The Evil Pope is at it again

[irydion]

I challenge your competency to define genocide, and in particular point you to the UN convention on Genocide, with particular reference to "IN WHOLE OR IN PART"

not mine, but belamy's.

Please have another look at the definition of genocide: gen·o·cide (j

n

-s

d

)n. The systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group.

Anyway, that definition is far from being clear. What is a serious bodily or mental harm? Who shall define that? What do they mean by that "in part" part?
If I intend to kill a German person, because I hate them so, do I plan a genocide? After all, I do intend to destroy a part of that nation.
If I am a polish catholic extremist who really hates mormons, and decide to kill all polish mormons, do I commit genocide on (polish) mormons only, or also on polish nation?

 

[irydion]

I didnt say they were, I said they were enforcing their view of marriage on others, thus preventing gay people from marrying.

by making the state accept gay marriage as a marriage, you force your beliefs onto others as well. Just the right ones. I am 100% with you when it comes to gay marriage, but gays are using unfair ways of fighting with the church. They are claiming RCC is forcing their beliefs upon them, as if they're not trying to force their beliefs upon the society and RCC.

saying "if you conform we wont kill you" doesnt make it any less atrocious than what the nazi's did, genocide is genocide.

but that isn't genocide!
it's genoCIDE, not genoFORCEFULCONVERTIDE or whatever.
You have so broad understanding of genocide that almost everything can be described as such.

In relation to part 2, Muslims were targeting in conformance to the will of the pope and bishops.

the aim of the crusade was not to exterminate muslims nor even to convert them, but to push them out of christian lands in the Middle East.

particularly if one looks at the witchhunts occuring in the 1980's in subsaharan africa, not only as a result of church doctrine concerning heresy and witchcraft, but also because of the spread of gonorrhea facilitated by the anti-contraception doctrine of the church.

Do you mean that before 1980s, Sub-sahareans were using anti-contraception?
Or that the church allowed them to have sex or whatever with whomever they wish?

I believe you will find that the 'homosexual acts' shift is only a very recent one in reaction to growing public acceptance of homosexuality. I did not say i expect it to cease to exist, I asked you quite explicitly how they 'cant' or how they are 'bound' as religion is clearly a choice.

If they want to stay catholics, that is, obviously.

 

[belamy]

there's no other possibility here. You have to bring up a child in some beliefs

You are mistaking rituals and beliefs. The values and beliefs The Church officially teaches can be teached outside them, and more than just in name as it is too often done by The Church.

Oh c-mon. That only means that you are still counted as a catholic, not that catholic rules are forced upon you. Of course, they can be forced upon you by the society you live in, but they always will.

A-ha! So you agree: the Catholic church is not basically a community of faithful of believers sharing in their hearts the same values, but a group (rather large one) of people registered under your name.

No, my dear: SYSTEMATIC and PLANNED EXTERMINATION of an ENTIRE NATIONAL, RACIAL, POLITICAL or ETHNIC group is genocide. Not persecution of any group.
And that is according to your quoted definition. I have doubts about this political group part.

Every single communist, people simply sympathising with them and even innocent and helpless babies and kids were persecuted and killed (yes, in some very particular cases even the babies were killed, although generally they were just kidnapped and brought under other families' beliefs), so that not only they pursued the whole extermination of the group, but of the people they related to them who they feared could perpetuate the existence of that group.

Huh? What genocide by Franco regime? Which ethnic or national group did they intend to annihilate?

So you definitely belong to the supposedly decent people who think that you can't call genocide the systematic persecution for political and ideological beliefs of thousands of people, still lying as corpses buried in ditches, gutters, in open fields in the middle of nowhere or even under more modern buildings, far from their families who were denied for decades the right to bring them back home and mourn and bury them.

Of course, but there is STILL a difference between translating a text and inventing one. You can change much, but not everything. I would see religion as translation through the centuries; some wish to translate the text to the language of new generation using the translation of the last generation as the basis, but others want to translate using the original document from 2000 years ago... But all are sort of bound by the original text, just more or less. You can not translate a theological dispute into a gay pride manifest so easily.

That's precisely where the trick is: something is not an original not to be altered until you decide it. If you want to translate a text you are already operating a change and must face a decision, and in that decision there is place for literally a brave new world.
That's why the Arab are at least wiser in that: they do not hold a translation of the Coran to be the Coran, while in the USA a translation from Hebrew to Greek, from Greek to Latin and from Latin to English is considered to be exactly the same thing.

That's why I do not claim RCC will stand forever and ever amen, and was the only possible one, but that it's hard to imagine world without any organised religion, and that it brought many benefits. I do not think of it as of "necessary evil" more than about existance of army, existance of states, existance of social systems: perhaps there will be a world without them, but it's hard to imagine, unlike what Lennon sings, and, anyway, they were necessary.

Again, I'm not talking about a world with no organized set of beliefs, but with different ones from those are popular and considered "perfect" today.

Lennon was a bigot too. And when I don't just discuss using arguments, but simply oppose someone or some group of people, I'm a bigot too.