Definitely some odd choices here. Condemns the main abuser to a life-time of penance and prayer and then totally dismisses any claims that the abuser’s protege may have seen the abuse.

It does seem he eventually changed his tune, but not before seriously harming his credibility on the issue.

In April, the pope publicly acknowledged that he had erred in handling the situation, saying he had made “serious mistakes” — and summoning Chile’s bishops to an emergency meeting in Rome. Francis said he had misjudged Barros and the events in Chile because he hadn’t been given “truthful and balanced information.”

In May, all of Chile’s 31 active bishops offered to resign their posts, issuing a statement in which they asked forgiveness and apologized for “the grave errors and omissions that we committed.”

https://www.npr.org/2018/06/11/618825779/pope-francis-accepts-resignations-of-3-bishops-over-chilean-abuse-scandal

No, that is called having an adult conversation where we acknowledge reality and then discuss how to fix it, or in this case how it is already being worked on.

Sexual abuse happens in virtually every organization. The main issue is how it is dealt with. The catholic church has a long issue of dealing with issues internally, but this was definitely one that was not being handled correctly. Francis has made it clear that he is willing to face the issue head-on now that he has the power.

We do not have to turn a blind eye to their past mistakes, but we should also acknowledge what they are actually doing to work on those mistakes instead of spreading misinformation about them still hiding from it.

top ignoring and turning away the victims of your priest’s rape and abuse

Same list as I dropped on your other post. Took like 30 seconds in a web-search to call that claim into serious doubt. Also, I searched for him turning away sexual abuse victims and found nothing.

Monday’s meeting between Francis and the six victims of church sexual abuse was not the first such meeting between a pontiff and survivors, but it was the first of Francis’ papacy.

2014 - https://www.cnn.com/2014/07/07/world/pope-clerical-sex-abuse/

“God weeps” for the sexual abuse of children, Pope Francis said Sunday in Philadelphia, after meeting with victims of sexual abuse.

2015 - https://www.cnn.com/2015/09/27/us/pope-francis-sex-abuse-victims/index.html

Pope Francis said he regularly meets with victims of sexual abuse on Fridays, and that while the percentage of priests who abuse is relatively low, even one is too many.

2018 - https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/37774/pope-francis-regularly-meets-with-abuse-victims-on-fridays

In the evening of the same day, Pope Francis held an audience with Portugese victims of sexual abuse by the Catholic Church.

2023 - https://www.foxnews.com/world/pope-francis-holds-private-meetings-sex-abuse-victims-ukrainian-pilgrims

Every time the pope has turned them away and refused to even acknowledge their existence

Where did you hear that? These articles seem to say the opposite.

Monday’s meeting between Francis and the six victims of church sexual abuse was not the first such meeting between a pontiff and survivors, but it was the first of Francis’ papacy.

2014 - https://www.cnn.com/2014/07/07/world/pope-clerical-sex-abuse/

“God weeps” for the sexual abuse of children, Pope Francis said Sunday in Philadelphia, after meeting with victims of sexual abuse.

2015 - https://www.cnn.com/2015/09/27/us/pope-francis-sex-abuse-victims/index.html

Pope Francis said he regularly meets with victims of sexual abuse on Fridays, and that while the percentage of priests who abuse is relatively low, even one is too many.

2018 - https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/37774/pope-francis-regularly-meets-with-abuse-victims-on-fridays

In the evening of the same day, Pope Francis held an audience with Portugese victims of sexual abuse by the Catholic Church.

2023 - https://www.foxnews.com/world/pope-francis-holds-private-meetings-sex-abuse-victims-ukrainian-pilgrims

It sounds an awful like you are saying, “Well yeah, we are bigots, but we are bigots because they deserve it!”

Am I misunderstanding you?

as evidence for what Christianity in the US is like is intentionally misleading

If I was trying to claim that is that standard view, then it would be misleading. Since I was actually claiming that there are a wide variety of beliefs among Christians, some even aligning with your values, it is pretty spot on representation. Treating them all the same is prejudicial behavior.

A fair-minded person would give an individual a chance to act like an asshole before treating them like trash.

There is a difference between attacking someone who chooses a disgusting belief system and bigotry.

Bigotry is thinking, what I believe is right and everyone who believes differently is wrong.

To point at all varieties of Christianity and say, “you are bad,” is being bigoted.

Now go restore Roe v. Wade or you are useless to me.

If you want someone useful here are some people that agree with you and will help you fight, assuming you can manage to not call their belief system disgusting to their faces:

Rev. Angela Williams, a Presbyterian pastor and the lead organizer of SACReD: Spiritual Alliance of Communities for Reproductive Dignity, told Healthline that faith leaders and religious groups that support abortion rights have been preparing for this moment for a long time.

https://www.healthline.com/health-news/meet-the-religious-groups-fighting-to-save-abortion-access

Members of the Episcopal Church (79%) and the United Church of Christ (72%) are especially likely to support legal abortion, while most members of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) and the mainline Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (65%) also take this position.

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2018/01/22/american-religious-groups-vary-widely-in-their-views-of-abortion/

It is unfortunate that you think so, there is a lot of wisdom in the various world religions.

We may be beyond the need for religion, but I doubt even that.

I have done and will continue to call out racial and homophobic bigotry as quickly as I do religious bigotry.

Unfortunately, as shameful as it is, one of those forms of prejudice is supported by most of the active population here.

Excuse me, but your bigotry is hanging out. Would you mind zipping up?

Nice false dichotomy.

I am someone that believes that for a democracy or republic to function that sometimes we have to sit down with people that we rather punch than talk to and find the few things we both agree on.

It is bad enough to marginalize small groups, but any political view that is advocating marginalizing half of society is the real enemy and should be fought against by all free people.

When you name yourself @Burn_The_Right, you make it clear whether you are targeting a specific group or everyone in a certain political direction.

When you make statements like:

Biden is a neo-liberal. Neo-liberals are conservatives. They are better dressed and more intelligent, but they are conservatives by all international measures.

Or dismiss 40-year democrats as conservatives:

Who are you calling “we”? A quick check of your comment history shows you are a conservative.

You make it clear whether you mean a single group or everyone who doesn’t share your brand of liberalism.

Combined with:

Conservatism is the biggest threat to humanity on planet earth. All means to extinguish an infestation are justified.

or this gem: Edit: fixed broken link.

Not everyone is willing to do what’s necessary to cure the disease. I am willing. If that makes me a monster, then I am the monster they themselves created.

Conservatism is a plague of oppression and death.

You can pretend that you are not an intolerant bigot advocating for mass-murder, but your own words betray you.

Reading through the constant fountain of hate that you spew in your comments makes it clear just how big of a problem Lemmy has right now. The vast majority of you comments are pushing for at least two-thirds of society to be “extinguished”.

I have seen whole instances defederated for having a user say less violent and bigoted things than your comments do.

Is this the centrist part, where some violence is ok?

Marginalize hate by becoming hate.

Teaching children to hate, especially dogmatic hate, is disgusting even when one’s stance is morally correct. If a stance is just, then by teaching children ethics and critical thinking they will come to the correct conclusion on their own. When one uses the exact same playbook as the worst parts of the group they hate, they become the worst part of the group they represent.

Since some people don’t seem to realize what a bigot actually is:

bigot - bĭg′ət - noun - One who is strongly partial to one’s own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

Edit: Phrasing, mostly replacing the word “you” with generic pronouns.

Glad you enjoyed the edit. I am doubly glad someone actually read all that, even though it was mostly irrelevant. 🙃

Edit: Wrote this whole wall of text about Mexico being conquered. Posted. Then came back to check if I had answered your question correctly. Realized you weren’t even talking about Mexico being conquered. Meh… I am leaving it.

It doesn’t matter if Mexico is ripe for conquering. There is no appetite for conquering Mexico by any major portion of the US. The reasons are many and complex, but I can think of six major ones off the top of my head.

First, the general perception of most Americans is that there isn’t much of interest in Mexico except pretty beaches, cheap drinks, and Aztec/Mayan architecture. All of which are already currently accessible to Americans.

Second, it would be expensive, there are a lot of aspects of Mexico that would need complete overhaul to begin to match US regulations and expectations. Many existing states would demand the Federal government pay to bring them up to code, the expense of which would end up being footed by the American people.

2.1: The expense couldn’t even be passed on to the Mexican states through taxes since they would almost certainly be brought in as territories. US territories and their populations have no voting power in the federal government but also have no Federal taxes because of our history with Britain. “Taxation without representation” and all that. More on Territories in the third segment.

2.2: Cleaning up the cartels would be a huge expensive mess under the American legal system and would like cause even more oppressive laws to be implemented to the detriment of current US citizens.

Third, voting and politics, Mexico’s 31 states would have to be added into the US in some fashion. Even if they started as territories, the population of many of them are too great to leave them in that status quo for long. Bringing in new states would be a huge issue and quite possible would help push us to civil war, like last time we added a bunch of states. Pre-Civil War new states were added in pairs; one slave state, one free state. Something like that would need to happen again. Neither Democrats nor Republicans would allow a new state to be brought in that gained the other side a majority.

Fourth, the people of Mexico are pretty different demographically from most of the US, not just in culture, language, and skin color, but also in the variety of religion or non-religion practiced. (This was the largest paragraph but it was getting way into the weeds so I pared it down.)

Fifth, would have to be an open travel, outsider, racism, etc issue. Whatever you want to call it, the Supreme Court has upheld the right of any American to move to any other part of America freely and many of the newly joined citizens would want to utilize it. There is a clear majority (currently) of Americans that think we have an issues with too many immigrants. Even people who are vehemently against Trump’s wall may support decreasing immigration. Absorbing Mexico would be throwing open the flood-gates in the eyes of those who want to slow immigration down.

Sixth, American relations with the International community. Any way you spin it, an offensive war to conquer more territory would be viewed poorly by our allies, and used as justification to increase expansionism by our adversaries. Most Americans have no stomach for continuing to be viewed as colonial, or the consequences of such an action, even if we wouldn’t mind some of the benefits.

Not sure. I only have a vague memory of it.

It shows up more than once, but I think the first time is shortly after the girl goes to see Picard. Probably episode 2 or 3. There were workers and machines in the fields and I remember thinking, why even have the people if the machines beam the grapes right off the vines?

I think of it like a homemade carrot cake versus a store bought individually wrapped slice.

Technically that factory made carrot cake is perfect every time. It is the same recipe, color, and quality as the one next to it and the one you bought last year. That said I would nearly always prefer a homemade or bakery made carrot cake more. Nothing wrong with grabbing the “perfect” one in a pinch, but it is missing something that I can’t quite describe. Maybe it is a more generic recipe, or maybe it is the preservatives, but there is a difference.

What did I do to deserve this treatment?

No Jamaharon for the rest of the day!