Who will be the next Pope?

[Philosopher]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

Two men? Palpatine and Ratzinger? I guess the Emperor never harmed me, since he died long ago in a galaxy far far away.

As for Ratzinger, he's the Cardinal who tried to get John Kerry to be denied communion, so your scolding falls a bit flat.

Finally, any topic you're not allowed to joke about is also a topic you're not allowed to think about.

1) Come on, you know well I meant Popes John Paul II and Benedict (Ratzinger). You’re just trying to get my goat.

2) Let me try to illustrate why the second sentence makes no sense (except that it has been drummed into people by a brainwashing press and lots of people repeat it without thinking it out):

a) Suppose there was a Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Seals. Suppose the son of one of the founding members of this Society got it in his head that regardless of what the constitution, mission statement, and bylaws of this Society say, he would actually publicly go on TV and radio and ADVOCATE bashing baby seals' heads in, and in spite of months of warnings from the Board of the Society, continue to insist to identify himself as a member of that Society to the public.

Question: Would most organizations have at first privately called the man and asked him, if he was going to continue to advocate that position, to resign quietly and stop associating his name with their organization? When he refuses, and unabashedly continued, would warn him that their bylaws expressly forbids anyone (not just him) who advocates such a thing to come to meetings, and to please not do so? When he insists on showing up, with the press waiting outside, would they not refuse to accept him at the weekly banquet? For crying out loud, if they do, and are seen to be doing it to boot, would that press outside not question the very organizing principle of the organization? Would that organization not open itself to charges of defrauding its members whenever it fundraised? How can this be any clearer?

For Pete’s sake, it’s even clearer. It’s like a guy joining the Pistol Marksmen’s Guild of America and bringing a scoped match M14 rifle to his first competition, bringing the press with him, and insisting loudly and publicly on his right to use it in the match!

Now take Kerry vs the Catholic Church. The Code of Canon Law (internal legal code of the Church, designed to check against Popes abusing their administrative power vis a vis bishops and priests without diluting their ability to safeguard the body of the Faith) specifically says that no priest may deny communion to anyone UNLESS he is CERTAIN that person is in a state of mortal sin. No priest can ask you at the receiving line if you are or not in that state.

A Catholic knows that if he/she takes Communion in a state of unrepentant mortal sin, they are automatically excommunicating themselves. Nobody does it to them, they are doing it to themselves. But Mr. Kerry's face is so well known, and his stance on the mortal sin of abortion is ALSO so well known (because he trumpets it often enough), that by definition he is unrepentant, and also instantly recognizable to any priest. That leaves them no choice, if they are faithful to the Church. They must refuse him, or they themselves would be materially cooperating in sacrilege and be excommunicating themselves.

You see the problem? To force a priest to give him Communion is to destroy the very underpinnings of that Church. Its reason for existence vanishes. It has betrayed it's essence.

Now you can find flaky priests that would hem and haw and even violate Canon law. That happens everywhere. Because human beings are not only fallible, some are outright evil. And some have even entered seminaries with the express aim to weaken the Church from within and use it for their own ends. But the Magisterium of the Church CANNOT teach that as correct. Because it would cease to be what it is. It would be a lie. It would be defrauding itself.

And so, Kerry found himself one of those priests, and continued to receive Communion up to the election. I don't know what he's done since then. I pray that now that he is no longer running and the temptation of trying to gather or retain Catholic voters to his cause no longer matters, that he may have had a change of heart and repents. Ditto for the priest that enabled him. I wish them no harm, just for them to stop the sacrilege.

There are places of worship for people who do not believe that the Sacred Host is truly the body and blood of Christ. And who don't believe you have to have confessed your mortal sins to a priest and received absolution and intend to do your best to not recommit those sins before you can take Communion. Who dissent openly from the teaching of the Catholic Church.

They are called liberal Protestant churches. Nobody says that Kerry can't think for himself and choose what to believe. What we say is that he should be honest with himself and others and not call himself a Catholic. Call himself whatever denomination of Protestant will have him. That would be honest. If he continues to call himself a Catholic publicly while advocating positions like abortion, he is adding the sin of scandal to his existing sin of sacrilege, because there are Catholic Democrats, many of them children, who grow up either ignorant or dismissive of the Church's warning, who would look at their candidate and say, well, if he can do it, so can I, and that would contribute to the expansion of sacrilege to other souls, a much worse sin even than corrupting your own.

Be honest, Mr. Kerry. Change or accept what you are. For your sake, I hope the former. But if you won’t, then for our sake, the latter.

3) As to your final point being that anything you can’t joke about is something you aren’t allowed to think about, that’s a glib dismissal. What, are we not allowed to get indignant at carelessly disseminated outright falsehoods and outrages? Is anything and everything supposed to be a joke now?

Would you not take offense (and action) against a man slipping his hand up your wife’s skirt at a restaurant? What would you say to him if he defended himself by saying: "Hey, bud! Can’tcha take a joke?"

Come on now. You don’t really believe that, eh? You’re just being flip, right?

Look, man, I’m not here to toot my horn and make myself a target for everyone who has a beef against the Church or one of its faithful or not-so-faithful. Frankly, I should do more than I do. That’s my shame. But when I see the usual kind of trashing I see all the time, under the guise of "joking", heck, trying joking like that about anyone or anything Jewish, and see what happens.
I’m just sick of the double and triple standards.

I remain hopefully a new friend or at least a respected acquaintance,
and with no intent to offend, but not a patsy either.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Philosopher

1) Come on, you know well I meant Popes John Paul II and Benedict (Ratzinger). You’re just trying to get my goat.

I thought that was likely, but I looked through the thread and saw no ridiculing of JP2. That was my way of bringing that to the forefront.

But Mr. Kerry's face is so well known, and his stance on the mortal sin of abortion is ALSO so well known (because he trumpets it often enough),

Well, you don't seem to know it. He agrees with the Church that abortion is a sin, and he hasn't had or suggested that anyone have an abortion. However, he realizes that it is not a Catholic's duty to enforce Catholic law on non-Catholics. He believes that Catholics who have abortions should be excommunicated, not jailed.

3) As to your final point being that anything you can’t joke about is something you aren’t allowed to think about, that’s a glib dismissal. What, are we not allowed to get indignant at carelessly disseminated outright falsehoods and outrages?

I didn't see any, and I checked the thread twice.

Would you not take offense (and action) against a man slipping his hand up your wife’s skirt at a restaurant? What would you say to him if he defended himself by saying: "Hey, bud! Can’tcha take a joke?"

Which post in this thread plays the part of sexual assault in the analogy? Heck, I didn't even see any jokes about sexual assault, which would have been justified given the lack of any disciplinary action by and then against Cardinal Law, who spoke at the funeral.

I remain hopefully a new friend or at least a respected acquaintance,
and with no intent to offend, but not a patsy either.

Likewise, I'm sure. Take nothing I say personally.

[Philosopher]

Getting complicated, but I'm trying to answer every point. Here's the color key for all the quotes below.

Black=My words this post.
Blue=You quoting me from my previous post. My words.
Red=Quotes from your last post. Your words.
Orange=Quotes from other people in this thread that I am being forced to call attention to so you understand why a Catholic would be offended, since you claim that after several readings you found nothing objectionable. Other poster's words in orange.

[Originally Posted by Philosopher 1) Come on, you know well I meant Popes John Paul II and Benedict (Ratzinger). You’re just trying to get my goat.

I thought that was likely, but I looked through the thread and saw no ridiculing of JP2. That was my way of bringing that to the forefront.

I said the Faith, and the two men. Let’s see:

a) Juxtaposing (and ridicule by association, a long political cartoon practice, let’s not be naïve) JPII and Cent L wearing a Pope outfit)
b) Placing a crucifix right over Cent L’s crotch.
c) "Spread your tithes, Bitch" - nice. I hope the women on this forum appreciate that.
d) "Your Momma ain’t no virgin now" - deliberate swipe at the Virgin Mary, probable intimation of sexually assaulting a statue of Mary
e) "Nuns be fun" - alone, an innocent sentence. In this context, obviously means they are fun to screw around with.

That was just the opening post. Also….

a) "I nominate Bono. Since he didn't get the world bank gig, maybe he could head the church instead." Cute. Implying the Church is such an inconsequential, non-serious body that anyone, including a rock star, could/should run it..
b) Making an April Fool joke about the death of the best loved Pope in 500 years where his core men whack him. A man for whose funeral 5 million people showed up, an unprecedented event in history. That even newscasters and reporters who are known to normally pooh-pooh (at best) anything Christian, spoke about in tones of gratitude and/or respect. Try doing that regarding the death of Golda Meir, a political leader, and watch the fireworks directed at you sometime. As they should be, by the way, if you did.
c) "Well, now there is no ambiguity for Schiavo, so we had to move on to the next one." - Implying that the Pope was brain dead, and should or was put out of his misery deliberately by the Cardinals.
d) Comparing the Vatican to the Kremlin. Particularly galling comment since Lech Walesa, the head of the Polish Solidarity labor union, whose courageous stand against his own country’s Communist government, triggered the fall of the Soviet Union, and freed a couple of hundred million people from the boys who brought you the Gulags and the tender mercies of the Lubyanka, has stated repeatedly that 50% or more of that collapse was due to the help, funding, advice, and direct interventions of the Holy Father and his trusted aides at the Vatican, from the beginning of the organization. Do yourself a favor and read "The Black Book of Communism", written in France (and translated to English) by six very famous European men of the left to far left who were there, in and out of the Communist dominated zones, and tell the horror stories of the system they supported for decades. Have you noticed how nobody ever tells Polish jokes any more? <smile> In the seventies, they used to be VERY common. Not any more. And rightly so, for anyone with a clue about history and a little bit of shame left.
e) The picking of the spiritual leader of a quarter of Humanity described as something out of a Three Stooges show. A light one, to be sure, and eminently dismissable were it not with all the other stuff in post after post, it does add increase the blood pressure. To wit: "a process shrouded in mystery, which may or may not involve arm wrestling. A bunch of time will pass, and the Cardinals will amuse themselves by tossing different things, including leftover pasta from lunch, into the Very Sacred Furnace to see what color smoke comes out. When they accidentally get something that burns white smoke, they panic and draw straws to be able to decide who is really going to be the pope."
f) "The new low calorie communion wafer --- I CAN’T BELIEVE IT’S NOT JESUS!" Yeah, I guess we’re not ‘sposed to be offended by that either, nah… it really wasn’t meant to insult, nah…
g) And finally, the match-up side by sides of Pope Benedict XVI and the Star Wars evil Emperor. Nah… no bad intentions there either, right?

This enough for ya?

[Quote:
But Mr. Kerry's face is so well known, and his stance on the mortal sin of abortion is ALSO so well known (because he trumpets it often enough),
Well, you don't seem to know it. He agrees with the Church that abortion is a sin, and he hasn't had or suggested that anyone have an abortion. However, he realizes that it is not a Catholic's duty to enforce Catholic law on non-Catholics. He believes that Catholics who have abortions should be excommunicated, not jailed.

Ah! Now Kerry’s an authority on who should or should not be excommunicated? Who made him Pope? If he were to say, correctly, that the Church teaches that abortion is not only a sin, but the sin of murder, and then says that it’s not up to Catholics to enforce it on others IF the law permits it, but it IS up to Catholics to speak up against it, just like they can, like anyone else speak out on anything, that would be one thing.

But that’s not what he says. By saying that he believes Catholics who have abortions should be excommunicated, not jailed, he is saying that he doesn’t believe it’s murder, and that he will side with those who want it to continue to be the law of the land. And it is THAT that is an untenable Catholic position. If you hold it, and are unrepentant, and would actually aid those who want to continue it, then you are automatically excommunicating yourself as a Catholic. By all means, be honest with yourself, and go campaign away, but call yourself what you are. And that is NOT a Catholic.

What a Catholic is required to do is to vote his conscience (like everyone else) and have it re-declared murder. And if enough Americans do that (bless our allies in this, the Evangelicals especially, but many mainline Protestants as well) for taking a principled stand on such an important issue, we might change that. And like any Americans, we are entitled to politically argue and persuade people to our viewpoint. Or are we somehow different from other Americans, that you believe we should be muzzled?

Quote:
3) As to your final point being that anything you can’t joke about is something you aren’t allowed to think about, that’s a glib dismissal.

Your entire second post to me is a perfect example of glib dismissal. You expect me to believe you missed all the points mentioned above? You are not arguing in good faith, Sir. Do you think people would get away with saying stuff like that about women, blacks, gays, or Jewish people? Hmmm?

Quote:
Would you not take offense (and action) against a man slipping his hand up your wife’s skirt at a restaurant? What would you say to him if he defended himself by saying: "Hey, bud! Can’tcha take a joke?"

Which post in this thread plays the part of sexual assault in the analogy?

You take me for a fool, Sir? This is a straw man argument. You misdirect the intent, and then knock it down. You know perfectly well I used that as an example of how your comment about "if we can’t joke about stuff, it means we’re not being allowed to think about it." I repeat what I said right before using the example to illustrate my statement: "What, are we not allowed to get indignant at carelessly disseminated outright falsehoods and outrages?" Then I used the example to illustrate that there are certain things few men would allow as material for joking about. And that that is as it should be. And the list of them, some much worse than others, of course, but all deliberate digs, I printed above to show you and others.

Heck, I didn't even see any jokes about sexual assault, which would have been justified given the lack of any disciplinary action by and then against Cardinal Law, who spoke at the funeral.

Oh, yeah? Missed this one, did you? "Nothing But Yet"’s post said:

"Rome is with you on the penguins, but the first Papal Bull will be quite clear on the subject: it's Nasty habits and No names."

And as you well know, Cardinal Law lost his Archbishopry, and was given a ceremonial post in Rome, with no supervisory function over any priests.

On the other hand, if 4% of an organization (perceived as having deep pockets and easy to embarrass) gets accused (not indicted, mind you, just accused) of molestation, is it OK to slander not only the unproven cases, but also the innocent other 96%, AND their flocks with it? Let’s hope you never wind up with a family member either pulling something like that or just getting accused of it. Then we’ll see how you feel when people like you start talking behind your back about ALL your family being that way.

Quote:
I remain hopefully a new friend or at least a respected acquaintance, and with no intent to offend, but not a patsy either.
Likewise, I'm sure. Take nothing I say personally.

Likewise. Correct the injustices you hear, don’t commit injustice yourself in the process. That’s what we are taught. We may not always achieve it, being human, but you’ll agree it’s a good target to teach to.

[wolf]

This is clearly an issue about which you are quite passionate.

I can appreciate that.

However, I respectfully suggest that you lighten up.

Black humor and satire are tools wielded with ruthless efficiency here. Not that you should expect that.

[Philosopher]

Be glad to, Wolf. I've been told my humor runs that way too.

But then I take that to mean that it's not just about us Catholics, or even Christians, right?

That I should easily be able to find many threads like this one trashing other beliefs and persuasions here with such glee?

I hope you're right.

People used to talk openly like this about Jews in Germany in the 20's and 30's.

And I don't much relish the idea of going back to the lion wrestling days, this time around at Yankee Stadium. Or being somebody's human candle. 'Cause that's how that shit starts.

But fine, I'll let it go.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Philosopher

But then I take that to mean that it's not just about us Catholics, or even Christians, right?

That I should easily be able to find many threads like this one trashing other beliefs and persuasions here with such glee?

It's generally restricted to the religions that attempt to make their religion policy for those who don't share their faith. So, since this is a US-based board, Christians will statistically be the most frequent subject. But it's certainly not restricted to Catholics.

I actually did not know that Cardinal Law lost his Archbishopry, and I apologise for that. As for the other quotes, like the ones in yellow, keep in mind:

You do not have the right not to be offended; you have the ability.

[Philosopher]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

You do not have the right not to be offended; you have the ability.

True, true. And also, one does not HAVE to be an anti-religious bigot; one only has the opportunity. {grin}

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Got what you said on Cardinal Law. <nods>
And you could have retorted that it should have happened faster than it did.
And I would have agreed with you. <nods again>
------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the interest of introducing some people to a possibly refreshing angle on all this, here are some other little known facts that never come out in the usual media or even most college courses. The kind of things people THINK they know about and really don't:

More priests and nuns were slaughtered (and I mean REALLY slaughtered) in the first two years in EACH of the French (1789), Mexican (1917), and Spanish (1936) revolutions by the virulently anti-clerical socialist, communist, and anarchist Enlightenment mobs, than in the entire 400 year history of the Spanish Inquisition. And thats not counting the civilians who were slaughtered trying to defend those priests and nuns.

Yet over and over again, like a drumbeat, all you hear about is the Black Legend of the Spanish Inquisition of the Catholic Church. Stop and think. Why is that? Food for thought.....

------------------------------------------------------------------------
(I yank the following two quotes from Wikipedia, just because it was easily available. The good scholarly stuff is in the footnoted textbooks at the end of each article.)

The Spanish Inquisition, or "Oh no, not the comfy chair!" About 125,000 people were tried by church tribunals as suspected heretics in Spain, but of these only about 1,200 - 2,000 were actually sentenced to the death penalty, as latest scientific research has found out - the rest were either warned or wholly judged innocent and acquitted.

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

Let us also remember that the Church itself did not carry out the executions. What happened was that the Crown, after expelling the Muslims, started to clean house of those who had collaborated with the Muslim occupation, many of whom, but by no means all, had been Jewish. (Another little known fact: By the time of the fall of the last Muslim bastion in Spain, Granada, in January of 1492, 80% of the population of the city was Jewish. They had fled the Spanish armies advance, fearing retribution for collaboration and were now trapped in the city siege. Upon the fall of the city, the Catholic Spaniards, fearing possible espionage and subversion considering their past experience, offered the Jews a last chance. Convert, or leave. This became the last final wave of the great Sephardic Diaspora throughout the Mediterranean and the near East. But for those that converted and stayed, if they were caught practicing Judaism secretly, it was assumed their word could not be trusted and that they were likely to be subversive if the Muslims were ever able to mount another invasion. And those would wind up at the Inquisition as recanters. )

Of course, once they started to run out of the initial legitimate cases, greed started to raise it's ugly head, and local nobles and the Crown started accusing innocents for private gain. These in turn started appealing to the Church for justice until finally she demanded to have all cases involving heresy or religious charges be turned over to the Inquisition for the trial, not the sentencing and punishment, which remained in the hands of the Crown.

Hilariously, recent research has also found that because of its reputation as being far fairer in its judgements than medieval civil courts, common criminals routinely broke out in foul and heretical language when caught (I can't but crack up at visualizing what this must have looked and sounded like) , in order to deliberately force a transfer of their cases to the Inquisition. I read this in a report on a recent academic monograph by an Oxford University/(and several Ivy League U's) joint Anglican-Catholic multi-year study on the Spanish Inquisition that was given unprecedented access to the archives in Spain and Rome. They are apparently going to publish any time now. Can't wait...

Black Legend in the United States of America

"In his book Tree of Hate, Philip Wayne Powell wrote that the United States of America inherited the Black Legend from the British colonization of the Americas."

The American historian William S. Maltby says in his book The Black Legend in England (1982): "As many other Americans, I had absorbed the anti-Hispanism from movies and folkloric literature much before this prejudice was contrasted from a different point of view in the works of competent historians, what was a big surprise for me; When I succeeded to know the work of the Hispanists, my curiosity had no limits. The Hispanists have always blamed the enemies of Spain for the tergiversation of the historic facts and the current worldwide prejudice against Spain."

"Some people feel that the United States mass media and government have propagated the legend."

"They allege that there exists clear evidence of the Black Legend in modern literature, movies, and web sites, such as in Dan Brown’s The Da Vinci Code and Steven Spielberg's Amistad. On the other side, the pirates of the Caribbean who used to attack defenseless Spanish merchant ships are turned into romantic and idealistic figures."

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

.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Philosopher

True, true. And also, one does not HAVE to be an anti-religious bigot; one only has the opportunity. {grin}

I am only anti theocracy. I am non religious.<nods><nods again="">

Yet over and over again, like a drumbeat, all you hear about is the Black Legend of the Spanish Inquisition of the Catholic Church. Stop and think. Why is that? Food for thought.....

"They didn't actually kill as many as you'd think" is not a wonderful apologia for the Inquisition. Whether they got a conviction or not, their methods of trying someone were bad enough. And I certainly don't trust their definition of "collaboration", especially if the punishment is "convert or die."
</nods></nods>

[richlevy]

I think that Philosopher is taking his guidence from the fact that in 2004, the Vatican released a study clarifying that the Inquisition was not as bad as everyone thought.

The study was released shortly after the Vatican released a statement that the sex abuse scandal was overstated.

Of the 235,000 Jews in Spain in 1492, 165,000 were estimated to have emigrated, 50,000 were estimated to have been baptized, and 20,000 were estimated to have perished while fleeing.

Someone should have told them that everything was really ok and they just misunderstood the intentions of their inquisitors, who were really just spiritual counselors.

From here

Everybody has a suggestion but nobody really knows the number of victims purged by the Inquisition in the time of Torquemada. Thousands, tens of thousands, and perhaps more, were given punishments ranging from small fines to life imprisonment. Early in the nineteenth century, the secretary of the Spanish Inquisition, Juan Antonio Llorente, defected to France with a cartload of documents. Soon after, he published at Paris an unsympathetic history of that organization, which the Faithful still denounce today as a pack of lies. Among other unkind cuts was the author's announcement that Torquemada and his men had burned upwards of nine thousand persons at the stake in eight years. The "spiteful exaggerations" of Llorente have been revised downward and some of Torquemada's modern friends assure us that (a) he really burned only two thousand human beings, and (b) the actual execution of the death sentence was performed by the secular arm of the government, for "the Church does not shed blood." Without venturing further into this swamp of statistics and dialectics, we may reasonably guess that (a) burning accounted for some five percent of the total, and (b) that Torquemada took a lively interest in the proceedings.

Even articles which appear to conceded that no accurate totals can be made do not deny the link to the holy see.

From here

(4) Historical Analysis

The Spanish Inquisition deserves neither the exaggerated praise nor the equally exaggerated vilification often bestowed on it. The number of victims cannot be calculated with even approximate accuracy; the much maligned autos-da-fé were in reality but a religious ceremony (actus fidei); the San Benito has its counterpart in similar garbs elsewhere; the cruelty of St. Peter Arbues, to whom not a single sentence of death can be traced with certainty, belongs to the realms of fable. However, the predominant ecclesiastical nature of the institution can hardly be doubted. The Holy See sanctioned the institution, accorded to the grand inquisitor canonical installation and therewith judicial authority concerning matters of faith, while from the grand inquisitor jurisdiction passed down to the subsidiary tribunals under his control. Joseph de Maistre introduced the thesis that the Spanish Inquisition was mostly a civil tribunal; formerly, however, theologians never questioned its ecclesiastical nature. Only thus, indeed, can one explain how the Popes always admitted appeals from it to the Holy See, called to themselves entire trials and that at any stage of the proceedings, exempted whole classes of believers from its jurisdiction, intervened in the legislation, deposed grand inquisitors, and so on. (See TOMÁS DE TORQUEMADA.)

So even if the actual number of deaths was smaller than the worst estimates, we still have the issue of institutionally sanctioned conversion by the sword. Personally, threatening families in order to convert them and actually attempting to execute them doesn't really seem like much of a distinction to me.

The whole 'It wasn't really the official church that committed most of the atrocities' argument also doesn't work. As Philosopher is quick to point out, the Catholic church is a very strict organization whose members are expected to obey church authority. There are not supposed to be any 'rogue Catholics'. I have not heard of any mass excommunications of individuals participating in the Inquistions, therefore it was a sanctioned event.

Originally posted by Philosopher
But that’s not what he says. By saying that he believes Catholics who have abortions should be excommunicated, not jailed, he is saying that he doesn’t believe it’s murder, and that he will side with those who want it to continue to be the law of the land. And it is THAT that is an untenable Catholic position. If you hold it, and are unrepentant, and would actually aid those who want to continue it, then you are automatically excommunicating yourself as a Catholic. By all means, be honest with yourself, and go campaign away, but call yourself what you are. And that is NOT a Catholic.

Basically, by attempting to downplay the damage caused by the Inquisition, and it's role in actively encouraging or at least failing to discourage the process for hundreds of years, the church is attempting the greatest handwashing since Pontius Pilate stuck his hands in the sink.

[Undertoad]

What I would say to Catholics: "The new low calorie communion wafer --- I CAN’T BELIEVE IT’S NOT JESUS!"

Why I would say that: My position is that their beliefs are SILLY, and I want to TAUNT them with HUMOR.

What Catholics would say to me: "You are part of the basic evil of the world, and when you die you are going to SUFFER ETERNAL TORMENT AND PAIN."

Why they would say that: their position is that my beliefs are HERETICAL, and they want to STOP me.

Which statement is more offensive?

[Philosopher]

[shakes head in pain]

Film at Eleven.