 sj |
||
|
||
BS: The Pope in America
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 25 Nov 15 - 02:26 PM Uganda is a parliamentary democracy. It is also a country where there is significant anti-gay legislation, where the desth penalty for gays was very nearly introduced, and where there is considerable support for such a law. A binding ballot calling for such a law could well be put to the voters in California, and could get passed. Democracies are quite capable of introducing terrible laws. After all, every anti-gay or anti-black law which has been swept away in countries such as the UK or the USA was introduced in countries which were democracies.. .............. It occurs to me that if a couple of generations back someone had declared that all those who loved each other should be allowed to get married, and someone else had responded pointing out that this implied that people would be able to marry people of the same sex,, there is no doubt but that they would have been attacked in very similar terms as aken, for making a disgusting suggestion.
But this thread was getting worse and worse, so I said my goodbyes a couple days ago and left the thread. I came across a video today that honestly addresses a number of issues addressed in this thread. It's a very thought-provoking presentation, critical of all sides without condemning anyone. I think it's worth your consideration, whatever your thinking might be. I keep trying to find a quote I heard once from architect Louis Kahn. It goes something like this: Everything everyone says is the truth. It may be their truth, but it is nonetheless the truth. I think that's true here. People said what they think in this thread and told their truth, and some of it was hurtful. I know I got hurt, and that's why I left the thread. I hope someday we will be able to discuss these things without hurting each other. I thank the moderator who decided to close this thread. I think it was time. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: Steve Shaw Date: 25 Nov 15 - 02:24 PM "any free-thinking head teachers circumvent the requirement quite skilfully, managing the ritual with little or no bowing of heads or joining of hands whilst satisfying the needs of any gullible Ofsted inspector" That's what I meant when I said "covertly evading the law", and I certainly didn't understood you to be disapproving of such actions. An in-your-face badge like that with a slogan is one thing - but a better parallel might be badge with the Humanist Society symbol. I'd be wholly opposed to any school barring teachers frrom wearing that. Skilfully circumventing the requirement to the satisfaction of all concerned, rather than openly refusing to comply, is a time-honoured tactic that avoids conflict. There are tens of thousands of schools in this country, many of which contravene this silly law to a greater or lesser extent. You will rarely read about any in the papers. I'm biased and I'm happy with it. We must sometimes oil the wheels of life. Yes the badge was in-your-face. No doubt as to its intended message. A Humanist Society symbol would convey nothing to most of the people in a school who see it, defeating the whole object of wearing it. A crucifix dangled in a patient's face is just as explicit a statement as that badge. Almost everyone knows precisely what it means, a slogan without words. "I'm a Christian, I'm proud of it and you'd better know about it". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 25 Nov 15 - 01:14 PM The only law that acatually discriminates against minorities is the one saying CofE churches cannot conduct same sex marriages and gay employees who have been ordained cannot get married.. There are laws discriminating against all kinds of minorities in all sorts of places round the world. Even including the death penalty. Harry Forest appeared to be saying that such laws should never be defied. .............. I can't see how aken can reasonably be criticised for pointing out that the claim that marriage should be available for all people who love each other, unless it is qualified, does in fact imply that incestuous marriage should be legal. That isn't saying that people making that claim intend that, but it does imply they should be more careful to say what they actually mean. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 25 Nov 15 - 01:00 PM "The only law that actually discriminates against minorities is the one saying CofE churches cannot conduct same sex marriages and gay employees who have been ordained cannot get married." There are and have been laws that discriminate against all sorts of minorities in all sorts of countries all over the world. Your declaration that laws should always be accepted once they are in existence didn't say that only applied in the UK. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: akenaton Date: 25 Nov 15 - 12:13 PM I am no more in favour of incestuous "marriage" than I am of homosexual marriage. Both mean huge societal and health problems in the future. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: GUEST,Harry Forest Date: 25 Nov 15 - 10:44 AM The only law that actually discriminates against minorities is the one saying CofE churches cannot conduct same sex marriages and gay employees who have been ordained cannot get married. Mind you, there is test case looming on that one. Whilst there is shocking discrimination in many areas, it is misapplication or ignorance of law that allows it. The Equalities Act covers everything else. (UK. I am not conversant with foreign law.) I am opposed to breaking the law because you cannot change law if that just shifts the law breaking to the other view. There are ways of changing laws in a democracy. I don't like a lot that this government has done but I certainly don't break the law. How could you distinguish between refusing to put stamps on envelopes and murder? Protest, industrial action, petition, vote, stand for office and lobby. All good ideas and all fall short of becoming a criminal. Regarding the obscene post above, incest marriages brought to case have all been from heterosexual marriages. In fact, I notice that in Norfolk, Argyll and Lincolnshire there are not that many surnames in many communities. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: GUEST,gillymor Date: 25 Nov 15 - 09:40 AM It's extremely stupid to presume from this statement: "Yes, millions cannot marry the ones they love. Gay marriage is sadly still illegal in many countries." that the poster was advocating the legalization of marriage between close family members. Still grasping at straws, Aketung. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: akenaton Date: 25 Nov 15 - 07:50 AM It is extremely stupid to say that all who "love" one another should be able to marry. Most people we "love" are close family members. Marriage between close family members is illegal. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 25 Nov 15 - 05:01 AM So should we take it Harry Forest that you would be opposed to actively resisting laws that discriminate against minorities? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 25 Nov 15 - 04:56 AM any free-thinking head teachers circumvent the requirement quite skilfully, managing the ritual with little or no bowing of heads or joining of hands whilst satisfying the needs of any gullible Ofsted inspector That's what I meant when I said "covertly evading the law", and I certainly didn't understood you to be disapproving of such actions. An in-your-face badge like that with a slogan is one thing - but a better parallel might be badge with the Humanist Society symbol. I'd be wholly opposed to any school barring teachers frrom wearing that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 25 Nov 15 - 04:22 AM China? N.Korea? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: GUEST,Harry Forest if you must know Date: 25 Nov 15 - 03:15 AM Opposing laws whilst being drawn up is a basic human right. Opposing them once the government have done their duty is a criminal act if opposition goes beyond saying you disagree with the law. If a religious leader encourages his or her flock to break the law, they stand in the dock to be tried. Society expects better from its citizens. Yes, millions cannot marry the ones they love. Gay marriage is sadly still illegal in many countries. The link? Religious control of law in said countries. I rest my case. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: Steve Shaw Date: 24 Nov 15 - 07:49 PM I told you, I wasn't evading any law. Teachers can't be forced to attend worship. I thought I'd made that clear. The layout of the hall and where I would be sitting with my class made exiting and re-entering totally impractical, and I would have had no way of knowing when the praying had ended. Kevin, you really did have to be there. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: Steve Shaw Date: 24 Nov 15 - 07:45 PM I don't know enough about what makes people wear hijabs to take much of a position about them. For many years in my teaching career I would not wear a tie at school, as I have always regarded ties to be a pretty stupid and pointless garment, actually no more than quite a modern passing fad. I couldn't be forced to wear one, any more than I could be forced to get my hair cut. I'm not going to criticise anyone for what they wear as long as they are not actually flaunting their bare bottoms in front of children or something like that. I do think that children should at least be able to see their teachers' faces, but that's only my opinion. A crucifix necklace is not the same thing at all. It is non-functional as an item of clothing and it is entirely optional. It is a declaration of a particular kind of partisanship. Perhaps hijabs don't quite fall into that category. In 1977 we had to endure the Queen's silver jubilee, and I bought a large badge that said "Stuff the Jubilee" on it in large letters, a declaration of another kind of partisanship. Do you think I should have worn it in front of my class of thirteen-year-olds? So what's the difference? I think that I have a right not to wear a tie and that a woman has the right to wear a hijab, and in neither case should there be pressure. I don't think it's right to flaunt religion in the faces of hospital patients and I don't think I had the right to wear that badge in my classroom. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 24 Nov 15 - 07:45 PM Suggesting you leave the worship part of a school assembly sounds like a fairly reasonable suggestion on the part of your colleague, Steve. I can't imagine why you should think it would have made you look foolish, rather than principled. But earlier you seemed to be saying that if doing what they were employed to do, and complying with what the law laid down, was against their principles, people should resign, or not be employed in those jobs in the first place. But now you seem to condone covertly evading the law in cases where you disapprove of it. Some might consider there might just possibly be a conflict between those two positions. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: Steve Shaw Date: 24 Nov 15 - 07:25 PM "There are millions of people who are not allowed to marry someone they love." Yes, and if you had your way you would create millions more. The daily act of worship is enforced in most schools (it's the law here), though it's illegal to force teachers to take part. The child has no choice, of course, though their parents can withdraw them and make them look like pariahs, so they rarely do. We didn't withdraw ours. I think that this is a good example of a bad law. Many free-thinking head teachers circumvent the requirement quite skilfully, managing the ritual with little or no bowing of heads or joining of hands whilst satisfying the needs of any gullible Ofsted inspector or evangelical school governor who happens along. I spent several years in conflict with an ardent Christian senior mistress at my last school, as I refused to take my class to the hall for religious assembly. I sent them instead and they behaved perfectly. She tried to get me to come into the hall for the announcements and duck out from the prayers section. I regarded that as an unreasonable request as it would have made me look foolish, and in any case it was impossible to predict when the chanting was about to begin. In the end, after many an argument, she dropped the thing. What a bloody waste of energy it all was. My inquisitive class wanted to know what I was up to, and, being an honest man who likes to deal in clarity, I told them that I was simply thinking for myself, and suggested that we could talk about that. I doubt that I converted any of them! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: akenaton Date: 24 Nov 15 - 06:40 PM There are millions of people who are not allowed to marry someone they love. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: Greg F. Date: 24 Nov 15 - 06:35 PM Refusing to cross a picket line or cooperate in an eviction are every bit as relevant examples as refusing to take off a crucifix or a hijab. Problem occurs when someone wants to force someone else to wear a crucifix or a hijab, to not marry someone they love, or to not terminate an unwanted pregnancy, etc. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 24 Nov 15 - 06:30 PM There are any number of examples of laws which have existed, even under what are counted as democratic laws, which deserve to be challenged. There are any number of examples where people have been required by their employers, including the State, to do things which are against their conscience. In such a situation the right thing to do is to refuse, and take the consequences. Resignation is one otion. Another may be to refuse, in the knowledge that disciplinary action will follow, typically being sacked. And in some cases challenging that sacking through appropriate methods would be right, including industrial action by other workers. Such conflicts can arise in the context of religion, but in many others as well. Refusing to cross a picket line or cooperate in an eviction are every bit as relevant examples as refusing to take off a crucifix or a hijab. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: GUEST,Shimrod Date: 24 Nov 15 - 05:48 PM I would sack Pete anyway - just for fun! Who cares about conscience! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: Steve Shaw Date: 24 Nov 15 - 05:43 PM The principle should be that you don't apply for jobs in which there is a reasonable prospect of a conflict with your conscience arising, unless you are prepared to override your conscience with good grace. Taking a job like that, then refusing to carry out a part of it for conscience reasons, is upsetting for those being refused service and is highly vexatious. You should resign or be sacked. If an unforeseen conflict arises once you're in post, I should think that sensible negotiation would be the way to go, within reason, but only for issues that most reasonable people would regard as issues. A greyish area. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: DMcG Date: 24 Nov 15 - 04:44 PM I think Pete you missed my point that you are "duty bound" to offer to resign because you are unwilling to undertake the duties. If agreeing to same sex marriages offends you, resign and take the penalty. What is not on is to make someone else suffer penalties while you carry on as before. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: GUEST Date: 24 Nov 15 - 04:40 PM Nothing goes against your vow under your professional registration. If it does, you resign, not carry on. In healthcare, if we took it to its ultimate legal status, knowingly acting outside your professional obligations means no indemnity insurance and if you touch a patient in a professional capacity it is criminal assault. In essence, nobody gives a fuck about a necklace if it is short enough not to compromise infection control measures but the nurse in question was a district nurse who was invited into homes as a nurse then offered to pray with patients and left them cards with contact details of her particular cult. Sacking was a decent compromise. The law courts were an option. I know some of the people involved in her case and their decision was in the interest of patients. If Muslim doctors and nurses didn't put their religion to one side, men wouldn't treat women and vice versa. Obviously they are less fundamental than Christians? Or more importantly, they aren't used to the bigoted UK society pandering to their creed like Christians are. We work hard together in The NHS and from a staff standpoint, we are inclusive and do not recognise the separate communities debates in the press. I ended the probationary period of a Muslim nurse who wouldn't wear disposable sleeves and refused to bare to the elbows. I doubt she can find work as a nurse in The UK. What was telling was the support the trust had from staff in getting rid. Even an Imam from our team chaplaincy advised that her position was untenable. Luckily, most people with a religious conviction don't let it interfere with their profession where it could be in conflict. Aggressive cultists get no sympathy from real people. I doubt our position is unique to Bristol and every NHS trust in the country would have a similar attitude. The Christian nurse got no support from the industry she shamed. As a nurse myself I look to employers and regulators to ensure our professional obligations are shared. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: akenaton Date: 24 Nov 15 - 04:39 PM The Church especially has a duty to oppose BAD laws. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link Date: 24 Nov 15 - 04:38 PM Yes dmcg , and I think, it would be perfectly proper to decline those "duties" while still remaining in the employment that did not require "mercy killing"when the medic was trained and then employed. Of course this is the situation with the marriage clerks who in all good conscience could not put their name to registering same sex "marriage". You have a point about not entering a profession where you know you would have to offend your conscience to fulfil your contract. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: akenaton Date: 24 Nov 15 - 04:36 PM Exactly DMcG.....we should all oppose what we consider to be BAD laws. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: DMcG Date: 24 Nov 15 - 04:31 PM Which is exactlly what my first sentence said, Steve! My point, though, was really about Harry's suggestion that it the law as passed by Parliament that is the line you should follow . And my example was supposed to say "Well, it's not always that easy" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: Steve Shaw Date: 24 Nov 15 - 04:25 PM That's a different issue. Abortion has been legal in this country since well before any current doctors and nurses were trained. A new law about assisted dying would not have been anticipated by any of our current doctors and nurses and should therefore be a matter of conscience. It could be a different matter for those trained after the new law came in. We'd probably want to avoid a two-tier profession in that regard, however. It could also be a matter of which particular aspects of the dying process we would expect people to be involved in. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: DMcG Date: 24 Nov 15 - 04:02 PM Because of where we are in the UK, Steve and Bill, I'd agree on the abortion situation, because anyone now entering the profession knows exactly what they are agreeing to. But let us suppose Parliament decided to approve assisted dying in some circumstances. It seems perfectly reasonable to me for some nurses - atheist, Christian or whatever - to feel this goes against what they signed up to/their beliefs and to say they are prepared to do everything else but if this is insisted on they will leave the profession. And whether you or I paid for their training through taxes does not give us the right to insist they stay. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: Bill D Date: 24 Nov 15 - 03:09 PM ". When the apostles were arrested for preaching Christ, ..." That was then..... Now the issue is not what they preach or teach, but where, and to whom. If someone tries to insert preaching & teaching in public schools, we have a problem. A sincere belief in God ought to include the idea that God can hear silent, personal prayers. Those who demand the 'right' to pray aloud when many have different beliefs are mistaking what 'freedom of religion' is about. You say "that does not mean attacking abortionists ", but it does mean that to some. As to nurses, they usually don't take jobs that would compromise their beliefs. In many ways, that is how it should be handled. **Be aware of what the job entails and don't set yourself up for a conflict.** When "the system" says merely that religion is permitted, but should be a private matter among people who all think the same way, that is NOT 'suppressing' religion. Now... off to 4-5 days at a crafts show. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: Steve Shaw Date: 24 Nov 15 - 03:02 PM Well as my taxes pay for the training of doctors and nurses in this country, I expect the ethical part of that training to emphasise that it is not in their gift to arbitrarily refuse to treat people on the grounds of your being out of sympathy with them. They have to treat fat people, drug addicts, drunks, dirty and smelly people, people who contract HIV via unprotected sex and criminals. If you choose a career path in medicine which puts you in contact with women who want abortions and you then refuse to deal with them, you should be sacked. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: DMcG Date: 24 Nov 15 - 02:36 PM Don't quite agree Harry. Just one name: Rosa Parks. There are many others. The bottom line is that if you defy the law you do so with the willingness to take the consequences, and you are the one who takes them. Not, for example, pregnant women outside a clinic you object to. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: GUEST,Harry Forest - if you must know Date: 24 Nov 15 - 02:29 PM If a nurse goes against the terms of her registration, she is struck off or rehabilitated. If anybody says they answer to other than the law, they are a danger to society, same as any other potential criminal. Churches don't decide the duties of a nurse, competent bodies, especially NMC do. There is no line to draw. It is drawn for you by the highest authority of all. Parliament. If religions cannot abide by the law, shut the fuckers down. We do with other organised crime. Yet I suspect pete doesn't speak for real Christians anyway. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: GUEST,Peter from seven stars link Date: 24 Nov 15 - 01:43 PM Yes, # , many ideologies might have adherents who follow convictions that are beneficial , but I think the context was the accusation that my faith is harmful , though I have not gone all the way back to check it for exactness. Very briefly , bill ....you more or less understood right. When the apostles were arrested for preaching Christ, the authorities ordered them "not to teach or preach in that name again". They replied " judge for yourselves if we should obey God or men ". Individual Christians might not draw the line in exactly the same place but that is the general principal. Now that does not mean attacking abortionists , or bombing their shops for example, but it does mean that a nurse might prefer to risk losing her job rather than be party to killing an unborn child. That was an example not an attempt to steer the thread elsewhere btw. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: Steve Shaw Date: 24 Nov 15 - 01:16 PM Well context is everything. In this thread born-again has pejorative undertones only. But I'm not bothered. You can call me it if you like. I've apprised you of its inappropriateness in my case. Just don't be surprised if I bracket you with pete, loud and proud. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 24 Nov 15 - 12:39 PM Here's an example of "born again" being used in a political context - and there are plenty more. Born again Socialist, born again Feminist - and of course born again Atheist (I see there's even a book with that title, by an atheist happy to adopt it!) I don't think this excellent metaphor should be abandoned to weird American fundamentalists, and clearly so do a lot of other people who wouldn't have too much in common. "Why should the devil have all the best tunes?" Even if the devil's voice is coming from someone like that unspeakable "Kevin Swanson", masquerading as a Man of God. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: Greg F. Date: 24 Nov 15 - 11:11 AM And there's hundreds (thousands?) more where Swanson came from. And most of the Republican presidential hopefuls agree with him. Would clog up the court system something fierce. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: Steve Shaw Date: 24 Nov 15 - 11:09 AM I care not a jot whether I get called a born-again atheist, but be aware of a couple of things. First, the term is typically applied to bad people who suddenly find Jesus and go a bit mental about it. I for one have never been much of a bad person and nothing about me changed suddenly. No conversion on the road to Damascus for me. Second, if you say born-again atheist, in light of what I've said, you are making atheism into something equivalent to a religion. Well if that's what you think, you are absolutely in bed with pete. Don't expect me to let it pass. Derision shall pour down on you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: DMcG Date: 24 Nov 15 - 10:59 AM If God is angry that the US tolerates gays then it is a bit of an odd response to attack Paris. Why not a gay pride parade, for example? Mysterious ways indeed (just in case anyone has any doubts, I see that pastor is on the far side of the bonkers barrier and think in the uk he should be prosecuted for hate speech. In the US I appreciate that is more difficult) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: Steve Shaw Date: 24 Nov 15 - 10:54 AM I thought that was pork. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: GUEST,# Date: 24 Nov 15 - 10:44 AM "I think I'll go for wank, get some beef in for Friday and buy a few condoms." That is the most interesting post to this thread. However, may I suggest you buy the condoms before getting 'some beef in'? The devil is in the details dontcha know. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: Greg F. Date: 24 Nov 15 - 09:57 AM Pastor Who Hosted GOP: Paris Victims Were 'Devil-Worshippers' After standing with Ted Cruz and Mike Huckabee, Kevin Swanson says the 89 people gunned down in the Bataclan "loved the devil." A Christian pastor who hosted Republican presidential candidates a week before the Paris terrorist attack says its victims received divine retribution for worshipping Satan. Kevin Swanson of Generations Ministries said last Thursday that the 89 people massacred inside the Bataclan theater were "devil-worshippers." Two weeks earlier, Swanson headlined his own "Freedom 2015: National Religious Liberties Conference" featuring Ted Cruz, Mike Huckabee, and Bobby Jindal. Swanson believes God will annihilate America for tolerating homosexuality and seemed to say God already made an example out of the Bataclan. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 24 Nov 15 - 09:17 AM I was going by what you'd said in a previous post, Steve, when you dismissed the notion of different kinds of evidence as not worth debating, as there was only one kind. My point was that when it came to stuff like music, that really didn't apply. With which you essentially agree. Maybe there's a verbal difference around our use of the word "evidence". .......... I've heard "born again" used often enough in the context of politics for example when you get former Marxists turning up on the right of the Tory party, and also in other contexts, such as gender reassignment. It's a metaphor to start with, for a total upheaval in how someone sees the world, as valid for a one time Christian becoming an atheist as it would be for an atheist becoming a Christian. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 24 Nov 15 - 09:17 AM I was going by what you'd said in a previous post, Steve, when you dismissed the notion of different kinds of evidence as not worth debating, as there was only one kind. My point was that when it came to stuff like music, that really didn't apply. With which you essentially agree. Maybe there's a verbal difference around our use of the word "evidence". .......... I've heard "born again" used often enough in the context of politics for example when you get former Marxists turning up on the right of the Tory party, and also in other contexts, such as gender reassignment. It's a metaphor to start with, for a total upheaval in how someone sees the world, as valid for a one time Christian becoming an atheist as it would be for an atheist becoming a Christian. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: Steve Shaw Date: 24 Nov 15 - 07:53 AM "You could be stood in Tesco with your trousers round your ankles buggering a goat whilst playing a banjo" Humph. Tried that and all that happened is that a bouncer confiscated me Clubcard... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: Steve Shaw Date: 24 Nov 15 - 06:30 AM Yep. As I keep repeating (ha), your faith is your business. What you do with it may be mine. It can be just lecturing on "morals" (God, I'm getting like akenaton...) or it can be giving orders. Trying to get people to endure well-scrubbed, smiley Christians saying a prayer at the flicks, then getting all indignant when you're told no you can't. Never mind that Muslims, Sikhs, Jews and atheists also go to the flicks. They should be forced to put up with your free speech at your whim, just like we have to put up with Songs of Praise, Choral Evensong, Sunday Worship and Thought For The Day (all of which, like those faith schools, I have to pay for). Sending children to schools in which they will be taught that lies are true and that those lies are the path to deeper truths. Telling people that your tenets, predicated on those same lies, are sacred, and reviling you for criticising them. Telling people that abstinence is a virtue, that using condoms and masturbating are immoral, then that so is getting an abortion (the need for which could conceivably follow on from banning the first two, especially when combined with keeping people ignorant). Mainly, it will be celibate men who tell you this (now that Mother Teresa's gone to join the Choir Invisible). Those same celibate men will also tell you that the very idea of women in the hierarchy is totally unacceptable, that they're probably better off making the tea after mass or joining the Union of Catholic Mothers from where they can target vulnerable young women to moralise at. Eek! I think I'll collect my own set of morals, thanks. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: GUEST,Musket Date: 24 Nov 15 - 03:43 AM The Pope in America? The Pope in The Vatican is pathetic enough. The BBC News website reckons they are taking a couple of journalists to trial for publishing leaked documents outlining corruption in The Vatican. The accused haven't been given information regarding the actual charges and if found guilty face up to eight years in prison. Notwithstanding they have no prisons and Italy protect freedom of press so their prisons won't help.... The leak was recent. The child abuse allegations against their wicked employees go back in time yet still awaiting charges to be brought despite promises. Oh yes. Let's all sit back and be lectured by religious types on morality. I could do with a laugh. Meet the pope. Same as the last pope. Ad naueseum. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: GUEST Date: 24 Nov 15 - 03:21 AM Mozart and Beethoven aren't put up as rigid creeds for the "swarm" to follow. We can all be creative and artistic and yes, it doesn't add up to scientific scrutiny. Salvador Dahli painted scenes outside the laws of physics. Music is by definition an abstract. But two things to note. 1. Religion is an abstract too, unless and until someone acts by it. 2. Bach's cadences explain infinity better than any mathematician. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: GUEST,Shimrod Date: 24 Nov 15 - 03:17 AM " ... evidence has to be the only basis for any decision as to what to accept as true ... " Absolutely right! Spot on, McGoH! But deciding that you like, or are moved by, the music of Mozart or Beethoven is a personal, aesthetic decision - nothing to do with truth in any broad scientific sense. Pete keeps demanding that we supply him with evidence to support, what he insists on calling, "evolutionism". But we all know that if we played his tiresome little game he would (a) declare that he didn't believe the evidence any we supplied him with, or (b) scuttle off to 'Creation.com' and 'refute' the evidence by parroting some nonsense from that. The fact is that he refuses to confront the vast mountain (mountain range?) of evidence which is out there - or, more likely, he is incapable of comprehending it. God (sorry God!) - I'm so BORED with this!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Pope in America From: Steve Shaw Date: 23 Nov 15 - 09:49 PM I don't. So many times I've said that I think that science and culture are the two strands of human endeavour. There is no way I'd ever conflate them in terms of the way they edify us, or in the way we'd interpret their mysteries. Vive le difference. Now don't get me wrong here. Being called names is an excellent sign that you're tweaking someone's nose. I really don't give a stuff. Always says a damn sight more about the name-caller than the target. Having said that, calling an atheist "born again" is puerile. We all know perfectly well what the connotations of that are. Saying that, as Joe likes to do, or defending it, like you like to do, ratchets you both right down to Pete's level. You may as well just call us evolutionists or tell us that we have an atheist religion. Do enjoy life in that particular gutter. By your fruits shall we know you! |