stick to the invalid Racial and Eugenic"theories&quot if you can call them that) from the end of the 19th to beginning of the 20th century as a justification of their beliefs about white supremacy.

And all living humans will in the future be deemed the same.

It cheapens and misstates what bigotry in fact is.

or another, I don't understand why you think this "cheapens" or misstates what bigotry is.

Let's go by the dictionary definition:

a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance
— big·ot·ed adjective
— big·ot·ed·ly adverb

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigot

I would say that, to give the example we have used in this instance, that the Pope is a classic example of a bigot against homosexuals. The Pope has clearly stated his opinion that marriage, in both a legal and sacramental context, should only be between a man and a woman. This despite being presented with the evidence of the legal and societal ramifications of forbidding same sex couples from enjoying equal rights.

He does the same for same sex parenting, calling it child abuse, and again reiterating more recently that children NEED a mom and dad, despite the growing evidence to the contrary that same sex parenting, in households controlled for stability so its an equal comparison, children of same sex households have equal, and in some cases, improved, outcomes.

I would also argue that the Catechism of the Catholic Church, particularly when talking about the "grave depravity" of homosexual activities, is a document that has sections of it that are quite bigoted.

For that reason, I'll not here point out how Harris and Silverman illustrate that. No need to bring Edwina Rogers into it anymore.

and not the content of the article. I wonder how many comments would change if the entire article were read.

so wrong it almost hurts.

I must sit down now and consider it.

the rate of tapeworm infestation among a subset of DU posters has reached the point of becoming a public health crisis.

Somebodt call the CDC.

How so?

In fact, that's such a disgusting idea, I can't believe anyone listens to that old fuckface.

Do you think I am only responding to the headline?

why can't conservatives laugh off and ignore the other half?