Bigotry is the state of mind of a bigot: someone who, as a result of their prejudices, treats other people with hatred, contempt, and intolerance on the basis of a person’s race, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, religion, language, socioeconomic status, or other status.

Prejudice refers to prejudgement: i.e. making a decision before becoming aware of the relevant facts of a case

I’m painfully aware of the facts of the case.  At least, those in the open.  I made my decision after gaining that awareness.  So I’m not prejudiced.  Which means I’m not a bigot.
My revulsion at the catastrophic actions and influences of the catholic church is reasonable, appropriate, predictable, and balanced.

“I’m not paranoid!”
“Yes you are”
“I am not”
“Then what are you worried about?”
“I’m not worried”
“You’re frowning.  You’re very worried”
“I’m not.  I’m angry”
“You look really anxious”
“What?!  Whatever, I’m outta here”
“I’m just saying.  You can’t even support your argument”

I suppose my only point is that this naked disgust is an ugly thing.

Why wouldn’t we be disgusted by an organization that operates like the Mafia, has institutionalized the cover-up of child rape from the highest levels and has massively increased the spread of AIDS in the Third World with its anti-condom programs?

In other words “it’s still bread and wine but I’m going to pretend otherwise.”

So… sort of like a dildo or a fleshlight.

So he was making the same point about uneven distribution, which is probably what confused me.

But you’re not going to mention the reasons for anti-Catholic paranoia in the US? Seems a little one-sided.

Is it always necessary to bring up the reasons for anti-_______ paranoia when noting prejudice against a religious or ethnic group?

Hey, I’ve seen those Puritan churches.  They weren’t nice people.

True, but as they taught me in elementary school, two wrongs do not make a right.

I suppose my only point is that this naked disgust is an ugly thing.  It can lead to outright bigotry, and it won’t convert anyone who truly believes this stuff.

“Curing Mortality” is a lot more far fetched than anything we have done in the history of man kind.

Not that it stops anyone from trying. Modern-day cryonics is just a rehashing of the Egyptian mummification process, and with similar odds of success.

Us having achieved extraordinary things is great, and I know we will continue to do so.  But “curing mortality” is a fairy tale.  EvilSpirit phrased it well.

Say what you will, but if you had to design a voter-fraud-proof electoral system, it would look a lot like a papal conclave.

“Touching young boys!”

“Owning a bank used by the mafia and arm-dealers the world over!”

“Opposing common sense on any science-based legislation!”

“Marginalizing social-justice campaigners in Latin America and supporting dictators in the region!”

“Letting Nazi officers escape!”

“Tax avoidance in multiple countries!”

“… I’m afraid you all got it wrong, the title was ‘Pope resigns for THE FIRST TIME IN CENTURIES. Let’s move on…”

THIS IS THE WAY THEY DO IT, and have ALWAYS done it!

From what I understand this is quite untrue.

(Seriously, if you can’t laugh at your religious rituals then you take them too seriously and you need to lighten up. See the story about the Catholic parish where the priest gave communion to a dog, for example. Guy got drummed out of the parish for doing something sweet, charming, and completely harmless. I’ll make fun of the sour-faced busybodies who got him removed, absolutely.)

Even the ones who swear to believe in it 100% buy into some Thomist/Platonist “the substance doesn’t transubstantiate but the essence does” bullshit.  In other words “it’s still bread and wine but I’m going to pretend otherwise.”

FTFY.

Interesting aside: those Christians who are least fundamentalist are most likely to take those symbols seriously.