The Song Fight Bulletin Board

jack shite wrote:actually, all it took was hugging one small boy on a visit to san francisco and the pope did more to present the seriousness and compassion towards AIDS than anyone did or ever has done since. he brought awareness of AIDS on a global scale.

A series of media campaigns created awareness of AIDS. He wasn't involved in any of them. In fact his church opposed them.

The same campaigns presented information about preventing the spread of the disease. He threatened his followers with hell if they didn't take precautions to save their lives, while his cardinals told the world AIDS was a punishment from god.

it's really shameful the way some of you disrespect a great man

I won't write what I'm thinking. It's not the kind of think I could take back. And I have no particular desire to make an enemy of you.

j$ wrote:When you post a series of pictures with the Pope talking with the x million Catholic AIDS victims, I will agree with you.

Until then, I would compare to it to a picture of Reagan talking to Hinckley ...

Except that, to my knowledge, Reagan never talked to Hinckley or tried to understand what motivated him or showed any sort of compassion towards him. I could be wrong but I don't remember seeing any such pictures.

And if there were a picture of Reagan talking to Hinckley I would respect him more for it. It would be a rare instance of grace and compassion.

And when an activists dies who tirelessly worked to fight AIDS around the world I will respect their passing as well.

jack shite wrote:
actually, all it took was hugging one small boy on a visit to san francisco and the pope did more to present the seriousness and compassion towards AIDS than anyone did or ever has done since. he brought awareness of AIDS on a global scale.

it's really shameful the way some of you disrespect a great man.

So what you’re saying is I should mourn the death of an old man, who I did not know, who happened to be the 264th figurehead of a powerful and far reaching religious organization which is based on another religion that itself is spun off yet another religion established by a book of moral fables about giants and superhumans written long ago by people who thought that God was speaking to them simply because he hugged a young boy in San Francisco? Well all right then; sorry to see you go Popey. Good Travels.

15-16 puzzle wrote: What would you have done differently if you had been Pope?

Dress casually and join hairclub for men.

Wow, as I read this thread, I get sicker and sicker. For all the bashing you guys gave Denyer for being racist, you should re read your posts to him. You are, each and every one, as bad. IMO. It is just this kind of hate speech that keeps people killing each other. I am not starting a debate, I will not respond. I just felt the need to let you know how disgusted I am at the self proclaimed rightious here and the hate they spew. And no, I didn't spell check this.

Fried wrote:You are, each and every one, as bad.

On behalf of the UAoWDPALT* and all the other people who have contributed to this thread, I thank you for your opinion.



*Unified Association of Wildly Different People All Lumped Together

Fried wrote:Wow, as I read this thread, I get sicker and sicker. For all the bashing you guys gave Denyer for being racist, you should re read your posts to him. You are, each and every one, as bad. IMO. It is just this kind of hate speech that keeps people killing each other. I am not starting a debate, I will not respond. I just felt the need to let you know how disgusted I am at the self proclaimed rightious here and the hate they spew. And no, I didn't spell check this.

You are really, really strange. What on earth is going on in your head?

* Condemning a man for killing by inaction is comparable to racism.
* Speaking out against hatred that kills, is hate speech that perpetuates killing.
* You attack others for being the self proclaimed rightious, in what is presumably self proclaimed rightiousness

Who was it said: The right to be heard does not entail the right to be taken seriously.

(BTW, my spell checker says it's 'Righteous')

15-16 puzzle wrote: 1. If you want a religion that changes it's rules and does things that benefit people on earth and whatever else, find one.

2. he's the Pope. He's not going to change the game he's playing just because other people want to play a different one.

3. Why can't people just not have Catholicism be a part of their lives?

1. I'm not searching for a religion, thats not my point at all. I don't care about that.

2. Also, again..I don't care that he's playing a different game. It's the size of the game and it's effects.

3. This is the issue. Why can't we? Because it's pushed on us. The world listens to this guy and decisions are swayed by this guy. THATS THE PROBLEM. Not the religion itself..but the way it has treated others and how the vatican is more than a church...it's how it is a pursuasive politcal power.

Again, I'm not attacking the religion itself... but illustrating my unease with it's power source and it's beaming radiation on earth.

<b>Fried:</b> I'm sorry for any misunderstanding. However, I've said nothing racist. I've spewed no hate. People will always kill each other regardless of what goes on here on this message board. I'm not required to respect the pope or the vatican and thats all that I have illustrated.

<b>Jack:</b> One of the best ways to avoid HIV or AIDS is to wear a condom. The vatican condems this. Once, some cardinal somewhere said it was ok..but they nipped that in the bud and made everybody on earth aware that this was not their official stance.

Hoblit wrote:

15-16 puzzle wrote:3. Why can't people just not have Catholicism be a part of their lives?

3. This is the issue. Why can't we? Because it's pushed on us. The world listens to this guy and decisions are swayed by this guy. THATS THE PROBLEM. Not the religion itself..but the way it has treated others and how the vatican is more than a church...it's how it is a pursuasive politcal power.

Okay, then how am I able to not have Catholicism be a part of my life? It was never pushed on me. What political power does The Catholic Church have that extends to people who aren't Catholic?

15-16 puzzle wrote:

Hoblit wrote:

15-16 puzzle wrote:3. Why can't people just not have Catholicism be a part of their lives?

3. This is the issue. Why can't we? Because it's pushed on us. The world listens to this guy and decisions are swayed by this guy. THATS THE PROBLEM. Not the religion itself..but the way it has treated others and how the vatican is more than a church...it's how it is a pursuasive politcal power.

Okay, then how am I able to not have Catholicism be a part of my life? It was never pushed on me. What political power does The Catholic Church have that extends to people who aren't Catholic?

We could go back and forth on this for hours. I'm not interested in doing so. If you are asking how specifically this affects YOU..I don't know..how it affects YOU as part of the world is another story. I feel like I'm part of this world on many different levels. My interest in politics, current events, and other similar items connects me in some small way to this global point of view. No political power wants to 'upset' the vatican. It's bad form. Notice that even our president visits the pope sometimes. Why? The president isn't Catholic. YOU might not have AIDS but there is a continent somewhere that has it in epidemic proportions. That effects ME in a way..albeit a small way...it effects me none the less. That an organazation with that much influence on the world could stand back and be part of the problem when it could use it's minions to better this earth. Thats just a start, thats just the tip. Like I said, there is no reason to go on about this if you really feel that at no level does the vatican effect your life. There'd be no way I could penetrate that stance.

j$ wrote:

sparks wrote:
Also - don't change a system, just becuase it's always be done that way? Hmmm, fuzzy logic ...
j$

No... CATHOLIC logic. Gods, people!

And I assure you that the Pope would not be "infallible" for long if he started backing material that did not at all support the established Catholic agenda. It would be a catastrophe from their perspective, and a mixed blessing from everyone else's.

You can't approach religion without the proper perspective. You can't judge it by the standards of normal, sane thought processes. It's another animal entirely. You have to take on a live and let live attitude, or you're going to run your stupid self into the ground worrying about something that's simply not changing, at least not in the foreseeable future.

Defeatist? Uh huh. But this conversation is on a downward slope, this page...

Hoblit wrote: <b>Jack:</b> One of the best ways to avoid HIV or AIDS is to wear a condom. The vatican condems this. Once, some cardinal somewhere said it was ok..but they nipped that in the bud and made everybody on earth aware that this was not their official stance.

yes hoblit, this is true. but according to the strict interpretation of the catholic ideology, HIV and AIDS isn't really something that good practicing catholics should worry about much, seeing as they are not supposed to engage in pre-marital sex, are supposed to remain faithful and monogomous to their spouse, and are supposed to be espousing a clean (and presumed needle free) lifestyle.

of course i did say supposed to. of course many do not suppose to and still are for the most part good catholics. some also believe in a woman's right to choose. some also believe women should be priests. some practice safe sex. some are even gay.

the pope is a mouthpiece. an influential one sure but still a mouthpiece. personal attacks on the man himself are bullshit.

i'm done here.

Hoblit wrote:We could go back and forth on this for hours. I'm not interested in doing so. If you are asking how specifically this affects YOU..I don't know..how it affects YOU as part of the world is another story. I feel like I'm part of this world on many different levels. My interest in politics, current events, and other similar items connects me in some small way to this global point of view. No political power wants to 'upset' the vatican. It's bad form. Notice that even our president visits the pope sometimes. Why? The president isn't Catholic. YOU might not have AIDS but there is a continent somewhere that has it in epidemic proportions. That effects ME in a way..albeit a small way...it effects me none the less. That an organazation with that much influence on the world could stand back and be part of the problem when it could use it's minions to better this earth. Thats just a start, thats just the tip. Like I said, there is no reason to go on about this if you really feel that at no level does the vatican effect your life. There'd be no way I could penetrate that stance.

I'm not trying to convince you of anything or debate you, and if you don't want to reply further, hey, that's cool; anyone who feels similarly can answer in that case. I just don't see what power The Catholic Church holds over non-catholics. How does it affect you, as part of the world?

I acknowledge that if The Catholic Church said "God said it's not a sin to use condoms" then that could change the world by having an effect on the spread of AIDS in places like Africa. But so would a bunch of Africans saying, "This rule is bullcrap and is killing our people" and finding a different religion. The power that the church holds over people is given to the church by the people.

The power the church holds over catholics and non-catholics is that it is millions strong. Any political organization or figurehead had better respect that. To go on the record in a definitively anti-catholic manner, you risk losing the vote that this group holds. Votes=power. Perhaps it isn't as strong a power here in North America, but in regions where Catholocism is really prevalent in the local culture, I'm sure this has a distinct effect on day to day existence through politics, law-making and enforcing etc. And in that way even non-catholics would be affected by the power of catholicism.

Jack:
How is calling the Pope simply a mouthpiece any/much less insulting than some of the stuff that's been posted in this thread by others? I'm sure he and his team of Cardinals would be pretty miffed at that notion too.... just a thought.

Fried wrote:You, each and every one of you (Geoff WreckdoM, abecedarian, Kapitano, j$, Hoblit, sparks, 15-16 puzzle, jack shite, Caravan Ray, john m, TheHipCola, Rabid Garfunkel, fodroy, and roymond), all eat babies.

Damn, I wish I had found this thread earlier. I guess it's Mac'n'Cheese for me tonight.

Fried wrote:Wow, as I read this thread, I get sicker and sicker. For all the bashing you guys gave Denyer for being racist, you should re read your posts to him. You are, each and every one, as bad. IMO. It is just this kind of hate speech that keeps people killing each other. I am not starting a debate, I will not respond. I just felt the need to let you know how disgusted I am at the self proclaimed rightious here and the hate they spew. And no, I didn't spell check this.

Wake up man. Take the blindfold off, stop shooting from the hip and think about what you are saying... More importantly, READ what you're typing. Equating this thread to to hate speeches that perpetuate KILLING is really, really dumb. As dumb as lumping everyone here into the same 'other' side from wherever you happen to be. Irreverant posts are one thing, typing out of your bung-hole is something else entirely.

Actually, typing out of your bung hole is a cool song title. And when I read "dead pope" I think of the movie Dead Presidents... I was hoping for a sequel.

I'm gonna pipe in with a thought... I wonder how many people here commenting in this thread are actually catholic?

Personally, anytime someone dies, I consider it a loss... that's just me. And I really don't see how people commenting on a dead guys politics or occupation (especially when fixtating on particular events or comments, although to be fair, that's all we know, I'm sure noone here spent hour after hour getting to know the guy) should be construed as hate, or disrespect; the guy was a public figure, and people are gonna express their opinions on his legacy. Calling him a senile old prick? I dunno, seems harsh, but I don't follow catholism... so all I know about the guy is the media portrayed efforts towards promoting peace and love and stuff like that. So, I'm no expert on his politics, or actions. But so far, no one else here is either.

So what is everyone so angry about? This dude dies of OLD AGE after leading a famous, rich and well travelled life. Stuck to his guns and HIS beliefs, tried to do some progressive things and used to play hockey. That's right, he played hockey as a youth. We're not discussing Hitler here... it's the pope. You may not agree with his ideas, so here's a thought... don't. Just don't. Him telling people not to wear condoms... well, we all know that's stupid advice, but hey, like Jack said, the idea is that PRACTICING catholics are supposed to follow the rules..(your off the hook Johnny!!) .. and I ramble... I ramble... I ramble on...

Right. So lay off the pope. And lay off each other for expressing there opinions. Only my opinion matters dammint.
..the preceding comment was brought to you by my sarcastic, breakfastless self... those who can not stomach my rambling opinions should save their disparaging comments for about three days after my demise....


Oh Fried, you are sucha fire cracker. You're also the kinda guy most people would probably want next to them in a foxhole, cause you'd watch out for all the bad guys while they get some sleep...

TheHipCola wrote:

Jack:
How is calling the Pope simply a mouthpiece any/much less insulting than some of the stuff that's been posted in this thread by others? I'm sure he and his team of Cardinals would be pretty miffed at that notion too.... just a thought.

i didn't mean it in an offensive way, although maybe it was a poor choice of words. what i meant to say is that he is more of a figurehead, and shouldn't be held directly accountable for the issues people have with the church. i used the term mouthpiece to simply mean that i agree he has a great deal of power with what comes out of his mouth, but it's reflective of the church policy, one that has been firmly in place and accepted by billions long before he was around.

no diss intended. i'm the one defending the guy here.

Whoops! I got you now..apologies...I thought you were dissin' him, albeit in a roundabout way. Consider my comment retractified.

Leaf wrote:Oh Fried, you are sucha fire cracker. You're also the kinda guy most people would probably want next to them in a foxhole, cause you'd watch out for all the bad guys while they get some sleep...

I am a firecracker and I am usually motivated to write by emotion.(Imagine that) Usually I don't care enough to actually get upset when I read threads. I am Roman Catholic. I found many of these comments about the Pope and Catholism not just in bad taste but very offensive. My comparing Denyer to many of the people commenting was to make a point that some opinions, even though you have a right to them, are better left unsaid.

Fried wrote:comparing Denyer to many of the people commenting

When you mean "many", you shouldn't say "each and every one".

I hear you on the roman catholic thing... it would be the same as if you mocked the Maple Leafs. In hockey season, they are MY religion, and it can spark some heated words around here, as I live amongst Canuck fans. I'm not debasing your religion... I'm just drawing a comparision in passion.


Uh. The Pope. right.

He did some great stuff people benefitted from.
He played hockey. (I still can't get over that little trivia point. )
He stood up for his beliefs that are controversial... and offend some.
He was world famous.
Millions hinged on his every word.
He died of OLD AGE.

If I could be so lucky... one can hope...

15-16 puzzle wrote:

Fried wrote:comparing Denyer to many of the people commenting

When you mean "many", you shouldn't say "each and every one".

When I original wrote it, I was speeking to a specific group. You are right, I assumed it would be read as such and not be construde as a comment to all that had commented in the thread. Thanks for helping me clarify that. I wish I was a better speaker, typer ect...