With enemies like the new Pope...

by Idéfix Wed Mar 13, 2013 6:50 pm

... advocates of marriage equality in Argentina did not need a lot of friends.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/lesterfeder/pope-francis-brings-lessons-of-argentinas-marriage-fight-to

Bergoglio is a strong defender of the church's position on the marriage issue. His militancy in the campaign against Argentina's "Equal Marriage Law" in 2010 was so tone-deaf that many observers credit him with helping the law pass. But the mistakes his church made in combatting the law—and the tack it has taken since—may suggest the new Pope Francis will be savvier about guiding the church in opposing marriage in countries headed in that direction.

Bergoglio was Argentina's top bishop during the fight over the marriage law. One of the major turning points in the debate came when a letter he'd written to a group of nuns explaining opposition to the law was made public. The rhetoric seemed so out of touch with Argentina's largely secular population that it marginalized the church even further in the debate.

by Obnoxious Thu Mar 14, 2013 12:40 pm

Gays will rot in hell, so will you if you support them!

May the god help you see the light!

by doofus_maximus Thu Mar 14, 2013 12:44 pm

Lol @ the pope Francis visiting SuCH.

by Propagandhi711 Thu Mar 14, 2013 1:01 pm

what's his position on obama?

by indophile Thu Mar 14, 2013 2:00 pm

Reminds me of the Adi Shakaracharya story. When Shankara defeated Mandana Mishra in debate, Mishra's wife Udaya Bharati challenged Shankara to debate with her. Her opening salvo was on physical relationships. Shankara disqualified himself from the debate proclaiming that, being a sanyasin, he had no experience in those matters, and if given some time he would come back and rejoin the debate.
He was given a one year time. And the story goes that he found a place where a young king died, and Shankara's spirit entered his dead body, gained just enough experience for a year, and came back and won the debate.
So the idea was that you should not talk about a subject if you have no familaririty with it.

by Propagandhi711 Thu Mar 14, 2013 2:18 pm

indophile wrote:Reminds me of the Adi Shakaracharya story. When Shankara defeated Mandana Mishra in debate, Mishra's wife Udaya Bharati challenged Shankara to debate with her. Her opening salvo was on physical relationships. Shankara disqualified himself from the debate proclaiming that, being a sanyasin, he had no experience in those matters, and if given some time he would come back and rejoin the debate.
He was given a one year time. And the story goes that he found a place where a young king died, and Shankara's spirit entered his dead body, gained just enough experience for a year, and came back and won the debate.
So the idea was that you should not talk about a subject if you have no familaririty with it.

terrible idea...90% of ppl in this world make their living talking abt things they have no clue about. this is why I think hinduism is not suited for modern times - they teach desis to be humble, eat leaves and turning the other cheek etc which is what puts us at a disadvantage compared to rishi's whites.

by Idéfix Thu Mar 14, 2013 2:34 pm

indophile wrote:Reminds me of the Adi Shakaracharya story. When Shankara defeated Mandana Mishra in debate, Mishra's wife Udaya Bharati challenged Shankara to debate with her. Her opening salvo was on physical relationships. Shankara disqualified himself from the debate proclaiming that, being a sanyasin, he had no experience in those matters, and if given some time he would come back and rejoin the debate.
He was given a one year time. And the story goes that he found a place where a young king died, and Shankara's spirit entered his dead body, gained just enough experience for a year, and came back and won the debate.
So the idea was that you should not talk about a subject if you have no familaririty with it.

There is an Urdu poem that refers to the regular warnings that Islamic scholars give the faithful against drinking alcohol. The poet says, "the scholar speaks out of ignorance, ask him if he ever had a drop of the stuff himself!"

by garam_kuta Thu Mar 14, 2013 2:46 pm

trofimov wrote:
indophile wrote:Reminds me of the Adi Shakaracharya story. When Shankara defeated Mandana Mishra in debate, Mishra's wife Udaya Bharati challenged Shankara to debate with her. Her opening salvo was on physical relationships. Shankara disqualified himself from the debate proclaiming that, being a sanyasin, he had no experience in those matters, and if given some time he would come back and rejoin the debate.
He was given a one year time. And the story goes that he found a place where a young king died, and Shankara's spirit entered his dead body, gained just enough experience for a year, and came back and won the debate.
So the idea was that you should not talk about a subject if you have no familaririty with it.
There is an Urdu poem that refers to the regular warnings that Islamic scholars give the faithful against drinking alcohol. The poet says, "the scholar speaks out of ignorance, ask him if he ever had a drop of the stuff himself!"

And one that 's vowed to stay a brahmachari shouldn't enter a contest where the bounty is a woman to marry.

by Sponsored content

Hitskin.com

With enemies like the new Pope...

With enemies like the new Pope...

Re: With enemies like the new Pope...

Re: With enemies like the new Pope...

Re: With enemies like the new Pope...

Re: With enemies like the new Pope...

Re: With enemies like the new Pope...

Re: With enemies like the new Pope...

Re: With enemies like the new Pope...

Re: With enemies like the new Pope...