No Sympathy, No Apology

Yeah, okay, so the Pope is exiting stage left. I, for one, don't feel sorry for anyone whose beliefs place me on some mythological shit list.

This bond that everyone feels was created by the media--look at all of the hype over Terry -- you don't see people boo-hooing en masse over the other fifty-plus thousand people who die every day...why? Because the media choses everyone's symbols. The media tells all of the smirking chimps on this planet whom to feel sorry for, whom to hate, and what brand of carbonated sugar-water to drink.

The only sad thing about the Pope's death is that God isn't dying with him. What's the point of God? People fear death anyway. God isn't the answer; it is merely the reply.

So, what happens next? The Mocking Birds--uh--Cardinals will get together and appoint ANOTHER Pope. That's just it; there's a seemingly endless supply of them. The new one will wear a similar clown suit and preach his version of the same old tired bullshit.

Will the new Pope have the balls to admit to the world that he doesn't really believe in God? Hell no, because that's the only thing that keeps him in power.

Anyone here garden? I'm going to start my seeds this weekend. It doesn't matter what I believe; they are going to sprout, and I'm going to have fresh tomatoes again this summer. I can plant those seeds, NOT believe in them, and they will STILL sprout. I can NOT believe that the sun will rise tomorrow and it will STILL rise (of course it doesn't really rise; it just appears to from our perspective).

The point is...well, everyone who belongs here already KNOWS the point. The ones who don't know can consult the "Good Book." While you're at it, see if God can tell you how many electrons, within a power of ten, pass through a 100 watt incandescent light bulb filament running on 110 volts AC.

Alright, I've had my fourth cup of coffee now...time to go to the office and explain to monkeys how to configure routers and computers so they can connect to the internet...God doesn't seem to be able to explain that very well either.

I disagree strongly with their position, but they are losing their leader. I remember when John Smight died. That was awful. Although you needn't feel sad, or sympathetic, or anything, I think now is a time for quietness.

eom

even for those we do not like, even people (other Human Beings) who have done reprehensible things in our minds is a foundation of my values even as an atheist.

So I feel no great sympathy for the pope I do feel the same compassion I would feel for any human being, perhaps more because regardless of what I think about him the fact is his is loved by many. I offer my sympathies to those who feel a sense of loose of someone they care about.

I would not stand up and falsely praise anyone just because they are dead but I would (and will) be sympathetic to those feeling pain over his loss and compassion for another human being's death.

Whatever good the pope has done (and there has arguably been some) is so monstrously overshadowed by the bad that to me, I just can't work up any respect for him or significant sympathy towards those who idolize him.

and when Reagan died, I keep them to myself or maybe share with family and friends who have similar feelings. I wouldn't want anyone publicly jumping up and down or making critical comments if, say, Clinton died. It's not necessarily showing respect to the person who passed but to the people who are mourning.

latent protestant bigotry than from us.

It simply is the basis many people view the world in. We happen to think they are quite wrong. Some of us even have very convincing arguments demonstrating just how wrong they are. And still they exist.

I could give compelling arguments showing the damage the Catholic church has done to our nation and our rights. I could lay the entire war against women's reproductive rights at the base of the Catholic church. We must fight the effect such things have on our society. But we must also realise something about ourselves.

We cannot advance society by destroying. If we want to see reason be an active part of our societies advancement then there must be progressive and active voices for reason speaking before the community. Instead we present our arguments as challenges agaist those that are trying to advance their positions. We have to show them that there are other ways. If our reason has merrit then let it carry the day.

In order to advance the cause of reason we have to have a place at the table. We have to want to be part of the process that takes place in this society. We have to be involved. And that means we have to be involved with those we may differ with. And that means acknowledging when they are hurting and offering them sympathy at that time.

If you are as tired as I am of religious zealots trying to destroy this nation or trying to drag us back to the darkages we are going to have to become involved. And simply attacking them isn't going to suffice. There is a confrontation coming. The last time something like this occurred the library at Alexandria was left in runes and the western hemisphere was plunged into a religiously dominated period that paralyzed the advancement of the human species. They are coming again. Their torches are lit. They are going to try to purge the knowledge that they find objectionable. If we are not there to defend it the library will be destroyed again and a new age of darkness will be initiated.

The only way to fight this is to wake others to the value of knowledge and reason. No one at the table speaks as strongly for reason as we can. Reason is the closest thing to a calling we have. The right to have a place at the table is based on one's ability to be civil to the other members of the table. And that means exhibiting compassion when they are hurting.

...the library at Alexandria was left in "runes".
Ever wonder just how far ahead of consciousness your brain fires?

Edit to add friendly wave :hi:

I haven't written much here, but I've been digging what you have to say for awhile now. You rock!! :yourock:

But very few, including this one, diminish me enough for me to notice.

:thumbsup:

his intolerance to atheist and secular humanists made him look like a bigot and was a farce because if someone criticizes the catholic church they are automatically labeled a bigot (of course this is true of all christians, muslims, jews, etc).

He accused atheist and secular humanists of being the source of all evil on earth some 10 or so years ago during an Easter homily. After hearing his diatribe I have had no respect for him or the catholic church. Of course it is hard for me to have any respect for any adult who believes in fairy tales, they loose some of their credibility with me. As a secular humanist and atheist, I think turnabout is fair play on this one. I have the right and the obligation to criticize the pope and the catholic church, or for that matter any person of religion who speaks ill will of atheist and secular humanists.

:puke:

it sure makes more sense than worshipping a mythological being. At least we know the sun exists and will come up each morning.

In the meantime, I continue to pretend that I believe in God because its hard to break decades of conditioning, and socially its so damn hard to admit it.

My favorite is when he begs God to kill him right there on the stage and people actually, for a moment, think that it could happen. It's so great to hear publicly, "There is no God." I love Carlin.

been watching him for years. I think I've seen all of his televised performances. Can't really be 100% sure on the older ones, but have caught many of his earlier ones.

Thank you all for your understanding and agreeing words. I was kind of crabby this morning, and I wasn't even sure if he was dead when I wrote that. All the drama aside, that dude had it good all of his life--except he didn't get any, did he?

I can't disrespect the guy too much--it's his followers that I look at and wonder about; he's just seizing the opportunity. This really amazes me because there is so much evidence and reality contending their beliefs; it astounds me that people can't see through the deceptions. Are they kidding?

I mean, really. Who REALLY believes all of that stuff? How many times do you have to reinterpret it and justify it when it's flat out impossible? You know, I've been in fifty or so churches. Religion has always intrigued me. I stopped going to Sunday School before I started kindergarten and I never believed in God. We got Christmas presents from Batman and Wonder Woman, as well as Santa Claus.

I used to really try to see all of these things people described to me, and I really wanted to believe in angels and God and all of that other happy stuff. It just flat out never made any sense to me. I have always asserted to religious people that I can't profess a belief in something I don't believe because that would make me a hypocrite,

If there really were a God, I would go to Hell anyway. So I'm living my life and calling them as I'm seeing them. What I see is tens of millions of people all saying they believe in God who don't really believe a damn thing. I mean, if you only go to church once or twice a year...why bother at all? I mean, really...who REALLY believes this stuff? :dilemma: :dilemma: :dilemma: :dilemma: :dilemma: :dilemma: :dilemma:

died this year, a large number of whom in abject circumstances, a large number of them directly, or indirectly due to religion-inspired reasons, another very large number due to profit-inspired reasons. I haven't heard many condolences for them. They are the ones to whom I will keep mine. They are the ones with whom I do have a bond. With no media coverage. With no fantastic theories.

when people who disagree with you don't say, "sorry your family member/close friend/mentor died" should something happen to one of them.

I'm sorry for his death because the person who could have been and could still be Pope could be much, much worse. I'm not talking about ramping up speeches against abortion, I'm talking opposing evolution, ending the church's involvement in social work in third-world countries, and giving endorsements-- overt or otherwise-- to politicians or political parties.

I don't require sympathy and I never will. As for evolution, people can oppose it all they want; it will still be there. It was there before anyone ever thought of it. Unlike God, it doesn't require belief to exist.

"I don't require sympathy and I never will"

Tough talk.

Tough talk? Whatever. I've stood up to groups of people face to face. The only time I keep my thoughts and feelings to myself is when I'm getting paid; even then, I am notorious for being outspoken and controversially opinionated. I'm also known for being the one who likes the tough situations.

Some day, my parents are going to die. I won't need anyone's sympathy, nor will I want it. Period. I don't see anything tough about it. It's just the way I am.

ok... so watch your parents die. I'm assuming you're on good terms with them. but anyway, as you watch their existence ending, just remember that you once said you won't need anyone's sympathy.

if you really aren't going to feel sad about their dying, you should tell them that some day.

I didn't say anything about not feeling sad; I merely said that I do not require sympathy from anyone.

But I do mourn the loss of this Pope for several reasons. He may have been socially conservative, but he was only interpreting Church teachings. However, as a young man, he opposed the Nazis, saving many Jewish children, and he opposed the Communists, and Polish Solidarity helped bring down the USSR. He opposed Bush*'s war in Iraq and equated Bush* to the anti-Christ. What more could this man do to gain your approval?:shrug:

The pope made it quite clear that people without religion are responsible for much of the evil in the world today. Not to mention the problems caused by the church's stance on issues like birth control, abortion, and prolonging suffering - oops, I mean prolonging "life."

Sorry, when someone directly attacks me or people who think like me, It's hard to feel much sympathy when they die, or empathy for those who loved a bigot.

My point about this Pope was more about him as a man, than as a Pope. He opposed the Nazis and the Communists, which I see as heroic, but he also opposed George Bush* He condemned the Iraq war and said that Bush* had characteristics of the anti-Christ. This man had an international audience, so people listened to him. He spoke out. I am praising him for this, and have empathy for anyone who suffers and dies. I do not support his social conservatism, but know that this is the stance of the Catholic Church. It was his job to promote it, which is why I don't support it. Nobody attacked you, certainly not me or this Pope. He and I did not agree on everything, but he did do much more good than evil, IMHO.:shrug:

But the pope did attack all non-believers by claiming that evil comes from non-belief. I don't buy into that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" stuff, especially when my "friend" thinks I'm evil.

Would not think you're evil. He did enforce the socially conservative agenda of the Catholic Church, which I admit, and don't approve of, but he also did a great deal of good, as a human being. That's my only point, here. He fought the Nazis and Communism in Poland and intolerance in this world. And he embraced everybody. He was not Josef Stalin. And I think that he would have embraced both of us, believers or not. He gave everybody a chance, even Bush*, though he ended up criticizing him for his unprovoked war in Iraq and compared him to the "anti-Christ," tough words for a Pope. He had the guts to speak out, when he had to. He was in our corner, IMHO.:shrug:

read that.

:rofl:

"Lack" suggests there is something missing or needed. Faith discourages people from seeking real answers.

So he opposed some unpopular things in history...big deal. Joseph McCarthy opposed Communism. As far as "equating" the President to the AC...how did he still get votes from Catholics then?

Given the state this planet is in, he didn't do nearly enough.

I don't have faith. And I'm not sorry. I have my reasons. But I do think that this Pope was a great man. He may have opposed Communism, as did McCarthy, but he did not inspire hatred. He opposed the Nazis during a very dangerous time, and saved Jewish children. That's my idea of a real-life hero, religion or not.

Why did Catholics vote for Bush*? Because they were brainwashed. My friend, who is both Catholic and holds public office, gave me a hand-out, of how Catholics should vote, which totally shocked me. She doesn't hold with it, nor do I, obviously. But Catholics were told not to vote for John Kerry, who was Catholic, nor Dennis Kucinich, my candidate, also Catholic, because they are pro-choice, support gay rights and stem cell research. So they voted for the man who is pro-war and pro-capital punishment. This Pope opposed Bush*, and his war. I think he deserves a lot of credit for this.

Maybe he didn't do enough, but this man, Karol Wojtyla, did more than most of us.:-(

From "Inside The Vatican," February 2005:

“I will not die before I canonize Pope Pius XII”

Five days ago, we reported that Pope John Paul II was 10 minutes from death the night he was hospitalized (February 1).

Now, in the very different context of an 84-year-old Pope on the mend, we consider one of the most controversial issues he will have to face in the months ahead, and reveal that he himself has already, according to our sources, made up his mind on the matter.

Our sources tell us they believe that John Paul II, barring an unexpected crisis of the type which just occurred, will live for some time yet (one source suggested the figure "five more years").

During that time, we have been told, John Paul fully intends to perform at least one very controversial act: declare that Pope Pius XII -- denounced by many for his alleged "silence" during the Nazi persecution of the Jews -- was a saint who helped save the lives of nearly 1 million Jews.

- by Inside the Vatican staff

http://www.insidethevatican.com/newsflash-feb13-05.htm

"Saved 1 million Jews," my ass. Pius XII did no such thing, and the figure usually quoted is about 800,000. Where did that figure come from? From one historian, who calculated the number of Jews saved by everyone else, then credited the Vatican with saving the rest.

Naturally, the Vatican Crime Family seized on that highly suspicious figure and trumpets it at every opportunity.

There's a lot of corruption there, I surely admit. Many believe John Paul I was murdered because of it. But this Pope, Karol Wojtyla (sorry, the Polish alphabet is different), fought against the Nazis. He saved Jewish children. I am not saying that he didn't enforce socially conservative Church teaching, which I vehemently oppose. But he did do much good in the world, opposing Hitler and the Communists, supporting Solidarity and helping to bring democracy to Poland. I will read what you posted, but I am already no fan of Pius, though he was long before my time. I believe you, and am not saying that Karol Wojtyla was perfect, but I do feel that he did more good than most human beings. That's all. And I wouldn't be here if I didn't feel as you do, but I do believe this.:shrug:

Damn lack of context on the internet! Anyway, re-reading my post it sounds like a rant directed at you, which I certainly didn't intend.
It was just a general rant, not personal.

The "irony" to me was the stuff about the Pope "recovering" and doing fine just two months ago, then ending up Pining For The Fjords. Not his record.

I am curious, though, if you have any objective sources about him fighting the Nazis and saving Jews.

"Objective" means "not originating in Catholic propaganda." I'd appreciate it.

I'm asking because the Church is a master at moving the ball in these kinds of things. The attempt to whitewash Pius XII is a perfect example. Church apologists are always eager to re-write history, usually for good reason. And they did invent the word propaganda, after all.

The accounts I've found about JP II mostly deal with what he did immediately after WWII. He ran into one Jewish girl who had just been released from a concentration camp and gave her some food, and her story is repeated a lot in various Catholic pubs.

If you haven't read it yet, a book that might make you as suspicious as me is The Popes Against The Jews by David I. Kertzer.

Sorry this rambles, I'm up too late...again.

I'd received on this forum, today, but I am totally sincere in what I believe. I do not support Church policy, but I do believe that this was a very good man. Maybe I'm prejudiced because I'm Polish, but I don't think so. I condemn and refuse to believe most of that I read, these days. I have gotten good at discerning the lies, but I still believe that Karol Wojtyla was a good man, who supported human rights and did what he could.

I agree with you about Pope Pius X. My mother didn't even like that one. I just thought that this Pope supported John XXIII and Paul VI, his namesakes. His efforts to eradicate Communism and support Solidarity in Poland are much more supportable, but this is the most honest article I found on his efforts during WWII. But he was still quite young. I was just reporting what I heard, but this is more detailed. I can provide much more on Solidarity and Communism *sigh*

Anyway, thanks for your thoughtful post. I will always try to respond in kind.

Rhiannon :-)

http://www.post-gazette.com/forum/20000305rodgers3.asp

:hi:

Will probably post more rambling after I read it.

I'm sure it's already out there, but I thought it was worth passing on, the personal story of a 13-year-old concentration camp survivor, and the help she got from a young seminarian. It's also in the NY Times, which I subscribe to, but I liked this version better. And feel free to ramble with me, anytime. I am not exactly succinct on DU, if you've seen my posts. Thanks for giving this a chance. I just believe that Karol Wojtyla is a good man, one of us.

Rhi:hi:

http://www.ad2000.com.au/articles/2000/may2000p13_58.html

Check out the articles I put up by Hans Kung and Jim Connolly for another view. The thread title is "W-a-a-h! Mommy, They're Bashing Us..."

A couple of great articles by people inside the church. I think they show that, whatever individual acts of goodness the Pope did, as a church leader he was constantly moving back toward the Middle Ages.

The Kung article mentions that his role in defeating Communism has been exaggerated by church propagandists.

Actually, LOL, I was just going to post the opposing view, since I have read much more on Karol Wojtyla's secret support of and donations to Solidarity and his standing up to the Nazis. I don't know if we will ever know the accurate details, but I sure believe this young Jewish girl, who he saved, after she was released from the concentration camp, and know how devoted he always was to his beloved Poland. He visited the Holy Land, though his health was very bad, to try to heal the strife between Judaism and the Catholics and also visited Yasser Arafat and the Palestinians. He opposed both the Nazis and the Communists, since they made his life, and those he loved, so very bad. Of this, I am sure.

Yes, he was a total reactionary, when it came to social issues, women in the church, birth control, gay rights, pro-choice, things that we liberals value. But this was an old man who, long ago, stood up and spoke out when it counted. And he spoke out against George Bush* and both Iraq wars. I just think that this should count for something. I admire bravery. Thanks for listening to my rant.

Rhiannon :-)

Yes, but they are only for decoration.

(or at least give a decent explanation)why I am not only not supposed to get laid with another woman when I am female too, but why it's so hard for me to get to do that. Geez, you'd think I could at least get the opportunity to "sin" instead of just thinking about it every 4 seconds. Oh, yeah, I forgot, thinking about it is a "sin" too.