In today's competitive world it may be appropriate to poach customers from a rival franchise. Pope Mohammed??

One should be tolerant and respectful of all people and their beliefs.

Unless they're Christian, conservative, white, or traditional in any way. Then they are free game, obviously.

Oh the hardships of the oppressed white man. My heart bleeds for you.

"The White Man's Burden" is a heavy one for sure...yep...

So you disagree with my first sentence--that one should be tolerant and respectful of all people and their beliefs. There is a caveat on that principle. Good to know.

I can be critical of people who I believe are worthy of my criticism. I can parody and satire public figures of immense power and fame. Yes, I think I can do those things.

Just as I think the Popes have shown little respect for very many people, I can express how little respect I have for them. I didn't call you a fucking moron for defending him or crying about the plight of the white man. I'm not insulting you as a person. I'm also not suggesting that someone ought to murder the next pope and every one that comes after him. I merely pointing out what I think is wrong with him.

Get over it.

If you think Your Leader is beyond reprimand then, well, that's the scariest idea of all.

I'm the first to defend free speech. I enjoy parody of the rich and powerful, but I've noticed that it is only the religious, the traditional, and the conservative who seem to get the mockery nowadays (and plenty of it is deserved), and oddly enough those aren't the real elites anymore. Nowadays the secular, the left-wing, and the "progressive" are on top, but somehow they are immune to parody.

And most of what this thread has been either mean-spirited, juvenile, or ignorant. You want to mock--make it funny, and make it accurate.

It was accurate. Disturbingly so.

And perhaps you only notice the mocking of the right wing Christians because that's the only mocking you're sensitive to. If you really think that non-Christian, visible minorities are the ruling elite in the West then I'm not quite sure what to tell you.

In my country, we have a right wing Christian leader. In your country, you have an even more right wing Christian leader (though perhaps not as right wing and white as you'd like).
Your religious leader is right wing and white. I'm not sure who you think the elites are anymore.

Peter II

Has Pope Palpatine been suggested yet?

Player, interesting observation. I see a parallel between an age when it was not permissible to speak out against the doctrines of the church or criticize the king. Even when I was young, people were not supposed to criticize the government. Politicians yes, the government no. Weird.

Barack Obama is a secular humanist.

And extremely liberal.

"Barack Obama is a secular humanist."
As a secular humanist myself, I'd like to believe you. Do you have any statements from him about his religion that might begin to back up your assertion?

I find it difficult to label someone as a Secular Humanist who says things like:
"... there's something about the resurrection -- something about the resurrection of our savior, Jesus Christ, that puts everything else in perspective."
and
"In the wake of failures and disappointments I've questioned what God had in store for me and been reminded that God's plans for us may not always match our own short-sighted desires."
and
"... the Son of Man was not to be found in his tomb and that Jesus Christ had risen. We are awed by the grace he showed even to those who would have killed him. We are thankful for the sacrifice he gave for the sins of humanity. And we glory in the promise of redemption in the resurrection."
and
"I didn't become a Christian until many years later, when I moved to the South Side of Chicago after college. ... It was on those streets, in those neighborhoods, that I first heard God's spirit beckon me. It was there that I felt called to a higher purpose -- His purpose."

I look at this actions, not his words.

"I look at *his* actions, not his words."

Pardon me if I'm just dense, but isn't this a bit hypocritical and naive?

You accuse some of the players here as tactless or rude because of the way they respond to the OP's question, which means that you are looking at their words, not their actions. Governmental action or political shift in policies can always be interpreted depending on one's point of view. So it does matter what the politician says or what we say because we interpret all events in multiple ways.
Moreover, if you say that you only look at his actions and not his words and from that alone, you can decide whether he is a secular humanist or religious person, then it means that his action (and by extension anyone's action) can be neatly organized into different mutually exclusive categories. Are all secular humanist ideals and actions mutually exclusive from religious ones?

I would argue that this is clearly not the case. An action that is beneficial or acceptable under a secular humanist's belief is easily compatible with a religious one. So to interpret one's actions, one must not look only to the actual act but also the motivation or at least the spoken motivation.

You're both wrong, Obama is secret Muslim.

"I enjoy parody of the rich and powerful, but I've noticed that it is only the religious, the traditional, and the conservative who seem to get the mockery nowadays (and plenty of it is deserved), and oddly enough those aren't the real elites anymore."

You're shitting me, right?

I understand that, Semck, I just like to throw it in their faces when they ask for special treatment with the recent abortion changes (insurance hospital stuff). If they murder children just as much as the regular people, it's ludicrous that they think they should be exempt from the same programs (and payments) the rest of us enjoy.

"I look at this actions, not his words."

Call him a bad Christian if you like, or a misinformed Christian, or even accuse him of being something other than Christian. Call him a Spiritual Humanist if you like. But given the frequency and fervor which which he cites God as an influence in his decisions, don't call the man a Secular Humanist. One of the primary characteristics of Secular Humanism is refraining from attributing your beliefs to a divine being. Whether or not you think it's genuine, he's certainly made that attribution repeatedly in the past. Until the man says, "I became a Secular Humanist recently..." we Secular Humanists don't want him. Whatever you Christians want to do with him or say about him, you're stuck with him.

I like the Pope Perri suggestion. I'll vote for that, do we get a vote?

I'd also vote for Pope Nike. Go on Catholic Church embrace corporate values, Just-Do-It.

@2WL,
"You're both wrong, Obama is secret Muslim."

I think he's a secret Tea Partier. He's just posing as a leftist to lull Progressives into a false sense of security. Then he's going to strike.

Pope Protestantus Anglicanus Maximus the 1st

Pope Agnosticum I

Nonsense, YJ. Just because a minority of Catholics violate their moral principles does not mean it's OK to force other Catholics to do the same. Your argument is terrible.