American Catholics give a thumbs-up to Pope Francis and his gay-friendly, ‘Marxist’ agenda

[DonViejo]

American Catholics give a thumbs-up to Pope Francis and his gay-friendly, ‘Marxist’ agenda

By Travis Gettys
Tuesday, December 24, 2013 10:25 EST

It seems that American Catholics love the seemingly liberal Pope Francis and the direction he’s taking their church.

A pair of recent polls found the new pontiff’s approval rating among his U.S. followers to be about as close to full approval as candy, ice cream and puppies.

A CNN/ORC International poll released Tuesday found that 88 percent of American Catholics approve of the pope nine months into his term.

That’s not far off the survey’s 3 percent margin of error from a Washington Post-ABC poll released earlier this month, which found a 92 percent approval rating among American Catholics.

Pope Francis, who has urged Catholics to shift their focus from culture war issues such as same-sex marriage and abortion to care for the poor and vulnerable, was the most talked about person on the Internet this year, and he was named person of the year by both Time magazine and The Advocate.

The pope drew criticism from American political conservatives for his recent remarks on capitalism and trickle-down economics, but more than 85 percent of American Catholics say he’s neither too liberal nor too conservative.

Nearly two-thirds of American Catholics agree with the pope about capitalism’s effects on the poor, the poll found.

William Donohue, president of the conservative Catholic League, offered a tepid defense of Pope Francis against right-wing radio host Rush Limbaugh, who attacked the pontiff’s agenda as “pure Marxism.”

“Catholic League has never, ever, ever been after anybody for criticizing the pope or priest or a bishop,” said Donohue, who is frequently presented on TV as the voice of American Catholics. “We get involved when you hit below the belt, when you start becoming insulting. He didn’t like the pope’s views on economics (and) Rush Limbaugh is entitled to that.”

Regardless of what Limbaugh or Donohue have to say, about three-quarters of all Americans regard Pope Francis favorably, likely making him the most well-regarded religious figure in the U.S., and 86 percent say he’s in touch with the modern world.

By comparison, more than half of U.S. Catholics agreed that Pope John Paul was out of step with the world in 2003, near the end of his 26-year papacy.

The pollsters said it’s difficult to compare the popularity of one pope to another, but Pope Francis has grown more popular in recent months, after making public comments on gays, atheists and economics.

A Pew Research poll found 79 percent of American Catholics viewed the pope favorably, about the same after his March election.

That’s similar to the highest ratings achieved by his predecessor, Pope Benedict XVI, who was viewed favorably by 83 percent of U.S. Catholics in 2008 and 76 percent in February 2013.

Pope John Paul II, who will be declared a saint in April, surpassed 90 percent favorability ratings in several polls in the 1980s and 1990s before his handling of the church sex abuse scandal eroded his popularity, including a 64 percent rating in 2003.

Pope Francis is more than twice as popular than President Barack Obama, who recorded a personal low 41 percent approval rating this month, and about eight time more popular than Congress, which earned an 11 percent approval rating – including an astonishing 84 percent disapproval rating – in another poll earlier this month.

###

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/12/24/american-catholics-give-a-thumbs-up-to-pope-francis-and-his-gay-friendly-marxist-agenda/

Full article posted with the permission of Raw Story

[bitchkitty]

1. As a recovering Catholic, I freaking LOVE Pope Francis!

He makes me want to believe! But he still accepts me if I don't. What's not to like?

[cantbeserious]

2. Does This Set The Stage For An American Political Reformation Pitting Catholics Against The Fundamentalists

eom

[No Vested Interest]

8. No need to fight about it.

Just be the best person you were intended to be.

[trotsky]

3. Wow.

So believing the only "good" homosexual is a celibate homosexual is being "gay-friendly"?

The bar sure has been lowered...

[rug]

7. It teaches celibacy, i.e., chastity, for every Catholc outside a sacramental marriage.

Within such a marriage, it still teaches chastity, i.e., faithfulness to the spouse.

How surprising.

[Good without a god]

12. While conveniently refusing to offer sacramental marriage

to same-sex couples, no matter how deeply committed to each other. Not to mention opposing the legal recognition of same sex marriages performed in other, more enlightened churches or civilly. Basically treating them as less than full human beings.

Is this something that should be defended on a liberal website?

[rug]

14. Is your inaccurate, divisive bullshit something that should be spread on a liberal website?

Clearly in your brief posting period this time around, your primary interest is in attacking religion in general and Catholicism in particular, as well as its members.

I'll set you straight: There is nothing "convenient" about a Catholic being denied a sacramental marriage. Though you don't say who you're talking about, there are many groups of people, primarily straight, who do not meet the requirements for a sacramental marriage.

In your rush to attack the RCC as a region, you overlook, purposefully, that the actions of some of its bishops are driven by politics, not religion.

Now, you're still under 50 posts. I can't wait for your next few.

[Warren Stupidity]

40. dont hold back rug.

meanwhile this church of yours and its much celebrated supreme ruler practice bigotry and intolerance against women and gays the world over while coddling criminals in their midst.

merry christmas rug.

[rug]

41. don't curdle the egg nog, warren.

Pope Francis Preaches Message Of Love At Christmas Eve Mass

by Scott Neuman
December 24, 2013 6:25 PM

"There are both bright and dark moments, lights and shadows," Francis said in his homily. "If our heart is closed, if we are dominated by pride, deceit, self-seeking, then darkness falls within us and around us."

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/12/24/256903092/pope-francis-preaches-message-of-love-at-christmas-eve-mass

[Goblinmonger]

15. It's a fun, hilarious Catch-22

It's not about the fact you're gay; it's about having sex out of marriage (that we won't let you have--so no gay sex...but it's not about the gay sex part...really).

Put all the lipstick you won't on that pig, rug, but the RCC still have very horrible policies towards gays and women (for starters).

[rug]

34. Maybe you should have paid more attention in high school seminary. That's old black letter doctrine.

The only lipstick I see is being put on by religion haters looking for a new angle.

A pig who hated onions before somebody put lipstick on it still hates onions after. The lipstick had nothing to do with it. A pig is a pig.

I will say this. Many individual and corporate episcopal bodies indeed have articulated horrible and hateful policies. The difference between us is that I appreciate policy shares the same root with politics, not doctrine.

[skepticscott]

4. Catholic Church doctrine and policy forbids gay men to be priests

It states that same sex couples should never be allowed to marry legally, and refuses the grant them that sacrament. It fires people working for Catholic schools who enter into same sex marriages. It fights tirelessly against laws giving homosexuals the simple equality they are entitled to. This to some is a gay-friendly agenda? Seriously? And here on DU to boot? Sad.

As trotsky said, the bar for decency has certainly been lowered, and mainly by Catholics desperate for any reason not to be embarrassed of their church.

[rug]

5. No it doesn't. It requires celibacy of priests, straight or gay.

http://www.advocate.com/arts-entertainment/books/2008/08/27/father-figure

[DonViejo]

6. But it does bar gay men from ordination if they have been,

or are, active in the gay rights movement.

[rug]

9. Do you have a cite for that? It has a long history of supporting civil rights.

I'd like to see how the issue is framed that leads to that conclusion.

[DonViejo]

19. It was part of the changes made after the sex abuse scandals

The Catechism distinguishes between homosexual acts and homosexual tendencies. Regarding acts, it teaches that Sacred Scripture presents them as grave sins. The Tradition has constantly considered them as intrinsically immoral and contrary to the natural law. Consequently, under no circumstance can they be approved.....In the light of such teaching, this Dicastery, in accord with the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, believes it necessary to state clearly that the Church, while profoundly respecting the persons in question, cannot admit to the seminary or to holy orders those who practise homosexuality, present deep-seated homosexual tendencies or support the so-called "gay culture".(24)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_and_Roman_Catholic_priests#cite_note-24

[cbayer]

25. Can you define or find a definition for "gay culture"?

Is there somewhere that links this to support for GLBT rights?

I went to some trouble to look the actual citation on this. I found it, but unfortunately it is in Italian. There is an unofficial translation and that is where the term "gay culture" is used.

Here is an interesting link that discusses this. If anything, what I read it to say is that priests have an obligation to oppose unjust discrimination against GLBT people.

Then there is the issue of supporting ?gay culture?. It is right that seminarians or priests should not go to gay bars and that seminaries should not develop a gay subculture. This would be to celebrate as central to their lives what is not fundamental. Seminarians should learn to be at ease with whatever is their sexual orientation, content with the heart that God has given them, but any sort of sexual sub-culture, gay or straight, would be subversive of celibacy. A macho subculture filled with heterosexual innuendo would be just as inappropriate.

But does supporting a ?gay culture? mean only that? As the document says, the Church must oppose ?unjust discrimination? against homosexuals, just as it does racial discrimination. That means that all priests must be prepared to side with gay people if they suffer oppression, and be seen to be on their side. Of course this raises complex issues. To oppose gay marriage will be seen by some people as discrimination, whereas in official Catholic teaching it is not. If one becomes involved in any opposition to discrimination, then one is liable to be misunderstood. It is a risk that one must sometimes take.

http://www.opwest.org/index.php/cgblog/526/15/Can-Gays-be-Priests

While I strongly reject the RCC's position regarding homosexuality, I think your statement about priests being denied ordination because they support GLBT rights is incorrect. There is a lot to criticize here, but if there is evidence to support what you have said, I would like to see it.

[rug]

30. The Dominicans have again put their finger on it.

There is a huge difference between disapproving sex and approving civil discrimination.

[pinto]

32. "It is a risk that one must sometimes take."

Some have. And I think more will. It's worth noting that many female orders have often led the way.

I had a friend who stood with the nuns in protest at the CIA training center in Georgia, forget the name. Something something of the Americas, or some such. Technically they trespassed. She with the nuns did 6 months in jail.

[cbayer]

38. Nuns have often been on the front line.

They have been less embroiled in the internal politics and often seem more comfortable taking a risk.

That's the (very little) silver lining for them being excluded from higher positions of power, I guess.

I grew up around activist clergy, including priests.

And like I said in another post, the priests in NOLA were critical during the AIDS epidemic. They and their congregations were often on the front lines.

[pinto]

39. Yeah, a Fransiscan started the first AIDS support organization in Montery County.

On a shoestring. It was an example of local action outside of the big city centers. Great guy and a good role model for a lot of volunteers / advocates.

[Good without a god]

11. If the poster had actually looked at Catholic doctrine

he would have found a cite easily, as noted below.

[DonViejo]

21. The cite is in comment #19. I'm so sorry that I couldn't stay on

line and wait for someone to challenge my comment. Please, please, please forgive me; it's the day before Christmas and I have family from out of town arriving all day. Please forgive me for not sitting around waiting for you to challenge me with a sarcastic comment

[Good without a god]

29. My sarcastic comment was directed at the person

who pretended they couldn't find a cite for that, not at you. Cool off.

[cbayer]

16. That's just plain not true.

I knew a lot of priests who are very active in GLBT rights and none have suffered any consequences whatsoever. They were particularly important during the AIDS epidemic.

[DonViejo]

20. I don't care how many priests you know that support gay rights...

see my comment #19, above or, #10, below

[cbayer]

22. That doesn't say anything about supporting GLBT rights.

If one is sexually active, there is going to be a problem. I would be interested in seeing actual cases where someone was denied ordination or defrocked because they supported GLBT rights.

[DonViejo]

23. Just what the heck do you think...

"support the so-called 'gay culture'" means? Is it the straight culture pursuing the rights of the LGBT community? Maybe it's the Protestant culture, huh?

[cbayer]

26. See above for an interesting discussion and link on this.

It would appear that supporting GLBT rights is not what it means at all.

[DonViejo]

24. Read it and weep...

Just ask Greg Reynolds of Melbourne – a priest who appears to have been both defrocked and excommunicated because of his radical views on women clergy and gay marriage. From Australia’s The Age:

The excommunication document – written in Latin and giving no reason – was dated May 31, meaning it comes under the authority of Pope Francis who made headlines on Thursday calling for a less rule-obsessed church.

and read this one:

Pope Francis excommunicates pro-gay marriage priest. He's not the liberal the media wants

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timstanley/100237450/pope-francis-excommunicates-pro-gay-marriage-priest-hes-not-the-liberal-the-media-thinks/

[cbayer]

27. We had a thread on this case recently.

Apparently there were a lot of issues around this priest and the reasons for his excommunication are not entirely clear.

Again, I can't defend the RCC's position regarding GLBT rights. It's indefensible, imo. But I think your statement about priests being defrocked or refused ordination because they work for GLBT rights is just wrong and inflammatory.

Why would I weep? I am merely having a discussion with you, not a cage fight.

[rug]

42. The Telegraph omits the dog receiving Communion at one of his Masses.

[Good without a god]

10. Catholic doctrine states

The Church, while profoundly respecting the persons in question, cannot admit to the seminary or to holy orders those who practise homosexuality, present deep-seated homosexual tendencies or support the so-called "gay culture".

Such persons, in fact, find themselves in a situation that gravely hinders them from relating correctly to men and women. One must in no way overlook the negative consequences that can derive from the ordination of persons with deep-seated homosexual tendencies.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccatheduc/documents/rc_con_ccatheduc_doc_20051104_istruzione_en.html

Hard to find the "gay-friendly" parts in there, especially when the RCC regards homosexual tendencies as "objectively disordered"

Deep-seated homosexual tendencies, which are found in a number of men and women, are also objectively disordered and, for those same people, often constitute a trial. Such persons must be accepted with respect and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.

Which, of course, leave the RCC free to argue that the discrimination that they do practice against gay men is "just" and therefore does not need to be avoided.

[rug]

13. Aside from "practicing" homosexuality (or heterosexuality for that matter), which bars any candidate

for ordination, I don't see what it means by "the so-called 'gay culture'".

I do see this: "Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided", which is without difficulty applied to many areas off civil law, including housing and, yes, civil marriage.

The difference between Benedict and Francis is seen in this document, authored by Benedict.

There has been a pronounced power grab by ecclesiastical politicians to shape and form doctrine to advance political purposes. That is politics, not religion, and clergy like Francis can do much to stem that.

It is foolish to expect it to change its teachings on chastity. It is not foolish to expect it to acknowledge that its realm does not include civil law.

Until you see the difference, you're standing in the way of progress.

[Goblinmonger]

17. So where's the link to Francis changing this policy.

Should be easy to find for you.

[rug]

31. There is none.

Not to be unduly optimistic, I hope there will be one before this 77 year old man ends his pontificate. If not, his successor may pick up the challenge.

In the meantime, I don't see any doctrinal barrier to it.

Like most things, there's a significant political struggle taking place.

[Good without a god]

35. Apparently religion will be getting the credit

for any good the Catholic Church happens to do, and "politics" will be getting the blame. Also very convenient. Especially since it's religious "politics" from both sides that are driving this so-called struggle.

[rug]

36. Credit?

Yeah, it's all about a scorecard to you.

[Good without a god]

33. Why don't you ask the Catholic Church what that means?

I didn't write it. It's on the Vatican web site. Direct quote. But as it stands, it pretty much lets them doctor up a reason to bar anyone who they consider to be associating with other gays in ways they find inappropriate. Or in other words, any ways at all.

If this were just about celibacy or chastity, why are there are no restrictions on heterosexual men who want to become priests, but who present deep-seated heterosexual "tendencies" or support anything that might be called "heterosexual culture"?

The Vatican issued its latest document on homosexuality in the priesthood on Thursday, October 30, 2008, making it clear that homosexuals are barred from being priests by the “paternal” nature of priesthood and/or their inherent lack of “affective maturity.”

At a Vatican press conference, Cardinal Zenon Grocholewski of the Congregation for Catholic Education was asked if homosexuals committed to lifelong celibacy could be ordained. Cardinal Grocholewski said “No,” adding that:

The candidate does not necessarily have to practice homosexuality (to be excluded.) He can even be without sin. But if he has this deeply seated tendency, he cannot be admitted to priestly ministry precisely because of the nature of the priesthood, in which a spiritual paternity is carried out. Here we are not talking about whether he commits sins, but whether this deeply rooted tendency remains.

Cardinal Grocholewski was then asked why a celibate heterosexual can embody a spiritual paternity when a celibate homosexual cannot. He answered:

Because it’s not simply a question of observing celibacy as such. In this case, it would be a heterosexual tendency, a normal tendency. In a certain sense, when we ask why Christ reserved the priesthood to men, we speak of this spiritual paternity, and maintain that homosexuality is a type of deviation, a type of irregularity, as explained in two documents of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Therefore it is a type of wound in the exercise of the priesthood, in forming relations with others. And precisely for this reason we say that something isn’t right in the psyche of such a man. We don’t simply talk about the ability to abstain from these kinds of relations.

http://theprogressivecatholicvoice.blogspot.com/2009/01/spiritual-paternity-why-homosexual-men.html

While you're at it, perhaps you could tell us what sort of discrimination against homosexuals should be considered "just" by the church.

[rug]

37. I can read what it means. But I'm not spinning like a top while doing so.

You should try it.

[cbayer]

18. I think there are many Catholics who are seeing much to hope for here.

And non-Catholics are more supportive than I have ever seen with another pope.

[mercymechap]

28. I'm not a Catholic

but this is the first pope that has made sense to me......

[madrchsod]

43. he`s going in the right direction

he`s using matthew 19:12 as the foundation of his statements about male homosexuality. no other pope has ever done this. on the down side unfortunately he will never accept marriage by same sex couples.

[goldent]

44. Not surprising

And he is being discussed in Sunday sermons more than any Pope in my lifetime. I think he's got a groovy thing going.

[Act_of_Reparation]

45. The lack of skepticism shown by progressives is troubling.

Despite my better judgment, let's for a moment assume Francis' grandfatherly every-man ethic is genuine, and not some calculated PR move to boost public perception of the Church amid myriad scandals, including, but not limited to, the systematic sexual abuse of minors. Even if he really thinks gays are every bit as human as straights, and every bit as deserving as the same legal protections and privileges afforded to their straight contemporaries, holding out hope for a sweeping change in Catholic dogma is a patently fruitless endeavor. Just as the American progressive movement has been blockaded at every turn by a system specifically designed and manipulated to resist drastic changes, so has the Vatican limited the ability of a sitting pontiff to alter standing Catholic doctrine. Any change would have to pass over the multitudinous desks of multitudinous clerics appointed to their positions by Francis' (supposedly) more conservative predecessors. The Catholic Church, as an institution, is just as regressive today as it was under Benedict, and there's hopelessly little chance of that changing in Francis' lifetime--assuming, of course, change is what he wants... and he has repeatedly affirmed his support of established Catholic doctrine.

Bring this up to progressives, of course, and what you get is a fairly standard, canned response regarding Francis' exhortations to eliminate poverty. I have to wonder whether this is a collective failure of long-term memory, or whether or not the people making these claims are old enough to remember Francis' two predecessors, both of whom spoke at length about relieving the world's poor. And I would argue JP II was more radical in this regard, as he openly criticized the notion of "private property", believing instead the world's resources were communal, and should be made equitably available to the whole of the world.

Personally, I find more value in Miranda Celeste Hale's assessment of Francis--that he's the worst of the last three popes. JP II and Benedict were at least open and honest about their rigid commitment to backward ideology, but Francis, who, again, has always defended the church's regressive doctrines, hides behind a pseudo-tolerant facade, which has seduced many well-meaning progressives into believing he is something he simply just is not: a reformer.

While fellow liberals go gaga over Francis, the church he leads remains utterly fixed in its inherently illiberal positions, and even if Francis' desire to change these positions weren't doubtful at best, he would still be completely incapable of addressing them directly. The short and cut of it is this: even if Francis is sincere, nothing is going to change in the immediate future.

[rug]

46. Skepticism of PR hate campaigns is alive and well, no matter who's pushing it.

[skepticscott]

47. Yes, Hale has a point I agree with

Saying or pretending one thing to gain people's favor, while holding something quite different in your heart and mind, is one step worse than holding those attitudes and being honest and up front about them in public.

[Act_of_Reparation]

49. PZ Meyers gives another resonating criticism of Fracophilia...

I don't smile back at the smiley pope

I believe strongly that how you arrive at a conclusion is just as important as the conclusion itself; I care about the process, because even a flawed method will give you an answer — you just don’t know whether it is right or not. I can agree with the pope that peace is a desirable end, but I only happen to agree with him this time. I probably won’t agree with him on just about any other subject, and I can’t trust how he arrived at this mutually copacetic idea.

[trotsky]

50. Whoa, that is a good one from PZ.

Really says it well.

[skepticscott]

51. Yes, he pretty much nails it

The ultimate "peace" the RCC truly hopes for would look an awful lot like every human on the planet being a devoted, bowing, unquestioning and totally obedient Catholic.

[trotsky]

48. Someone else in this group attacked me for pointing out just that...

namely, that even the last pope made very public and evidently sincere appeals to care for the poor. This was after that person had claimed "no pope in (their) memory" had ever done so.

Strange world indeed where those of us who DON'T shower Francis with adulation are attacked and shamed. Feels eerily like after 9/11 when those of us who saw through Bush's lies were labeled as terrorists or America-haters.

[rug]

52. Lol! You're actually comparing yourself to Muslims targeted after 9/11?

Priceless!

[okasha]

67. Yup.

Perpetual victim.

[Act_of_Reparation]

58. That kind of thing tries the limits of my patience...

...and I keep hearing it over and over again.

They can't recall a pontiff ever saying such things, and rather than researching what past pontiffs have actually said, they instead proceed in assuming no pontiff has ever said such things. It is pure laziness. There's no other word for it.

[Laughing Mirror]

53. gay friendly?

Tell me another one.

[cbayer]

54. Whether you agree with them or not, the Advocate named him their person of the year.

So, yeah, some people see him as gay friendly.

[Laughing Mirror]

55. Yes the Advocate did

And they received a lot of heat for it. And a lot of cancelled subscriptions apparently.

[cbayer]

56. There was definitely some negative reaction, but I haven't seen any information

on cancelled subscriptions. Do you have any evidence for that?

I bet the discussions in the board room were fascinating.

[Laughing Mirror]

57. Only the evidence of people saying they are cancelling

Some of them posting in these comments sections:

http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2013/12/advocate-names-pope-its-person-of-year.html#disqus_thread

http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2013/12/signorile-slams-advocate-over-naming.html#disqus_thread

I don't think the Advocate has message boards, so I offer you the above. I don't know anybody at the Advocate anymore so have no idea what's going on over there. And don't much care.

[cbayer]

59. Well, one has a comment that he canceled his subscription years ago

and the other doesn't say anything about it.

But it doesn't really matter. It was a controversial choice and I am certain they knew it would be.

Did you have issues with The Advocate prior to this event?

[Laughing Mirror]

60. Well I commend your speed reading abilities

So keep reading.

I haven't paid attention to the Advocate in decades. I know that I am not alone. I mean, it's not like it is the paper of record for gay people. Far from it.

[cbayer]

61. I am a pretty fast reader, but I'm also facile at using the word

search function.

What is the paper of record for gay people, in your opinion?

[trotsky]

62. This thread was worth it for no other reason...

than seeing you describe yourself as "facile." Thanks for that.

[Heddi]

70. Isn't it true that the first definition provided is generally the most widely-accepted use of a term

fac·ile
ˈfasəl/Submit
adjective
adjective: facile
1.
(esp. of a theory or argument) appearing neat and comprehensive only by ignoring the true complexities of an issue; superficial.
synonyms: simplistic, superficial, oversimplified; More
(of a person) having a superficial or simplistic knowledge or approach.
"a man of facile and shallow intellect"
2.
(of success, esp. in sports) easily achieved; effortless.
"a facile victory"
synonyms: effortless, easy, undemanding, unexacting, painless, trouble-free More
acting or done in a quick, fluent, and easy manner.
"he was revealed to be a facile liar"



And before anyone goes alertin' that I'm personally attacking etc etc...it's the poster's own word that she used to define herself...

[okasha]

71. A cheap and dishonest shot.

Cbayer didn't use the word to define herself. She used it to describe her ability to use a search engine.

One might even call your post facile.

[Act_of_Reparation]

72. Kind of like what you did to trotsky in this very thread?

You know, where you alleged he/she compared themselves to Muslims after 9/11 when it was quite clear from his/her post they were referring to liberals?

In case you've forgotten, it is #67. Here's the link. Retrieving it should be a facile task.

However cheap and dishonest the shot may be, people in glass houses probably shouldn't throw stones.

[trotsky]

74. Thanks for that.

That subthread is invisible to me thanks to DU's wonderful ignore feature.

[okasha]

77. My post did not mention Muslims.

However, the word "us" includes the speaker/writer, and it was "he/she" that used it of "themselves" in a comparison to Muslims. Figuring that out should indeed have been a facile task.

[Act_of_Reparation]

79. It was indeed a facile task. And you're wrong.

Feels eerily like after 9/11 when those of us who saw through Bush's lies were labeled as terrorists or America-haters.

The word "us" is a pronoun, referring the subject of the relative clause "who", restricted by the phrase "saw through Bush's lies". Do you mean to tell me only Muslims saw through Bush's lies?

I see no comparison to Muslims here... because such a comparison doesn't exist, so long as English is the language we are reading and writing. I'm rather surprised this gave you so much trouble. Or did you not read the post before throwing your lot behind Rug's shameless jape?

[Laughing Mirror]

63. I don't know there is one

But it sure ain't the Advocate.

[cbayer]

64. I am interested in why that is so.

Wikipedia describes them as "the oldest and largest LGBT publication in the United States".

I post stories from them from time to time and always felt they were legitimate and respected. If that's not the case, then I would appreciate any insights you could lend on why that might be.

I wasn't aware of any controversy prior to the person of the year choice.

[Laughing Mirror]

65. If you want to know about how well the Advocate is respected now

simply go back to the two links I gave you and read (not SEARCH) through the hundreds of posts. There are many knowledgeable people who know a lot more about the Advocate than I can tell you my friend.

[cbayer]

66. The site itself had comments when they first announced, but

they appear to have taken them down.

JoeMyGod is highly biased against religion, as are his readers, so it's not the greatest source of information on the overall attitude towards The Advocate.

Anyway, thanks for your input. I will do some more research and evaluate any articles from them that I might post critically.

[Laughing Mirror]

73. They appear to have taken them down

I wonder why.

[cbayer]

75. I have no idea. Do you?

[Laughing Mirror]

76. Think a while

The answer will come to you.

[cbayer]

78. How dismissive.

You have a nice day, now.

[hrmjustin]

68. I wish the best for this pope. I hope he and the church move more to the left.