 sj |
||
|
||
BS: At last a Pope talks some sense
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense From: Ed T Date: 15 Feb 10 - 10:07 PM England history is ripe with laws that limited catholics property and education rights, freedoms to openly practice their religeon or hold public office until around 1745. The rights of RCs were limited by acts that established royal supremacy in the Church of England and civil disabilities were imposed on those who remained in communion with Rome. Elizabeth I made it impossible for Catholics to hold civil offices and imposed severe penalties upon Catholics who persisted in recognizing papal authority. Fines and prison sentences were prescribed for all who did not attend Anglican services, and the celebration of the Mass was forbidden under severe penalties. Laws even required holders of public office to take various oaths of loyalty and to receive the sacrament of the Church of England. Jesuits and other priests were expelled (1585) from England under penalty of treason, and harboring or aiding priests was declared a capital offense. A number of Catholics were executed for treason. Now the RC pope wants to limit the freedom of others, to supports the right of churches to discriminate against others in accordance with their religious ethos. Sound familiar? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense From: Ed T Date: 15 Feb 10 - 10:08 PM For some odd reason most of my earlier post dissapeared in transit? Odd, I am truly not ilfallible. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense From: Ed T Date: 15 Feb 10 - 10:12 PM My typingis fallible, as noted by the many typos. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense From: Ed T Date: 15 Feb 10 - 10:13 PM Catholic Emancipation, 1829. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense From: mousethief Date: 15 Feb 10 - 10:38 PM Ed, that's because you're not typing ex Cathedra. O..O =o= |
|
Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense From: Ed T Date: 15 Feb 10 - 10:54 PM Good one, mousethief UK Folks: Check out the Anti-discrimination laws in the USA, Canada and the Netherlands....they seem to work well in these countries. I even know a protestant who answers the phone in a Canadian Jewish Center....without issues. The church going folks seem contented by the situation. http://www.google.ca/search?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&channel=s&hl=en&source=hp&q=Canada%2Banti+discri Seems like the RC pope can accept to potentially employ a sinner who has broken all ten Commandments but is repulsed by exposure of his flok to a gay girl or guy. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense From: Ed T Date: 15 Feb 10 - 10:57 PM mousethief, I know, it's flock...a spelling mistake not a typo that time:) Time to rest the mind. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense From: mousethief Date: 15 Feb 10 - 11:00 PM So you're not a flocking fool? O..O =o= |
|
Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense From: Joe Offer Date: 16 Feb 10 - 02:52 AM I'm still not clear about the details of the proposed UK legislation that the Pope complained about. Occasionally, I see mention of something the Catholic Church does in some country, that would be a clear violation of the American principle of separation of church and state. My immediate repose is usually, "Gee, I can't believe the Catholic Church is demanding THAT." The Catholic Church doesn't bother asking for a lot of stuff in the U.S., because even the U.S. bishops would feel ill at ease about crossing the church/state line. But I do wonder about anti-discrimination laws and how far they go. Do Democrats have to hire Republicans? In the UK, do Conservatives have to hire BNP members, or is it only homosexual BNP members that they have to hire? -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense From: Royston Date: 16 Feb 10 - 04:11 AM Joe, In very broad terms, UK Anti-discrimination law presently outlaws any form of discrimination, in employment, against any person on grounds of race, colour, religion, sex and sexuality. There are excetions for positions that the employer can prove require a an exception. For instance, an employer can specify that a particular position can only be applied for by women; let us say the position of a counselor in a refuge for women escaping abuse in the home. In the provision of services, however, things are a little different. A hotelier cannot refuse a room on grounds of race or colour, but they can refuse a room to a gay person or couple. A Catholic adoption agency cannot refuse to counsel and provide their services on grounds of race or religious belief, but they can refuse to offer their services to a gay couple. The new legislation is supposed - whether it succeeds in so doing remains to be seen - to consolidate and extend existing legislation, to close perceived discrimination loopholes. Those loopholes seem, in the main, to relate to discrimination on the grounds of sexuality and in the provision of services to the public. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense From: Stu Date: 16 Feb 10 - 04:50 AM "In the UK, do Conservatives have to hire BNP members, or is it only homosexual BNP members that they have to hire?" No has to hire anyone, but the idea of the bill is to make it against the law to be able to discriminate against someone capable of doing a job because of their age, gender, race, religious or sexual orientation. Last week the BNP was forced into accepting non-white members for the first time by equality laws - no bad thing there then. Check out the link in the second post for an idea of why it's proving contentious (a true blue paper to boot - no leftist viewpoint to muddy the waters there). Of course, this is a problem for the Catholic Church which won't allow the ordination of women and homosexuals, and they see the equality laws threatening their right to discriminate against these two groups. Of course, you could cite theological reasons for not allowing these group into the clergy and it's not peculiar to the the RC church (after all the Taliban share the same view). "But to demand that churches be silent on moral matters, is ludicrous." Only to members of that church, and this is a legislative matter for a democratically elected Government, and will effect far more than religious groups rather than a moral dilemma. I've no problem with a person's personal faith or their expression of it as long as it hurts no one else. In this case, the Pope is trying to influence a decision that the will affect the rest of us and that's not on. By making this statement he invites discussion and criticism for those of us who want to live in a fair and equal society. "The Catholic Church doesn't bother asking for a lot of stuff in the U.S., because even the U.S. bishops would feel ill at ease about crossing the church/state line." Here in the UK people don't like being told what to do by some bloke who's never even been to this country, and we too hold the divide between church and state as one of our most cherished principles (Charles I pushed his luck too far with that one), regardless of political persuasion (sorry Ake - can't blame them commie pinko's for that one). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense From: Stu Date: 16 Feb 10 - 05:09 AM Cross-post :-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense From: Ed T Date: 16 Feb 10 - 05:55 AM "Of course, this is a problem for the Catholic Church which won't allow the ordination of women and homosexuals" Not sure about the Ebglish legislation. But in most countries, where it exists, exemptions are made for valid reasons....for example priests, ministers etc. But, the reason must ve significant to be valid (possibly not the person answering the phone). I recall a case in Canada, where a historic fort refused to employ a black person as a uniformed guard for toiurist visits, stating it was not historically accurate, since blacks were not in the Military based in Canada at that point in colonial history. The reason was not viewed as significant or reasonable and the fort was required to rmploy the black person...with no future complaints from tourists. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense From: Ed T Date: 16 Feb 10 - 06:22 AM Another related article:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/02/AR2010020202834.html |
|
Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie Date: 16 Feb 10 - 01:08 PM mmmm One of my entries seems to have gone missing! A pity as it wasn't a bad one and hopefully didn't set out to offend. If anybody else has suffered this, do say as if a lot go missing, no wonder the thread seems a bit disjointed! One main problem with this and indeed any thread where religion is involved is that people try to make rational debate in an area where reason packed it's bags and went for a fortnight in Skegness. If you try to question the role or right of religious leaders, you are accused of being a hate merchant, Dawkins fan or troll. None of which is helpful. The Pope does have a job on trying to keep superstition relevant, as more people realise how absurd the whole concept really is. Sorry if I (and the vast majority of people) fall into the category of questioning the influence of something based on fairy stories and cast as fact, but whilst it may float many peoples' boat, that doesn't mean it should have a voice outside of it's own pulpits. The Pope is meeting with Irish Bishops as I type, and the subject matter makes perpetuating superstition through organised methods even less wanted by society. I don't resent people being religious, I don't want them to stop using scriptures as their moral code. Just don't be offended when I and many others feel it is an irrelevant cause when using it to make a point to the rest of us. It is quite obvious that if there is grand design, it doesn't have a white beard or indeed a belly button.... And it's so called representative on Earth makes himself look silly claiming he knows the dude's mobile number. Probably this one, deleted because it was anonymous. -Joe-
| ||||||||||||
|
Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense From: Joe Offer Date: 16 Feb 10 - 01:10 PM Well, I'd like to see the Catholic Church ordain married people and women and homosexuals - but I don't want some government requiring that. When it comes to hiring people who will serve as spokespersons, I think an organization needs to be unrestricted. Here in California, the Catholic Church has gotten a fair amount of flak for its stance on immigration, and some for its opposition to the death penalty. I'd certainly be appalled if anything were done to curtail its right to speak out on such issues. And as an employer, I do think the Pope has a right to speak out against legislation that he feels will affect his rights as an employer - even though I might well disagree with his hiring decisions. I don't see his statement on this anti-discrimination law proposal as speaking out on a moral issue - he's talking as an employer here. And isn't that his right? He did not compel anybody to do anything - he just said what he thought about the issue. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense From: Smokey. Date: 16 Feb 10 - 03:05 PM UK equality and anti-discrimination laws don't compel anyone to do anything. No-one is forced to employ someone they don't want to employ, and as far as I understand any alleged discrimination has to be proved in a Court of Law if it isn't freely admitted. The Pope's rights as an employer aren't affected; he can still employ who he likes, he just needs better reasons for not employing who he doesn't like. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense From: Joe Offer Date: 16 Feb 10 - 03:11 PM Well, Willie, the "Nazi Youth" crack is a cheap shot, since there's no evidence Ratzinger/Benedict was anything more than a nominal member - and Hitler Jugend membership was required of everyone who lived where he lived. What would you have done? Yes, there are religious literalists who insist on absolute acceptance of the "facts" they believe - but there are lots of us who see religion as an idealistic lifestyle expressed in allegory and poetry and folklore and mysticism. Ratzinger/Benedict tends more in that direction, than one might think. -Joe- And Smokey, I don't know that I agree with the Pope on this anti-discrimination issue - I just think he has a right to speak his mind about it. If people disagree with him, they should be able to refute his position, not his Hitler Jugend membership or his right to speak on an issue that affects his church. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense From: akenaton Date: 16 Feb 10 - 06:08 PM Why do the "activists" not protest about the Catholic church refusing to accept married MEN as priests? Surely the civil rights of a vastly greater number of people are involved. Could it be, that support of married folks is not on the "liberal" agenda? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense From: Smokey. Date: 16 Feb 10 - 11:21 PM They do accept married men as priests under certain conditions, they just don't allow priests to marry. Historically, that seems to be more about money and property than moral values. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense From: Joe Offer Date: 17 Feb 10 - 03:14 AM The irony is that in the Latin Rite, the married priests the Catholic Church accepts, are generally refugees from other denominations, men who are fleeing churches who ordain homosexuals and women. And generally, they are far more conservative than the celibate priests are. The Eastern Rites of the Catholic Church, like the Orthodox churches, have always had married clergy. But yes, most Catholic organizations that campaign for ordination of women and homosexuals, also campaign for an end to the celibacy requirement. In the US, the primary organization supporting these causes is Call to Action. I don't belong to Call to Action, but I've participated in many of their activities. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense From: Stu Date: 17 Feb 10 - 04:17 AM "And as an employer, I do think the Pope has a right to speak out against legislation that he feels will affect his rights as an employer" If this was the Archbishop of Westminster speaking I would encourage the debate; I think it's important all voices are heard in these matters and all views given consideration, but we should not accept the pope (or any religious/political leader from outside the country) using their influence to affect law making in a democratically elected secular government. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie Date: 17 Feb 10 - 05:32 AM Ah! Always remember to put your name in the box Willie... My bad, sorry Joe. I don't reckon my reference to Nazi Youth membership was a cheap shot really. (Although I am aware that on internet chats, invoking any Hitler comparison is normally a sign of losing an argument! Could be a sign, who knows.....) There were many people who chose not to do as they were told and perhaps suffered as a result. if this guy had the courage of his conviction then he made a strange decision. Me? I don't have any courage whatsoever, so would have gone with the flow even though I didn't believe in it. A bit like being dragged to a church for a wedding or funeral. I go because I don't have the courage to say to pious friends and relatives that I find their acceptance of fantasy and myth rather disturbing as they are (in the main) otherwise rather rational. Like I said above somewhere, I have no issue with people believing in fairies at the bottom of the garden or non chemical / biological reasons why somebody gravely ill makes a recovery. But, please keep it in your club or society. if you keep trying to influence society using your creed as a must do for everybody else, don't be surprised or offended if the rest of us have a laugh at your reasoning, or resent any success you have. I reckon Harriot Harman's new bill is a silly one and was at the very least not necessary as existing laws preclude prejudice. If that wasn't bad enough, she appears to have given religions a status above other laws by allowing bigoted hatred of peoples' lifestyles choice to be tolerated by Government. And that needs questioning. it really does. Sadly, it galvanises people against religion rather than live & let live. (Not that such a phrase exists in any interpretation of old scrolls, obviously.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense From: Joe Offer Date: 17 Feb 10 - 12:38 PM Yeah, but Jack, what exactly do you mean by "using their influence to affect law making" - opening his mouth? -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense From: Smokey. Date: 17 Feb 10 - 03:54 PM I thought in this particular case he was actually addressing his British bishops in Rome. Even I can't see anything wrong in that. Anyone wishing to see inappropriate people using their influence to affect law making need look no further than the House of Lords. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense From: Ed T Date: 17 Feb 10 - 09:38 PM How damaging would it be if one of these RC Job postings (in Irealnd) was a homosexual in a committed relationship? http://www.indeed.co.uk/jobs?q=Roman+Catholic&start=30 This one is especially interesting : http://www.nijobfinder.co.uk/jobs/job.php?j=91743&s=5393957&i=444&c=1942 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense From: Bonzo3legs Date: 18 Feb 10 - 04:22 PM It's about time that an important bloke like the Pope spoke out about the stupid equality laws made by this labour government!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense From: Smokey. Date: 18 Feb 10 - 05:15 PM He'd look a bit silly - I don't think this labour government has made any yet, have they? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense From: Ed T Date: 18 Feb 10 - 06:58 PM Should the UK labour government comment and possibly launch a meaningful investigation into child sex abuse scandal in the UK involving the Catholic Church, to determine if there was knowledge and cover up....and just how high up in organization? After all, child sex abuse is criminal activity, and can the church be trusted to investigarte itself? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense From: Smokey. Date: 18 Feb 10 - 09:37 PM No-one can be trusted to investigate themselves, but there hasn't been a child sex abuse scandal in the UK involving the Catholic Church yet. Thankfully (hopefully) we don't have a government who would allow the degree of Catholic influenced corruption in the police, social services and relevant inspectorate necessary for such a situation to arise as it did in Ireland. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense From: Ed T Date: 18 Feb 10 - 11:10 PM Maybe so....butthe more you look around the world, the more you find: http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/reports/archive/features/paedophile_pri |
|
Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie Date: 19 Feb 10 - 06:25 AM To be fair, this is not about the Catholic church's failure to eradicate abuse, although that alone should be enough for them to keep their "Holier than thou" comments to themselves for a while. Mind you, a few hundred years ago, they forged a document that allowed them to rule parts of Italy but that's another story. Not to mention sanctioning the Spanish inquisition and profiting from the wholesale slaughter of what is now Latin America. No, this is about a stance by a sovereign government to introduce a law that says everybody is equal and has the right to live in a meritocracy, regardless of race, creed, colour or sex. Not difficult, not a problem and not really necessary as employment equality is enshrined in other laws. But, as ever, some clubs, mainly religions, want opt outs. Why? if a person is capable of being a cleaner, clerk, shop manager, carpenter, caretaker, manager whatever, and a job that fits their capabilities comes up, why should being a woman or a gay person make them ineligible to apply? It is as simple as that. No buts, no ifs, just simply an unnecessary piece of legislation that describes common sense. Clearly, the reaction from absurd men in pointy hats makes me realise we need it anyway. Typical of Harriet Harman and her incompetent cronies that the people it was aimed at have shown her to be a weak feeble idiot and she has created inequality with a bill to eradicate it. I don't blame religious leaders for spewing out their hate and bigotry no more than I blame a puppy for shitting on the carpet, I blame politicians for bowing before them. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense From: Jack Blandiver Date: 19 Feb 10 - 09:13 AM but there hasn't been a child sex abuse scandal in the UK involving the Catholic Church yet Here's one: http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/north-east-news/todays-evening-chronicle/2007/11/22/secret-sins-of-the-priest-from-hell-finally-catch-him-up-72703-20145010/ & hundreds more... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense From: Jack Blandiver Date: 19 Feb 10 - 09:17 AM (again) but there hasn't been a child sex abuse scandal in the UK involving the Catholic Church yet Here's one: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/wear/8059908.stm & here's another: http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/north-east-news/todays-evening-chronicle/2007/11/22/secret-sins-of-the-priest-from-hell-finally-catch-him-up-72703-20145010/ & hundreds more... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense From: Ed T Date: 19 Feb 10 - 10:11 AM Good points GUEST,Steamin' Willie . The main reason I bring it up is to point the hyprocasy of this Pope, and those he replaced. On one hand to speak out not too stealthy) against those who are homosexual lifestyles (and to a lesser degree women) and on the other to ignore dasterdly and illegal acts that was going on inside his own church doors for centuaries (I suspect) and those who condoned, turned a blind eye to it, or enabled it to happen. I would expect a leader, who claims to be infallable (though it is fuzzy as to what) , to represent Christ on Earth to act differentlt. I find it difficult to comprehend that God, and or Christ (depending on your perspective) would do such a thing...and would not wish to refuse employment in his church, in the proffessions you indicate, because they were women or homosexuals. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense From: Jack Blandiver Date: 19 Feb 10 - 12:51 PM The Roman Catholic Church - nigh on 2000 years of oppression, mind-fuck, wholesale massacre, fascist collusion, inquisition, torture & terror that makes The Third Reich look like choir boys (members of the Third Reich look on nervously) and still actively promoting superstition, lies and ignorance to this day! Some nice architecture though, and music, and liturgy, and gew-gaws, but worrying to think people still take it seriously & that such a mind-numbing travesty of spirituality has a place in the modern world. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense From: Smokey. Date: 19 Feb 10 - 03:32 PM I don't doubt what you say, Sweeney, and I know there have been cases of abuse in the UK but I was meaning the kind of set-up we have seen exposed in Ireland where the whole system seems to have been involved. They are more likely to get caught and punished here because the whole system isn't infested with self-protecting Catholicism. That's what I meant by 'scandal', not the abuse itself. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense From: Jack Blandiver Date: 19 Feb 10 - 03:51 PM Well there was THIS, Smokey. God alone knows the full extent of the abuse & the cover ups, but given the odious foundations of the Roman Catholic church it's hardly surprising. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense From: Smokey. Date: 19 Feb 10 - 05:24 PM Good grief.. Thanks, Sweeney. It doesn't bode well for places where they can really get away with it, like India or Africa. An acquaintance of mine went to India in the 90s as a volunteer helping Mother Theresa's set-up. After a few weeks she came back, utterly disgusted and about as uncatholic as it's possible to be. No specific report of sexual abuse, just general abuse of children somewhat contrary to what was being told to the world. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense From: Joe Offer Date: 19 Feb 10 - 07:52 PM Hmmm. The 10-yr-old article Suibhne O'Piobaireachd cites says the priest in question had a computer capable of holding the Encyclopedia Britannica 11 times over. I have a computer capable of holding 231 copies of the encyclopedia - I wonder if I'm suspect. When it comes to analysis of the actions of churches, it's very difficult to find factual information - almost everything you find (including Mudcat threads) has a "spin" on it. Suibhne O'Piobaireachd, can you really say "oppression, mind-fuck, wholesale massacre, fascist collusion, inquisition, torture & terror" and claim not to be at least a little bit biased? Jesus H. Christ!!! An the other hand, I have to agree with Smokey that there are at least some questions about Mother Theresa. The general rule for Catholic missionaries is to serve the people, and not to talk religion unless people come asking. I've seen implications that Mother Theresa seems to have overstepped that boundary quite often, although I do not have concrete information. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense From: Smokey. Date: 19 Feb 10 - 09:44 PM Joe - all British newspapers are full of statistical tripe like that which you highlighted - we (at least some of us) learn to ignore it. We only have the one reliable unbiased newspaper and that is the Financial Times, which is far too boring for most people. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense From: Ed T Date: 19 Feb 10 - 10:32 PM Last year, a Canadian Catholic Bishop was charged by the Canadian Mounties (RCMP) with importing child pornography into Canaada on his laptop computer. This same bishop had negotiated settlements for the Church for decades of priest sexual abuse, which the parishoners are to pay...and yes, he offered an appology on behalf of the RC church. http://www.canada.com/news/Nova+Scotia+Catholics+shocked+child+pornography+charges+against+bishop/2056067/story.html The investigation comes following comments by some men — who as youth were abused by Christian Brothers in St. John's Mount Cashel orphanage decades ago — who say they told police they saw child pornography in the home of this bishop in the 1980s. He has yet to be tried of the charges. http://www.cbc.ca/canada/newfoundland-labrador/story/2009/10/02/nl-earle-lahey-102.html |
|
Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense From: Ed T Date: 19 Feb 10 - 10:37 PM Last paragraph in my last post should heve said "An investigation following ..... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense From: Jack Blandiver Date: 20 Feb 10 - 04:49 AM When it comes to analysis of the actions of churches, it's very difficult to find factual information - almost everything you find (including Mudcat threads) has a "spin" on it. Look at the facts of the case - as I had to, living as I was in Durham at the time with close friends who were members of McLeish's congregation, and the impact those facts had on their lives & faiths whether their children (who he had contact with) were actual victims or not. See HERE for more. can you really say "oppression, mind-fuck, wholesale massacre, fascist collusion, inquisition, torture & terror" and claim not to be at least a little bit biased? Hardly biased, Joe - my wife is a practising Roman Catholic from a Roman Catholic family; she also has a theology degree & a canny understanding of the bloody history of her church, as have I, largely through my interest in Gnosticism - especially the barbaric persecution of the Cathar Heresy. The collusion of the Vatican with the Nazi party is well known; their silence regarding the Holocaust remains deafening to this day. All this, and more, is historical fact. Roman Catholicism religion founded on an increasingly bizarre & warped theology that operates at several removes from the teachings and example of the man they claim to worship, let alone the scriptures on which they base their beliefs. If Christ threw the money lenders out of the temple, just imagine his reaction to the Vatican and the RC church in general, with its institutionalised paedophilia and the elevation of an evil old bitch like Mother Theresa to near sainthood. To this day the abortion and contraception laws in Catholic countries are founded on an inhumane oppression on the most fundamental level, and the theology of the church represents a mediaeval ignorance altogether at odds with human enlightenment - hence the OP of this thread. The historical facts are there, plain as day. So what are you, Joe - Devil's Advocate or Papal Apologist? And is there really any difference between the two? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense From: akenaton Date: 20 Feb 10 - 05:51 AM Smokey....I'm sorry to say this, as I enjoy your sense of humour on mudcat and your laid back style; but it seems to me that although you profess neutrality and lack of bias, when we see you amongst the real anti-religion nutters you seem to revel in "stoking them up". The fact is that religion or some sort of spirituality is a requirement for many many people. What "right"have the twisted minority to attempt to deprive them of it? are they bigots? religiphobes? or just fuckin' hypocrites! On Mudcat???.....perish the thought! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense From: Jack Blandiver Date: 20 Feb 10 - 07:33 AM The fact is that religion or some sort of spirituality is a requirement for many many people. Even as a humanist & an atheist I am not entirely anti-religion. I agree with what you say - quoted above - however, it is all so very subjective and religion and religious leaders should never intrude on the rights of individuals to live how they choose and believe what they want just as long as that belief doesn't interfere with another's rights to do likewise. The bottom line with religion is they can't all be right, but they can all be wrong. That they are all wrong is pretty evident, but the human dimension of spirituality is, as you say, very important. I know a lot of very sincere and very devout Roman Catholics, just as I know a lot of very devout and sincere Moslems etc. But when it comes to the wholesale massacre of others as heretics & infidels, likewise the active oppression of individuals because of some warped theology derived from the ravings of a mad horse, then I would suggest there is something seriously awry with the old religion concept. There is no truth that is not common to all. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense From: akenaton Date: 20 Feb 10 - 08:49 AM Yes...and I agree with some of what you say Suibhne, but the root of the problem lies in the fact that "religion" has been used as a political card in many places, and so has not evolved as I think you and I would have liked it to do (I too am an atheist) In Scotland and Ireland, one's religion is widely used to define one's political beliefs....I fear that is also starting to happen in the US. Here on mudcat, the anti-religion lobby are using the archaic parts and contradictions of old style christianity to bolster a political ideology just as dogmatic and unreasoning. The fascism of the "liberal" left. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense From: Ed T Date: 20 Feb 10 - 10:43 AM The thread title suggests the pope is talking sense.... Some suggest that the pope has a right talk about what he wants, or his own interests. Some say that most RCs dont pay much attention to the popes public statements anyway...and they do not represent those of the RC church, or the faithful. Some say that they are loyal RCs have faith in the church, but that they ignore pope statements that are inconvenient to their lifestyle or are not a requirement of the RC church or Vatican teachings ...yet they accept the pope is Christ's (aka Gods) only representative on Earth. Some say that since the pope (with human frailities) is God's representative, guided by Christ's (aka the holy ghost or spirit) that he is infallible on some matters....except on matters that the church faithful do not as a group like and deem that he is not infallible on (note that just how he is infallible changes through time, and is not fixed, as other matters, such as his interpretation natural law, may be). Some say that they support women and gay rights in society, but not inside thr RC church. Some say that you have to take a modern view of the RC church, but accept that a good part of the theology is fixed in time. Well I could go on and on....but I won't. I once heard that you can't have it both ways....but the RC church and its faithful seem to prove this wrong. I am a Christian. I respect anyone of faith and applaud their conviction and beliefs...though I may not share them. RCs often complain that anyone that challenges their beliefs are anti RC or anti Christian...even to those who are just as faithful to what they see as Christ's (aks God's ) messages to humans. Well...noone is going to challenge your faith or beliefs if you keep them to yourself. But, when you, or your church's representative (aka Christs only representative on Earth) go around agressively preaching your perspective to others....as if it is the only way, and expect immunity from societies laws or governments...expect others to challenge you. And, expect others to bring to light your internal weaknesses and contridictions. If you want a recent non religeon example of that....look at Tiger woods. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense From: GUEST,Allan C Date: 20 Feb 10 - 11:15 AM "In Scotland and Ireland, one's religion is widely used to define one's political beliefs....I fear that is also starting to happen in the US." I don't think that statement would stand up to any real kind of scrutiny as far as Scotland is concerned. Certainly not in the Scotland of the second half of the 20thC and 21stC. Yes Labour used to get a fair percentage of the Catholic vote but that probably had as mush to do with where much of that population was located as it had to do with actual religion. Catholics don't really vote on block on a religious basis and Protestants (who make up the vast bulk of the population) certainly don't. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: At last a Pope talks some sense From: Bill D Date: 20 Feb 10 - 01:01 PM Joe Offer said a few days ago: "Here in California, the Catholic Church has gotten a fair amount of flak for its stance on immigration, and some for its opposition to the death penalty. I'd certainly be appalled if anything were done to curtail its right to speak out on such issues." I see your point Joe, but this bothers me in the same way the recent Supreme Court decision on the extension of the 2nd amendment to corporations did. To my mind, institutions do not HAVE opinions...ever! I do understand that churches...especially the Catholic church... do have a system where leaders define and promulgate 'official positions' on various issues, but in the final analysis, it IS those leaders who 'have opinions'. All that varies is the degree to which various churches suggest that their official stance is supported by scripture and how closely members are expected to toe the line. You, Joe, mention often that you do NOT accept some of the more extreme teachings of Rome on certain matters, and that seems to me to be progress(though YOU would be considered bordering on heretical in more conservative countries).....but then you want to allow "the church" to have freedom to "speak out" on things like immigration? I strongly feel that any opinion on public matters should be stated AS the opinion of the individual, and not some institution- religious or corporate - he happens to represent in other capacities. |
