this post was submitted on 09 Feb 2024
963 points (97.0% liked)

World News

39165 readers
2167 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- People who act shocked that a priest would bless a gay couple but have no problem with him blessing a crooked businessman are hypocrites, Pope Francis said.

“The most serious sins are those that are disguised with a more ‘angelic’ appearance. No one is scandalized if I give a blessing to an entrepreneur who perhaps exploits people, which is a very serious sin. Whereas they are scandalized if I give it to a homosexual -- this is hypocrisy,” he told the Italian magazine Credere.

The interview was scheduled for publication Feb. 8, but Vatican News reported on some of its content the day before when the magazine issued a press release about the interview.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] uis@lemmy.world 14 points 9 months ago (1 children)

and people can't expect it to just go away completely.

At least 79% went away. Only 1% of my country's population visited churches for christmas. For 20% of people who claim to belive in something other than sky fossil I have no data.

[–] Zeroxxx@lemmy.id -1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Your puny country does not represent the whole world.

[–] SreudianFlip@sh.itjust.works 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Millions of people is a pretty good dataset for statistical reliability. That country can be considered a useful example of what's possible.

[–] Zeroxxx@lemmy.id 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

No. One country is not diverse enough.

[–] SreudianFlip@sh.itjust.works 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Why not? What are your assumptions about diversity in the context of the range of emotions and political tendencies?

[–] Zeroxxx@lemmy.id 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

How is this case political?

Again, one country's population does not represent 7 billion people. That is a fact. Those who say otherwise should check their math's grade.

[–] SreudianFlip@sh.itjust.works 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Is it a fact because you want it to be, or are you some kind of statistics savant? It doesn't represent the planet anthropologically, but it does psychologically, and whether it is possible for a population to drop organized religion is about brains not tradition.

[–] Zeroxxx@lemmy.id 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Small part*.

Like I said, like a broken record, statistics need to be representative.

This case you brought up, is not.

[–] SreudianFlip@sh.itjust.works 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Yes, it is, psychologically. You only need a few thousand to be highly accurate.

Individuals can drop attachments to organized religion. The example given, if true, can be seen as evidence. If you are making an anthropological argument that there's a fundamental and practically immutable psychological difference between societies, you should say so, and address the occasional rapid shifts in social structures evident in modern history.

So far, you merely assert, with no explanation about your terms of reference.

[–] Zeroxxx@lemmy.id 1 points 9 months ago

Lol yeah you wish.

Have fun with your delusion, you clearly know nothing about statistics.

This is my last message, bye.