BS: The Pope's Survey

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope's Survey
From: Don Firth
Date: 27 Nov 13 - 10:04 PM

Ake, you have a very simplistic and totally erroneous view of what Liberalism is all about.

Educate yourself. Read some John Locke and John Stuart Mill.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope's Survey
From: Joe Offer
Date: 27 Nov 13 - 10:39 PM

OK by me, Ake.

I have to say that Moral Theology was one of the most exciting classes I took in the seminary. The professor was a crusty, old, Irish-American priest, Fr. Ty Cullen. He was blessed with a wonderful passion, and a great sense of humor. When I left the seminary and enlisted in the Army so I'd get sent to the Defense Language Institute in Monterey (CA), he told me that was the second-best way to learn a language. The first? - to live with a woman from the country, of course. Ty taught Moral Theology to a couple of generations of Milwaukee priests, and he destroyed all their pious preconceptions. His view of morality was tempered by a huge sense of compassion. This was a magnificent man, who wouldn't condemn anybody for anything - except for injustice.

One of the things Ty introduced me to, was Lawrence Kohlberg's stages of moral development. I've learned since then that these six stages are central to many Catholic Moral Theology classes. Here are notes from a Moral Theology class taught by a Jesuit at the University of San Francisco: http://usf.usfca.edu/fac_staff/bretzkesj/FundamentalMoralNotes.PDF. Note that for people in stages five and six, the rules fall by the wayside because these people are able to make their own decisions. Franciscan Father Richard Rohr says that people in stages 1-4, hate those in 5-6, because they simply cannot understand a life lived according to principle, and not by rules. They accuse those in stages 5-6 of defying the rules - but for people at that point, no rules are necessary.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope's Survey
From: Don Firth
Date: 28 Nov 13 - 12:02 AM

Very insightful!

Joe, I checked your two links and I'm going back to do more reading.

We covered a lot of this kind of material in a Philosophy (Ethics) class I took when I was at the University of Washington. A really good prof. and he made the class discussions most interesting!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope's Survey
From: akenaton
Date: 28 Nov 13 - 04:35 AM

Don ...I used to enjoy conversing...and "fighting" with you on Mudcat, but until you stop your snide, uninformed inferences about my sexuality, further debate on any subject will not be forthcoming.

If you wish to engage further PM me.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope's Survey
From: akenaton
Date: 28 Nov 13 - 04:38 AM

Joe...Thanks for the links, which I haven't time to read or digest at the moment.....later.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope's Survey
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 28 Nov 13 - 04:54 AM

I used to enjoy Mudcat till it allowed you to post hate that could be read by unsuspecting decent people.

I doubt your sexuality is of any interest to anyone but your reasons for your bigotry may be of academic interest to anyone studying forensic psychology.

If you can't be decent then at at least keep your odious suggestions to yourself. Gay members of Mudcat don't want to be called perverts. They don't want to be associated with your "homosexual act" filth. They don't want to hear someone genuinely think it a good idea to round them all up and put them on a register after assaulting them.

I can't be more serious when I say "back in your hole worm"

Although in keeping with the thread, I remain surprised the number who remain members of religions that would also see them as second class, even if the condescending "but we love you" is there.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope's Survey
From: Joe Offer
Date: 28 Nov 13 - 05:18 AM

OK, this is getting into a personal spat. I don't know or care who started it - but please stop.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope's Survey
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 28 Nov 13 - 05:32 AM

Whenever hate and bigotry is displayed and I see it, I shall respond.

Out of interest Joe, you do know who started it. You also know it isn't a personal spat as there is nobody on Mudcat, not a single member who isn't dismayed when Akenhateon uses the oxygen of publicity to further his call for rounding up members of society.

Is there?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope's Survey
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 28 Nov 13 - 07:50 AM

I studied (as an extra module) Moral Philosophy at Uni, and I'm interested to consider the difference between that and Theological Philosophy. The reason I say this is that the latter (obviously) has to take into account belief and the tenets of a/all religion/s. Thus, 'God'-given rules and regulations can be rather far from what might be termed ethically tenable from a mere, secular moral viewpoint. To give an example, if one is OK about sex between consenting adults of any sexuality not in committed relationships, with adequate protection against STD's etc, this could (depending on ones stance) be seen as ethically unobjectionable. But according to many religions, including Christianity and especially Catholicism, this is not allowed, and seen as a 'sin'. It is this sort of discrepancy between moral and religious ethics with which I have problems. But sexuality isn't the only department of contention. Divorce and remarriage is another example, and having various 'thoughts' of envy, anger, desire etc. Bad thoughts are sins, (as I understand it) but in no way can I defend a religion which tries to modify ones freedom to think!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope's Survey
From: GUEST,Grishka
Date: 28 Nov 13 - 08:54 AM

Eliza, it has very little to do with theology. "Every sperm is sacred" (do not forget so watch the next scene!), is a position of ethical philosophy, akin to protection of life (- animals too? plants too?). Traditionally, clergy declared such axioms as God's will, in order to exclude any discussion, but whatever Aquinas and his followers designed as "Natural Law", does not really stand examination nowadays. Ethics must be researched, explained, argued, and - most crucially - allowed to change in time. The Bible is still an excellent inspiration, but (fortunately) not too specific about the problems we face today.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope's Survey
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 28 Nov 13 - 11:00 AM

Grishka, I don't wish to pick hairs, as the general thrust of what you say in the post above isn't something I could really argue with, but to say "the Bible" is excellent inspiration misses the point.

There are stories within the Bible that you can use to deduce inspirational conclusions but a book of stories, many of which would be obscene from any modern day moral perspective is no inspiration in itself.

I totally agree with Eliza regarding the way religions substitute sin for immoral. It's an ownership trick and for many years worked, mainly because you were executed for questioning it. There is a built in altruism in most creatures, humans amongst them. This is highly developed in humans and we speak of moral compass. Organised religions can only thrive if they have ownership of this, as then they have ownership of you.

That's why I have respect for people who have faith, but none whatsoever for the archaic structures clinging onto a power they never deserved in the first place.

Mind you, if was King of a country in medieval times, I'd promote religion for the same reason they did. Far cheaper than bread and circuses together with built in loyalty.

We have democracies now, so subduing with the promise of jam tomorrow doesn't fit society's needs nor intelligence. The survey somewhat acknowledges this, but the emphatic refusal to even debate women having high office roles within the church is another nail in the coffin as far as their relevance and indeed right to influence is concerned.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope's Survey
From: GUEST,Grishka
Date: 28 Nov 13 - 12:38 PM

There are stories within the Bible that you can use to deduce inspirational conclusions but a book of stories, many of which would be obscene from any modern day moral perspective is no inspiration in itself.

The stories without a simple moral message are those that can inspire thinking about ethics and its relation to religion. The Hebrew-Jewish culture has a strong sense of identity, imagined as ethnic, religious, and cultural, but only secondarily ethical. A Jew should of course be "righteous", but failing so makes her or him not less of a Jew, just a bad Jew.

Organised religions can only thrive if they have ownership of this, as then they have ownership of you.

Do not write "religions" if you mean a specific group of clergy. Power and oppression exist and must be criticized, but that cannot discredit ethics as such, and neither religion as such. Most sexual abuse by teachers is done in sports lessons and clubs - who would want to abolish sports for that reason?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope's Survey
From: Don Firth
Date: 28 Nov 13 - 01:16 PM

Ake, this (CLICKY) is only ONE of a whole list of articles I could link to that tends to explain your (and others') rabid antipathy toward gay men.

What lends weight to the speculation is the fact that just about every thread you post to, no matter what the subject, almost invariably gets diverted to what is apparently your favorite hobby horse.

So it is not ME who is insulting you. Look to yourself.

The initial subject of this thread is interest and important enough, so let's just stick to it, okay?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope's Survey
From: GUEST,musket again
Date: 28 Nov 13 - 04:21 PM

Grishka. I don't see millions of members of religions marching on their gilded palaces shouting "Not in my name! "

My point was also historical. The purpose of superstition as a concept is to control. Religions came from that observable fact. Not making anything of it, but no point in discussing if delusion pops in for a cup of tea.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope's Survey
From: akenaton
Date: 28 Nov 13 - 05:51 PM

Just keep your OPINIONS of my personal life to yourself Don, you are completely wrong in you grubby inferences.
I have no idea what your personal life consists of, nor have I any interest in it.
If I did have any thoughts on it, I certainly would not publish them here, that would be quite unethical.

Ian... you are a known and strong supporter of the Capitalist system, you also profess to believe in equality before all else, how do you manage to conflate such dissenting ideologies.
The Pope has described Capitalism as a tyranny, which as long as lies on our shoulders, no real equality can ever be attained....this is self evident so where does it leave your personal ideology, from an ethical point of view?
Try to answer in a civil manner.

Joe...
"In his sermon this morning, our deacon (father of five) spoke about dealing with death and grief, talking about the deaths of his son and of a good friend - both of whom were known to many in the congregation. Last week, there was a lot of talk about the typhoon in the Philippines, and how we needed to have compassion for the victims."

"I guess that's the "liberal" stuff that Akenaton is so worried about."

Was that a joke Joe, or do you really think that I have no compassion for people affected by natural disasters or illness

My neighbour's wife was back home in the Phillipines on holiday when the storm struck, they are from a poor family and have lost everything, except thankfully, their lives.
I have compassion for people who are affected by an epidemic of disease and part of that compassion is to see the epidemic ended as soon as possible, not continuing with ineffective procedures.

The "liberalism" that I am "on about" is the ideology that seeks out any vestige of social conservatism and demonises it...and yes, you and the church are in their sights. No matter how liberal you or your organisation profess to be you will be marginalised and ridiculed as you have been on many threads here over the years, truth will be hidden, any deviation of thought will be punished... the world will have a rosey glow when the "Messiahs of Mudcat" take over........
but the air will stink of Fascism.

Still thinking about the links you posted.....later.



Does that not prove that your stance on equality

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope's Survey
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Nov 13 - 06:15 PM

But according to many religions, including Christianity and especially Catholicism, this is not allowed, and seen as a 'sin'. It is this sort of discrepancy between moral and religious ethics with which I have problems.

The Catholic Church's stance on sex (bearing in mind that the stance is constructed by men, and only men, who are supposed never to have sex) has nothing to do with ethics and everything to do with the egregiously-immoral and ruthless acquisition to itself of a blunt instrument of control. Everybody wants sex so, a bit like a government that realises that everyone gets money and invents tax accordingly, the Church pounces. The plain fact is that sex is no more a moral issue than eating burgers, drinking beer or not being a veggie. Sex is what people do. Religion seriously needs to keep its big nose out. People are experts at sex. Popes, bishops and theologians are crass amateurs, as is abundantly revealed by their pathetic response to the sex abuse scandals.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope's Survey
From: Joe Offer
Date: 28 Nov 13 - 06:49 PM

From Musket: Organised religions can only thrive if they have ownership of this, as then they have ownership of you.

I don't really think that's true, Musket, for the most part. I don't think that most religious groups seek "ownership" of their members. That's building on the "religion-as-mind-control" model, and I just don't think that's a true perception of most religions.

Several of you harp on an on about "rules" about sexual conduct and such. Yeah, religions voice their opinions on various aspects of sexual conduct, but that's only one aspect. And whether or not you agree with a group's views on one or another sort of sexual behavior, I think it's unfair to discount the group entirely because of that. In my experience, for example, most churches don't spend much time opposing homosexuality, even if they don't approve of homosexual sex.

Until quite recently, society in general did not approve of homosexuality. That prejudice is gradually disappearing, but vestiges still remain. I think rather than condemning those who still disapprove of homosexuality and thinking they're horrible, it might be wise to give them a little room and simply consider them "stodgy."

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope's Survey
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Nov 13 - 09:22 PM

Whether you like it or not, Joe,(weasel words red alert...) the perception of a very large number of people is that religion is obsessed with sex. Now that might not be your perception as an insider (so to speak), but I fear it's true. Just think. The Church has a stance on women, particularly with regard to their role in the Church hierarchy (they have no role). It has a stance on homosexuality. It has a stance on sex outside marriage. It has a stance on divorce. It has a stance on gay marriage. It has a stance on abortion. It has a stance on birth control. It has a stance on sex education. We all know what those stances are.

Right, your Church has stances on other things too. But, mention the Catholic Church to most people, and ask them what they think its stances are on issues, and they will mention those. And probably nothing else. Hardly anyone knows what the Catholic Church's stance is on anything other than matters that impinge on sex, one way or another. Now I see that as a bit of a problem (especially as the Church has shot itself in the foot big-time over sex abuse scandals), but I don't think the Church sees it that way. You say the Church has eased up on these issues. I say that easing up does not mean shutting up. If the Church has really adopted a more relaxed attitude to sexual matters, then the Church should shout LOUD that it has eased up on sexual matters. The fact that it keeps so quiet reeks of its wanting things to continue as before in the hope that the flock will not notice the change and thereby continue to be controlled.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope's Survey
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Nov 13 - 09:26 PM

Damn. I meant to type "Hardly anyone outside the Church..."

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope's Survey
From: Don Firth
Date: 28 Nov 13 - 10:06 PM

Ake, my "opinions" and "grubby inferences" about your own inclinations (probably carefully hidden from yourself) are drawn from your own over-the-top assertions about the personal lives of others and how someone needs to control them.

And as far as my personal life is concerned, I've been happily married for thirty-six years—to a woman of many talents—and I have a grown son of whom I am very proud.

I am not at all inclined toward any kind of physical relationship with members of my own sex. I am not frightened by the thought. I just don't have any interest in it.

But my wife and I know a couple of same-sex couples who are in stable, monogamous relationships and this does not bother us in any way. In no way does our marriage need "defending."

As to those who engage in uncommitted same-sex relationships:   I have a cousin who was seventy years old when he took up hang-gliding. He knows it is a dangerous sport, but he enjoys it anyway. I'll be damned if I'm going to lock him up to protect him from himself and I would object to anyone else who wants to do so. He knows the risks.

And my "Liberalism" is not concerned with what Conservatives think or do except when and where it impinges about the rights and freedoms of others to live their own lives in their own way.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope's Survey
From: Don Firth
Date: 28 Nov 13 - 10:14 PM

". . . where it impinges upon the rights and freedoms. . . ."

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope's Survey
From: Joe Offer
Date: 28 Nov 13 - 10:27 PM

You're so right, Steve. The misperception of a very large number of people is that religion is obsessed with sex.

So, Steve, when's the last time you were in a church and heard about sex? When's the last time you saw a church publication about sex?

That's what I thought - you're resting on your prejudices.

I suppose you think that all Jews have long noses, too. And since that's the case, they should have nosectomies so as not to offend people, right?

As for sex education, it seems to me that the Catholic Church is in favor of it, and does a pretty good job of it in Catholic schools. And yeah, I'm sure there are exceptions.

With homosexuality, birth control, and a number of other sex issues in the Catholic Church, the right wing has taken these issues up in the last ten years and caused a lot of embarrassment for the rest of us. Before that, there were laws on the books that were largely ignored - I've read in the "legitimate" press that the Catholic Church had a "don't ask, don't tell" policy on many of these - until the conservatives found they could use them to gain power.

It's true that the Catholic church doesn't ordain women, but they have a lot of women in a lot of different jobs. For much of the last twenty years, the chancellor of our diocese has been a woman.

The truth of the matter, Steve, is that you don't really know. But that doesn't stop you from hurling accusations.

No, the Catholic Church isn't where I'd like it to be on a number of issues. But neither is it the seething morass of bigotry that you make it out to be. It is a highly political body, and it takes time for such entities to get things straight. I suppose you'd rather see it be an absolute but progressive monarchy, whose subjects all obeyed the whims of an enlightened despot.

It is what it is, and it is sometimes a mess. But it's messy because of its diversity.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope's Survey
From: akenaton
Date: 29 Nov 13 - 04:30 AM

I think you are wrong to say that only "conservative" Catholics are against homosexual marriage, or abortion on demand, Joe.

In the US, religion seems more politically polarised than here in the UK. I know dozens of Catholics, whom I would consider true liberals and to the left politically who are against such legislation.

These issues aught to be above party politics and this is the problem in addressing them, folks get their political agenda confused with "ethics"

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope's Survey
From: GUEST,musket
Date: 29 Nov 13 - 04:50 AM

And there you have it.

Not much to add really.

I think therefore I am, I suppose. I reckon I could agree with the bit where it says you don't have to be conservative to be against gay equality.

You do have to be a disgusting homophobic bigot with nothing to add to any debate on the subject though. ....

Interestingly a couple of friends of ours who have had the tokenistic civil partnership are hoping to be amongst the first to marry when England starts them early next year. One is a conservative councillor and the other a Catholic.

Just goes to show, stereotype anybody for any reason and you can come a cropper. ....



Hey Joe.

We can agree to disagree over whether a religion likes to have a degree of control, but to point out middle management posts women hold isn't quite the point is it?   In other industries, we speak of glass ceilings but the roof of The Vatican is one people crane their necks to look up at but no woman can look beyond it.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope's Survey
From: akenaton
Date: 29 Nov 13 - 05:05 AM

So Ian, you think that all opponents of homosexual "marriage" are "disgusting, homophobic, bigots"?

Do you ever think about what you write?

You are talking about a huge majority of the worlds population and probably over 60% of our own nations population.

Doesn't do your professed credentials of " equality and outreach" much good, does it?

"Just goes to show, stereotype anybody for any reason and you can come a cropper"......:0)

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope's Survey
From: GUEST,Grishka
Date: 29 Nov 13 - 06:30 AM

Grishka. I don't see millions of members of religions marching on their gilded palaces shouting "Not in my name! "

You bet they did and do, many millions. Normally they reluctantly join other denominations or found new ones, despite the main point of religion being to stick together and to its history. Others curse religion altogether and feel bad about it.

My point was also historical. The purpose of superstition as a concept is to control.

Absolutely wrong, historically and psychologically. Yesterday the BBC told us about a new crypto-satanist cult of "Santa Muerte" in Mexico, created by Catholics without help from anybody in power, and of course heavily fought by the Catholic clergy. The drug cartels try to gain control over it - ex post facto.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope's Survey
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 29 Nov 13 - 06:42 AM

Ok. I will shout it just in case anybody doesn't quite get it.

ANYONE WHO OPPOSES GAY MARRIAGE IS DISPLAYING DISGUSTING HOMOPHOBIC BIGOTRY. THERE IS A CHANCE THEY ARE DISGUSTING HOMOPHOBIC BIGOTS AND THERE IS A CHANCE THEY ARE ILL INFORMED AND CONDITIONED INTO THINKING SO. OFTEN BECAUSE THEY HAVE BEEN TOLD JESUS OR MOHAMMED DOESNT LIKE THE IDEA.

Grishka gives an amusing account of "millions" swapping deck chairs on The Titanic. Mmmm.. The only two who spring to mind are Henry VIII and Martin Luther. Most change in the same way I went from a Jaguar to a BMW the other month. Or tried having coffee without a spot of sugar, (didn't last long.)

Oh, if you say something is absolutely wrong, do try to explain why it is either wrong or why you disagree, there's a good chap or chappess.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope's Survey
From: akenaton
Date: 29 Nov 13 - 06:49 AM

Keep on stereotyping! :0)

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope's Survey
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Nov 13 - 07:35 AM

ANYONE WHO OPPOSES GAY MARRIAGE IS DISPLAYING DISGUSTING HOMOPHOBIC BIGOTRY.

Does that include those gays who oppose it?
Does that include those who have no issue with sexuality but just have the traditional view of what the institution of marriage is and should be?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope's Survey
From: GUEST,Grishka
Date: 29 Nov 13 - 08:12 AM

Oh, if you say something is absolutely wrong, do try to explain why it is either wrong or why you disagree, there's a good chap or chappess.

Since my monicker is a male first name, I can be safely addressed using the male form only.

Musket, when I try to explain anything, your tell me your eyes become glazed, so I mentioned an example. The message is that widespread cults are not invented by those in power, but are expressions of deeply felt desires in the community. Control comes second, exerted either by those who are in military power or by clever elites who carefully listen to the existing ideas. Active dictatorship can come third, when the power is firmly established, but even then, most dictators prefer tweaking existing convictions to inventing new ones. The real pharaoh Akenaton gave a perfect example that even absolutist power cannot arbitrarily create cults that outlast it.

Henry VIII was in power alright (- wisely surfing on existing ideas -), but Luther was not. Neither were most other religious innovators; some of them eventually gained power by mandate of their voluntary followers.

Bottom line: religion does not come from power, but can be seized by powerful persons and groups.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope's Survey
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 29 Nov 13 - 08:12 AM

Yes.

Two reasons.

1. The traditional view, as you put it, has an issue with sexuality. You can't disguise something by calling it traditional. It used to be traditional to take babies from unmarried mums and keep them as slaves in nunneries, doesn't stop it being criminally disgraceful.

2. A gay is an equal member of society so if that person wishes to restrict the rights of others, of course the cap fits. It doesn't make them some pink Uncle Tom, it makes them a bigot.

Obviously the meaning of equality has connotations neither you nor your mate Akenhateon has thought through properly.

Just because old men in frocks go on the telly saying you are persecuting them for their beliefs if you insist on equality for all, doesn't mean their beliefs have any place in decent society. Being a cleric does not put you above anybody else in your behaviour, as the prison population clearly shows.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope's Survey
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Nov 13 - 09:33 AM

So, Steve, when's the last time you were in a church and heard about sex? When's the last time you saw a church publication about sex?

That's what I thought - you're resting on your prejudices.

I answered this one very recently (perhaps you only skim: you should read carefully what people say if you wish to have it back at them). Priests are not going to talk much about sex from the pulpit because (a) children are present (b) a celibate man in a frock would carry little credibility with an audience of mainly married people, so stop being so disingenuous! I referred to the perceived stances of the Church, which has an authoritarian hierarchy frequently and fundamentally at odds with the flock (as you yourself have admitted: most Catholics, [at least in the west - my addition, and not an unimportant one], ignore the Church law on contraception, for example). When did I see a Church publication about sex? Why three weeks ago at my Dad's house (he's a fervent Catholic still), in the parish magazine, which had an item regarding the Union of Catholic Mothers' rallying people to an upcoming anti-abortion rally. Naturally, the item was replete with the obligatory moralising about the evils of murdering innocent life, etc. I'm afraid that your constant claims that I am out of touch, prejudiced, etc., are based more on hope than reality.   

I suppose you think that all Jews have long noses, too. And since that's the case, they should have nosectomies so as not to offend people, right?

Beneath contempt. You should be ashamed of this intemperate outburst.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope's Survey
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Nov 13 - 09:41 AM

Does that include those gays who oppose it?

Well, maybe they're misinformed, or conditioned by religion. Musket did allow that category, if you'll care to stop straw-manning for a minute.

Does that include those who have no issue with sexuality but just have the traditional view of what the institution of marriage is and should be?

They can't be both things, so they're liars as well as bigots.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope's Survey
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Nov 13 - 09:53 AM

They can't be both things
Yes they can.
That is the position of the Anglican and Catholic churches for instance.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope's Survey
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 29 Nov 13 - 10:24 AM

I must admit Keith, of all the people coming to the conclusion the Anglican and Catholic Churches are liars and bigots, you'd be one of the last in my book. But then, what do I know?

If the position of any person or organisation is that something open to the rest of society (marriage) isn't open to a section of society, then that is discrimination. Full stop.

If no reason other than bigotry is put forward as the excuse, then walking and quacking leads people to a conclusion. After all, anything in their bible applies only to those who wish it to. It had no bearing, no power and no relevance to anyone else. But that isn't the position of the churches is it?

You learn something every day
Today I learned that Grishka is a male name, or at least I was berated for not knowing that. Funny, I have one friend and one work acquaintance by that name, and one is male, the other female. Hence my covering the bases.

That's the only thing Grishka taught me. The idea that religion isn't a historical mechanism for controlling the pack is outrageously funny. Such brainwashing just shows the danger of some of the less palatable aspects of religious control. Even level headed cynical people hesitate before defying these man made constructs.

Keith for instance feels you can have no issue with sexuality but have an issue with sexuality so long as you are a church, who must of course be respected..

Why?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope's Survey
From: Stringsinger
Date: 29 Nov 13 - 11:33 AM

My problem with religions has to do with an authoritarian mind-set. They are not democratic in that they invest the power with priests, ministers, rabbis, imams and other reputedly
"holy" men. (Not too many if any women).

In order for this authoritarian view to be relinquished, the notion of being a child with
parental authority has to be given up in favor of the responsibility of thinking for yourself.
You can't let a Pope or Dalai Lama or anyone in authority do your thinking for you.

Sexuality is a private matter and can't be legislated by religion or government. Sex crimes however must be controlled by law enforcement.

Homosexuality is not a crime. Race hatred however is.

Religion generally is consensual power, that is power allowed to be place in the hands
of an authority figure. The mind-control is allowed when the power is relinquished.

Religion is not necessary to societal good. It is harmful when the mind gets shut off
and decisions about life are placed in the hands of generally incompetent religious leaders.

If the Pope has any value as a spokesperson for the good of society, his religious tenets must be criticized if his words have any meaning. Any inconsistency here becomes a glaring error in the case of one so powerful.

Religion is a form of politics. Any hierarchical institution involves political struggle whether it's a religion or form of government.

I question whether democracy or true socialism can thrive in this kind of institution.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope's Survey
From: akenaton
Date: 29 Nov 13 - 11:37 AM

Well Jesus was a "socialist" in his time.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope's Survey
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Nov 13 - 12:16 PM

"Well Jesus was a socialist in his time"
'Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's and to God the things that are God's.'
That sounds more laissez faire than radical socialism.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope's Survey
From: GUEST,Grishka
Date: 29 Nov 13 - 12:19 PM

Today I learned that Grishka is a male name, or at least I was berated for not knowing that.

Not berated, informed. On googling, I read that it is a "baby boy name", haha. English generally has a tradition of gender ambiguity, but I think we are excused to call a, say, Tony a "he" by default. Anyway, my persona is a man.

You asked me for an explanation and got it. Now it is your turn: if you say something is "outrageously funny", do try to explain why it is either wrong or why you disagree, there's a good chap. If you are overchallenged with the general case, comment on my example of 29 Nov 13 - 06:30 AM. Note that it is by no means meant as a plea to condone satanism. "Man made" in a sense, but not invented by powerful persons as a means of controlling the masses.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope's Survey
From: GUEST,musket drooling
Date: 29 Nov 13 - 01:26 PM

Who mentioned satanism?

As far as I'm concerned its something to do with role play at sexy swinging parties.

Not that any bugger has invited me.

Ah well. Two's company, three's fun.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope's Survey
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Nov 13 - 02:58 PM

Using Joe's scale from his clever insightful post,the 1-4's are playing their roles here in this thread.I think Joe an obvious 5-6 er has just shown you how Catholicism is no different in essence than the other religions from around the planet.My problem with Catholicism is it is bottom of the pile in delivering enlightenment compared to other "paths".If the people who try preach it understood their religion like Joe that figure would rise imho.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope's Survey
From: Don Firth
Date: 29 Nov 13 - 05:23 PM

Agreed!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope's Survey
From: Joe Offer
Date: 29 Nov 13 - 06:08 PM

Ake says: I think you are wrong to say that only "conservative" Catholics are against homosexual marriage, or abortion on demand, Joe.

I didn't say that, Ake. In my post at 10:27 PM yesterday, I said, "the right wing has taken these issues up in the last ten years and caused a lot of embarrassment for the rest of us."

And maybe I can answer this rather definitive statement from Musket at the same time: ANYONE WHO OPPOSES GAY MARRIAGE IS DISPLAYING DISGUSTING HOMOPHOBIC BIGOTRY. THERE IS A CHANCE THEY ARE DISGUSTING HOMOPHOBIC BIGOTS AND THERE IS A CHANCE THEY ARE ILL INFORMED AND CONDITIONED INTO THINKING SO. OFTEN BECAUSE THEY HAVE BEEN TOLD JESUS OR MOHAMMED DOESNT LIKE THE IDEA..

What the conservative Catholics have done in their power play, is to make issues of these matters. In fact, that seems to be a hallmark of conservatism today: passing judgment on the private conduct of others, possibly to serve as a smokescreen to cover the selfishness of their own social misconduct. They can justify withholding medical care because of the evil sexual conduct of those seeking abortion (or even maternity care) or treatment for AIDS or sexually transmitted diseases. They feel justified in condemning homeless people because they label homeless people drug addicts and alcoholics and thieves.

Another conservative trait, is to deify civil law and to consider disobedience of a civil law to be immoral. Therefore, these people see it justifiable for undocumented immigrants to suffer whatever consequences they suffer - because "they broke the law." Laws requiring capital punishment and allowing gun ownership, can also take on this "deified" status. I've wondered, though, why the Affordable Care Act / Obamacare does not enjoy this same divine support.

And on to Musket's sweeping statement, which seems to be in bed with many of the twisted perceptions of Mr. Shaw: whether you like it or not, it has traditionally been the job of churches to raise questions about the morality of human conduct and human decisions. In this thread others, this practice of churches has been portrayed by some as something horrible and bigoted, as some sort of mind control, as interference with the rights of individuals or governments. In other words, the idea is that it is somehow not right for churches to dabble in the realm of morality. Indeed, some seem to think it wrong for churches to say anything in the public forum, or for religious people to defile the atmosphere with greetings such as "Merry Christmas."

I think there must be some reasonable middle ground. I certainly don't think it's right for churches to coerce governments to do anything, and thus I find it wrong for the Catholic Church to pressure governments to outlaw birth control devices in certain countries (no longer true in most situations). On abortion, I have mixed feelings - I don't think third-trimester abortions should be legal in most circumstances; but although I question the morality of abortion, I don't think there should be laws against abortions during the first two trimesters of pregnancy. Ake's use of the term "abortion on demand" makes it appear that people who have abortions take their decisions lightly, and I think that characterization is unfair. I believe that most women who have abortions, think very seriously about their decision.

I think that in the United States and many other places, the churches are the strongest advocates for the poor, the homeless, and the immigrants. Some may claim this is religion interfering with government, but I see this as people of like mind joining together to speak for what they think is right. The Catholic Church gets a lot of flak from its own members for its opposition to capital punishment, and for its support of the rights of workers. Indeed, some people seem to think it wrong for workers to join together to advocate their rights, instead of speaking only as individuals. [Corporations, in their mind, should not have such restrictions, because U.S. law has declared corporations to be "persons" - except, of course, when it is inconvenient for them to be persons]. To my mind, churches should certainly have the right to speak out on public issues, but there should be limits on churches controlling legislation. I suppose it's hard to figure where to draw the line on that.

OK, about this issue of how much churches control their members - I would say that in most places nowadays, that control is very limited. Steve Shaw will no doubt come up with yet another of his amazingly distorted perceptions on this, but the fact of the matter is that most churches don't threaten people with hellfire any more (a possible exception: some of the born-again churches, but I think they mostly condemn only infidels and members of other churches). In fact, threatening parishioners with hellfire was already out of style when I was a Catholic seminary student in the 1960s - because it was poor theology then, and it's poor theology today. Despite that fact that Catholics in the 1950s seemed to be afraid of ending up in hell, the Baltimore Catechism I memorized in grammar school carefully explained how difficult it was to do something that would qualify you for hell; and then you had to die without being sorry for what you had done and being fully convinced that what you did was horrible and intentional evildoing.

About a quarter of the Catechism of the Catholic Church is a study of morality. If you follow the link and take a look at at least a few sections, you will find that it is far more rational and compassionate in its approach than you might have imagined - and far less authoritarian than Stringsinger would have you think. Even parts you might disagree with, are presented in a very balanced, rational manner - a manner that seems to me to respect those who might see the issue differently.

So, Musket thinks it "disgusting homophobic bigotry" to oppose gay marriage. Some above seem to think that it's wrong for churches to question any sort of sexual conduct. Seems to me, that all of these "moral issues" should be open to rational discussion. For an individual or an organization to merely question the morality of homosexual sex, shouldn't be condemned quite so severely. After all, societal acceptance of homosexuality is still in its infancy, and there are many questions to be answered before acceptance of gay relationships becomes near-universal. Same with abortion - this is one of those life-and-death questions that shouldn't be taken lightly, so it should be open to questioning and discussion. Birth control - again, it's a question that's at least worth pondering. Are Chinese government one-child laws moral?

So, what I would like to see, is open, thoughtful discussion of moral issues - without condemnation or name-calling or rash generalizations. And yes, I think churches have a place in this discussion and should be a forum themselves for such discussion.

And although Steve Shaw cannot seem to accept this, churches do not consider sexual activity to be among the most important of moral issues. Far more important to most churches, are the issues of compassion: poverty and homelessness, immigration, warfare, capital punishment, peace within families, healthcare, the rights of workers, human trafficking, the environment. To say that churches do not have a right to speak out on such issues, is nonsense.

Oh, as as for sexual activity and churches taking strong stands, I think it's most often lay people who take the strongest and most vocal positions against various things. For the most part, even celibate clergy tend to be compassionate and tolerant, because they've heard and seen so much from so many different people. One exception - popes and bishops don't tend to get close enough to people to hear such things, so their opinions may vary.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope's Survey
From: akenaton
Date: 29 Nov 13 - 07:22 PM

"
So, Musket thinks it "disgusting homophobic bigotry" to oppose gay marriage. Some above seem to think that it's wrong for churches to question any sort of sexual conduct. Seems to me, that all of these "moral issues" should be open to rational discussion. For an individual or an organization to merely question the morality of homosexual sex, shouldn't be condemned quite so severely. After all, societal acceptance of homosexuality is still in its infancy, and there are many questions to be answered before acceptance of gay relationships becomes near-universal. Same with abortion - this is one of those life-and-death questions that shouldn't be taken lightly, so it should be open to questioning and discussion. Birth control - again, it's a question that's at least worth pondering. Are Chinese government one-child laws moral?"

That is exactly my position Joe; and by far the most important question that requires to be answered, is why are sexual infection rates so high amongst male homosexuals and what new procedures can be brought forward to halt the epidemic and replace the failed ones presently in position.
These matters ARE "issues"...serious issues, and to oppose legislation to promote this lifestyle as safe and healthy whilst these infection rates apply is perfectly valid.
It is NOT of course valid to refuse medical treatment to anyone affected by serious disease no matter what their sexual preferences may be,(does this really happen?)

Of course birth control should be allowed and even encouraged in some cases....BUT, when life has been created, we must think very hard before destroying that life.
Abortion on demand is being practiced widely in the UK, I'm not sure about the US, but it is practiced here for convenience or even to select preferred gender of child.
Society finds it easier and less expensive to abort the child, than to deal with the difficult issue through social services....these are the issues which require leadership and it is the place of the church to provide that leadership, not allow itself to be dragged along by the coat tails by an increasingly selfish and uncaring society.
We are all so hung up on the rights of the individual, that we have forgotten our obligations to our species...humanity.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope's Survey
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Nov 13 - 09:07 PM

And on to Musket's sweeping statement, which seems to be in bed with many of the twisted perceptions of Mr. Shaw: whether you like it or not, it has traditionally been the job of churches to raise questions about the morality of human conduct and human decisions.

And who made it "their job?" Not me, that's for sure.


but although I question the morality of abortion

You're a man. Abortion has nothing to do with you. It has everything to do with a woman's right to choose what she does with her body. By all means get quietly indignant if you really must, but keep your moralising to yourself. You might consider, instead, the morality of a Church (your Church) that lionises people such as Mother Teresa whose main aim is to keep women in ignorance and poverty. Once you've done that, see then where you abortion-moralising gets you.   


Steve Shaw will no doubt come up with yet another of his amazingly distorted perceptions on this, but the fact of the matter is that most churches don't threaten people with hellfire any more (a possible exception: some of the born-again churches, but I think they mostly condemn only infidels and members of other churches). In fact, threatening parishioners with hellfire was already out of style when I was a Catholic seminary student in the 1960s - because it was poor theology then, and it's poor theology today.

Well I don't give a damn about theology, but your general thrust here is a misrepresentation. I taught in a Catholic faith school for seven years until 1980 (including, as I've been at pains to tell you, my teaching religious instruction), and I can assure you that the the promotion of the fear and hellfire was alive and kicking right up to that point.


For an individual or an organization to merely question the morality of homosexual sex, shouldn't be condemned quite so severely. After all, societal acceptance of homosexuality is still in its infancy, and there are many questions to be answered before acceptance of gay relationships becomes near-universal.

I don't give a toss what society thinks. I do give a toss about what is right and wrong. I don't see why gay people should have to sit around waiting patiently for "societal acceptance" to happen so that we can then condemn properly what is a thoroughly immoral outrage, namely, the lack of acceptance of gay relationships. And, as before, do leave your morals at the door. They don't exactly help. The immorality lies one hundred percent with the lack of acceptance and nil percent with the gay relationships. Gay people are waiting, and you umming and ahhing about their "morality" is a disgrace.


So, what I would like to see, is open, thoughtful discussion of moral issues

Fine, but do try to get your head round what are moral issues and what are practical issues. Your Church does not enjoy a monopoly on making such definitions.

And although Steve Shaw cannot seem to accept this, churches do not consider sexual activity to be among the most important of moral issues. Far more important to most churches, are the issues of compassion: poverty and homelessness, immigration, warfare, capital punishment, peace within families, healthcare, the rights of workers, human trafficking, the environment. To say that churches do not have a right to speak out on such issues, is nonsense.

You have a right to say whatever you like, but on some of these issues your Church provides an embarrassed silence when some of your leading spokespersons, Mother Teresa being the most egregious example, preach ignorance, sexual repression, the subjugation of women, the celebration and tacit acceptance of poverty and injustice - AND YOU DON'T SPEAK OUT. So let's hear it. Not in soft tones. Mother Teresa is going to become a saint. Whaddya gonna say about that then?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope's Survey
From: Joe Offer
Date: 30 Nov 13 - 12:38 AM

What am I going to say when Mother Teresa becomes a saint? Same thing I say now: Steve Shaw has some really twisted ideas about Mother Teresa. He bought into the Hitchens progaganda, hook, line, and sinker. Nobody is as horrible as Hitchens (and Shaw) make Mother Teresa out to be, so I don't believe a word of what they say.

Same with Steve's putative expertise on Catholic Church teaching on sexuality. He worked in a Catholic high school until 1980, so he thinks he has his finger on up-to-date information.

Oh, and he says the only reason why priests don't talk about sex from the pulpit, is because there are children present in church. Otherwise, I suppose, all those priests would talk obsessively about sex - just like Steve....

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope's Survey
From: Joe Offer
Date: 30 Nov 13 - 01:11 AM

...and no, Steve, I'm not a big supporter of Mother Teresa. She's a conservative icon. But neither do I think she's the demon you make her out to be.

And I've always been one to speak out about things I think are wrong in the Catholic Church, particularly the refusal to ordain women and my bishop's support of the California election campaign against gay marriage.

I even wrote to my bishop and demanded my $250 contribution back from his diocesan campaign when he had ended funding for a homeless organization that hired a female Methodist minister as executive director, because she had spoken in favor of Planned Parenthood and gay marriage.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope's Survey
From: DMcG
Date: 30 Nov 13 - 03:43 AM

And on to Musket's sweeping statement, which seems to be in bed with many of the twisted perceptions of Mr. Shaw: whether you like it or not, it has traditionally been the job of churches to raise questions about the morality of human conduct and human decisions.

And who made it "their job?" Not me, that's for sure.

Maybe 'job' wasn't an ideal word - 'role' might be better.   But I think you are getting carried away in that comment. No-one said it is exclusively their job/role. A group or individual does not need the right or approval of anyone else - subject to legal restrictions - to raise questions on anything. Greenpeace did not seek my approval. Stonewall did not seek my approval. CND did not seek my approval. Shelter did not seek my approval. Whether an individual happens to agree or not with the arguments the church and these other groups make has no bearing whatever on their right to adopt the role of raising questions.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope's Survey
From: akenaton
Date: 30 Nov 13 - 03:54 AM

This forum has become alive.....excellent Joe and DMcG!...The "Messiahs of Mudcat" REALLY have no robes!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope's Survey
From: GUEST,musket giggling
Date: 30 Nov 13 - 05:19 AM

In which case I must read their contributions more closely before seeing merit. Mind you, they can't be that good. Akenhateon is a one trick pony so presumably he thinks they are supporting his position. ...

Joe. No.

It is not the role of the church in any democracy to feel they have a right to influence. They can lobby the same as any pressure group but until they all realise everybody, regardless of class, ethnicity, gender or sexual persuasion has an equal right to opportunity, they have no mandate outside their own clubs and societies. Politicians pander to them due to the votes they return, not because their paintings of biblical characters look vaguely Western.

Here in The UK, the prime minister started attending church once he became leader of his party because his spin doctors reminded him of votes. The deputy prime minister and leader of the opposition are not religious and both have spoken of removing the religious clauses in equality legislation.

Getting there.

In the meantime, if religious clubs and organisations do most of the social work where you live, don't translate it over here. Many do fine work but we have a welfare state, creaking and more reliant on charity but not religious in essence. The Charities Commission rules preclude overt religious emphasis on charities. Although most religions have charitable status to allow tax breaks for their pastoral work. Fine.

I did some sabbatical work in Kenya a few years ago. One community had both Cafod and an Islamic aid body wishing to invest in the village infrastructure. Just one clause. .

By the time I got there, the medical centre was still a clearing waiting to be built but the mosque and Catholic mission were up, open and to a high standard.

Funny that.