Matthew 19:14 - 'Suffer the little children and do not forbid them to come unto me". So, I looked and I cannot find where it says 'unless their parents are Gay, Trans, divorced, or had an abortion'...
Well, yeah - that is the pretzel logic that blind faith requires. And the faithful have no trouble bending the knee. Literally for some faiths/sects/flavors of fiction.
Here in SC, the same upstate county (think Greenville-Spartanburg, SC) that actually allows adoption agencies to refuse to allow gay or Jewish parents to adopt children (which is not new) is the same county / area with all the measles.
A fatal ignorance that is merely coincidental, no doubt.
“Catholic school cannot treat a same-sex couple as a family equivalent to the natural family without compromising its mission and Catholic identity.”
No one is asking you to do so. They're asking you to treat the children of same sex couples like you would treat any other child. Even under your archaic rules, the child is not guilty of anything. You just have to accept an innocent child and treat them with kindness, respect, and love.
Now-now-now! Let's be fair here. You're expecting the Catholic Church to be HUMANE. Sadly, they may know how to spell the word, but its meaning escapes them.
Not one red cent of taxpayer $ should go to an institution that has its hands on the public's wallets as much as it does on the private parts of children.
Let them support themselves. Let them pray to their god to support them.
And again, a church is complaining that government funding cuts into their profits, when the church is able to provide preschool at a discount or even free. They often do which is how they attract the lower income parents to their bigot factory. Then the government comes along and gives lower income parents a choice and the church claims foul.
It sounds like the church is trying to make USA 'a third world country' through its politics. It seems to me American Exceptionalism and broader Western exceptionalism would reach its death knell especially if people intertwine religions and politics increasingly together; economic downturn in USA (along with 'blame the immigrant group you hate most' game, depending on the issue and oversimplifying everything even though it hurts the average American more); 'small treat' economy; elites controlling people at bottom via religion; etc.
Also, isn't the broader 'Global Church' try to have it both ways? There is 'Prosperity Gospel' as well as Catholic Church's social programs happening at same time.... so, hypothetically, wouldn't they try to destroy each other where they are allowed to even if they go after non-Christian nations, which they can only unite upon? If Christians themselves become only ones allowed in American politics, any small differences in Christian theology between each Christian sect would become more pronounced both to the nation and to the world at large.
In a sense, Christian bigotry would ruin America, the world, and Global Christianity as a whole (considering religious warfare in Israel-Palestine War over Al-Aqsa Mosque) , since Christians did not properly stop its extremists. At that point, if people would want Christianity, it would have to be an entirely different kind of Christianity, not the one currently preached as of now.
It's a shame, but considering the current makeup of SCOTUS, much as I don't like the idea of expanding the court, that may be the only recourse we have to straighten it out. The barriers to removing a justice are way too high to be realizable, being supermajorities in Congress. I would expect strong resistance to expanding the court as well, and whether overcoming cloture in the Senate may be a problem, the final vote remains a simple majority.
The sad fact is that inaction and indifference have allowed our government to be pushed to the edge of the precipice. It's going to take a LOT of work and not just on the Supreme Court to move it away again.
I'm not as bothered by expanding the court, because the number of Justices on the Court has not been static throughout our history. There's precedent. The country is also much larger than it was when the number of Justices was last fixed, and we currently have more Circuit courts than Supreme Court Justices; there's a case to be made that we should have at least one Justice for each Circuit court. Plus, expanding SCOTUS would limit the ability of any single President to completely shift the alignment of the Court, the way Cheetolini has (with no small amount of help from McTurtle). There must be a line somewhere, of course- too many Justices and the Court would quickly become as cumbersome and ponderous as Congress has. Just enough to defang the current majority is an absolute must, though, in the long run. I don't see any reasonable case for allowing an illegitimate, anti-Constitutional majority to keep doing damage for another generation before their hold on the Court is broken. They'll only enable the next Republican President to finish the work Chump and his hangers-on began.
I don't see it happening in the immediate future. Not until the last of the old guard conservative Democrats (especially in the Senate) are either putting in their papers or pushing up the daisies, anyway.
I blame Harry Reid and Mitch "missing in action" McConnell for this. By getting rid of the judicial filibuster for lower federal judicial nominees, Reid opened the door for McConnell to do the same for Supreme Court nominees. That's how we got several of the current whizbangs in robes in the current SC. I can only hope that the Dems and enough moderate GOP'ers somehow get the votes together to impeach several of the current justices.
Reid and McConnell are only the latest fools to be guilty of lack of action. This crap was going on, starting in the Reagan administration, and no one seemed to care about it back then. Too much money and its accompanying influence has the potential to wreck our government ... and I have to cite this again for the umpti-umpth time:
And it all came to a head with the thrice-accursed Citizens United ruling, clearing the way for that private power to buy any election it pleased. Sometimes, it almost seems like the people who witnessed the first rise of fascism came away understanding a thing or two about it, and tried to warn the future so we could avoid it happening again. Too bad no one who mattered was paying attention in history class.
Harry Reid only brought up the "nuclear option" as a last resort, because the GOP was blocking literally every judge proposed to the Senate, in order to break the judicial system. That was the only way to break the logjam.
McConnell did the same thing for the Supreme Court for cynical reasons, because everything he's ever done is for cynical reasons.
And of course they also want to remain TAX EXEMPT despite their bigotry. Yet again another Christian group proves that they want one set of rules for themselves and another set of rules for everybody else. Yet they claim they are the most persecuted people in the country. What a fucking JOKE.
If SCOTUS rules in favor of the Catholics, I'm afraid that Colorado will have no choice but to rescind their funding. And EVERYBODY loses in the end.
But that's exactly what the Christian Nazionalists want. They demand that the Free Exercise Clause be interpreted as overriding any laws that force them to play by the same rules as everyone else. And the only time they will agree that Free Exercise doesn't override generally applicable laws is when those laws restrict other religions.
"Give to everyone what you owe them. Pay your taxes and government fees to those who collect them, and give respect and honor to those who are in authority."
Sound familiar? It should. It's from that book you take such stock in (Romans 13:7, to be precise). Why do you not do what your own book says?
While I don't think that any organization receiving taxpayer dollars should be permitted to discriminate like the RCC wants to... every child they turn away because they're wretched fücking bigots is one more child safe from the tender mercies of their clergy.
No, it doesn't. Unless your definition of "faith-based" means "conservative Catholic only" and excludes the faith of every other faith based group that follows the anti bigotry rule.
Something tells me that the Becket legal group would argue exactly that.
Because nothing says 'we love Jesus' quite so much as a lawsuit demanding taxpayer dollars to continue being a bigot.
We already know that the RCC usually operates schools mostly for two reasons: indoctrinating children and making money. I see no reason at all why the taxpayer should help with either one of these goals, religious or otherwise; it's not the job of government to prop up a failing business just because it's a church. This idea they seem to be promoting that bigotry should only run in the direction they dictate is ridiculous anyway; bigotry isn't a practice that promotes a healthy society for the future.
Prop up your own preschools RCC, particularly if you want to keep up the bigoted practices destructive to the public welfare you like so much.
The Catholic Church still seems to think that the power that it arrogated to itself some 1600 years ago is still deserved and should be respected, mostly because ... well ... REASONS. To date, I'm not convinced that they've seen a reversal of that attitude sufficient enough to cause them to at least pause and reflect on their hubris and maybe consider a more humble attitude than the one they've projected since the 4th century. Worse, social inertia has been built around the concept of faith as a positive quality, which has been one of the primary bulwarks the Church has used against questions regarding its authority, and while some of that inertia has been chipped away, most of it remains.
What is desperately needed is something truly cataclysmic in terms of a reversal in the RCC, something that would make the priest child abuse scandal shrink by comparison. I can't think of what that might be (and the real shame is that it may not exist), but one way or another, the Catholic Church needs to be BROUGHT DOWN, its unearned and presumed authority stripped from it and its Emperor's-New-Clothes status exposed.
Just how that is done is left as an open discussion.
As much as the last two Popes have tried to polish up their creaky old Church's image for the 21st Century (well... the 20th, anyhow), you'd still need to be the worst kind of fool to believe even Fluffy or Bob wouldn't have happily resumed the Crusades and witch hunts given half a chance. They understand which side of history they're on, and that's about the kindest thing to be said about them.
𝗪𝗥𝗢𝗡𝗚!!! If ANY organization, religious or not, receives taxpayer dollars, they can either toe the line as it comes to their social behavior, or the bucks go bye-bye, faster than you can say, "Holy Mary, mother of god." If they are completely privately funded, they can do as they please (and be reprehensible at the same time).
Any other court, this one would be nine to zip against the RCC. These days? I'm not so sure.
If anyone were to practice actual bigotry on Christians, they'd scream bloody murder.
Snowflakes can't even handle what they perceive to be bigotry/persecution were they to be on the receiving end of that bigotry/persecution. They can dish it out. Taking it is a very different thing.
Catholics think their rights to be bigots are somehow being violated and demand protection to be bigots? Seriously?
Matthew 19:14 - 'Suffer the little children and do not forbid them to come unto me". So, I looked and I cannot find where it says 'unless their parents are Gay, Trans, divorced, or had an abortion'...
To be bigots to preschool students. Mustn't forget that part. They want the right to be bigots to 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘤𝘩𝘰𝘰𝘭 𝘴𝘵𝘶𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴.
Talk about punching down…
That’s about the only fights they have a reasonable chance of winning.
And only then if they don't engage the preschoolers in debate.
Well, yeah - that is the pretzel logic that blind faith requires. And the faithful have no trouble bending the knee. Literally for some faiths/sects/flavors of fiction.
Pretzel Logic was Steely Dan. Blind Faith did Can't Find My Way Home.
LOL, I never could carry a tune. Ask my daughters. 😉
“How dare you deny our religious rights to deny you basic human rights!”
No private school religious or otherwise, should ever get a cent of public money for any reason.
And yet they do, certainly here in Ohio and elsewhere, because some damned fool legislator wants the state to be "fair" and offer parents a "choice."
Merde, alors!
They operate under the delusion that somehow public education can be improved by cutting funding for it.
"public education can be improved by cutting funding for it"
This is called Homeopathic Funding
Oh, BER-ROTHER! Did YOU just nail it!
They had to burn down the village in order to save it.
Here in SC, the same upstate county (think Greenville-Spartanburg, SC) that actually allows adoption agencies to refuse to allow gay or Jewish parents to adopt children (which is not new) is the same county / area with all the measles.
A fatal ignorance that is merely coincidental, no doubt.
Oh, TroubleshOOter, you're speaking French! You know what that does to me.
Gomez? Izzat you???
Cara mia!
LOL - comment delivered and well received here. 🎯👏
“Catholic school cannot treat a same-sex couple as a family equivalent to the natural family without compromising its mission and Catholic identity.”
No one is asking you to do so. They're asking you to treat the children of same sex couples like you would treat any other child. Even under your archaic rules, the child is not guilty of anything. You just have to accept an innocent child and treat them with kindness, respect, and love.
It's really telling that you refuse to do so.
"They're asking you to treat the children of same sex couples like you would treat any other child."
I don't want the catholic church to treat any child the way that they usually do. You know, kiddiediddling.
Crusading....and stuff.
Now-now-now! Let's be fair here. You're expecting the Catholic Church to be HUMANE. Sadly, they may know how to spell the word, but its meaning escapes them.
Not one red cent of taxpayer $ should go to an institution that has its hands on the public's wallets as much as it does on the private parts of children.
Let them support themselves. Let them pray to their god to support them.
And again, a church is complaining that government funding cuts into their profits, when the church is able to provide preschool at a discount or even free. They often do which is how they attract the lower income parents to their bigot factory. Then the government comes along and gives lower income parents a choice and the church claims foul.
It sounds like the church is trying to make USA 'a third world country' through its politics. It seems to me American Exceptionalism and broader Western exceptionalism would reach its death knell especially if people intertwine religions and politics increasingly together; economic downturn in USA (along with 'blame the immigrant group you hate most' game, depending on the issue and oversimplifying everything even though it hurts the average American more); 'small treat' economy; elites controlling people at bottom via religion; etc.
Also, isn't the broader 'Global Church' try to have it both ways? There is 'Prosperity Gospel' as well as Catholic Church's social programs happening at same time.... so, hypothetically, wouldn't they try to destroy each other where they are allowed to even if they go after non-Christian nations, which they can only unite upon? If Christians themselves become only ones allowed in American politics, any small differences in Christian theology between each Christian sect would become more pronounced both to the nation and to the world at large.
In a sense, Christian bigotry would ruin America, the world, and Global Christianity as a whole (considering religious warfare in Israel-Palestine War over Al-Aqsa Mosque) , since Christians did not properly stop its extremists. At that point, if people would want Christianity, it would have to be an entirely different kind of Christianity, not the one currently preached as of now.
I spent four years in college studying accounting.
I can't recall the topic of "church profits" coming up often.....
Soon they'll want recompense in some form for the cost of all the HUGE Trump posters and signs smothering the outside of some churches.
"Of course we also put up posters for the opposition, to stay within the rules. They're all right underneath Trump's!"
The Supreme Court majority will find a way to structure a ruling that satisfies their ideological position. They always seem to do so nowadays
They've been doing that a lot lately. That's likely why their polling numbers are down in the dump. From Google:
𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑓𝑖𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒/𝑇𝑟𝑢𝑠𝑡: 𝐴𝑛 𝑁𝐵𝐶 𝑁𝑒𝑤𝑠 𝑃𝑜𝑙𝑙 𝑠ℎ𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑑 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑜𝑛𝑙𝑦 22% 𝑜𝑓 𝑟𝑒𝑔𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑑 𝑣𝑜𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑠 ℎ𝑜𝑙𝑑 𝑎 "𝑔𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑡 𝑑𝑒𝑎𝑙" 𝑜𝑟 "𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑡𝑒 𝑎 𝑏𝑖𝑡" 𝑜𝑓 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑓𝑖𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 𝑖𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑐𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑡, 𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑐ℎ𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑑 𝑙𝑜𝑤𝑠.
Hey, my friend!
Let's see what happens now that talk of expanding the court is expanding!
It's a shame, but considering the current makeup of SCOTUS, much as I don't like the idea of expanding the court, that may be the only recourse we have to straighten it out. The barriers to removing a justice are way too high to be realizable, being supermajorities in Congress. I would expect strong resistance to expanding the court as well, and whether overcoming cloture in the Senate may be a problem, the final vote remains a simple majority.
The sad fact is that inaction and indifference have allowed our government to be pushed to the edge of the precipice. It's going to take a LOT of work and not just on the Supreme Court to move it away again.
I hoping there just may be some nice surprises along the way, and they just might extend to other countries the same way Trump's hate has.
But I'd guess that few of us in this discussion are likely to see a better world by much....
I'm not as bothered by expanding the court, because the number of Justices on the Court has not been static throughout our history. There's precedent. The country is also much larger than it was when the number of Justices was last fixed, and we currently have more Circuit courts than Supreme Court Justices; there's a case to be made that we should have at least one Justice for each Circuit court. Plus, expanding SCOTUS would limit the ability of any single President to completely shift the alignment of the Court, the way Cheetolini has (with no small amount of help from McTurtle). There must be a line somewhere, of course- too many Justices and the Court would quickly become as cumbersome and ponderous as Congress has. Just enough to defang the current majority is an absolute must, though, in the long run. I don't see any reasonable case for allowing an illegitimate, anti-Constitutional majority to keep doing damage for another generation before their hold on the Court is broken. They'll only enable the next Republican President to finish the work Chump and his hangers-on began.
I don't see it happening in the immediate future. Not until the last of the old guard conservative Democrats (especially in the Senate) are either putting in their papers or pushing up the daisies, anyway.
I blame Harry Reid and Mitch "missing in action" McConnell for this. By getting rid of the judicial filibuster for lower federal judicial nominees, Reid opened the door for McConnell to do the same for Supreme Court nominees. That's how we got several of the current whizbangs in robes in the current SC. I can only hope that the Dems and enough moderate GOP'ers somehow get the votes together to impeach several of the current justices.
Reid and McConnell are only the latest fools to be guilty of lack of action. This crap was going on, starting in the Reagan administration, and no one seemed to care about it back then. Too much money and its accompanying influence has the potential to wreck our government ... and I have to cite this again for the umpti-umpth time:
𝑇ℎ𝑒 𝑙𝑖𝑏𝑒𝑟𝑡𝑦 𝑜𝑓 𝑎 𝑑𝑒𝑚𝑜𝑐𝑟𝑎𝑐𝑦 𝑖𝑠 𝑛𝑜𝑡 𝑠𝑎𝑓𝑒 𝑖𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑝𝑒𝑜𝑝𝑙𝑒 𝑡𝑜𝑙𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑔𝑟𝑜𝑤𝑡ℎ 𝑜𝑓 𝑝𝑟𝑖𝑣𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑝𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟 𝑡𝑜 𝑎 𝑝𝑜𝑖𝑛𝑡 𝑤ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒 𝑖𝑡 𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑒𝑠 𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑜𝑛𝑔𝑒𝑟 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑖𝑟 𝑑𝑒𝑚𝑜𝑐𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑐 𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑖𝑡𝑠𝑒𝑙𝑓. 𝑇ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑖𝑛 𝑖𝑡𝑠 𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒, 𝑖𝑠 𝑓𝑎𝑠𝑐𝑖𝑠𝑚 – 𝑜𝑤𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑠ℎ𝑖𝑝 𝑜𝑓 𝑔𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑛𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑏𝑦 𝑎𝑛 𝑖𝑛𝑑𝑖𝑣𝑖𝑑𝑢𝑎𝑙, 𝑏𝑦 𝑎 𝑔𝑟𝑜𝑢𝑝.
-- Franklin Delano Roosevelt
And it all came to a head with the thrice-accursed Citizens United ruling, clearing the way for that private power to buy any election it pleased. Sometimes, it almost seems like the people who witnessed the first rise of fascism came away understanding a thing or two about it, and tried to warn the future so we could avoid it happening again. Too bad no one who mattered was paying attention in history class.
Harry Reid only brought up the "nuclear option" as a last resort, because the GOP was blocking literally every judge proposed to the Senate, in order to break the judicial system. That was the only way to break the logjam.
McConnell did the same thing for the Supreme Court for cynical reasons, because everything he's ever done is for cynical reasons.
6 of them are members of the RCC.
Yeah, that’s my fear too. Another 6-3 in the offing.
And of course they also want to remain TAX EXEMPT despite their bigotry. Yet again another Christian group proves that they want one set of rules for themselves and another set of rules for everybody else. Yet they claim they are the most persecuted people in the country. What a fucking JOKE.
If SCOTUS rules in favor of the Catholics, I'm afraid that Colorado will have no choice but to rescind their funding. And EVERYBODY loses in the end.
𝑇ℎ𝑒 𝐹𝑖𝑟𝑠𝑡 𝐴𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑑𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡’𝑠 𝐹𝑟𝑒𝑒 𝐸𝑥𝑒𝑟𝑐𝑖𝑠𝑒 𝐶𝑙𝑎𝑢𝑠𝑒 𝑑𝑜𝑒𝑠 𝑛𝑜𝑡 𝑔𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝑎𝑛 𝑖𝑛𝑑𝑖𝑣𝑖𝑑𝑢𝑎𝑙 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑎𝑏𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑡𝑜 𝑎𝑣𝑜𝑖𝑑 𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑖𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒 𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ 𝑎 “𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑖𝑑 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑛𝑒𝑢𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑙 𝑙𝑎𝑤 𝑜𝑓 𝑔𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑙 𝑎𝑝𝑝𝑙𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑏𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑦.”
But that's exactly what the Christian Nazionalists want. They demand that the Free Exercise Clause be interpreted as overriding any laws that force them to play by the same rules as everyone else. And the only time they will agree that Free Exercise doesn't override generally applicable laws is when those laws restrict other religions.
To the RCC...
"Give to everyone what you owe them. Pay your taxes and government fees to those who collect them, and give respect and honor to those who are in authority."
Sound familiar? It should. It's from that book you take such stock in (Romans 13:7, to be precise). Why do you not do what your own book says?
Yor have to read it to know what is says.
Reading it could lead to certain …. inconveniences.
Yor? Is that short for Yorrick? And what does he have to do with this?
I ran out of u's, borrowed a r from Yorick.
Because that would put them in a subordinate position to a secular authority ... and they can't bear the thought of that.
While I don't think that any organization receiving taxpayer dollars should be permitted to discriminate like the RCC wants to... every child they turn away because they're wretched fücking bigots is one more child safe from the tender mercies of their clergy.
The Catholic church has more money than the state of Colorado. They should be offering their pre-school bigotry program for free.
They should be paying Colorado.
How much expensive real estate do they have in Colorado that isn't paying property taxes?
All of it.
The catholic church has more money than god.
That can be taken two ways.
But both mean basically the same.
They're keeping it safe for gawd.
𝑇ℎ𝑖𝑠 𝑏𝑎𝑛 𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑠 𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑠 𝑡𝑜 𝑐ℎ𝑜𝑜𝑠𝑒 𝑏𝑒𝑡𝑤𝑒𝑒𝑛 𝑝𝑎𝑦𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑜𝑢𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝑝𝑜𝑐𝑘𝑒𝑡 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝑓𝑎𝑖𝑡ℎ-𝑏𝑎𝑠𝑒𝑑 𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑐ℎ𝑜𝑜𝑙 𝑜𝑟 𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑒𝑖𝑣𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑎 𝑓𝑟𝑒𝑒 𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑐ℎ𝑜𝑜𝑙 𝑒𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑎𝑡 𝑎𝑛𝑦 𝑜𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝑝𝑟𝑖𝑣𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑠𝑐ℎ𝑜𝑜𝑙 𝑖𝑛 𝐶𝑜𝑙𝑜𝑟𝑎𝑑𝑜.
No, it doesn't. Unless your definition of "faith-based" means "conservative Catholic only" and excludes the faith of every other faith based group that follows the anti bigotry rule.
Something tells me that the Becket legal group would argue exactly that.
Because nothing says 'we love Jesus' quite so much as a lawsuit demanding taxpayer dollars to continue being a bigot.
We already know that the RCC usually operates schools mostly for two reasons: indoctrinating children and making money. I see no reason at all why the taxpayer should help with either one of these goals, religious or otherwise; it's not the job of government to prop up a failing business just because it's a church. This idea they seem to be promoting that bigotry should only run in the direction they dictate is ridiculous anyway; bigotry isn't a practice that promotes a healthy society for the future.
Prop up your own preschools RCC, particularly if you want to keep up the bigoted practices destructive to the public welfare you like so much.
I’m not up for anything subtle today. So I’ll just leave it at this
Skarew religion. At least the kind of religion that wants to assert that it is superior simply because it is the kind of religion that it is.
The Catholic Church still seems to think that the power that it arrogated to itself some 1600 years ago is still deserved and should be respected, mostly because ... well ... REASONS. To date, I'm not convinced that they've seen a reversal of that attitude sufficient enough to cause them to at least pause and reflect on their hubris and maybe consider a more humble attitude than the one they've projected since the 4th century. Worse, social inertia has been built around the concept of faith as a positive quality, which has been one of the primary bulwarks the Church has used against questions regarding its authority, and while some of that inertia has been chipped away, most of it remains.
What is desperately needed is something truly cataclysmic in terms of a reversal in the RCC, something that would make the priest child abuse scandal shrink by comparison. I can't think of what that might be (and the real shame is that it may not exist), but one way or another, the Catholic Church needs to be BROUGHT DOWN, its unearned and presumed authority stripped from it and its Emperor's-New-Clothes status exposed.
Just how that is done is left as an open discussion.
As much as the last two Popes have tried to polish up their creaky old Church's image for the 21st Century (well... the 20th, anyhow), you'd still need to be the worst kind of fool to believe even Fluffy or Bob wouldn't have happily resumed the Crusades and witch hunts given half a chance. They understand which side of history they're on, and that's about the kindest thing to be said about them.
𝑇ℎ𝑒𝑦 𝑤𝑎𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑡𝑜 𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑒𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝑡𝑎𝑥𝑝𝑎𝑦𝑒𝑟 𝑓𝑢𝑛𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑡 𝑔𝑖𝑣𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑢𝑝 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑖𝑟 𝑏𝑖𝑔𝑜𝑡𝑟𝑦.
𝗪𝗥𝗢𝗡𝗚!!! If ANY organization, religious or not, receives taxpayer dollars, they can either toe the line as it comes to their social behavior, or the bucks go bye-bye, faster than you can say, "Holy Mary, mother of god." If they are completely privately funded, they can do as they please (and be reprehensible at the same time).
Any other court, this one would be nine to zip against the RCC. These days? I'm not so sure.
If anyone were to practice actual bigotry on Christians, they'd scream bloody murder.
Snowflakes can't even handle what they perceive to be bigotry/persecution were they to be on the receiving end of that bigotry/persecution. They can dish it out. Taking it is a very different thing.