Blinkered by tradition, burdened by centuries of convention, yes. Hateful? No.

I do NOT perceive of him as an inherently spiteful or malevolent man.

Would unrec, if DU3 still had that feature.

"a move of the Father of Lies who wishes to confuse and deceive the children of God"

Does that sound loving to you?

and when someone is just "blinkered by tradition"? And what's the damn difference?

The very "hatefulness" and malevolence which the OP ascribes to Pope Francis in an seemingly unwarranted way.

IMHO, one may be hidebound and blinkered without malevolent intent. Misguided ignorance does NOT automatically equate to malice.

Just wondering.

And it should fill everyone with rage. It's shameful and inexcusable.

should "fill everyone with rage" is a dictate to which one may or may not be willing to acquiesce.

with rage.

Disturbed and dissatisfied, yes. Fulminating with fury, no.

They were (and still are) WONDERFUL parents.

The thought that anyone would say that loving home was abusive makes me very angry. Not "disturbed" or "dissatisfied" but legitimately angry that someone is promoting that kind of hatred against decent human beings who love each other and their kids.

and have moved to attacking me personally for "uncontrolled anger."

Great. Way to set the example.

exposé on the effects of anger on the body.

the blood pressure and stomach acid.

so I guess that's that. Embrace the bigot. I won't be joining you.

I have not insisted or even requested that you "join" me in not hating. Quite simply, I've steadfastly maintained my own personal refusal to hate.

You've established you are the superior human being on this thread, and who knows, perhaps the planet! Maybe you could go teach the pope to quit bashing gay people? Thanks much!

The arrogance in which the poster waltzed into this thread is mind-numbing.

People are venting, ffs. Get off your high horse.

Just like all the popes before him.

I don't think I should have to apologize for getting angry when my LGBTQ allies and friends are disparaged and attacked.

That really bothered me. I have AMAZING gay friends who are fanfuckingtastic parents and the idea that he calls that abuse does make me filled with rage. IT brings tears to my eyes.

This shit is still happening, right now, in the gold old USA and this fucker is propagating the hate towards gays:
http://gothamist.com/2015/09/19/mother_daughter_describe_anti-gay_a.php

Yeah, rage and fury is what I feel and I do not appreciate being talked down to like I am the asshole here.

In the same vein, my emotions are my own, and I politely demur at hating.

I simply do my best to do right as my conscience dictates--or in other terms, to lead a dharmic life.

That being said, I sincerely doubt that the Pope would find my views on morality or right living to be of interest.

He endorces actual real "It's ok to hit them, just not the face" child abuse, with added instruction on how not to get caught doing it.

Plus you somehow got confused from saying the Pope is hateful (which is a light term in this circumstance) to a personal hate thing.

What actions would be required for someone to be considered "hateful?"

an ignorant idiot and thus should be given a pass on his utterances of hateful bigotry.

Do I have that right?

No "pass" has been or should be given. I do not subscribe to the RC's doctrine or dogma. I am not and never have been a Roman Catholic and I am not a practising Christian.

That said, I do not hate Pope Francis for his misguided utterances.

I refuse to believe that he should get a pass out of ignorance. He's a fucking jesuit. They are never ignorant.

One can know one's chosen subject matter with encyclopedic scope, and still be utterly ignorant of alternative realities.

It's not welcome.

choose to experience is strictly their affair. Collective consciousness notwithstanding, emotions are very subjective and personal things. It is difficult, if not impossible, to "make" someone feel something, with the exception of natural or trained manipulators.

My personal choice is not to hate and thus to avoid anger's very deleterious effects on my health--both physical and mental.

This has not always been an easy choice to honour. Nevertheless, the dividends have been definite over the long term.

because we're fucking fed up with Wonderpope being painted as some hero to the left.

You have repeatedly done so and you are perceived as thinking you have some moral superiority.

is frequently in the eye of the beholder. I do not consider you 'hateful' anymore than I perceive the Pope as malicious, malevolent or spiteful.

I simply demur before the implied invitation to detest the man.

I'm talking about coming into the A&A safe haven and accusing others of being angry, because that's a long running attack on minority groups to keep them in place. Go to the their AA group and tell them they're angry if you still don't understand.

posts in this thread, people have said:

"Anger & rage": a semantic pairing often used for rhetorical effect.

"Patronizing & arrogant" would be another such pairing.

Today I find myself annoyed by you.

I'm done with you on this shit.

See ya.

Secondly, if by using the epithet "hateful", your anger is assauged and you are in some way mollified, have at it.

Read the post to which my reply was directed.

Pompous self-importance is a wide, two-laned avenue.

I can't help but think that you're not here in good faith.

Good or not--my judgement is purely subjective.

You can dish it out, but you certainly can't take it.

Whatever helps you sleep at night.

Now are smileys a sign of spiritual maturity or not?

the least of social refinements to respond when addressed directly.

And fuck the pope.

Sideways.

He's a homophobic, misogynistic bigot.

Anyone who deprives others of their human rights is hateful.

Now, if only you could "beam me up", too!

No room for pope apologists on my starship.

I really don't like seeing them in here, though.

Nice of them to drop in and school us on what is and is not hateful.

adjective
1. arousing hate or deserving to be hated: the hateful oppression of dictators.
2. unpleasant; dislikable; distasteful: She found her domestic chores hateful.
3. full of or expressing hate; malignant; malevolent: a hateful denunciatory speech.

Your loving pope said that homosexual couples adopting children is CHILD ABUSE.

Explain to me how that is not hateful? Child abuse is terrible, I certainly hate it. That's the imagery he chose to use. HE CHOSE.

I stand by hateful.

intended one, and the one with which I took issue.

"malignant; malevolent"--two qualifiers that I personally would not assign to Pope Francis.

He believes that souls in a state of grave sin will go to hell.

He believes that homosexuality is a grave sin.

Add it all up. He's fundamentally no different than Fred Phelps was on this issue, he just puts on a friendly smile and doesn't wave the offensive signs.

You can embrace the bigot all you want. I won't.

OTOH, Fred Phelps' intent was manifestly to inflict as much anguish and pain as possible.

As all great philosophers will concur, "intention" is the motor of malice.

So he's helpful on climate change and economics.

He's obviously not helpful on LGBT and "women's issues".

So use him when he is a useful tool, and oppose him when he is not.

You cannot be taken seriously on climate change or poverty without bringing population/birth control into the equation.

You just can't.

The way he's useful on climate change is to get some people to actually care about climate change.

Once that door is open, it can be easier to work on steps to fix it. He won't help reduce population growth, so we'll have to.

If we as liberals dismiss his authority on LGBTQ, women, reproductive issues, etc., then why can't conservatives simply dismiss his authority on climate change and economics just as easily?

then that is helpful.

My point is that to pretend he is any kind of authority on ANYTHING other than the dogma of the RCC is a mistake.

(And by ruling out reproductive rights, he betrays a total ignorance and glaring insincerity on TRULY understanding how we address poverty and the environment.)

The people who follow him already oppose abortion rights. He's not going to switch a significant number from pro-choice to anti-choice.

You mean Catholics? Because no, not all of them do.

But if you disregard his ability to change minds on that issue, then why do you think he will help with climate change and poverty, especially when he rules out one of the major factors right from the start?

"Because the same dogma that causes him and his followers to oppose abortion should cause him and his followers to help with climate change and poverty."

Say what?!? I just pointed how his followers DON'T all agree with him on abortion. If they are free to ignore him on that, then right-wingers are equally free to ignore him on climate and poverty.

So they aren't the target.

There are christians who are suddenly noticing the stuff in the Bible about helping the poor and not worshiping wealth, because papering over those has been used to manipulate them. That is helpful in fighting poverty.

These same christians were already well aware that abortion is evil, EEEEEEEEEEVIILLLLLLLL, because that has been used to manipulate them for years.

The change in the first paragraph helps. The second paragraph has no change. The fact that most catholics ignore his demands on birth control doesn't make the first paragraph go away.

Right-wingers are the ones fighting action against climate change! Everyone else is already on the right page! So again what the hell do we need the wonderpope for?

There are christians who are suddenly noticing the stuff in the Bible about helping the poor and not worshiping wealth, because papering over those has been used to manipulate them.

Are there? Really? How many? Do you have any facts to back up these statements? Studies? Surveys?

You are saying multiple contradictory things. Accept the pope's authority and help, but don't accept his authority or help. He can change minds, but not the minds that matter. And so forth.

We're evil satanic atheists. The Pope, on the other hand, isn't.

You will not get a fundamentalist baptist to listen to the pope.

Fortunately, we don't have to convince only fundamentalist baptists.

He does not vary from Benedict on any issue, he just doesn't look like Emperor Palpatine, and wasn't the actual grand Inquisitor.

Shall I bold it? He's not saying anything different from the last Pope, he just has better PR.

Instead they spouted the occasional platitude.

The guy's no saint. Half to three quarters of his positions are awful. The other half to one quarter can be useful.

He didn't get the attention Pope McDreamy gets, but their views are identical.

Half to three quarters is awful, and the other half to quarter is base level human decency (Unless you're a woman, a child, or gay)

The point is that he's not changing anything, he's just trying to focus people away from the bad stuff, until he moves to make actual changes, he's really not an ally you'd want, cause even in his white house address he brought along his hate speech.

Maybe if he performed a gay marriage we could revisit this, but until then he's a poison pill.

Jesus never taught homophobia.

If the RCC is ever to cease being a hate-group, it will be via changes like these.

Is he in actual fact a hypocrite? almost certainly, but who the fuck cares. If his clout can move church members/policy in a more progressive direction, then good. Don't make it about "him"; cult of personality cuts both ways. Hating on him is about as useful as swooning over him (and yes there is tons of swooning this week, granted).

And I will continue to do so.

He has made approximately zero changes, and has done less than past popes have to fight the abuse issues within the church.

That people care more about protecting his image than exposing his hate is sad.

Also, remember where you are, this is a place to vent about this very issue. If you perceive any anger, then realize it is more than justified.

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]And as he fools more and more people back into the church it makes getting actual change through HARDER and LESS likely. Not the other way around.

Only by starving the beast of members till it hurts so bad will they EVER change.

Applauding this man is self defeating![/font]

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]For instance, this thread in which someone is suggesting that we throw women and all minorities under the bus:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7204545

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]Nope. I refuse to accept that shit! And that is part of the reason why I am gonna keep on calling the pope out again and again and again![/font]

"I don't care that America is welcoming the pope. I'll be glad when America welcomes Jesus." Jeeeeeeesus!

of course she got many "amens" for that.

It's scary as fuck to me when the pope sounds like the "sane" one in the room. Religions are desperate to grow their flocks, whether with fear and hatred or love and acceptance depends on the which way the wind is blowing, but the ultimate goal is the same; fill the pews and the coffers and kill us with kindness or just outright kill us.