|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: GOD Bless John Paul II | |||||||||||||||||||||||
berberry Inactive Member |
Well, I suppose the Catholics will miss him anyway. As I see it, he was a much better-than-average pope, but I had my problems with him. However, this is the time that his people are mourning his death, so I will mute my criticism and perhaps come back later to offer it.
One thing I will comment on is some of the ritual involved in selecting a new pope. I well remember the deaths of the last two popes - within a few weeks of each other if I remember correctly - and the agonizing process by which a new pope was selected. Agonizing for everyone, as it happened. At that time there were only three major networks - NBC, CBS and ABC. Every one of them provided day after day of uninterrupted live coverage of a chimney at the vatican. We all watched that chimney instead of our favorite TV programs. Nothing else in the world happened that was important enough to interrupt coverage of that chimney. As I recall, the reason for the wall-to-wall chimney coverage was Roman ritual. Within a few days of the death of a pope, the college of cardinals meets to elect a new pope. Once the election is complete and a new pope has been selected, smoke signals are sent from that chimney. I feel sorry for Catholics who truly loved this pope, but I absolutely dread the coming live coverage of that damn chimney. Keep America Safe AND Free!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
berberry Inactive Member |
On Friday the death of the Pope was falsely reported on Fox News and CNN. According to Brian Stelter's tvnewser blog, CNN at least cited "unconfirmed reports", but Fox just ran with it.
The only network that vetted the report was MSNBC, and now they're running a delightful new set of promos in which they refer to themselves as "the network that's Fair and Accurate", an obvious swipe at FNC. (In the promos, the word 'accurate' is underscored, but I don't know how to do that here so I used bold instead). Keep America Safe AND Free! |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
berberry Inactive Member |
Rrhain writes:
quote: I have serious problems with him too, but you make it sound like he had no redeeming qualities at all. If nothing else, I appreciate the attention he tried to draw to the humanitarian tragedy in Africa. One might argue that he could do more than just draw attention to it, but even that is more than any other western leader seems willing to do. Keep America Safe AND Free!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
berberry Inactive Member |
Rrhain rants:
quote: No, he was not evil. He was a man. Imperfect. Good qualities, bad qualities. Just like you and me. Just because you don't like him doesn't make him evil.
quote: You can cut all the goddamn cutesy little throat clearing and eye blinking. Your condescention is insulting.
quote: Yes, just like every other western leader who's been in power since the AIDS crisis broke. And you stupid point is? Keep America Safe AND Free!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
berberry Inactive Member |
Rrhain writes me:
quote: Then this is just a judgement call that we're going to have to disagree about. I do agree that the bad outweighs the good by far (I would've been happy to help you compile your list - you left out a thing or two), but the way you say it makes it sound as though this pope had purely evil intentions and I don't believe that. To say he was evil - at least as I interpret the word - is to say that this pope deliberately set out to kill millions of people. One of the saddest things about this pope is that his was a move back to the right in the papacy. His election ended a fairly long run of moderately liberal popes. Had most any of those other popes been in power during this time, the world would be a better place today - at least in some ways.
quote: (*have you got something in your eye?*)
quote: Of course I do, but if you want an example of someone I would consider evil, it's George W. Bush. George Bush may love his daughters, but beyond that as far as I'm concerned he is pure evil. My point was that for any leader who might have been better than the pope, you can still find some humanitarian crisis somewhere in the world that that leader could have done much, much more to relieve. So it becomes a question of degrees, and to me the word 'evil' sounds like an absolute.
quote: Maybe you do. I don't; I would reserve that term for only the worst.
quote: I had forgotten about that specific quote, but yes I do remember it. I hadn't forgotten the attitude that produced it, so it really doesn't make much difference in how I feel about him. He was no saint. He was a man who missed an opportunity at greatness because of his own bigotry. But again, to call him evil is to call say that he committed genocide, at least as I see it. I can't go quite that far with you. Speaking of him being a saint, that may be a tragedy waiting to happen if the news reports I've heard are accurate. I don't think he was evil, but to enshrine this man's deadly polices with beatification is an idea that makes my stomach turn. Keep America Safe AND Free!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
berberry Inactive Member |
Rrhain writes me:
quote: See that's just the point. As wrong as the pope might have been in all these things, is it not possible that in his own mind he believed he was doing the right thing? And doesn't what he believed have to be taken into account if we're going to judge whether he was or was not 'evil'? After all, 'evil' is a moral judgement, so I should think that his intentions would have to be considered. Earlier in your post you said:
quote: Doesn't that conflict with the statement I quoted first from you? Here, you seem to be saying that his intentions were evil, while there you seem to be saying that he believed that what he was doing was worthy of worship and praise. I didn't respond to you upon my first read of your latest post because Mr. Jack had already responded and I wanted to mull his opinion a bit. I agree with him, but I would go a bit further and say that I think when you use words like 'evil', you unnecessarily provoke fundies while at the same time you make your argument seem petty to non-fundies. You're using the language of biblical morality. 'Evil' is a moral judgement, not an objective or a reasoned judgement. Why rely on moral judgements? You've got a perfectly sound, reasonable and logical argument why there's something wrong with this pope, yet you draw to a moral conclusion. Isn't that counter-productive? Keep America Safe AND Free!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
berberry Inactive Member |
crashfrog writes me:
quote: Huh? An intention to good that results in bad is how you detect true evil? If that's the case, then I retract my earlier statement about GWB. But I wonder, what do you call an intention to bad that results in bad? Or better yet, an intention to bad that results in good? Keep America Safe AND Free!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
berberry Inactive Member |
crashfrog writes me:
quote: God's will. The ones who put them up to it are the ones I would call evil. But still this is a moral judgement, thus the argument can never be settled. The question "what is evil?" can only be answered in terms of one's own moral view. Keep America Safe AND Free!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024