Look, I hate the Vatican for that and other reasons, but they are not a significant player in the basis for this bill being passed except insofar as Protestantism existing is their fault in the first place.
In other countries Catholicism is the major ideology promoting genocide of the LGBT+ community. In countries that don't have a major evangelical protestant prescence the Catholic church is happy to fill that niche
That's only because the Vatican is too busy pushing anti-queer policies in Europe. The Catholic church very much is a threat for the safety of queer people.
Look, I hate the Vatican for that and other reasons
Then why defend it? I'm baffled by the need to speak up in defense of the evil multi-billion-dollar centuries-old institution just because it isn't taking first place in this particular shit olympics.
Because we should be accurate with our accusations and the situation in America (besides being a problem of neoliberalism more than anything) is clearly not from "Christianity" writ-large.
Aside from the significant point that there are countless good Christians and the only good fascist is a dead fascist, yes, we should be sure that our claims are actually true if we want for those claims to be useful for making further inferences and not just sloganeering.
If we treat all Christians and all Christian sects as the same even when some problems are specific to one because "most of them have some problem anyway so fuck them," your analysis is liable to fall apart within the next two steps if you even bother making something of it beyond "fuck those guys".
I'm really confused by the small but persistent group of posters on this website that feels the need to jump up in defense of otherwise indefensible institutions just because in this one instance their fingerprints aren't explicitly evident or because their beliefs are being oversimplified. Do you think the Heritage Foundation is bereft of Catholics? Is the Catholic Church speaking out against this bill or otherwise trying to prevent its passage? Do you think the very probable no answers to the previous questions are indicative that this bill probably conforms to their own beliefs and they're happy to let the other, more outspoken groups take the flak because they know every time they wade into the culture war stuff they lose more followers because people are waking up to their bullshit and wisely walking away from it? Do you think the Catholic Church deserves to be shielded from rhetorical flak on this bear-themed shitposting website because it'll hurt our collective reputation of impartiality if they get accused of something they very likely support?
Getting back to Christianity as a whole, I don't see how you think there's a positive case to be made here. At best, Christians are personally moral but still providing cultural cover for genocidal institutions by being 'the good ones' and are most likely not following their religion perfectly (or even doing more than paying lip service), i.e., are good in spite of their religion and not because of it. At worst, those Christians are active participants in sexual abuse and other crimes and are not by any reasonable yardstick good people, and they're often shielded from consequences by those same 'good ones'. Sure, I don't think that being Christian deserves death the same way being a Fascist does but you probably also feel the same way about your Trump-supporting uncle and the ideologies underlying both of those choices are (and the substantial overlap between the two cannot be written off as coincidental), without caveat, irredeemable garbage.
"Waaah, stop making arguments while I continue to make arguments!" Quit with the bullshit copouts.
because it'll hurt our collective reputation of impartiality
Reread my last comment. I specifically was not talking about how you will appear to other people but rather how you will be able to or will fail to construct valid inferences. If you don't understand the difference, that's the first thing you should learn. Rhetoric and logic are different fields with different usefulness, as much as debatebro types love to call rhetoric logic.
I don't have a particular interest in defending Catholics, I think other people just jumped on that as low-hanging fruit. I'm ultimately an antitheist, but I think browbeating people in the general population about such a thing is stupid bullshit and a phase that I was able to get past in my teenage years. I don't know your age, but I hope you also get over it.
I'm not fucking caping for Pope Francis. Multiple times on this fucking website when people did the "omg most progressive pope!" thing I reminded them about his claim that "gossip" (discussing sexual abuse allegations) was a worse virus than covid.
But we must also acknowledge that this is a Christian. I hope there are one day no Christians and in the meantime we should oppose the power of imperialist religious institutions like the Vatican, but in the meantime castigating leftist Christians who are outspoken in their opposition to christofascists is stupid and childish.
Also, independent of this specific topic, being correct matters. You have no hope of being able to understand just about anything in the world if you think that something being bad means that trying to understand it is a waste of time. You should know your enemy.
Do you think all (or even a majority) of self-identifying Christians share the opinion being expressed in the video? If not, can you say that Christianity reliably guides people to having that opinion?
I don't give a shit about protecting Christian institutions, see the very same fucking comment you selectively quoted, which elsewhere discusses Pope Francis being an outspoken defender of pedophile priests.
For what it's worth, American evangelicals and the dominionist crowd are absolutely at play here. Where the Heritage Foundation's grubby hands end up, implicitly so do theirs.
I don't disagree, but I am arguing against applying an atomized concept of responsibility. Why must we waste our time meting out blame to one of the hydra's myriad heads instead of focusing on the corpus? The other sects of Christianity, even if not directly involved, still contributed to the sociopolitical landscape where this legislation is considered acceptable and most likely tacitly approve.
Look, I hate the Vatican for that and other reasons, but they are not a significant player in the basis for this bill being passed except insofar as Protestantism existing is their fault in the first place.
In other countries Catholicism is the major ideology promoting genocide of the LGBT+ community. In countries that don't have a major evangelical protestant prescence the Catholic church is happy to fill that niche
That's only because the Vatican is too busy pushing anti-queer policies in Europe. The Catholic church very much is a threat for the safety of queer people.
and central and south america
Then why defend it? I'm baffled by the need to speak up in defense of the evil multi-billion-dollar centuries-old institution just because it isn't taking first place in this particular shit olympics.
Because we should be accurate with our accusations and the situation in America (besides being a problem of neoliberalism more than anything) is clearly not from "Christianity" writ-large.
Heaven forbid we accuse the Proud Boys of something the skinheads are doing, because the problem is clearly not from "Fascism" writ-large.
Aside from the significant point that there are countless good Christians and the only good fascist is a dead fascist, yes, we should be sure that our claims are actually true if we want for those claims to be useful for making further inferences and not just sloganeering.
If we treat all Christians and all Christian sects as the same even when some problems are specific to one because "most of them have some problem anyway so fuck them," your analysis is liable to fall apart within the next two steps if you even bother making something of it beyond "fuck those guys".
I'm really confused by the small but persistent group of posters on this website that feels the need to jump up in defense of otherwise indefensible institutions just because in this one instance their fingerprints aren't explicitly evident or because their beliefs are being oversimplified. Do you think the Heritage Foundation is bereft of Catholics? Is the Catholic Church speaking out against this bill or otherwise trying to prevent its passage? Do you think the very probable no answers to the previous questions are indicative that this bill probably conforms to their own beliefs and they're happy to let the other, more outspoken groups take the flak because they know every time they wade into the culture war stuff they lose more followers because people are waking up to their bullshit and wisely walking away from it? Do you think the Catholic Church deserves to be shielded from rhetorical flak on this bear-themed shitposting website because it'll hurt our collective reputation of impartiality if they get accused of something they very likely support?
Getting back to Christianity as a whole, I don't see how you think there's a positive case to be made here. At best, Christians are personally moral but still providing cultural cover for genocidal institutions by being 'the good ones' and are most likely not following their religion perfectly (or even doing more than paying lip service), i.e., are good in spite of their religion and not because of it. At worst, those Christians are active participants in sexual abuse and other crimes and are not by any reasonable yardstick good people, and they're often shielded from consequences by those same 'good ones'. Sure, I don't think that being Christian deserves death the same way being a Fascist does but you probably also feel the same way about your Trump-supporting uncle and the ideologies underlying both of those choices are (and the substantial overlap between the two cannot be written off as coincidental), without caveat, irredeemable garbage.
"Waaah, stop making arguments while I continue to make arguments!" Quit with the bullshit copouts.
Reread my last comment. I specifically was not talking about how you will appear to other people but rather how you will be able to or will fail to construct valid inferences. If you don't understand the difference, that's the first thing you should learn. Rhetoric and logic are different fields with different usefulness, as much as debatebro types love to call rhetoric logic.
I don't have a particular interest in defending Catholics, I think other people just jumped on that as low-hanging fruit. I'm ultimately an antitheist, but I think browbeating people in the general population about such a thing is stupid bullshit and a phase that I was able to get past in my teenage years. I don't know your age, but I hope you also get over it.
I'm not fucking caping for Pope Francis. Multiple times on this fucking website when people did the "omg most progressive pope!" thing I reminded them about his claim that "gossip" (discussing sexual abuse allegations) was a worse virus than covid.
But we must also acknowledge that this is a Christian. I hope there are one day no Christians and in the meantime we should oppose the power of imperialist religious institutions like the Vatican, but in the meantime castigating leftist Christians who are outspoken in their opposition to christofascists is stupid and childish.
Also, independent of this specific topic, being correct matters. You have no hope of being able to understand just about anything in the world if you think that something being bad means that trying to understand it is a waste of time. You should know your enemy.
Dammit, you got me. Please post this to copypasta, it's a gem. The Reverened Wright clip is
Are you being sarcastic?
No, are you saying that mixture of pedantry, pearl clutching and nonsequitur was in earnest?
You're coming down pretty hard on Reverend Wright, imo
The hilarity comes from how you attempted to employ the clip, not the clip itself.
Shall we say Wright is not a Christian who is speaking as a Christian?
Do you think all (or even a majority) of self-identifying Christians share the opinion being expressed in the video? If not, can you say that Christianity reliably guides people to having that opinion?
"Most Christians are reactionary -> Christianity is fundamentally reactionary" is not the tight inference you think it is.
Not the jnference I was making.
I apologize for underestimating your doublethink
Removed by mod
I don't give a shit about protecting Christian institutions, see the very same fucking comment you selectively quoted, which elsewhere discusses Pope Francis being an outspoken defender of pedophile priests.
For what it's worth, American evangelicals and the dominionist crowd are absolutely at play here. Where the Heritage Foundation's grubby hands end up, implicitly so do theirs.
I don't disagree, but I am arguing against applying an atomized concept of responsibility. Why must we waste our time meting out blame to one of the hydra's myriad heads instead of focusing on the corpus? The other sects of Christianity, even if not directly involved, still contributed to the sociopolitical landscape where this legislation is considered acceptable and most likely tacitly approve.