GameBanshee Forums

@Nightmare: That was my second reason for burning him at the stake... only seems fair.

Personal opinion no need to cause offense but basically you guys dont agree with the pope and thus dont respect it. If he agreed with your view on things you would respect it, i assume this from the posts i have read. It is not about earning anything because the bias is already there and will not change unless he conforms to your ideals and values.

Respect should not be based on conformity.

I will take my real as an example. Few know, but i work in International Trade. I work closely with the WTO and in the past spent 8 months working for NGO's in the International Trade arena. Now these NGOs are filled with idiots, who know very little about the WTO and what it does and follow a dogma which is based on dismantling the WTO regime and eliminating the benefits the developing countries get from the WTO. Their actions are stupid, pathetic and often inconsequential to the workings of the WTO. To put it mildly they are a nusance. A bad rash you cant get rid of. An irritation.

I dont like their views nor think they have any merit. But i respect them for what they try to achieve. Their actions are often a waste of time and energy. But i still have respect for their drive and their will to do what they think is right.

The same applies to the pope or a president or any man. You dont respect his or her actions because you agree with them. Because if that was the basic premise of respecting anybody, i wouldnt have any respect at all for people like Blair or Loius Farakhan. I consider blair to be an idiot and Farakhan to be a down right racist. But they have my respect. Just because i dont like any thing or any point of view does not give me the right to suspend any amount of respect that man has. Earned or not, a man should be a given a minimal amount of respect.

On to religion. Anything done in an extreme is wrong. Religion or an ideology. Nationalism is a very obvious one. Socialism is another. A welfare state like in France is another example of how things can go very wrong if taken to extreme. I can give detailed examples of the above issues that occur today if someone wants, but i am tired so gonna sleep after this. Every ideology has the ability to be corrupted by humans and used to cause damage and wage war. That doesnt mean inherently the ideology is bad.

If it were i would move to the US right now with the obvious underlying racism in europe. After all a progressive and liberal western country like switzerland which wishes to limit its foriegn population to 18% is defeated by an extremely slim, i recall roughly 2% vite is a scary thought for me. Basically the swiss wanted to cap the amount of foriegners in switzerland at 18% of the population. No more would be allowed in to allow for the swiss state to remain swiss. That is an extreme which should have never been ever discussed but it was. It basically racist in every regard.

[QUOTE=CM]Personal opinion no need to cause offense but basically you guys dont agree with the pope and thus dont respect it. If he agreed with your view on things you would respect it, i assume this from the posts i have read. It is not about earning anything because the bias is already there and will not change unless he conforms to your ideals and values.
<snip>
[/QUOTE]

Actually - in a former post of mine, I mentioned one of the things I respect the Pope for. But I don't respect him for simply being the Pope. Likewise I can respect people I dislike; because of things they do, and have no respect for people I like; because of things they do.
It has nothing to do with bias (well, in my case anyways), but simply the fact that I don't belive people are to be respected simply for their aquired role, but for things they do (or don't do).
In my "view" (I wouldn't use oppinion, because it is my fundamental view on life) it isn't the role you respect/disrespect, it is the actions perfomed in the given role that increases or diminish respect.

I still disagree, Fas. There is no reason why I should give GW Bush even a minimum of respect. There is no "default" respect that you give someone for no reason. To earn my respect you need to share or at least have your actions coincide with my values, that is true. But what is the definition of respect if not how a person values another based on the other persons actions? The opposite view invites too many opportunities for disaster. I have exactly the same amount of respect for Joerg Haider as I do for Hitler, Bush, Sharon, Blair and any number of human beings I find to be distasteful. I also have the same respect for some people I know in my private life that I hope none of you have the unfortunate displeasure of knowing, and it is exactly zero. The type of respect you are suggesting is more in line with "a fear of authority" or acceptance of someone to have different rights based on their position of power - in effect, justifying the powerful to do whatever they like. THAT if anything is based on conformity. MY respect is based on MY values, and they are far from the conform norm in many cases. If everyone should give the Pope default respect, how is that not conformity?

Fear of religion, race, political agenda all stem from the same tree. Do you believe you would suffer less racism in the US? Or, to change the scenery, do you think I would suffer less racism in China, Angola or Bolivia except perhaps for the mitigating circumstance that white folks are generally seen as having money. In the eyes of the zealot republicans I'm a communist, in the eyes of the zealot communists I'm a right wing conservative, in the eyes of zealot muslims I'm an unfaithful dog, in the eyes of the zealot christians I'm a blasphemer, in the eyes of racist indians, africans or asians I'm white, etc. Whatever way you look at it, my being is defined by prejudice - the mother of racism. Fear and prejudice are the festering grounds of vultures, be they religious, corporate or political. To me, religion is no different from any other human activity and no amount of special pleading will change that.

Have many other opinions on this subject, but just going to voice one. Silur have expressed the rest of them quite well.

@Fas: I think you are missing a vital difference between two different kinds of disagreements. The first kind is where people disagree with what i find basic and fundamental moral values. The other kind is where people disagree with me on means to reach moral values, finer moral details, everyday decision etc. The first kind of disagrement will decrease my respect for a person, the second kind will not.

To take an example: The popes decision to propagate against the use of condoms is imo the same as placing his own faith higher then the lives of countless of innocent people. This is as moraly wrong as it gets imo, and so it decreases my respect for the man. If he would instead propagate for a EU wide tax to the benefit of the roman catholic church, for the purpose of enabling them to provide more aid to the third world, I would strongly disagree with him, but it would not decrease my respect, as it is not against any fundamental moral code.

Another example would be that someone who thinks there is nothing wrong with having sex with children would loose my respect, but someone who disagrees with me over the merits of a certain movie would not.

Now, ofcourse the moral values I choose to call fundamental and basic are not 100% universal, but as I think my example above shows they do a good job in differing between two extremely different situations.

[QUOTE=Silur]I still disagree, Fas. There is no reason why I should give GW Bush even a minimum of respect. There is no "default" respect that you give someone for no reason.[/QUOTE]

This reminds me of a conversation I had the other day with a friend who was more or less trying to convince me of the good Bush has done since election. I asked her why I should respect a man who launches a war on a country that had no definate links to terrorists or had confirmed posession of any sort of WoMD, and was generally just a lousy speaker (I majored in English. There is no such word as "misunderestimated", you twit!). She told me he was the President of the United States, the leader of our country, and therefor he had to know what was best for the safety of our nation. She spoke like she thought that being president instantly means you are a god with no flaws and deserve respect simply for being the lucky man who got a couple more votes than the competition. I could have hit her outside the head for being so blonde.

[QUOTE=Luis Antonio]@Sojourner, I just think that, based on what CM says, people let the pope go. If he is but another person, cant he express his feelings?[/QUOTE]

Certainly, and those protesting the pope are just as free to express theirs - which they did.

However, you're missing the point I was making with my link. CM seemed to be linking the protests against the pope with hostility for religion. As my link shows, this just isn't so. In fact, I submit that the irreligious could hardly care what the pope does, so long as his entourage doesn't disrupt traffic.

I think a main point trying to be stressed by Silur, and others, is that man is falliable. However you want to think, whether the Pope is the extension of God on Earth, or a man deserves respect because of position, or whatever the circumstance, man remains man, meaning they can be wrong.

Now, the respect given to each individual will be different depending on the person. I personally have little respect reserved for the likes of Bush, as little as I have for Canada's current leader, Paul Martin. As for the Pope, I disagree with many of his decisions, and think they are purely self serving (in that he is trying to further the existing influence of the RCC, picking and choosing which moral and human 'rights' (we've been over my belief on the idea of universal rights, already ) to best suit the agenda of the RCC.) Do I think he is merely a polititian hiding behind the ideology of God? Yes, of course I do. It is for this reason I can't offer him much, if any respect. He makes decisions with the knowledge that he can merely claim to be the will of God, or in the best interest of the Catholic faith, with any reprisal being condemned as an attack on the faith.

Now, I'm not Catholic, nor Christian, nor do I believe in God, yet, one person who held a great deal of respect, in my mind, was Mother Teresa. What made her different than the Pope? She actually led by example, instead of simple say what should be done, she did it.

Disjointed thought, I know, but it's the best I can do at 2:40 in the morning.

[QUOTE=Sojourner]In fact, I submit that the irreligious could hardly care what the pope does, so long as his entourage doesn't disrupt traffic. [/QUOTE]I don't think that's true... the pope is a global political force to be reckoned with. I'm one of 'the irregilious' and I do care what he does and says.
And I could add that I would be happy if this pope would resign but I won't... It won't solve a thing, because, as stated before, he's surrounded himself with every conservative (and I use that term in the most negative way possible) bishop and cardinal he could find. Then he cast 'rigid thinking' on 'em. If this pope resigns, things will hardly change and the policies of the Church will stay the same for some time.
But that's all for the best. There are too many Africans and Asians anyway.

[QUOTE=Coot]<snip>
If this pope resigns, things will hardly change and the policies of the Church will stay the same for some time.
But that's all for the best. There are too many Africans and Asians anyway.[/QUOTE]

I'm not quite sure what you mean by that last statement there? - Care to elaborate?

Due to certain circumstances it's already very hard to raise HIV and AIDS awareness in large parts of Africa and Asia and, among other things, to convince people to use condoms. On top of that (certain elements in) the Catholic Church are very actively encouraging people not to use them. The results have been nothing short of disastrous.
When confronted with that statement the Church will answer that free sex is wrong in the eyes of God and that the only thing that will truly prevent the spreading of sexual transmitted diseases is not to screw around. People might not agree with the first part of that statement but the second part is, of course, absolutely true. But reality being what it is, everybody knows that's not going to be a trend anytime soon.
The pope, who makes world-wide catholic policy, including the policy towards the use of condoms, knows this. So do bishops and priests who operate on local levels. Those people are apparently more concerned with dogma than trying to contain the spreading of HIV.
And the trouble is, local bishops and priests have a lot of influence. In Europe and North-America it's pretty much standard to critisize our leaders, in large parts of Asia and Africa it's not, especially when those leaders are religious leaders. What your local priest (or imam, marabout or whatever) says goes.
So, in my mind at least, the Catholic Church is partly responsible for many deaths, caused by AIDS, by using their influence in a very wrong way. And the Church, as an institution, doesn't seem to care, because they are not willing to change their view or their policy. So I figure they must think it's a nice solution for over-population.

Of course, there's always another side to the story. There are a lot of local religious leaders who choose to be a little more practical. And if the Catholic Church would use it's influence to convince people to use condoms it wouldn't mean the end of the HIV and AIDS epidemic. Condoms aren't foolproof, especially the second rate kind that is shipped to third-world countries. Indeed, the only way to go would be not to have sex outside a marriage and even the Catholic Church, with all it's power and influence, was, is and will never be able to convince (enough) people to do that.

[QUOTE=Coot]But that's all for the best. There are too many Africans and Asians anyway.[/QUOTE]

Your largely circular argument still fails to elaborate on this comment. I am very curious as to what you mean by it, since my own interpretation of the above statement is destined to put my respect for your person at the same level as for the pope.



[QUOTE=Coot]People might not agree with the first part of that statement but the second part is, of course, absolutely true.[/QUOTE]

I disagree with both. The first one is based on a religious dogma, and applies only to those religions that subscribe to that view. The second is wrong in both causal directions, since you need not contract AIDS even if you fool around and you may still contract AIDS even if you don't. Absolute truths are very hard to come by, and those few that exist are largely irrelevant.

I disagree with both. The first one is based on a religious dogma, and applies only to those religions that subscribe to that view.
Yes, of course. I don't see where we are disagreeing here.
The second is wrong in both causal directions, since you need not contract AIDS even if you fool around
You need not contract AIDS if you fool around. But in large parts in Africa, and more recently, Asia, the risk is enormous.
and you may still contract AIDS even if you don't.
There are other ways to get contaminated. Bloodtransfusion comes to mind. But unprotected sex is by far the greatest cause of the AIDS epidemic, especially in Africa.
Your largely circular argument still fails to elaborate on this comment. I am very curious as to what you mean by it, since my own interpretation of the above statement is destined to put my respect for your person at the same level as for the pope
The Catholic Church has a lot of influence. It could persuade a lot of people in Africa and Asia to use condoms but it chooses not to. By doing so, it deliberately adds to an enormous amount of deaths in Africa and Asia. The Church does not seem to care about that. "Let them rot. There's too many Africans and Asians anyway. Dogma and following the Bible to the letter is far more important."

[QUOTE=Coot]<snip>
There are other ways to get contaminated. Bloodtransfusion comes to mind. But unprotected sex is by far the greatest cause of the AIDS epidemic, especially in Africa.
<snip>
[/QUOTE]

Breast Milk would be a pretty importent factor also, seeing as not many can afford to buy substitutes. Child birth and pregancy can cause the virus to spread from mother to children also, if not medicated.
Unfortunally - I have no statistics as to what the percived size of influence from these reasons is.

@Coot: If you do mean something to be interpreted as ironic it would perhaps be a good idea to put some kind of smiley after it... it is very easy to misinterpret it otherwise. I think that might be the reason why your first post sparked reactions.

[QUOTE=Dottie]@Coot: If you do mean something to be interpreted as ironic it would perhaps be a good idea to put some kind of smiley after it... it is very easy to misinterpret it otherwise. I think that might be the reason why your first post sparked reactions.[/QUOTE]

This is a good idea.
I to interpretated it "differently" then it apparently was intended, which is why I asked for an elaboration before reacting to it (and likely the same as Silur; and others I would think)

Carefull with statements that are ment to be ironic or sarcastic. It can be very hard to convey the feeling via writing.

@Coot: I think I see what you're getting at, and I agree with .ie and Xan that a smiley would have made a difference in interpretation.

A very large number of those with AIDS in southern Africa have had it since birth. Very many young girls in the region have contracted it through rape.

As I remember, there was even a rumour in Africa that the way to get rid of HIV was to have sex with a virgin.

Anyways, I just remembered something I learned this year in my Religious History class. The Catholic Church is also responsible for the current state of science today. By eliminating the pagan beliefs through exterminating the people, they set the human race 1500 years back, I think. Some pagans around the time that Jesus was supposed to exist had the mathematical knowledge of 16th century Europe, and it was all lost.

[QUOTE=Nightmare]As I remember, there was even a rumour in Africa that the way to get rid of HIV was to have sex with a virgin. [/QUOTE]That rumour is still going strong, unfortunately and for some bizarre reason more people are starting to believe in it.

About my earlier comment: yes, I should have put a smiley there. I thought I was being clever and I obviously wasn't.