Homosexuals are persecuting Christians. (No, really, he says so.)

[Gawdzilla]

Italian cardinal warns gay activists are persecuting Christians

Quote:

Freedom of thought and expression is under threat from the gay rights movement, said Cardinal Giacomo Biffi, the retired archbishop of Bologna, in memoirs that are published on Thursday. And the result is that those people who disagreed with the homosexual agenda are being ostracised by society, he said.

"The ideology of homosexuality" – as often happens to ideologies when they become aggressive and end up being politically triumphant "becomes a threat to our legitimate autonomy of thought: those who do not share it risk condemnation to a kind of cultural and social marginalisation," said Cardinal Biffi.

"The attacks on freedom of thought start with language," he wrote. "Those who do not resign themselves to accept 'homophilia' ... are charged with 'homophobia'."

Balance of article at URL above.

[Mister Earl]

Huh. Well, I learned something new today. No, what this guy says isn't it, I'm unfortunately not surprised by any of it. But I did learn that you can, in fact, do a facepalm hard enough to break the sound barrier.

[headscratcher4]

Well, if anyone would know about supressing thought and speech, it would be a Cardinal of the Catholic Church with its hundreds of years of history doing just that...

[Skeptic Guy]

And before that, the damn astrophysicists persecuted the church with that whole heliocentric theory thing...damn them, will it ever end?

[Didaktylos]

It's all down to the Boolean (or should we say Manichean) mode of thought that permeates Abrahamic Monotheism: anything that isn't A is NOT A. If you're not the one with the power to oppress, then ipso facto you are the oppressed.

[HansMustermann]

Actually, I wish I could blame it on boolean logic, but that's not one of their strong points either.

No, the quote that comes to mind is more like that from Goering, "But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship. ...voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."

In the meantime it's Bigotry And Discrimination 101 material too. If you want to get people shaking a fist against minority X, you basically elect yourself to be the kind of leader Goering was describing. You tell them that it's minority X who is attacking us, and denounce any moderates as playing in the hands of the enemy.

[Gawdzilla]

In other news, "Incas Persecute Conquistadors".

[Skeptic Guy]

It is as if the pot called the kettle "black", but in this case the kettle is more of a chartreuse.

[TimCallahan]

Does "our legitimate autonomy of thought"include boffing the altar boys?

[Schrodinger's Cat]

What's really funny about this is that this guy is the one guilty of what he is acusing others of.

He wants to not only be homophobic (which he has a perfect right to be), but he wants to control other people and say that the rest of us have to SUPPORT his homophobia.

It's amazing how many people think free speech = I can say what I want and not get criticized or socially margainalized for it.

I support the right of anyone to say anything they want, so long as it does not incite violence, but don't expect me to agree with you and not treat you according to the views you express.

[headscratcher4]

I suspect there is no guarantee of freedom on speech or press inside the Vatican.

[TragicMonkey]

Sounds to me like someone whining that he's not popular any more. Of course Catholicism is "condemned to a kind of cultural and social marginalisation". That's because of what it is, and what the world is now. It doesn't fit in anymore. Complaining about it won't fix it. You can either change your institution, or whine until the world changes. Guess which one is more likely to succeed?

Gotta adapt to survive, Church. Time for Vatican III? It can choose to sink or swim, but treading water in the hopes the sea level will drop again isn't a viable option.

[Lucian]

Hey, remember back during the Civil Rights Movement when those mean, nasty, oppressive blacks were persecuting the poor, innocent racists? Why, you could hardly organize a good lynching without some free-speech-hating bigot raising an eyebrow and "tsk tsking."

Also, I don't know why, but I really enjoy the name "Cardinal Biffi."

[ugot2bekidding]

Originally Posted by Gawdzilla

In other news, "Incas Persecute Conquistadors".

This reminds me of a heated debate I had with my brother ( a Christian ). His position, on this wholesale slaughter of nations, was that the Europeans "acted in self-defense".

[InfidelSavant]

Since the only homosexual agenda I'm aware of is basically that "Homosexuals be entitled to the same rights as everybody else and not have to worry about bigotry", then I have no problem with people who "disagree with the homosexual agenda" being ostracized.

[Sledge]

Originally Posted by InfidelSavant

Since the only homosexual agenda I'm aware of is basically that "Homosexuals be entitled to the same rights as everybody else and not have to worry about bigotry", then I have no problem with people who "disagree with the homosexual agenda" being ostracized.

I don't like just posting "this," but... this. The only Christians getting persecuted are the bigots who think what they believe should influence everyone else. This is the sort of persecution I can get onboard with.

[GrandMasterFox]

I'm really sorry to say this, but I fail to see what is so surprising.
The whole "you'll opress the homophobes" is nothing new, they've been screaming that for years.

Heck, wasn't a major part of the advertising of prop 8 that those who speak against gays could get arrested if gay marriage would be allowed?

[HansMustermann]

Originally Posted by Schrodinger's Cat

What's really funny about this is that this guy is the one guilty of what he is acusing others of.

He wants to not only be homophobic (which he has a perfect right to be), but he wants to control other people and say that the rest of us have to SUPPORT his homophobia.

It's amazing how many people think free speech = I can say what I want and not get criticized or socially margainalized for it.

I support the right of anyone to say anything they want, so long as it does not incite violence, but don't expect me to agree with you and not treat you according to the views you express.

Actually, it seems to me more like that the bigots' version is along the lines of:

freedom of religion: I can tell you what to believe in, and you're persecuting me if you keep on ignoring me

freedom of speech: I can tell you what you're allowed to say. If you say anything else, you're oppressing me

freedom of press: I can tell you what you're allowed to print or show on TV. If you print or show anything else, you're oppressing me

Frankly, it seems to me that the problem of half of America isn't even religion, it's blind mindless conformism and being scared if anything even remotely different or newer than the 60's. It's the people huddled behind their gated communities that don't even work, and their churches, and their dress codes, and generally scared that a more casual Friday outfit than a different colour suit coat (ok, blazer) over the vest or a brighter tie is someone who'll rape their kids and gun down the school. And don't even get me started on someone as different as, say, a gay or atheist or black in their neighbourhood.

When I read studies where a black in the neighbourhood actually rises anxiety levels, I have to wonder wth is wrong with some of America. When did the age of enlightenment go, "oh, that's such a silly place, let's not go there"?

But at any rate, those guys don't even seem to me like primarily motivated by either religion or some coherent ideology. They're for bible morals... except for when it means anything different happening. They're against taxes... except when it comes to subsidizing their farms so they can live like before the great depression. They're for small government... except when they want the government to enforce their religion, forbid saying anything on TV that their grandfather didn't see on TV, keep gays in the closet, and generally see to it that they don't have to acknowledge any changes more abrupt than the continental drift.

That's the common denominator I'm seeing. God forbid that anything changes or doesn't perfectly fit the mindless herd, 'cause that makes everyone scared.

[Tanstaafl]

Originally Posted by Gawdzilla

Italian cardinal warns gay activists are persecuting Christians



Balance of article at URL above.

That's quite a pile of bovine excrement, but worthy of a Cardinal. These days you need a 14th century mindset to advance that far in the Catholic church.

[Schrodinger's Cat]

Originally Posted by HansMustermann

Actually, it seems to me more like that the bigots' version is along the lines of:

freedom of religion: I can tell you what to believe in, and you're persecuting me if you keep on ignoring me

freedom of speech: I can tell you what you're allowed to say. If you say anything else, you're oppressing me

freedom of press: I can tell you what you're allowed to print or show on TV. If you print or show anything else, you're oppressing me

Frankly, it seems to me that the problem of half of America isn't even religion, it's blind mindless conformism and being scared if anything even remotely different or newer than the 60's. It's the people huddled behind their gated communities that don't even work, and their churches, and their dress codes, and generally scared that a more casual Friday outfit than a different colour suit coat (ok, blazer) over the vest or a brighter tie is someone who'll rape their kids and gun down the school. And don't even get me started on someone as different as, say, a gay or atheist or black in their neighbourhood.

When I read studies where a black in the neighbourhood actually rises anxiety levels, I have to wonder wth is wrong with some of America. When did the age of enlightenment go, "oh, that's such a silly place, let's not go there"?

But at any rate, those guys don't even seem to me like primarily motivated by either religion or some coherent ideology. They're for bible morals... except for when it means anything different happening. They're against taxes... except when it comes to subsidizing their farms so they can live like before the great depression. They're for small government... except when they want the government to enforce their religion, forbid saying anything on TV that their grandfather didn't see on TV, keep gays in the closet, and generally see to it that they don't have to acknowledge any changes more abrupt than the continental drift.

That's the common denominator I'm seeing. God forbid that anything changes or doesn't perfectly fit the mindless herd, 'cause that makes everyone scared.

I agree completely.

[bignickel]

Quote:

Freedom of thought and expression is under threat from the gay rights movement, said Cardinal Giacomo Biffi, the retired archbishop of Bologna, in memoirs that are published on Thursday.

No matter how thin you slice it, it's still bologna.

[Beerina]

Looks like the shoe of social ostracism is on the other foot now, eh? Eh?

[Marduk]

Originally Posted by Lucian

Also, I don't know why, but I really enjoy the name "Cardinal Biffi."

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=biffy

Quote:

1. biffy
Biffy=Bathroom, Restroom.
"I'll be back I need to visit the biffy"

Quote:

3. biffy
Biffy=outdoor toilet particularly in the midwest
"kristine pooped in the biffy"

looks like his name suits his rhetoric imho

[Elizabeth I]

Originally Posted by Marduk

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=biffy





looks like his name suits his rhetoric imho

The summer I worked as a hotel maid at Yellowstone Park, I bought a beer mug with my name on it and the impressive title "Biffy Buffer."

[Pacal]

Originally Posted by Schrodinger's Cat

What's really funny about this is that this guy is the one guilty of what he is acusing others of.

He wants to not only be homophobic (which he has a perfect right to be), but he wants to control other people and say that the rest of us have to SUPPORT his homophobia.

It's amazing how many people think free speech = I can say what I want and not get criticized or socially margainalized for it.

I support the right of anyone to say anything they want, so long as it does not incite violence, but don't expect me to agree with you and not treat you according to the views you express.

Ah but you are forgetting that for the past 20 years, "Christians", "Conservatives". "Right wing pundits" have been persecuted and suppressed by the all powerful forces of political correctness, that exercise absolute totalitarian control over our society and control all media and ruthlessly stamp out even the most timid of protests against their absolute rule. How do we know this. Why Glen Beck, Rush, Limbaugh, Hanity, O'Reilly and Fox News, Television Evangelicals, (Along with a vast assortment of Pundits), tell us this 24/7 each and every day, from their radio, shows, Newspapers, TV stations about how oppressed they are and now everybody knows that they are so oppressed that everyone knows that they can't get get their message across, which eveyone hears about 24/7.

Of course a favorite meme of the "Conservative" crowd is that criticizing their opinions is in fact censorship and oppression. What they want is to be able to spew forth hate and have no one call them on it. You see these bigots and idiots have their feelings hurt if they are called bigots and idiots, so although they can say the most hateful stuff about others their feelings are sacrosanct and must NOT be hurt. Of course the people they hate and despise feelings are not worth taking into account at all. The gall is simply breathtaking.

[psionl0]

Everybody seems to be taking the position that we must oppose heterosexuality because it is a member of the church who commented on homosexuality.

More from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...hristians.html:

Quote:

The remarks came as a British paediatrician lost a religious discrimination case after she was forced to step down from an adoption panel because she opposed adoptions by gay couples. Dr Sheila Matthews was employed by Northamptonshire County Council.

Do we really wish to be afraid to have a politically incorrect opinion?

[Pacal]

In my humble opinion the Cardinal can go $%^&% himself!

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by Pacal

In my humble opinion the Cardinal can go $%^&% himself!

ad hominem.

[Resume]

Originally Posted by psionl0

Do we really wish to be afraid to have a politically incorrect opinion?

About what? Who's this we?

[Sledge]

Originally Posted by psionl0

Everybody seems to be taking the position that we must oppose heterosexuality because it is a member of the church who commented on homosexuality.

Please show me some of these people.

Quote:

More from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...hristians.html:


Do we really wish to be afraid to have a politically incorrect opinion?

No. We do, however, wish to stop bigots from bringing their irrational views to work.

[SezMe]

Originally Posted by psionl0

Everybody seems to be taking the position that we must oppose heterosexuality because it is a member of the church who commented on homosexuality.

How you got that out of this thread so far is totally beyond me. Please explain and use examples from this thread.


ETA: That damn light-fingered Sledge is too fast.

[Pacal]

Originally Posted by psionl0

Do we really wish to be afraid to have a politically incorrect opinion?

Considering that it is so easy to find the most hateful, hysterical, vile attacks against Gays on the web, in magazines and newspapers etc. It is is quite clear that the fear to have a "politically incorrect" opinion regarding Gays is close to non-existant.

But then attacking "political correctness" as been "politically correct" for more than 20+ years.

What these bigots and hate mongers object too is being called bigots and hate mongers. They devotely wish to able to spew their venom without someone objecting.

[Pacal]

Originally Posted by psionl0

ad hominem.

Since when is telling someone they can go to hell an ad hominem? Now if I attacked the Cardinal by saying his ideas should not be taken seriously because he was a Priest. That would be an ad hominem.

I'm not arguing with him I'm expressing outrage.

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by Sledge

Please show me some of these people.

OK maybe I exaggerated a little but I haven't seen any qualification on homosexual support in this thread. I don't care either way as long as it is a personal choice. It worries me however when governments start talking "quotas" and "anti-vilification laws". I doubt that "freedom of speech" as espoused in the constitution can protect us from laws like these.

Originally Posted by Sledge

No. We do, however, wish to stop bigots from bringing their irrational views to work.

You don't have to listen if you don't want to (I don't) but if you try to suppress an unpalatable opinion then we march further towards totalitarianism.

[Pacal]

Originally Posted by psionl0

Everybody seems to be taking the position that we must oppose heterosexuality because it is a member of the church who commented on homosexuality.

Please present the evidence that anyone here opposes hetrosexuality.

[Sledge]

Originally Posted by psionl0

OK maybe I exaggerated a little but I haven't seen any qualification on homosexual support in this thread. I don't care either way as long as it is a personal choice. It worries me however when governments start talking "quotas" and "anti-vilification laws". I doubt that "freedom of speech" as espoused in the constitution can protect us from laws like these.

So no one is taking the position that we must oppose heterosexuality. In that case, why did you say it?

Quote:

You don't have to listen if you don't want to (I don't) but if you try to suppress an unpalatable opinion then we march further towards totalitarianism.

This is not a response to what I said.

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by Sledge

We do, however, wish to stop bigots from bringing their irrational views to work.

If you didn't mean suppressing "irrational views" then what did you mean?

[Kopji]

Archbishop of Baloney

[Sledge]

Originally Posted by psionl0

If you didn't mean suppressing "irrational views" then what did you mean?

I meant what I said. I'm not sure why you feel the need to make it mean something else.

Now, given no one said we must oppose heterosexuality, why did you claim everyone seems to be saying it?

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by Sledge

I meant what I said. I'm not sure why you feel the need to make it mean something else.

Now, given no one said we must oppose heterosexuality, why did you claim everyone seems to be saying it?

Giacomo Biffi was commenting on the case of a British paediatrician who was forced to step down from an adoption panel because she opposed adoptions by gay couples. The responses in this thread were primarily to link him to bigots, homophobes, "Right wing pundits" and just about every other hate filled *****hole that ever existed. It was quite wrong of me to equate these responses to opposing heterosexuality and I shouldn't have said so.

I still don't understand what you mean by "We do, however, wish to stop bigots from bringing their irrational views to work."