There is a distinct difference between criticism and being offensive, just like there is a distinct difference from making a joke thread about Holocaust or Nazi themed movie names and being anti-semitic. I am not offended by criticism of the Catholic Church or Catholics. I am offended by what I deem offensive (yes, what I deem offensive) posts regarding Catholics. The way I deal with that, so as not to get into an argument about what is or is not offensive to me, is to not read or not reply to said posts. You are equating my participation in a thread about Holocaust or Nazi themed movie names as being more offensive than your outright anti-Catholicism and bigotry. Seriously?
Riiiiight....
So I criticize Catholics for protecting widespread child-raping, and that makes me a bigot?
I have never once, not a single time ever - made a Catholic joke. I have only criticized your belief system and financial support for child rapists.
Why do I need to explain why mocking Catholicism is insensitive to me? I didn't expect you to explain why making a Holocaust-themed movie thread was offensive or insensitive to you. No one was mocking the Holocaust or Jews in that thread. I'm not insecure in my beliefs, I just find the whole situation so insanely hypocritical. I'm more offended by your hypocrisy than your bigotry.
Because you're not a victim of bigotry, and you want to be... You chose to support an institution that hides child rapists, so you deserve to be criticized for it. It's the choices we make that earn criticism or mocking. But you say that your true belief is that of a corporate handbook;
"it doesn't matter why someone finds something offensive. The moment they say 'I'm offended' then everyone needs to stfu." Informal human interaction doesn't run on the human resources model - if you cannot reasonably explain why it offends you, then you can stfu. For example; Nobody should be barred from making jokes about apples just because you say "oh I'm offended by apple jokes!" The line in the sand is when someone is making fun of something that happened that cannot be changed. When you say "ok Juan, while I think that it's funny that the Holocaust happened, I will stop making jokes so you don't get offended" you are being veritably patronizing. And to follow that with "so can you also stop making fun of my testicle hat that my religion makes me wear?" is laughable and also patronizing. It's also downplaying the significance of genocide. The code of Honor that I am speaking of, sir, is one of humanity, while yours is one of "I don't care till someone speaks up, then I
pretend to care."
Comedians don't have Holocaust Joke Sets, and they don't have 9-11 Joke Sets. But they do have Religious Joke Sets... because you can choose what you believe, but you cannot choose the events that happen to you. And again, I've never made a joke about Catholicism ever. Have I previously insulted Catholicism? Probably. And that's not a joke. But do Catholics deserve the same sensitivity as Holocaust victims? God damn it, no.
It's such a funny position to hold in that Catholics
even consented to the Holocaust. And it's simple-minded to argue that anyone who insults Catholic indoctrination, child-rape, or Catholic whatever is as guilty as someone who makes fun of the Holocaust. Again I have to comment that it is so weird that in this nation alone among the West we are so desperate to pretend that religion is above criticism or that being part of a religion makes you a victim.
The threads mocking those things were offensive to me. You (and pimpdave) posted in those threads at length in what, to me, was a rather disgusting way which was meant to troll me or bait me. Instead of choosing option (c), which would have been the gentlemenly way to go, you chose option (d).
1) that never happened
2) I did not even know you were a Catholic until this. Nor did I care. I'm not even a Jew, so far as I understand it. It's all irrelevant to me because I'm not going to say something behind your back that I wouldn't say to your face. That's why I keep telling you not to pretend to care about Holocaust victims to my face.
Since JBII is here, I'd like to use him as an example. I believe that he is wholly misled and wrong about Agnosticism. In fact, I pretty much disdain Agnosticism and I have dually criticized him for it. And he's dually criticized me for my Atheism, which I presume he equally despises. But I can separate the belief from the man, and I don't have a single problem with JBII and would probably be good friends with him irl. I do not question his integrity at all, I simply disagree with him about religion. It's not really a big deal... it's not like he's hurting anyone.
That said, I do question the integrity of anyone who donates their time or money to an organization that continues to shelter child molesters from the law. They are hurting people..... people who, like Saxi says are "out of sight, out of mind." Of course the church has in the last two years done a much better job investigating and cooperating with police. HOWEVER, the members of the Catholic church hierarchy who knew about the rapes and shuffled the offending priests to new churches are still being protected. And if your offended by my candor in saying that out loud, then maybe you should leave the church. If you have a problem with child molestation yet continue to financially support it, then yes, I do question your integrity. So should you.
But there is a level of respect that should be accorded a person because of their religious beliefs.
No there isn't at all.
If you want religious "respect" then keep your religion to yourself and out of public. If you choose to tell people about your beliefs then be prepared to be criticized for them. I don't care if we're talking about a religious faith, economics, science, or whatever,... you should be ready to be criticized for them and hopefully able to defend them. You can say whatever you like about what I believe:
evolution
humanitarianism
federalism
atheism
democratic socialism
And I will defend all of it.
And if you can't take criticism, then you're insecure and irrelevant. There were men before Darwin who hypothesized about evolution, but only one, Alfred Russel Wallace, was willing to write about it. That's the reason why we respectfully remember Wallace and Darwin but none of those others. Maybe you think laughing at the Holocaust and then faking sensitivity is the way you want to be remembered, but it wont be respectful remembrance.
