RCC: Attacking our bigotry violates our human rights!

Proof once again that the Catholic Church is a big, spineless bully: Attempting to play the victim when people start calling out their anti-gay bullshit.

People who criticise gay sexual relations for religious or moral reasons are increasingly being attacked and vilified for their views, a Vatican diplomat told the United Nations Human Rights Council on Tuesday.

Archbishop Silvano Tomasi said the Roman Catholic Church deeply believed that human sexuality was a gift reserved for married heterosexual couples. But those who express these views are faced with “a disturbing trend,” he said.

“People are being attacked for taking positions that do not support sexual behaviour between people of the same sex,” he told the current session of the Human Rights Council.

“When they express their moral beliefs or beliefs about human nature … they are stigmatised, and worse — they are vilified, and prosecuted.

“These attacks are violations of fundamental human rights and cannot be justified under any circumstances,” Tomasi said.

What pisses me off the most is that while this news report was written in the context of the church’s activities in Europe, it is also an issue I find close to home; One I literally found in my own backyard.

As you’ve seen in my previous article, the RCC has gone as far as attempting to indoctrinate innocent young minds with their brand of hatred, while their leaders have had the audacity to demand that matters such as women’s welfare should not be forced on their schools, because it would infringe on their religious “moral” teachings.

It’s a blatant double standard that’s become a signature of RCC apologists, and the more they try to play this game, the more I am convinced that these bigots deserve no respect.

They are, of course well within their rights to talk about their stance on homosexuality. But the same rules apply to us too. And while they may bitch and moan, they can’t invoke “blashpemy” or religious discrimination when we decide that enough is enough – at least not anymore – and actively call out these shameless motherfuckers for the cretins they are.

19 comments

  1. Hi from a French agnostic living here !

    Catholic church is worst.

    They know that to make their business work, they need believers. And strong believers are mostly the most poors (many studies can proove it, just search it yourself if you are curious).

    That is the EXACT reason why they are against pills, condom and abortion.

    Let me show you two different speech from the SAME catholic church :

    In Africa (big HIV rate) : "condoms are immoral"
    In France (we are mostly not believers, and believers critics conservative positions) : "we must to promote condoms till we find another solution".

    Do you see the difference ? Double speech adapted to what people want to hear : Catholic Church = business and marketing. And that is the same in the Philippines.

    And for those who are Christians : do you know why there is protestants and orthodoxes ?
    Because Catholic Church do not recognize that Vatican's interpretations of Bible (yeah it's the same religion, just not the same authority) could be wrong !
    So think wisely.

    Jeff.

  2. I don't understand why the Catholic Church is the victim here. Spineless bullies and bigots, indeed.

    I actually like that you're blunt. I have no problem with cussing, and the fact that you do does not make you "semi-educated, shallow and pathetic." The article here would have otherwise been drab and, well, boring.

    Sure, it isn't formal, but it gets the job done.

  3. @Twin-skies

    Also, whenever you argue in other articles, stop posting links to insignificant blogsites to support your comments. Personal blogsites and opinion pieces do not equate to facts. Again, take your cue from the other authors here.

    Lastly, may I suggest that you consider joining the CCF – Christ's Commission Fellowship? I hear they have good support programs for people with low self-esteem.

  4. @Twin-skies

    Me, doing a character assassination on you? Why? Did the words hit too close to home? However, I have to admit that seems to be the case. With the way you behave and mouth off on these forums, you've more than earned it. In fact, I think it's a lesson long overdue. Get rid of that arrogance in your system.

    Have you seen how the other authors here write their articles? Look at the works of innerminds, arm, even Garrick. Their articles are dignified, rational and smart, without resorting to cuss words or name-calling, articles that were written and can be appreciated by educated people. Have you seen how they respond to criticism? Well, true, even Garrick goes overboard sometimes but at least he still does it intelligently and tastefully.

    But then again, these people likely have no ego problems or low self-esteem issues.

    Once more – [It's in how you say it. It makes you sound semi-educated, shallow and pathetic.]

    • Because unlike Garrick, arm, or innerminds, I prefer to be painfully blunt.

      And based on our last few conversations in person, they don't have any problems with my tone – Garrick and inner in particular find it funny. They like snark as much as they like well-placed F-bombs.

      What I can assure you however, based on my talks with them, is that like me, they dislike tone trolls – people like you for example.

  5. @Twin-skies and Wes V

    I am not trying to debate the article point by point.

    Hmm … you guys seem to have poor eyesight. That's okay. I'll repeat what I've stated before. [I have nothing against what you are trying to say. It's in how you say it. It makes you sound semi-educated, shallow and pathetic.] There! Read it again, Wes V, and come back to me when you have done so since you obviously missed it the first time [W Y NO USE EYE???!!!].

    • Hi Triple-skies. While I understand your apprehension towards less formal writing, being that I used to be surrounded by old fogeys whose heads were too far up each others' asses to notice that it's the year 2011, the fact remains that it is the year 2011, and language has become a far more interesting creature than it used to be.

      What hasn't changed, however, is the overarching importance of the message. Yes, you may find some writers' styles too snarky and "unsophisticated," but I think your concerns are way too "forest for the trees" at this point. It's all just a matter of taste, and if you don't like it, then don't buy it. What's important is that the likes of Twin Skies give information that, despite the prevalence of cusswords and sarcasm, actually still stick to the truth. I'd rather have a potty-mouthed yet truthful writer rather than an "eloquent" liar. Being mean to them just for sticking to their voice as writers just seems useless and unproductive at this point.

      • Well said :D. If we all wrote the same way, this site would be, in the immortal words of Simon Cowell, "so boring" and "self-indulgent". (I miss that guy :))

  6. @Twin-skies

    Oh, I have nothing against what you are trying to say. It's in how you say it. It makes you sound semi-educated, shallow and pathetic. And, true to form, you keep on confirming it. I think that's pretty obvious to most readers too.

    As for me mangling your name, you berated, to put it mildly, Anthony Scalia, just for using his username. I thought you might like a taste of the same. Are you liking it yet?

    Btw, since you called me a moron, then I guess all bets are off.

    Reading your past articles and comments, quite an effort actually since you seem to have no life outside of these forums, you seem to feel the need to constantly validate your ego and sense of self-worth. Not only are you often arrogant, you are also a bully. Your references to being a martial artist in your comments in previous articles is truly the most pathetic thing you could have done. What? Low self-esteem? Did you get enough attention in high school? What about in college? Is your career going well for you, assuming you even have one?

    Could it be that in real life you are … oh no! … a loser?

    • [Oh, I have nothing against what you are trying to say. It's in how you say it. It makes you sound semi-educated, shallow and pathetic. And, true to form, you keep on confirming it. I think that's pretty obvious to most readers too. ]

      And it's also become obvious to readers that you are tone-trolling – Attacking an article for its form while missing the entire point of its contents conveys is a classic display of this after all.
      http://rabett.blogspot.com/2010/04/advanced-troll

      [Btw, since you called me a moron, then I guess all bets are off. ]

      There were never any bets to begin with. Or have I somehow bruised your onion-skinned sensibilities? Shall I call the Waaaambulance? Boo-fucking hoo. Moron.

      [Reading your past articles and comments, quite an effort actually since you seem to have no life outside of these forums, you seem to feel the need to constantly validate your ego and sense of self-worth. Not only are you often arrogant, you are also a bully.]

      No, no laddie, you have it all wrong. I play video games to validate my self worth.

      [Your references to being a martial artist in your comments in previous articles is truly the most pathetic thing you could have done. What? Low self-esteem? Did you get enough attention in high school? What about in college? Is your career going well for you, assuming you even have one? ]

      And how is this even relevant to the contents of the article?

      What is pathetic is that instead of addressing my arguments point-by-point, you have instead resorted to a flat-out demolition job based on assumptions of who I am. You couldn't face my points head one, and hence you have resorted to petty character assassinations and browbeating.

      As for calling me a loser, let me put it this way: I'm not the one who decided to mangle an author's name like a pretentious 10-year-old brat. And while I did call out the previous commenter for using the name Anthony Scalia, a quick check on the net reveals that I'm not far off the mark.

      Antonin "Anthony" Scalia is a Justice noted for his anti-gay remarks over the past few years. Said commenter came in with the name Anthony Scalia, and resorted to the sort of demolition job that Justice Scalia is famed for. Given these circumstances, it becomes very easy to deduct that the commenter was attempting to emulate the actions of the said Justice, who's a known bigot.

      [Could it be that in real life you are … oh no! … a loser? ]

      I'll have to get back to you on that. Robin's taken the Batmobile for a joyride again, and Alfred's called in sick. *Sigh,* busy busy busy…

  7. Can't you write an article without using cuss words?

    Well, looking at your other articles and comments, maybe not.

    If you think it makes you sound fierce, intelligent or manly, it doesn't. It makes you sound semi-educated, shallow and pathetic.

    • [If you think it makes you sound fierce, intelligent or manly, it doesn't. It makes you sound semi-educated, shallow and pathetic. ]

      First off, commenting on my language instead of the point I make has you come off as a pretentious, unrepentant poser. I can write an article sans swear words if I have to; all it would have taken was a click on my namesake. It's also telling that you'd say that while spoofing my own name. How utterly kitsch.

      You're certainly not the first to comment on my tone, and quite frankly, I think your sort are so utterly obsessed with form that it's obvious to everybody here that you are just tone-trolling. Do you understand what I'm trying to say?

    • And can you write a comment without resorting to petty name-calling?

      Well, looking at your other articles and comments, maybe not.

    • Speaking of semi-educated, shallow and pathetic, learn the meaning behind a name before deciding to mangle it.

      Fucking moron.

  8. a true "freethinker" is very frugal with adjectives/conclusions of fact

    "bigots"? "brand of hatred"?

    it seems "freethinking" = "leave-me-alone-with-my-chosen-lifestyle"

    • [it seems "freethinking" = "leave-me-alone-with-my-chosen-lifestyle"]

      If it harms no-one and allows people to live fullfilling lives, whats wrong with that?

Leave a reply

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here