The Pope and Killing Gay People

The Pope met with one of the leaders of the “Kill the Gays” bill in Uganda, and reportedly gave her a blessing. I write about it in the Guardian, and discuss how the Catholic church uses sexuality to control its followers when it feels its power is threatened:

Earlier this month, Pope Benedict XVI joined Twitter in an effort to galvanize the faithful and modernize the Catholic Church for a younger, increasingly secular generation, making him the last person after your grandpa to join the social networking site. The Vatican also hired a former Fox News correspondent to bring their communications strategy into the 21st century, since that network did such an impressive job during the 2012 US presidential election.

The Catholic Church is foundering, and it’ll take a lot more than 140 characters and a rightwing “news” hack to put it on a modern track.

The pope is a social issues guy, more interested in themes like “traditional” family values, gay marriage and abortion than, say, helping the poor. And the Vatican is quick to slap down anyone – but especially any women, and particularly women who have the nerve to think of themselves as equal to men – who focuses on helping the most in need, instead of crusading against abortion and gay people. As far as the Church is concerned, advocating for the equal participation of women is “radical feminism” worthy of condemnation; pushing for legislation that kills gay people is worthy of a blessing.

Yes, that’s correct: just around the same time the pope was drafting his first tweet, he met with Ugandan parliamentary speaker Rebecca Kadaga, who had earlier promised to level the death penalty for gays as a “Christmas present” to the Ugandan people (minus, one assumes, the Ugandans who will be murdered because of their sexual orientation). She received a private audience with the pope, and a blessing.

Uganda has been a target for western evangelicals who see that they’re losing the gay marriage battle in their own countries. Religious leaders and rightwing groups, including Rick Warren and the National Organization for Marriage, have gone to Uganda for years to spread anti-gay propaganda and bolster homophobia. These religious leaders position themselves as experts, telling Ugandans that gay people sodomize children, spread Aids, destroy marriage, break up families and pose an imminent threat to society – and then they feign shock when Ugandan leaders decide that the legal punishment most befitting these child-raping, society-crushing individuals is death.

In the meantime, gay, lesbian and transgender Ugandans face vigilante attacks daily, and are routinely raped, beaten, ostracized, tortured and murdered.

Whole thing here.


Similar Posts (automatically generated):

About Jill

Jill began blogging for Feministe in 2005. She has since written as a weekly columnist for the Guardian newspaper and in April 2014 she was appointed as senior political writer for Cosmopolitan magazine.
This entry was posted in Crime, Gender, GLBTQ, Religion, Reproductive Rights, Sex, Trans and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

170 Responses to The Pope and Killing Gay People

  1. But think about ALL THE GOOD they’ve done!

    *vain attempt at cutting off that argument before the troll brigade turns up*

    • William says:

      But think about ALL THE GOOD they’ve done!

      Like covering up the history’s largest conspiracy of pedophiles, playing nice with the Nazis in order to protect the church’s wealth, helpings the spread of AIDS in Africa, fighting against civil rights in the modern world, co-opting local faiths and cultures in order to stomp them out, and torturing and murdering members of other faiths all the way up until the moment the secular world finally gained enough power to leash their rabid priests? Or were you referring to an underfunded soup kitchen next to a palace of gold staffed by women who the Church will turn on for insufficient political servility?

      • Like covering up the history’s largest conspiracy of pedophiles, playing nice with the Nazis in order to protect the church’s wealth, helpings the spread of AIDS in Africa, fighting against civil rights in the modern world, co-opting local faiths and cultures in order to stomp them out, and torturing and murdering members of other faiths all the way up until the moment the secular world finally gained enough power to leash their rabid priests?

        All of those things! Think how fuzzy and awesome they are ♥ ^__^ Just what Jesus recommended, really.

      • yes says:

        Now now, William, they did excommunicate Goebbels, I think. After all, he married a protestant.

      • TomSims says:

        “Like covering up the history’s largest conspiracy of pedophiles, playing nice with the Nazis in order to protect the church’s wealth, helpings the spread of AIDS in Africa, fighting against civil rights in the modern world, co-opting local faiths and cultures in order to stomp them out, and torturing and murdering members of other faiths all the way up until the moment the secular world finally gained enough power to leash their rabid priests? Or were you referring to an underfunded soup kitchen next to a palace of gold staffed by women who the Church will turn on for insufficient political servility?”

        I agree 100%. The Roman Catholic Church is a hate group!

      • Mztress says:

        Here’s where I’m confused: why the fuck is anyone Catholic anymore? Honestly, with all the horrible shit that is being done (and has already been done) in its name, you’d think that people would be leaving the church in DROVES.

    • Lolagirl says:

      In all seriousness, and what makes me most bitter as a severely lapsed Catholic, is precisely how far the Church has gone to squash their members who work tirelessly and often in very dangerous conditions to do good works. There are several orders of Catholic nuns in particular who have a long history of educating and ministering to poor and desperately needy people throughout the world. Pope Benedict and his stooges have gone out of their way to undermine these women and their works since he became pope, instead of recognizing them and the opportunities for positive PR they traditionally provided to the Church.

      These days the Catholic Church resembles a deeply abusive and dysfunctional family, and while it’s easy for outsiders to be dismissive and critical of those who remain in the Church (especially as nuns or priests) that sort of rhetoric does nothing to really shine a light on the issues at hand. Thank you, Jill, for doing exactly that with your article.

      • precisely how far the Church has gone to squash their members who work tirelessly and often in very dangerous conditions to do good works

        Yep. I consider the Catholic Church to be pretty much in same place as the Hindu Mutts – outdated and fairly vile and generally towering shits to the people in them who actually want to help people and do something decent for the world. I don’t consider those good people to be a reason to have any faith in the Vatican/Mutts, any more than I consider any of the wonderful USians I’ve met on this site to be a reason to trust the US government as far as I could throw it.

      • Marksman2010 says:

        +1

        All day.

      • (BFing)Sarah says:

        I need to be honest here and say that I cannot understand how anyone remains a part of the Catholic Church given how hateful they are towards women, LBGT individuals, and the victims of priest rape. I am an insider…a former Catholic…and I just don’t get it. I feel like in order to do that you must just have to do a see no evil/hear no evil dance around it all. I did that for about a decade of my adult life and once I really sat down to read about the sex abuse I just felt so…ashamed. Sick to my stomach. Really, really ashamed to be Catholic and, I had LOVED the community of Catholics I grew up in. I never had any bad experiences and I grew up in a very liberal, caring, diverse, and accepting church. But, even my church is still a PART of the larger whole that is complicit, at the very least, in all of this terrible, disgusting immoral behavior. The entire church stood by and let children be raped. Our priests never talked about it during a sermon (as in: what is happening right now is unfathomable and grotesque and, don’t worry, those men will be cast out of the church–mostly b/c they couldn’t say that b/c it wasn’t true). Some priests that committed those crimes are RETIRED, living off of money from the Catholic Church. I could not in good conscience continue to give them once cent after I learned about that. How did I go so long without knowing? I can’t forgive myself for that. I already was not willing to baptize my daughter Catholic (my son was baptized when I was still willfully ignorant) or have my kids go to church and be brainwashed about sex and the evils of the “non-traditional family”, but after finally reading about all of that, I just…I was just DONE. I was raised in a very Catholic, observant family. We went to Mass every Sunday, my parents were participants in the Mass, and we went on all the holy days. I even continued to attend church on my own once I was in college and sang in the choir. I was so proud to be Catholic and I really feel like it was my culture and whenever I went to a church I felt like I belonged. It really was a loss of community when I decided I could no longer identify as a Catholic. I feel very sad about that, but there is no way around it.

        I could be convinced otherwise, but my feeling is that because the church claims to be a whole, then the immorality of the actions of the church fall upon all members of that “body.” Catholics that believe the entirety of what we are taught (most of which, to me, is unbelievable at this point), which nuns and priests all claim to believe, believe in the infallibility of the pope. I personally could not continue to identify as part of a body that makes those kinds of statements to the world. When I was calling myself a Catholic I was, in effect, saying that I believed all of what the pope said to be true. If I don’t really believe that, I shouldn’t call myself a Catholic. I understand feeling like you can’t leave the church, because it becomes an extension of your family and its your community. Most of my family are still staunch Catholics and will say “oh I don’t believe that” about pretty much every craptastic statement that old wind bag makes. To me, that’s not Catholicism. They are holding on to Catholicism as if its a belief in something more than “this is my identity.” But, I don’t see shared belief systems within the church as really existing anymore…so it seems like the pope can pretty much say whatever he wants and do what he wants and Catholics will plug their ears, look the other way, and keep on saying that they are Catholics. I don’t get it.

  2. Kasabian says:

    I was thinking about making a drinking game out of every time some Guardian commenter called Jill “anti-Catholic”, but then I remembered that alcohol poisoning is a thing.

  3. matlun says:

    It is an interesting and fairly general dynamic: How should religions with outdated moral systems adapt to modern society?

    There seem to be two basic approaches
    1. Adapt by reinterpreting and liberalizing the religion.
    2. Keep theological purity. Double down and be uncompromising.

    As different groups are choosing different paths, we are seeing a split between more and more liberal interpretations and more and more fundamentalist ones. We are seeing more and more people being practically secular and just “culturally Christian”, “culturally Muslim” etc. At the same time we are seeing a growth in fundamentalist religion.

    Anyway: It is quite clear which path the Catholic leadership has chosen. They are not interested in compromising or modernizing the teachings and I do not see this changing anytime soon. Which raises an interesting question about what it means to be Catholic as an increasing fraction of the people identifying as Catholic are disagreeing with the Church’s moral authority.

  4. speedbudget says:

    What happened to love the sinner; hate the sin? Is this the kinder, gentler Catholic Church?

    • William says:

      What happened to love the sinner; hate the sin?

      They dispensed with that illusion around the time they cozied up to Constantine and got their first taste of power. From that point on they’ve treated anyone with less power than themselves like they treated Hypatia.

    • William says:

      Its also worth pointing out that the whole “love the sinner hate the sin” trope comes from Augustine, the same asshole who brought us “There is the unjust persecution which the wicked inflict on the Church of Christ, and the just persecution which the Church of Christ inflicts on the wicked” as a means of justifying the use of torture against heretics.

    • brianpansky says:

      they can’t love anyone if they are afraid it endangers their ideology.

      http://www.metroweekly.com/news/?ak=7991

    • EG says:

      Is this the kinder, gentler Catholic Church?

      The kinder, gentler Catholic Church means “We don’t seem to have the power to torture you to death for disagreeing with us anymore, so we very graciously won’t. No promises if circumstances change, though.”

  5. matlun says:

    Hmm. While it was a very good article, the news item used as a lead in may actually be incorrect.

    As far as I can make out, Ms Kadaga was only blessed and met with the Pope as part of a semi public event. Ie she was one of thousands that was blessed and there was no private audience.

    Does anyone have any definite information as to what the truth is?

    • Fat Steve says:

      Hmm. While it was a very good article, the news item used as a lead in may actually be incorrect.

      As far as I can make out, Ms Kadaga was only blessed and met with the Pope as part of a semi public event. Ie she was one of thousands that was blessed and there was no private audience.

      Does anyone have any definite information as to what the truth is?

      I can definitely say that there is no such thing as ‘semi public.’ Something is either ‘public’ or ‘private’, so anyone who uses the term ‘semi public’ is definitely attempting to to lie in order to obscure the issue. What is less definite is why anyone would be so silly.

      • matlun says:

        “Semi public” is my phrase, and it was perhaps mistaken. If I understand correctly, it was the general weekly audience, for which anyone can get tickets, though access is somewhat limited.

        However: I am unclear about the details, which is why I ended the above post as a question. Does anyone know?

  6. Dan_Brodribb says:

    A relative of mine who went to Catholic school said something over Christmas that felt poignant to me.

    “The Church betrayed the very values it taught me to prioritize.”

    That’s going to stay with me for a while.

    • konkonsn says:

      I don’t mean to be rude, but it helps if you make a comment on the links you post so that people who don’t have access to the site will know what you’re talking about, people who are afraid of being trigger/don’t want to waste their time can decide if it’s worthwhile to click, and that we know what position you’re trying to take.

  7. Gordon says:

    The Pope is going after women religious to take the attention away from the pedophile scandal. It was the brain-child of former Boston Cardinal Archbishop Law. The guys want to think that their sh!t doesn’t stink — despite the fact that theirs is the stinkiest.

  8. Dominique says:

    All this is why I don’t consider myself Catholic anymore. Not likely to go back.

  9. wanttobeanon says:

    Damn Jill. Maybe your best Guardian column yet.

  10. DouglasG says:

    All my old friends who had enough trouble with B16 when he was a mere Cardinal must have been furious ever since his election.

    The anti-gay measures of the papacy have seemed more of a rollback than a doubling down. For centuries, the priesthood was just about the one honourable option for the male homosexual Roman Catholic, to the point that many people interpreted homosexuality as a sign of a vocation, or at least desirably coincident. And now even that has gone pfft.

    If I understand correctly, seminarians who confess to homosexual temptation are now booted out as unsuitable. But going through seminary without confessing something of that magnitude is regarded as even worse. I forget the exact conditions now in place, but the only wiggle room is for those who confess to having struggled with and overcome homosexual temptation at least (I think) two or three years in the past, or something like that. Many gay priests widely regarded from all sides of various social issues as high among the best and the brightest thought that their vocations were being called a mistake (if not worse).

    Thank you for the article.

  11. Scissors says:

    The hypocrisy within the catholic church is chilling. Benedict XVI himself knows this. I don’t understand why some people still entrust this institution with the task of determining what is moral and what isn’t when it has proved itself to be incompetent countless of times, and not just about the abuse scandals. These should be the last people on earth telling others how to live their lives and what to do with their bodies!

  12. Anonimoose says:

    And people ask my family why we don’t follow the church.

    And “why do you worship Mary?”

  13. Foxy says:

    Catholic church is busy converting people in asia and africa

    • Foxy is busy scattering random factoids into the wind without bothering to link them to anything relevant

      • Foxy says:

        Iam posting from a tablet.It is difficult to link.You can google it.Catholics are spending millions of dollars to convert people

      • EG says:

        Christians have been doing that for hundreds and hundreds of years. That’s nothing new.

      • Andie says:

        For a second I thought you meant that Christians have been writing on tablets for hundreds and hundreds of years. Then I thought of Moses.

        And I giggled a bit, I’ll admit.

  14. Foxy says:

    Catholic church is also promoting hispanic immigration into usa because it increases their numbers

  15. Foxy says:

    Catholic church is pure evil.It is a hate organisation.

  16. Foxy says:

    Look what catholics turned phillipines into

  17. Foxy says:

    Pope should be arrested for collabaration with fascists

  18. Foxy says:

    A smug catholic once told in my face that all protestants rot in hell.Their arrogance is amazing

      • librarygoose says:

        *dying of laughter*

        HAHAHAHAHA

        *gasping and passing out*

      • (BFing)Sarah says:

        Glad I’m not the only one. What is going on??!!

      • Denise Winters says:

        I don’t even…..what? I’m cracking up but not sure why. I can not tell if it is meant to be genuine criticism of the RCC that is not being appropriately extrapolated on or Jack Chick-level RCC conspiracy theories and blaming. Either way the RCC under the leadership of a fascist-collabrating Pope promoting Latino immigration to the U.S. (instead of just proselytizing in South and Central America like it is doing in Asia and Africa) in order to do to the U.S. what it did to the Philippines has set me off.
        I think it has something to do with the brief statements with no support whatsoever, as though Foxy is engaging in a conversation where certain things have been established, but that we are all left out of. Its like a logic bomb has exploded in my head and my only recourse is to laugh uncontrollably.

      • Natalie says:

        bahahahhaha
        thank you for this

    • Fat Steve says:

      A smug catholic once told in my face that all protestants rot in hell.Their arrogance is amazing

      Surely that is the concept behind all religions. Are you saying that there are no Protestants that think Catholics are going to hell?

      • Li says:

        Not all religions have a hell. Not all religions believe their dictates apply to non-members.

      • This. Thank you. Ugh, I hate when people Extrapolate Abrahamic.

      • Though honestly Christian works better, as Muslims have varying views on that IIRC.

      • Fat Steve says:

        Not all religions have a hell. Not all religions believe their dictates apply to non-members.

        Yes, how clever of you to pick up on my mistake of typing ‘all’ instead of ‘both.’ Remarkable that no one was clever enough to pick up from the context of my second sentence that I was only referring to the two religions mentioned.

        Donna, your explanation of Gehena below would just as easily be considered smug and arrogant by Foxy’s terms.

      • Li says:

        That you meant “both” when you said “all” was not at all contextually clear. “Yeah, sorry, that was a mistake, I meant to say ‘both’ ” probably would have served you better here.

      • amblingalong says:

        Yes, how clever of you to pick up on my mistake of typing ‘all’ instead of ‘both.’

        …don’t be an asshole, dude. There was absolutely no context to suggest you meant ‘both.’

      • Fat Steve says:

        …don’t be an asshole, dude. There was absolutely no context to suggest you meant ‘both.’

        I didn’t say the context suggested I meant both, you lying simpleton. I said the context of my second sentence was clearly “only referring to the two religions mentioned.”

      • Fat Steve says:

        ambling, before you you come up with another stupid argument, I will make it clear what I was saying:

        I acknowledged I was wrong to say that all religions are like that and Li was correct to criticize me for implying that ‘all religions believe their dictates apply to non-members.’ I should have said ‘both.’

        I was not wrong to imply in my second sentence that Catholics and Protestants equally believe in hellfire, and Li was wrong to criticize me for saying all religions believe in hell, as the context of my second sentence is so unambiguous as to which religions it is referring.

      • Donna L says:

        I hate when people Extrapolate Abrahamic.

        Can we please not assume that just because a lot of Christians believe in everlasting hellfire, Jews do too? When was the last time you heard anyone Jewish talk about hell? Probably pretty much never, because the concept doesn’t exist in the Christian sense. Not that Wikipedia is necessarily a reliable source, but here’s a summary

        [Judaism has] a mystical/Orthodox tradition of describing Gehenna. Gehenna is not Hell, but originally a grave and in later times a sort of Purgatory where one is judged based on one’s life’s deeds, or rather, where one becomes fully aware of one’s own shortcomings and negative actions during one’s life. The Kabbalah explains it as a “waiting room” (commonly translated as an “entry way”) for all souls (not just the wicked). The overwhelming majority of rabbinic thought maintains that people are not in Gehenna forever; the longest that one can be there is said to be 12 months, however there has been the occasional noted exception. Some consider it a spiritual forge where the soul is purified for its eventual ascent to Olam Habah (heb. עולם הבא; lit. “The world to come”, often viewed as analogous to Heaven). This is also mentioned in the Kabbalah, where the soul is described as breaking, like the flame of a candle lighting another: the part of the soul that ascends being pure and the “unfinished” piece being reborn.

        See the difference?

      • Donna L says:

        I think the idea is that if you’re still not purified after 12 months, your soul generally gets extinguished altogether.

      • Right, so some Muslims AND Jews. I recalled that there were some sects of Islam that didn’t believe in hell for unbelievers, but I wasn’t sure of Judaism and didn’t want to speak to something I didn’t know. I’m really not very educated on Judaism – most of what I know, I learned from you, tbh, and I can’t find decent sources online to get a more in-depth understanding of the theology.

      • Argh. Meant to add an apology to that, posted too soon.

        …so, seriously, given that Christianity’s rooted in Judaism, why in the everloving fuck are they such opinionated assholes compared to them???? I am getting increasingly baffled by this. It’s like they decided Judaism wasn’t Edgay enough or something.

      • Donna L says:

        Enh. I don’t know. I don’t like to get into that kind of comparison; there’s plenty to criticize in all religions. After all, most Christians seem to believe that theirs is the God of love and mercy and forgiveness, as opposed to the legalistic, vengeful, merciless Old Testament God!

      • Well, Donna, clearly the Jews ARE a much more violent and savage religion! Look at all the crusades they’ve launched, their extensive campaigns of conversion in south America and Asia and Africa, the way they deliberately spread misinformation about AIDS, and let’s not even get into how much support they gave the Naz-

        oh. Um. Oh. Or not.

      • DouglasG says:

        What floors me is the depressing eagerness of so many people for their version of Heaven. In most of the many descriptions I’ve heard, it sounds like an exclusive country club, and generally, the more exclusive, the better.

        [After all, most Christians seem to believe that theirs is the God of love and mercy and forgiveness, as opposed to the legalistic, vengeful, merciless Old Testament God!]

        My best friend gave up studying the OT, claiming that God reminded her far too much of her ex-husband.

      • amblingalong says:

        …so, seriously, given that Christianity’s rooted in Judaism, why in the everloving fuck are they such opinionated assholes compared to them???? I am getting increasingly baffled by this. It’s like they decided Judaism wasn’t Edgay enough or something.

        My take is that the most asshole-ish of religions tend to be the ones with the most power. Christianity is bigger and has more institutional heft, and so it has more opportunity to be dickish without sanction; Judaism is much, much smaller (I think people, especially Americans, tend to forget how tiny Judaism is compared to Christianity- there are like 12 million Jews in the world and 2.1 billion Christians). The relatively small number of places where Jewish religious institutions have a lot of power are frequently nasty in many of the same ways Christian power works out nastily on a bigger scale, ditto for Islam and a lot of other monotheistic religions.

        I tend to believe religion is inherently prone to coercive and oppressive behaviors, and simply suppresses those tendencies (to some degree) when it’s not powerful enough to get away with them. I have a couple of female friends who grew up in a neighborhood of Brooklyn where political power was (or is, maybe- it’s been fifteen years or so since they left) almost entirely in the hands of orthodox Jews, and they certainly wouldn’t agree with the idea that Judaism is inherently less ‘assholey’ than Christianity.

    • Odin says:

      So you’re okay with the idea of non-protestant, non-Catholics rotting in hell, I take it?

  19. Shigekuni says:

    That’s all well and good but seems to be based on incorrect information

    Soon after the news broke, Vatican spokesman Father Federico Lombardi issued a statement that said: “relations with the delegation were not out of the ordinary and no blessing was given.” The group of Ugandan MPs greeted the Pope “just like any other individuals attending an audience with the Pope would” and this was “by no means a specific sign of approval of Kadaga’’s actions or proposals.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebecca_Kadaga

    • William says:

      Says the organization that helped AIDS spread in Africa through strong opposition to condom usage and lied for decades to cover up a world wide child molestation conspiracy.

      • EG says:

        Surely you’re not accusing them of lying, William?

      • William says:

        Perish the thought…

      • Radiant Sophia says:

        I do hope that is in reference to the Vatican spokesman or the Ugandan MPs, and not Wikipedia.

      • Donna L says:

        lied for decades

        More than decades; anyone who doesn’t realize that this was going on 100 and 200 years ago and more is naive. The anti-clerical French revolutionaries and English Protestants who wrote lubricious accounts of such things weren’t entirely making it all up.

        I take no position on all their claims about lesbian nuns, however!

      • William says:

        A fair point. Although this specific pope has only been an active participant for…most of his career.

      • Foxy says:

        How can some body spread aids.If people in african continent are foolish enough that is there own fault.And there are other non catholic countries in which aids is wide spread

      • PrettyAmiable says:

        What is this I don’t even.

      • If people in african continent are foolish enough that is there own fault.

        For fuck’s sake, Foxy, do you seriously lack the cognitive skills to see a connection between people being told a thing by a respected authority and people believing the thing they were told? Are your neurons engaged in some sort of bitter internecine war where they somehow manage to permit you to post mostly-grammatical sentences on the internet, but not to actually make connections in reality?

      • EG says:

        Yes, yes, black people are stupid and deserve to be punished with pestilence and death. That is an awesome analysis, Foxy. Is there no bottom to your racism?

      • Also:

        How can some body spread aids.

        It’s a contagious disease, spoo-for-brains.

      • William says:

        How can some body spread aids.If people in african continent are foolish enough that is there own fault.And there are other non catholic countries in which aids is wide spread

        In the spirit of those choose-your-own-adventure books I liked as a small child, let me present you with two possible answers to your query.

        1) HIV has a fairly long period in which an infected person is asymptomatic but can still spread the disease. This is a problem exacerbated by poor access to healthcare. Many of the people who spread HIV did so not because they were careless or stupid but because they did not know they were infected and, like most human beings, had the desire to engage in sex. Some might not have had the desire to have sex but did have a powerful need to eat occasionally and thus engaged in prostitution. In many cases a monogamous individual who did not know they were infected might pass the virus to their partner. In other cases someone might engage in infidelity and pass the virus to their partner. Many women, lacking access to basic birth control, passed a virus they did not know they had onto their children. There is also the problem of rape, another significant vector for the disease to spread. All of this information (and more!) is widely available on the internet, so you could have saved us all some time and displayed some basic level of intellectual curiosity. Shame on you for doing precisely what you’ve, in your breathtaking ignorance, criticized others for not doing.

        -or-

        2) Go drown in a bucket ya fuck.

      • Radiant Sophia says:

        This is one of the worst pieces of victim-blaming I have seen here. Why don’t you come back and tell me it’s their own fault after you’ve watched a friend or family member die from HIV.

      • Mztress says:

        Foolish enough to fuck, you mean? That thing that most people spend a good deal of time doing?

        And I guess that having the Catholic church tell the people that only “sinners” and “prostitutes” use condoms and/or withhold condoms from the people, and/or tell outright lies about HIV/AIDS transmission had nothing to do with the issue, right?

  20. Foxy says:

    Oh my dear william.You havent answered my hiv is also wide spread in countries with small catholic population.And you are an ignoramus for your assumptions about me

    • Oh, for fuck’s sake. The fact that AIDS is widespread in X country does not change the fact that in Y country AIDS is being spread because of misinformation. In exactly the same way that, for instance, the fact that many people die of being shot in the US does not mean that the US is not responsible for the drones in Pakistan killing people. Your point makes less than no sense, you make less than no sense, and you are a victim-blaming, illogical douche who treats reason and argument as some sort of scrapbooking effort.

    • William says:

      First, the word you’re reaching for is “asshole,” not “ignoramus. ” I understand that a fifty cent word can sometimes buttress an argument, but you probably should be careful not to confuse malice for ignorance. Second, the problem of HIV in Africa isn’t simply because some countries in Africa have a lot of Catholics. The church’s hand in HIV in Africa has a lot more to do with the ways in which it has used it’s influence to affect policy in a manner that makes people substantially more likely to contract HIV. See, its the ugly morality and the privilege used to enforce that malice that kills.

      Also, for the record, I could give a shit how you feel about the pope. My disgust for you is based in your incredible lack of context and willingness to engage in victim blaming. You can hem and haw all you’d like but you’re the one who said “If people in african continent are foolish enough that is there own fault.” Spelling and grammar aside, your content is repellent.

    • Hey, Foxy! Before calling ANYBODY an ignoramus over the internet, how about you figure out how to reply to posts in a consistent manner? Thanks ever so much, dude.

  21. Foxy says:

    by the way as i already stated iam not a fan of either pope or catholic

  22. Foxy says:

    Eg or some body please stop making unsubstantiated accusations against me

  23. Foxy says:

    While i believe catholic church is a very evil organisation it is not right to blame them for spread of aids

  24. Foxy says:

    Some people on this thread are calling me racist for no apparent reason.It is ironic considering my parents are deeply involved in left wing movements

    • EG says:

      1) Your commenting history is quite adequate to justify calling you racist.

      2) That’s not ironic.

      3) It is perfectly possibly–even tediously normal–to be involved in left-wing causes.

      4) You do not get to take credit for your parents’ activities, no matter how admirable.

      • Alyson says:

        Yeah, and not to be a jerk to your parents, since I don’t know them, but it’s completely possible to both be involved in left-wing causes and believe prejudiced things. I’ve met plenty of people who identified as liberal yet were totally clueless and said racist crap all the time.

      • Alyson says:

        Not YOUR parents, EG. Foxy’s.

      • EG says:

        Thanks for this–I meant to make that point #3, but ended the sentence too quickly, which is what I get for posting when I can’t sleep!

      • Foxy says:

        My parents are involved in left wing politics not liberal stuff.The terms left and liberal are not synonymous

      • William says:

        I couldn’t care less if your parents are Anarcho-syndicalists or hardcore Marxists, Foxy, your statements have been deplorable, ignorant, and racist. At best your parents ought to be ashamed at their failure, at worst you’re full of shit. I doubt many people here care which.

    • Mztress says:

      Really, that’s the best rebuttal you could come up with for being called a racist? That’s almost as bad as saying “But I have a [insert minority or marginalized group member here] friend!”

  25. Foxy says:

    Can you please enlighten me which of my comments are racist.I hope you dont bring up the white women vote for romney stuff

    • .If people in african continent are foolish enough that is there own fault.

      Already explained

      It is ironic considering my parents are deeply involved in left wing movements

      Oh, we’ve gone from “I have black friends” to “my parents help black people” have we?

      I hope you dont bring up the white women vote for romney stuff

      Ooh, I didn’t even remember that. Guilty feelings much?

      • EG says:

        Don’t forget my favorite, mac–“The Democratic Party imports Hispanics to vote for them.” As though somehow the votes of Latino immigrants are less legit than other people’s votes.

      • Yes. Are the Democrats importing Hispanics, or the Catholics? Do they want them to support a librul abortionista agenda or do they want to create a papacy? I AM SO CONFUSED.

      • William says:

        Hey, Mac, can’t we do both?

        God, its like you’ve never heard of bipartisanship or ethnic diversity before.

      • Well, my initial thought was that if Foxy’s going to run around in circles flailing about how great buttloads of Hispanics are being funnelled into the US (and I sense, somehow, that Foxy considers this to look rather like the finale of 28 Weeks Later), the least he could do is to be consistent about why and by whom.

        But of course you’re right. BELIEVE IN ALL THE CONSPIRACY THEORIES YO. It’s not like Those Hispanics just came to the US to work and have families and maybe a hobby or two like normal people or anything.

      • Li says:

        I think everyone’s missing the point here. It’s Catholic Democrats importing Hispanic people. Because the Republican party is the one true WASP party, whereas the Dems put JFK in office, the papist scoundrels!

      • Foxy says:

        Large scale immigration affects working class and reduces their wages.It benefits mncs,big business.Whose side are you

      • William says:

        Large scale immigration affects working class and reduces their wages.It benefits mncs,big business.Whose side are you

        Obviously not the side of the True Scotsman, it would seem. Also, there is nothing new about nativist, racist, populism swearing it can’t be nativist or racist because its also leftist.

      • Whose side are you

        A SIDE OF BEEF

      • Bagelsan says:

        Mac, no!

      • EG says:

        Large scale immigration affects working class and reduces their wages.

        Immigrants are the working class, you racist twerp. You can’t be a leftist and buy into the nationalist bullshit that divides working people in order to better conquer.

      • Foxy says:

        Phrasing of some of my words are harsh but that doesnt make me a racist.Iam speaking in the context of personal responsibility when i made that statement

      • Mztress says:

        No, not racist. Merely stupid.

      • EG says:

        It’s not the phrasing that makes you a racist. It’s the meaning.

  26. Foxy says:

    So i guess if someone opposes large scale immigration they are not leftists,but people who suck up to big corporations and spread globalist ideology are left wingers.I think marx would roll in his grave

    • William says:

      I think Marx never worked a day in his life and the political left has moved beyond nativist concerns and the industrial revolution. No, sorry, what you call sucking up to big corporations and spreading globalist ideology I call recognizing that it is a sign of incredible privilege to be able to ignore problems outside of your own borders or throw people less powerful than yourself under the bus for your own gain. Your “leftism” is the moral equivalent of the big companies you have imagined to be the other side in your little game, the fundamental willingness to oppress others for gain is the same, the only substantive difference is how you propose picking winners and losers. Its people like you that ruin revolutions.

      • Foxy says:

        the only reason companies promote immigration is to maximise profits.You are naive if you think they care about mexican workers

      • William says:

        the only reason companies promote immigration is to maximise profits.You are naive if you think they care about mexican workers

        I promote immigration because I believe people have the right to live wherever they damned well please. I care about Mexican workers because I care about workers and about social justice. I’m no more likely to take marching orders from corporations than you are to think through a post.

    • EG says:

      I think you don’t know jackshit about Marx, who considered this kind of nationalism to be the worst kind of false consciousness, and advocated an international brotherhood among the working classes specifically so that business-owners could not divide them along such lines. The solution, as far as Marx was concerned, was not racist anti-immigration demagoguery, but international revolution in which the working classes of the world recognized that they had far more in common with each other than with the bourgeoisie of their own countries.

      They said this bullshit about the Irish, they said it about the Jews and Italians and Chinese, and I can’t believe I’m hearing it again.

      The solution is, as it has ever been, not racism, but to organize immigrant workers as well as the native-born.

      • Donna L says:

        Maybe Foxy and his parents are Stalinists. Wasn’t the whole nationalism vs. internationalism issue one of the bases for the rift between Stalin and Trotsky? Maybe we should deport all the kulaks to Siberia (or the US equivalen), and create a famine to starve 4 or 5 million other non-USians to death?

      • Foxy says:

        you are great example of how liberals use hyperbolic langauge to shut down any debate on immigration

      • William says:

        You are a great example of foolish people with poor arguments confusing disagreement with censorship or shutting down. Defend your point or shut the fuck up, whining just makes you look like a child.

  27. Foxy says:

    It is very easy to support large scale immigration if your jobs are not lost,your wages are not reduced.Rich liberals benefit from cheap labour and their neighbour hoods are predominantly white and they are shielded from the effects

    • Li says:

      Oh, I think I’ve seen this one! Tom Hanks and Shelley Long are renovating their dream house, and no matter how much they try to point out the glaring holes in its arguments it it keeps being racist and parochial behind its flaking veneer of labour politics. I think it’s called The Logic Pit or something.

    • Yes, those pesky effects, like non-white people living within fifty miles of you! Tsk.

      Seriously. You have, at this point, officially reached the bottom of the Pit of Stupid. Don’t, for the love of Fox News, start digging.

      And for fuck’s sake, man, can you PLEASE learn to put periods at the ends of your sentences? If I see another trailing orphan word-jumble on this site I think I’m going to lose it.

      • Li says:

        I wouldn’t hold out hope Mac. Probably about as likely as a sudden epiphany that immigrants count as part of the working class too.

      • William says:

        If I see another trailing orphan word-jumble on this site I think I’m going to lose it.

        No doubt that’ll be the fault of nefarious multinational corporations and their imported Mexicans. The problem never ends…

    • EG says:

      Aw. I was hoping you’d go on claiming that a real leftist would support racist xenophobic anti-immigrant policies. I was going to quote The Internationale and everything.

      Now you’ve just gone back to run-of-the-mill racism (liberals are cool with immigration because we live in all-white neighborhoods).

      • matlun says:

        Now you’ve just gone back to run-of-the-mill racism

        You do not think the argument that they are coming and taking our jobs is original?

        You might have a point there…

      • William says:

        Now you’ve just gone back to run-of-the-mill racism (liberals are cool with immigration because we live in all-white neighborhoods).

        Finally, proof I’m not a liberal: I live in a neighborhood that is a pleasant nexus of old-Chicago black folk, yuppies, ultra-orthodox Jews, and at least three or four major immigrant communities.

      • EG says:

        Right now my neighborhood is white, but in a few months I’m going to be moving into a heavily Dominican neighborhood–can I be not a liberal, too?

      • William says:

        Dominican, you say? I think that means you have to either register as a supporter of the Constitution Party or stop voting entirely in favor of Anarcho-Capitalism. Its been awhile since I read the Neighborhood Integration and Compulsory Political Opinion bylaws, though…

  28. Foxy says:

    It is telling that none of the commentators in this thread addressed the declining wages of workers.The tide is turning.More workers are realizing this.Opposition to immigration is increasing not just in usa but across europe.The rise of ukip is just

    • EG says:

      The declining wages of workers are about corporate greed, as they always have been. The way to address that has nothing to do with immigration policy. Answers can range from wage-ratio laws to outright revolution, but corporate executives will be just as greedy and exploitative regardless of immigration laws.

      “The tide is turning”–because pro-immigration sentiment has been ruling the day…when, precisely?

    • Just WHAT? No seriously, WHAT?

      FOXY, FINISH THAT FUCKING SENTENCE. YOU CAN FINISH A FUCKING SENTENCE, I SWEAR.

      Argh. Fuck. Rage.

      (Also, you dimwit, if conservatives weren’t so keen on keeping undocumented immigrants impoverished they’d have raised the minimum wage ages ago.)

      • Alexandra says:

        Yeah. Illegal/semi-legal immigration is of benefit to many industries because it allows them to depress wages. Particularly in agriculture – people picking produce, people working in slaughterhouses, etc. Also, undocumented immigrants are much less likely to be able to complain about OSHA violations and unsafe working conditions, or of debt bondage (seriously: look up slavery conditions in Florida tomato growing).

      • Donna L says:

        The theory that most undocumented immigrants work in agriculture is a myth — the figure I’ve seen is about 20-25% of them.

      • Fat Steve says:

        The theory that most undocumented immigrants work in agriculture is a myth — the figure I’ve seen is about 20-25% of them.

        I don’t understand this comment. Alexandra didn’t ue the word ‘most’, she just implied there were many illegal workers in agriculture.

        Are you seriously arguing that 20-25% of all illegal immigrants does not consist of a very large number of people?

  29. Foxy says:

    If you are stupid to enough to think iam a conservative my sympathy for you.Fyi i support raising minimum wages.Iam taking about ukip becoming third largest party in britain in other post

    • William says:

      I don’t think your views are sophisticated enough to generally be pinned to the right or the left (artificial as they are). From what I see of you you’re a run of the mill populist: intellectually limited, reactionary, nativist. Here you are talking up the UK Independence Party. What do they stand for? Well the broad stroke is that they’re Eurosceptics which I kinda dig but it isn’t where I live so thats really theoretical anyway. What else do they stand for? A flat tax, cuts in corporate tax, the removal of the inheritance tax, cuts in government services to reduce debt, school vouchers, a massive increase in military spending, opposition to multiculturalism in order to defend “Britain and Britishness” from “extremist Islam,” partial disenfranchisement of non-English (Welsh, Scottish, and Irish) representatives, a requirement to use the imperial measurement system (!), severe curtailment of immigration, and global warming skepticism. That you keep reaching to them to defend your comments about filthy immigrants who took our jorbs says a whole hell of a lot about either your true sentiments or your ability to do research.

      • Fat Steve says:

        First of all, this is mostly a refutation of Foxy’s original comment, not a criticism of WIlliam’s comments above. (I just wanted to make clear that I agree 100% with William’s overall point, despite the fact I am going to be correcting both his AND Foxy’s factual errors about UKIP- however, these corrections do not detract from William’s point and in fact serve to reinforce it.)

        1. They are not Euro ‘sceptic’. The Conservative party is Euro ‘sceptic’, UKIP wants the UK out of Europe, and not because they are skeptical about The European Union, it is to preserve so-called ‘Britishness.’ (i.e. it’s all about racism.)

        2. Also, I cannot agree with the ‘skeptic’ tag when it comes to their attitudes about global warming. Any good scientist who believes in man made climate change is a global warming ‘skeptic’, that’s why studies are done. UKIP’s official policy is that the there is no scientific consensus on global warming, a position that none of their members has ever publicly refuted. I don’t think a political party that believes in a giant conspiracy of scientists can be called skeptical of anything. In fact they are the amongst most gullible idiots on the planet.

        3. The anti-AGW propaganda is all part of a larger anti-science agenda which, to quote WIlliam’s comment on Foxy is not “sophisticated enough to generally be pinned to the right or the left (artificial as they are). ” They are also against genetically modified food, a position usually held by extreme leftists, of whom the extreme right wing share the same paranoia and delusions of conspiracy.

        4. UKIP is not now, have never been, and will never be the third most popular political party in the UK. They are not even the fourth largest in terms of seats in parliament (Caroline Lucas of the Greens has a seat,) which is really the only way you can gauge the voters real measure of political worthiness. The only time UKIP gets a lot of votes in the European election, when ‘Euro-sceptics’ (ie xenophobic morons) vote for them as a protest vote. During a general election, that same moronic protest vote is split between the BNP (formerly the National Front, formerly the Waffen SS,) which hsould give you some idea what that kind of protest vote is about.

      • Foxy says:

        In lot of opinion polls held in england ukip is ahead of liberal democrats

  30. Foxy says:

    @william,no iam not a supporter ukip.My point is white working class has no option but to vote pro corporate parties like republicans or ukip because the other side is an open borders party like democrats or new labour.The immigration hurts white working

    • William says:

      I didn’t say you were a supporter, I said you were talking them up by calling them just and using them as an example of why immigration is bad. The fact that you had to reach to a right wing party to find someone who represents white angst at immigration speaks volumes. The fact that you conceptualize workers rights as, even partially, a conflict between white workers and non-white workers tells me that your racism isn’t just incidental but central and inherent to your thinking. The fact that you don’t seem to realize that not all immigrants are non-white, and that the immigration debate in America centers around Latin@ immigrants who are racially white but culturally somewhat different tells me that you don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about. The fact that you don’t seem to realize that we survived this same debate with the Irish, Italians, Poles, and Slavs tells me your history is poor.

      You can dress it up all you want, but you’re a boring, old fashioned, ignorant racist and you’re no longer worth my time.

  31. Foxy says:

    @william way to miss my point.Iam talking from the point of view of white working class.The same could apply to african american working class or asian american working class.And ukip opposes predominantly white immigration from other eu nations

    • EG says:

      Ah, yes, the monolithic, racist white working class, which has nothing in common with non-white members of the working class. That’s…a great insight there, Foxy.

  32. Foxy says:

    @william and the accusation of racism can become boring.

  33. Foxy says:

    @EG did you read my post.I was saying immigration hurts black and asian working class similar to white working class.You havent adressed ukip opposing white immigration from eu nations.How are they racist by your logic

    • Foxy,

      British racism has encompassed other “less” white peoples (Italians, Greeks, Jews) for ages. Where have you been?

    • William says:

      You havent adressed ukip opposing white immigration from eu nations.

      Define white. Are Mexicans white? What about Argentinians? Brazilians? How about an upper-class person from South America whose family has been in the country for generations but don’t have any/much native blood? Are Poles white? Russians? The Irish? Italians? Slavs? Ashkenazim? Persians? What about someone of Chinese descent who grew up in British Hong Kong speaking English as a first language, watching cricket, drinking bitter, boiling their food into oblivion, and generally considering themselves a subject of the Queen?

      • Foxy says:

        White in the context refers to european population.Even though persians,arabs are caucasoid they are not considered white.With regard to mexicans 90% are either mestizo or amerindian.Most mexicans i knew didnt considered themselves as white

      • Li says:

        My country’s thankfully now defunct “White Australia Policy” would like to point out that “white in the context refers to european population [sic]” is pretty damn recent. Given that we spent the entire period pre-WW2 strenuously resisting the immigration of ‘dark’ people from Italy and Spain…

    • EG says:

      1) I didn’t say that they were racist–I said that you were. Try to keep up.

      2) See Macavitykitsune’s comment. Whiteness is a very flexible concept, and the English have never had any problem considering other people inferior to them whether or not those people have pale skin.

      • Fat Steve says:

        1) I didn’t say that they were racist–I said that you were. Try to keep up.

        I said it, and I’ll say it again so EG doesn’t get blamed. They ARE racist.

  34. Foxy says:

    @EG.please read my posts before commenting.You have made strange remarks on another thread when i made comments on ashuras being iranian tribes

Comments are closed.