Well yeah, because when someone says "that time when Mel Gibson screwed up and the media was all over it", most people automatically think of his Antisemitic rant. I even mentioned it a couple of times and you didn't say anything until a few posts later.
I said it was irrelevant to religion. I wasn't kidding. I'll take the responsibility for not being clear enough.
That's not helpful and isn't something I can comment on because it's just something you remember from years ago.
First, Rosie O'Donnell is not a member of the media. She's an entertainer/celebrity. Those last two quotes aren't "demeaning" to me. One's a political statement and the other is a relevant political question in the context of the abortion issue.
As to her comments on the previous Pope, I can tell that you're pretty loyal to the Church. Let's just say from where I sit and what I've read on the subject, the Catholic Church leadership isn't exactly in a position to complain when it receives criticism or even nasty comments on its handling of the sex abuse situation. After all, we're talking about what seems to have been rampant sexual abuse of children here. In that context, the most powerful religious institution in the world doesn't get to complain when its feelings are hurt.
I don't know what I can do for you. You are welcome to take my examples with a grain of salt, but the examples are nonetheless true.
Media doesn't exclusively mean news sources -- it means a sort of mass form of communication. Books, internet, TV, movies, etc. etc. We're now wondering into more red herrings. If I do grant you that the View is not media, then I'll further just add that entities outside of media also holds this bias.
They aren't demeaning to you because you agree with the bias. To conclude these are exclusively political rants separate from religion is insanity. The "sacrament" remark along with the other remark intended to single out Catholics as the protagonists was pretty harsh.
Specifically talking about Catholicism, the sex abuse cases -- which obviously were disgusting -- is one of the most frustrating things to sincere Catholics, bar-none. I would say when Catholics respond to the sex abuses with "Why are you only picking on us" or "Well, it goes on everywhere," I'd say that's pretty crass and vulgar. However, to claim the numbers were higher than they were of abusers and people who tried to cover it up is either a lie or just poorly assumed. The standard and average response to sex abuse cases, whether it was in the Church, in other religious groups, in the NY/CA/FL/etc. board of education, the Boy Scouts, was that the abusers were to be moved, receive counseling, and to promise never to do it again. This was the advice given to everyone by secular psychiatrists to everyone -- boards of educations, sports leagues, etc. Today, we all know it was bad advice, but everyone seems to criticize the Church gets this advice while letting, for instance, the NY Board of Ed off the hook.
Rather than expressing that every place that commits these atrocities is wrong for it, people are instead happy to play favorites. Even one sex abuse case is one too many, but to claim it was "rampant" (meaning more than all the other groups) is a fallacy. New York University's center for Law and Justice and others don't have invested interest in the Church, but have also acknowledged this to be a fallacy. I wouldn't trust invested interest either, but the figures outside of those interests aren't lying.
The Church was the first to come forward and say "This is bad advice. This needs to be addressed because it is putting more people in danger of becoming victims." In the 1980s, Cardinal Ratzinger (who later became Pope Benedict) was one of the most active to address this problem--not just within the Church, but even outside of the Church. It was ultimately what lead to his nomination as pope.
People tend to say things like "Oh, the Catholic Church can't cry when its feelings are hurt because look at all of the stuff it has done!" This is the beginning of where the problem lies. It makes an assumption based on nothing, and then if someone comes forward to defend it, the response is "Oh, stop whining -- you're the big kid on the block." It goes full circle and anyone who wants to defend good priests for their effort to help people in hunger, poverty, illness, etc., are often criticized with "Yeah, but how many boys have they raped?" Everyone knows that this is how people talk about Catholics, including other Catholics.
In my experiences as a Protestant Christian and a Catholic Christian have been different. I have been made fun of, attacked, harassed, and kicked down far more as a Catholic than I ever was as a Protestant. It came from Atheists, Agnostics, Jews, Protestants, Muslims, and sadly, even other Catholics who have become so indoctrinated with the anti-Catholic rhetoric that they have begun to believe it themselves.
I would never in a million years attempt to defending something that was wrong. But people shouldn't expect me to keep quiet and pretend something is true when it's not and is meant to attack where I lay my faith.
Can you provide a link or transcript please?
I'll see if I can find it for you.
Well, the only one that might be an example of the media being demeaning to Christianity is your last one. For something that you claims happens "every day", one would think your list would have been more substantial.
I'm sorry if you don't think reporting on persecutions and killings of a every group except for one isn't demeaning in its own right, but it is. It's neglect with intentions.
Given the history between popular music and Christian organizations in the US, I'd say that's a two-way street.
You're still missing the big picture. When Christian organizations protest other groups or industries in a way that is intended to insult and degrade, then I don't support them. People respond to this with negativity--and I'm with them when they do. However, no one bats an eye when other groups insult and degrade Christian groups. Isn't it just as wrong no matter who does it? The argument isn't "Who does it and who doesn't do it" nor is it "Who did it first." The argument is "Why is there only outrage on one side and not both?"
You seem to be equating "criticism of the Catholic Church" with "bigotry towards Christianity". Those aren't the same things.
I'm not responding to criticism of the Catholic Church -- I think people are fair to bring their criticisms and questions of the Church, what they practice, and so forth. What I am responding to is bigotry. And if it is mostly being directed toward the Catholic perspective of it, then I'm still being consistent as Catholicism is Christianity.
It appears we just won't see eye to eye on this one.
