Pope Opens Mouth; Inserts Foot

[robvalue]

No one is saying you shouldn't be allowed to be offended. That would be ridiculous. Who is saying that, can you provide a link?

If they are actually saying that, then they are insane.

---

What, two versions of what the pope said? I don't know, I've just seen him saying you can't criticize religion. I don't give a monkeys what he has to say about anything anyway.

I was addressing you when you said I could take the heat.

Did you watch him say those words? I've heard news reporters say both things on the same program writhing minutes of each other.

No I didn't. Maybe he said the opposite then. If so, then my criticism is unfounded. I really don't care what he said, he is of no consequence. It's not like I went on a Twitter hate campaign against him, so if I misquoted him then apologies to him. Normally the guys in here are pretty on the money.

Are you going to back up this claim about people trying to making being offended illegal? Because you realise you're talking about "thought crime", right? Who the hell is trying to do that?

[fr0d0]

You've got a bit of a misunderstanding there Fr0d0, it's impossible, by definition, to separate secularism from state when applying separation of church & state because:

1. that's what secularism is
2. secularism isn't a religion (or even an ideology), it's a political position on one matter (establishment of religion)

If you were to separate secularism from state, you would be establishing religion which you say that you oppose. Your statement is a contradiction.

Thanks for the assist. I'd agree with your statement there... apart from the fact that this is what the guy was saying, as a representative of a secular group on national radio. "Secular" in his understanding has seemingly different meaning to the one you and I agree upon.

---

Are you going to back up this claim about people trying to making being offended illegal? Because you realise you're talking about "thought crime", right? Who the hell is trying to do that?

I was actually saying the opposite Rob.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Yes these secularists are trying to force their beliefs on anyone. They stated that you shouldn't be allowed to be offended by something that they don't agree with.

The thought occurs to me that if El Papa doesn't want to be offended, he could always do what you do -- plug his ears and shout "nyahnyahnyah" at the top of his breath. Th internet version of that behavior seems to keep any common sense reaching you from the outside, I'm sure it would work for him too.

What is being argued is that you do not have the right to be free of offense -- particularly when exercising such a hypothetical right would result in effectively mutilating the right of others to practice free speech. Your restatement is laughably wrong, perhaps intentionally so. No one could be so dense as to misunderstand it that wildly -- except Drich, of course.

[Minimalist]

Religious cloths to me are like dressing up like Captain Kirk or Luke Skywalker.

It's been done.

[robvalue]

You...you... we're saying the opposite of what you said? Sorry frodo I am one lost bunny now. I may never find my way home again.

[Brian37]

Religious cloths to me are like dressing up like Captain Kirk or Luke Skywalker.

It's been done.

The farce is strong on this one.

[Faith No More]

None of that addresses my problem fnm but thanks for the input.

You know, I think, that I don't agree with religious involvement in education or government. In my case those would be straw men arguments that you are making.

What I'm hearing secularists say is that no one has a right to be offended about their beliefs. Trying to enforce their own belief system upon the whole population. They seriously want this made law. This to you would be like a religious group saying that you must obey their particular dogma. You are in fact being hypocritical.

Well, then, stop equating secularism with anti-religion. If you don't agree with with religious involvement in education and government, that makes you a secularist. Theists can be secularists too, so don't slander secularism when you really mean to attack the anti-religion movement.

And can you provide any reference to people trying to enforce not being offended into law?

[Brian37]

None of that addresses my problem fnm but thanks for the input.

You know, I think, that I don't agree with religious involvement in education or government. In my case those would be straw men arguments that you are making.

What I'm hearing secularists say is that no one has a right to be offended about their beliefs. Trying to enforce their own belief system upon the whole population. They seriously want this made law. This to you would be like a religious group saying that you must obey their particular dogma. You are in fact being hypocritical.

Well, then, stop equating secularism with anti-religion. If you don't agree with with religious involvement in education and government, that makes you a secularist. Theists can be secularists too, so don't slander secularism when you really mean to attack the anti-religion movement.

And can you provide any reference to people trying to enforce not being offended into law?

Again, the way he uses the word "secular" everyone including atheists should be against. But that is not what the word means. It got demonized and twisted as meaning anti religion. All that was due to our right wing during the cold war.

Secular simply means neutrality in that government will not play favorites or set up religious pecking orders.

Sectarian is what Sunni Saudi Arabia is. Sectarian is what Shiite Iran is. And politically speaking North Korea is controlled by one political sect.

Secularism in the west is what Europe and America are. The protection of rights through common law where all laws apply equally and no monopolies of power should arise.

[Anomalocaris]

Religion, the pope's justification for existence, can only continue if it's bullshit is not allowed to be widely and freely called out, so that bullshit can be treated as if it were true so that the gullible can continue to fill the ranks and finance the Vatican.

So do you truly believe anyone already debased by being a part of any religious establishment could possibly value any broad good for mankind in general in preference to what is required for the continuation of his own reputation, authroity and illusion of worth?

[Esquilax]

Yes these secularists are trying to force their beliefs on anyone. They stated that you shouldn't be allowed to be offended by something that they don't agree with. They want to formalise their own identity as law.

Where are these statements, please? I've asked you for them before, lots of us have, but as always your problem is that you think you can just say things and that's sufficient for them to be believed. Most likely, you're just misinterpreting a statement along the lines of "nobody has the right not to be offended," in the least charitable way possible.

You have a right to be offended. What you don't have is a right to transmute that offense into practical law. I think the position, if anything, is that offense is not a rationale for censorship, nor is it a rebuttal.