04-12-2015, 09:05 AM
The point remains the same. Whether race, sexuality, veganism, or whatever else "evolved" standard one chooses to apply as the litmus test for this or that person, it isn't an absolute standard applied in a vacuum.
My point remains that one is not reduced merely to a label on one topic, whether it be bigot, misogynist, Republican, gun advocate, pedophile, materialist, hedonist, or whatever. The caption of the thread frames Pope Francis as being "not so liberal after all," as if liberal or conservative is some objective and fixed standard. It is relevant to context.
Is Francis liberal in Russia, Berkeley, Kansas, the Pentagon, Soho, Belfast, or Miami? It's a sliding scale. It's wrong to cherry pick a single items and use it as a litmus test. It is wrong to get all butt-hurt because JFK didn't move on civil rights fast enough, or because a great scientist or philanthropist was a homophobe, or because some millennial kid is a great artist but shit when it comes to environmental responsibility or philanthropy.
We live in an era in which we too easily confuse those who are not perfectly aligned with our ruler to be against us, or dubious, or worthy of scorn. It is clear from all accounts that Pope Francis is more a friend to gays and acceptance than any of his predecessors we can personally remember. To suddenly find it shocking that the Vatican cannot set aside its entire history of religious teaching should be a surprise to no one. It is naive to reduce his character to a monolithic rating of "good" or "bad" or "liberal" or "conservative" based on such a superficial evaluation. The papal throne is not in fact an absolute monarchy. There are forces and powers that suffuse the Church that encompasses more adherents than any other religion on this planet. Presuming to know the pope's strategy and ultimate intent is like presuming to know what the U.S. President actually knows about any international crisis: we don't know.
Feel free to be disappointed that Pope Francis isn't your Messiah, but take a moment to consider the realities of the Papacy and consider what the man is accomplishing by degree. He is a lot more than a "bigot" regardless of the bigotry with which you choose to fill your field of vision.
When we choose to attack our allies, we make a poor decision for our own cause. We are more selective in the derogation of our own ancestors, but thread obviously serves to give pretext for those who simply hate the institution and need little if any basis for their own anti-religious bigotry like Wade's. Championing the cause of the poor is indeed virtuous, and it is gratuitous to dismiss it while summarily framing those who do as sycophantic whores. It becomes more apparent the "meh" bubble that surrounds some lives.
My point remains that one is not reduced merely to a label on one topic, whether it be bigot, misogynist, Republican, gun advocate, pedophile, materialist, hedonist, or whatever. The caption of the thread frames Pope Francis as being "not so liberal after all," as if liberal or conservative is some objective and fixed standard. It is relevant to context.
Is Francis liberal in Russia, Berkeley, Kansas, the Pentagon, Soho, Belfast, or Miami? It's a sliding scale. It's wrong to cherry pick a single items and use it as a litmus test. It is wrong to get all butt-hurt because JFK didn't move on civil rights fast enough, or because a great scientist or philanthropist was a homophobe, or because some millennial kid is a great artist but shit when it comes to environmental responsibility or philanthropy.
We live in an era in which we too easily confuse those who are not perfectly aligned with our ruler to be against us, or dubious, or worthy of scorn. It is clear from all accounts that Pope Francis is more a friend to gays and acceptance than any of his predecessors we can personally remember. To suddenly find it shocking that the Vatican cannot set aside its entire history of religious teaching should be a surprise to no one. It is naive to reduce his character to a monolithic rating of "good" or "bad" or "liberal" or "conservative" based on such a superficial evaluation. The papal throne is not in fact an absolute monarchy. There are forces and powers that suffuse the Church that encompasses more adherents than any other religion on this planet. Presuming to know the pope's strategy and ultimate intent is like presuming to know what the U.S. President actually knows about any international crisis: we don't know.
Feel free to be disappointed that Pope Francis isn't your Messiah, but take a moment to consider the realities of the Papacy and consider what the man is accomplishing by degree. He is a lot more than a "bigot" regardless of the bigotry with which you choose to fill your field of vision.
When we choose to attack our allies, we make a poor decision for our own cause. We are more selective in the derogation of our own ancestors, but thread obviously serves to give pretext for those who simply hate the institution and need little if any basis for their own anti-religious bigotry like Wade's. Championing the cause of the poor is indeed virtuous, and it is gratuitous to dismiss it while summarily framing those who do as sycophantic whores. It becomes more apparent the "meh" bubble that surrounds some lives.
![[-]](https://gayspeak.com/images/duende_v3_local/collapse.png)
