BS: The Pope's Survey

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope's Survey
From: DMcG
Date: 30 Nov 13 - 05:45 AM


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.

Ok, this is a little complicated. Let's begin by agreeing there should be no bishops in the House of Lords by right. That's one of many of the reforms of the House that should have happened, but didn't.

I would agree that "It is not the role of the church in any democracy to have a right to influence" but not "It is not the role of the church in any democracy to feel they have a right to influence." I am not about to try to regulate feelings or beliefs, but agree with you that the influence should be similar to any other pressure group.

Now, you say the politicians pander to the churches views. Suppose that to be true. Are you saying the church should stop expressing its beliefs in case they are taken seriously? Surely not: any fault here lies with the politicians, not the church.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope's Survey
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Nov 13 - 07:26 AM

The Church predicates its morality on religion. It has a guidebook called the New Testament ("interpreted" for our moral guidance by a whole swarm of "theologians"), a tendentious, historically-dubious document that is often at odds even with itself. Good morals may well arise from that shaky foundation, but so might bad morals too. That's the trouble with shaky foundations. Well, the thing is that, in the world as a whole, the Catholic Church enjoys only minority support. Worse, most of the people who are ostensibly "Catholic" (i.e. signed up at birth in a church ceremony that they had no say about) don't give a damn. But does this imbue the Church with a sense of humility? Why no, it does not. Like all organised religions, it seeks to impose its faith-based morality on the world as a whole. The Church, for example, does not simply counsel its own members against abortion - it seeks to have laws on abortion that cover all of us (remember that rally I mentioned the Union of Catholic Mothers, and the parish mag, were supporting?). Mother Teresa told her audience that abortion was the greatest threat to world peace. What did she know about world peace? Why didn't she just say to her members that it's against the Church's teaching, in case you're considering it? The Church campaigns against proposals for gay marriage in the nation, not just for its own members. You do ask yourself where the Church supposes it gets its authority from to go beyond its own bounds in these ways. Don't ask a priest or a bishop that question though, as you might just get a silly answer and a glance heavenwards.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope's Survey
From: GUEST,musket again
Date: 30 Nov 13 - 07:52 AM

Correct. It is the fault of the politicians if they give undue influence to any group if that group promotes discrimination.

I have no issue whatsoever with the rights of churches, mosques, temples whatever to ensure their interests are protected but in a country where equality of opportunity is promoted and even legislated for, they have no right to protect discrimination. We don't have truck with BNP and their view of ethnic minorities so why should we be so inviting to those who discriminate against women in the career front and see gays as second class citizens.

It isn't any more complicated than that?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope's Survey
From: DMcG
Date: 30 Nov 13 - 08:01 AM

The Church campaigns against proposals for gay marriage in the nation, not just for its own members. You do ask yourself where the Church supposes it gets its authority from to go beyond its own bounds in these ways

But that's exactly what every pressure group does, one way or another. Not necessarily via laws, of course, but certainly it will seek to make its case outside its membership. And as I said before, the question of authority does not arise. [Pressure group] makes its case, you decide whether or not to agree. If you don't [pressure group] tries again. That's the nature of the lobbying of all kinds. That process does not imply the pressure group has any authority.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope's Survey
From: DMcG
Date: 30 Nov 13 - 08:39 AM

This might be a duplicate post, as my last attempt vaporised. This thread was originally about a survey of the view of ordinary UK Catholics by the UK bishops. Today, 20 November 2013, is he last date to complete the survey.

(click here)

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope's Survey
From: akenaton
Date: 30 Nov 13 - 08:40 AM

"It isn't any more complicated than that?"

OH yes it is, these issues are not simple, or only "simple" to the simple minded.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope's Survey
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 30 Nov 13 - 11:45 AM

Disgusting obscene bigotry isn't complicated at all. If it were, you wouldn't be capable of it worm.

The complications are purely down to whether or not society is accessible for all, regardless of ethnicity, gender, disability or sexual orientation. If any person or organisation feels otherwise, they have a view, fine. But if they by action or inaction carry out that view, they are in breach of the law (in The UK.) Unless they are acting on behalf of a recognised religion. Wow. Doesn't exactly make discrimination a bad thing after all eh? I have a friend who lives in a city with his wife and two young girls. He would love to move to a village, but he is white and his wife is black. They are discriminated less in the city. People don't stare at them. But if religions can openly discriminate, it isn't a bad thing if others do?

My stance is simple. If I can't discriminate, why can they? If Akenhateon came into a pub I owned, I couldn't bar him on the basis of his odious beliefs but a church can put out a job advert for a bishop, (which is a job and comes under employment law) and say no women can apply. They can say "come and get married here!" But gays can piss off. (In order to pander to them and ensure respectable citizens don't take them to court, the gay marriage act makes it illegal for Church of England or Wales to conduct gay marriage.)

Mind you, I still wouldn't serve him.

So tell me again, what legitimate voice have religious clubs and societies when they have fought hard and long against equality of opportunity for all? Why should I or anybody else have any respect for them.? Importantly, when Joe talks of the role of church to get involved in moral affairs, it would be nice for them to get their own house in order before preaching morals to those for whom civilisation has progressed beyond bigotry and misogyny. Oh, and in The UK, the number of practicing Anglican Christians means it would make more sense for members of The Council of Mosques to sit in the upper house than Anglican bishops.

The wonderful Stephen Fry in his two part documentary "Stepping Out" was debating with a Ugandan priest who advocated capital punishment for being gay. He said that there are over four hundred creatures who exhibit homosexual behaviour but only one that persecutes them. He then spoke to a young lesbian who, on the orders of her local Catholic priest (who was named and admitted it) was "correctively raped." She fell pregnant from the ordeal and just for good measure is now HIV+. The priest spoke of God's punishment of her. I had to go for "a short walk" after viewing her brave interview.

Sorry Joe, still not getting this moral stance. I must be thick.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope's Survey
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Nov 13 - 01:01 PM

But that's exactly what every pressure group does, one way or another. Not necessarily via laws, of course, but certainly it will seek to make its case outside its membership. And as I said before, the question of authority does not arise. [Pressure group] makes its case, you decide whether or not to agree. If you don't [pressure group] tries again. That's the nature of the lobbying of all kinds. That process does not imply the pressure group has any authority.

You are equating pressure groups with major organised religion. That is a false equivalence. AIPAC is a pressure group. The wonderful women of Greenham were a pressure group. Surfers Against Sewage are a pressure group. Pressure groups tend towards a single focus. Religions don't do that. Religions are large, complex, hierarchical organisations with many facets and a multitude of activities from running infants' carol services to getting unelected male bishops into parliament. You wouldn't call the Conservative Party a pressure group, would you? Yes it's a free country and the voice of religion has a right to be heard. But that is a very loud voice, out of all proportion to its membership (and it's worse than that, considering that most of the people they count as "members" don't give a flying fart for religion). We see religion everywhere in the media and on the streets, usually giving us messages of myth masquerading as certainty. Religion is the default. Imagine a world in which religion occupied its proper, humble place in the world. I'd suggest arriving at that assessment by counting arses on Sunday pews. Even UKIP can do better than that and they haven't got a single MP!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope's Survey
From: DMcG
Date: 30 Nov 13 - 01:34 PM

Pressure groups tend towards a single focus.
That all depends what you mean by a focus. Greenpeace, for example, has a single over-arching principle, but it is expressed by many different campaigns over time on specific issues. Similarly churches normally have some sort of overall principle, and it is expressed via different campaigns on specific issues. It seems a good parallel to me.

Of course, there are also pressure groups like 'Save Lewisham Hospital' where there is a single goal and essentially only one campaign, but by no means all are like this.

Would I call the Conservative Party a pressure group? No, but that is because a pressure group is trying to put pressure on someone, normally the government, and that can't apply if they are the government. Would I call whoever is in opposition at any particular time a pressure group? Probably not, but I'm not certain. Would I call the Anti-European wing of the Conservatives a pressure group? Yes, I would.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope's Survey
From: Joe Offer
Date: 30 Nov 13 - 08:45 PM

DMcG says:

• Greenpeace did not seek my approval.
• Stonewall did not seek my approval.
• CND did not seek my approval.
• Shelter did not seek my approval.

Well, no, but they DID seek my donation.


Sorry, Dave, the Devil made me say it.....

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope's Survey
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Nov 13 - 08:50 PM

Greenpeace reinvents itself for each campaign. It is a pressure group, tightly-focussed and constantly reinvented, but it does not enjoy the millennia-old hierarchical structure of an organised religion. There is no rule-book and no doctrine. Greenpeace, like all pressure groups, and unlike all major religions, is run by its volunteer members and is utterly and ideologically devoid of the authoritarian and undemocratic structures of religions. Greenpeace relies on its campaigns attracting members and supporters, unlike religions, which coerce the parents of infants into signing up their proteges at birth (and getting them into faith schools where possible). Religions put their feelers out in all directions, whereas Greenpeace puts its feelers out in one direction at a time. You shouldn't really be mentioning Greenpeace in the same breath as organised religion at all. Your doing so reeks of an attempt to legitimise religion by associating it with worthwhile causes. Greenpeace should either sue you or charge you a fee. And, for the sake of complete information, I have nothing to do with Greenpeace.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope's Survey
From: Joe Offer
Date: 30 Nov 13 - 09:19 PM

Musket, let me say that I agree that the Catholic Church as an institution, discriminates against homosexuals, and against women. That's the position taken by those in power, and I disagree with that position and have worked most of my life to change it.

But still, it's my church, and it allows me the opportunity to worship in the way I wish to worship.

My church also does a lot of good, and has an exceptionally good reputation for giving aid to the poor of the world efficiently and effectively. I suppose some would like birth control to be packaged with that aid, but it isn't.

My church has made strong, credible moral statements on a number of issues that are very important to me: poverty, homelessness, the rights of immigrants and workers, opposition to warfare and capital punishment.

You say: 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

I think you're wrong, Musket. It is the role and the right of any group in a democracy to have influence. It's not only corporations that deserve a voice. That's what democracy is supposed to be all about. So, yes, I firmly believe that churches have a right and a duty to speak out on moral issues, just as you have the same right.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope's Survey
From: DMcG
Date: 01 Dec 13 - 02:14 AM

Steve, we are talking about whether churches interact with governments in the same way as pressure groups, and I believe they do, [apart from the CofE which also has the additional House of Lords back door, which we agree should not be there]. Whether we approve or disapprove of the organisation concerned, whether they are new or old, whether they have a loose or a tight organisation, and all the rest only matters as far as the lobbying role is concerned in so far as they are more or less effective in getting the governments to respond to their views.

There are plenty of things you object to about churches (Mother Teresa, etc.), but on this point of lobbying your main criticism seems to be that they are too successful. Now, that's a very odd charge to make against any lobbyist. Which is why I say that on this specific point your anger would be better directed at the politicians than the churches.

So no, I don't feel I am slandering Greenpeace in any way.


====

Joe: I concede your point, devil or no!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope's Survey
From: Joe Offer
Date: 01 Dec 13 - 02:40 AM

...and so, to continue. I admit I don't like my church's stand on homosexual marriage and on ordination of women. I do have questions about extending a church blessing on homosexual marriage, but I cannot see how or why the Catholic Church should oppose a civil marriage for homosexuals. Now, there are "purists" who then say I am a horrible person because I do not insist that churches bless homosexual marriages, but that's where I stand. I myself would bless the marriage of any two people who pledge lifelong fidelity to each other, but a church blessing demands that the vast majority of church members feel certain that they can bless the marriage. It will take time to reach that point. If a church wants to jump the gun and legislate that it will bless homosexual marriages, it will cause polarization and separation.

I don't know how to bring an entire church to the point where it can freely and wholeheartedly bless a homosexual marriage. I wish I knew how it could be done.

On the other hand, civil marriage is a different matter, and I don't understand why so many people and my Catholic Church have such opposition to allowing civil marriages for homosexual couples. This is a perfect opportunity for churches to try out Acts 5:39 and see if it really works: "but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them."

And yeah, there's the issue of women, and whether women should be ordained priests. I am in favor of the ordination of women, but I also know that a huge number of Catholics would be greatly disturbed if the Catholic Church were to ordain women. We've seen the problems that the Anglican Communion has had with the ordination of women and homosexuals. It has led to a very nasty schism. So...the question is whether the Catholics should avoid the schism and wait until the vast majority of Catholics are ready to accept homosexual and women priests, or if they should impose female and homosexual ordination on people who are not ready to accept it. Now, Mr. Musket and Mr. Shaw are vehemently opposed to the thought of the Catholic Church imposing anything on anyone - but this is a matter where a vast number of lay people are vehemently opposed on this being imposed on them. So....it's a very difficult question, and there are no easy answers.

And Mr. Musket and Mr. Shaw appear to believe that because the Catholic Church does not have the proper stance on homosexuals or women or abortion, then it should have no right to speak on any issues whatsoever.

Well.....I disagree. While I think my Catholic Church is wrong on the issues of homosexuals and women and abortion, I think it is absolutely right on the far more important issues of poverty, homelessness, the rights of immigrants and workers, and opposition to warfare and capital punishment - and of that, I am very proud.

So, am I forced to belong only to those organizations that support all the same issues I support, or can I accept the reality that my church thinks mostly the way I do, but not completely? I've pondered that question most of my life, and I have not come up with a definitive answer.

Maybe that's the reality of life - that everything is not as we would wish it to be, that there are no absolutes, and that our job in life is to balance things and continue to strive to make some sense out of it all.

In the meantime, I'll stay Catholic, and remain convinced that somehow I'm going to fix all the many shortcomings of my Catholic Church.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope's Survey
From: GUEST,musket again
Date: 01 Dec 13 - 02:45 AM

Yes Joe.

But other lobby groups hope their wishes are taken on board.

The position of most religions is to assume their wishes are taken on board as a right.

I have never questioned the joy people get from involvement with their church, mosque, synagogue or temple. I would add, and should have added, freedom of expression of faith to my list of ethnicity, disability, gender and sexual orientation. Sadly, many people feel that questioning bigotry or misogyny is suppressing their freedom of expression of faith. Well, most people convicted of serious crime could find a biblical hero who did something similar. ...

The issue isn't people's faith and isn't their right to worship, nor indeed the good work people do using their particular organisation as a tool. Far from it.

It is the assumption of legitimacy of whatever an organised religion feels they desire and their right to pile it on others. That is why we have the absurd Sunday trading laws, legalised discrimination and both yours and our prisons stuffed with people whose avowed aim is a Caliph in The Whitehouse.

I said above that it is quite simple. If religions feel they have something to offer society at large, they should begin by acting with the same moral standards as those they wish to influence. As a start they should realise that you and the many like you are not just providing a view but a key to social acceptance. Gone are the days of favour, gone are the days of being used to keep the masses in order. (Blessed are the meek, rich men and camels through eyes of needles etc)

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope's Survey
From: DMcG
Date: 01 Dec 13 - 03:23 AM

Unfortunately, musket [and Steve], life is far from simple. I only referred to Greenpeace by way of illustration, but we will continue to use them to consider your point.

Most people, including me, would agree that Greenpeace is "worthwhile" and many, including me, have donated occasionally over the years without actually joining.

But to face the hard-nosed fact: In many countries Greenpeace is listed as a terrorist organisation. I'm not sure if it still is, but it certainly was so listed in the UK at one time. This is because it is perfectly willing to break the democratically created laws because it believes it has a higher moral imperative.

On the other hand, in most cases at least, church organisations are law-abiding: for example they do abide by the UK employment laws as enacted. (Of course, individuals in the organisations may not be law-abiding, but that's a different matter.) You may feel the laws as enacted are not right, but again that's another matter.

So, as I say, life is complex. The axes of worthwhile/not-worthwhile, law-abiding/terrorist, democratic/undemocratic do not fit together anything like as neatly as one might hope.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope's Survey
From: Joe Offer
Date: 01 Dec 13 - 03:39 AM

You know, Musket, I think the churches realized about fifty years ago that "gone are the days of favor." Certainly there are some stodgy old (and not-so-old) bishops who would disagree - New York's Cardinal Dolan would be one of them. But in general, I think that in general the churches realize that they're on a more even playing ground, and that's the way it should be.

Still, although churches may not be "right" on every issue, I think they have a right and a duty to speak their position.

And although it does take some positions I disagree with, I'm very happy my church speaks so strongly on behalf of the poor and the immigrant and the worker, and against capital punishment and warfare.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope's Survey
From: GUEST,musket again
Date: 01 Dec 13 - 03:41 AM

True. "As enacted. "

Except. ...

First of all the bishop of York as an example said on gay marriage that he answers to a higher authority. Rather sinister don't you think?

Secondly, once the gay marriage act is in use, papers are presently being filed to challenge through the European Court of Human Rights the ban on certain churches being able to offer them. Not, incidentally, by those churches but by those who will use any ruling to then pursue those churches for discrimination.   Once the act is active, Catholic churches are already fair game for suing.

But why?

Why go to making lawyers rich? Just because of translations of writings by superstitious people in the middle east a couple of thousand years ago?

Or because of reducing power over people?

My money is on the latter.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope's Survey
From: DMcG
Date: 01 Dec 13 - 03:58 AM


First of all the bishop of York as an example said on gay marriage that he answers to a higher authority. Rather sinister don't you think?

Silly, yes. I certainly don't agree with his conviction. But sinister? No, not really.

I am not sure exactly what the point of the EU case you referred to is. As far as I understand the legislation, there is explicit provision for the Church of England to refuse gay marriages, but there is no such provision for any other church. So to the best of my knowledge, the Catholic church could be sued for refusing without involving the EU at all, at least at the first step. If the church lost, then certainly the EU would become involved due the arguments about religious versus other freedoms, but that would be a long way down the road.

Where the EU ruling might come into play is whether one church can be singled out for special treatment in law in that way.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope's Survey
From: Joe Offer
Date: 01 Dec 13 - 04:07 AM

Wait - the Catholic Church can be sued for refusing to perform gay marriages, but the Anglican Church cannot?
Or am I missing something here?

I have to say that there is a vastly different view of church-state relations in the US vs. the EU, because the churches have never held any political status in the US. As an American, I have the feeling that church and state make strange bedfellows. And yet in the EU, where anti-church sentiment is very strong, churches have political advantages that the most conservative Americans would never dream of granting to churches.

Another difference is in the attitude toward services to the poor. In most of Europe, it seems that it is considered to be the duty of the state to care for the poor and to provide medical care. In the U.S., conservatives rail against any attempt to spend taxpayer money on the needs of the poor, since this is "socialism." So, the churches fill the gap. Churches don't have to do that in Europe, so maybe they can spend their time meddling in people's sex lives.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope's Survey
From: DMcG
Date: 01 Dec 13 - 04:13 AM

Wait - the Catholic Church can be sued for refusing to perform gay marriages, but the Anglican Church cannot?
Or am I missing something here?

Yes, you are missing something, but it is pretty excusable since you probably don't following arguments in the UK Parliament too closely. The problem arises, ultimately, because the Queen is Titular head of the Church of England and during her coronation swore an oath to uphold it. Parliament got concerned that they would be asking her to sign an act of Parliament that arguably breaks that oath. So they put into the law explicitly that it did not apply to the Church of England.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope's Survey
From: DMcG
Date: 01 Dec 13 - 04:46 AM

In the U.S., conservatives rail against any attempt to In the U.S., conservatives rail against any attempt to spend taxpayer money on the needs of the poor, since this is "socialism." So, the churches fill the gap. Churches don't have to do that in Europe, since this is "socialism." So, the churches fill the gap. Churches don't have to do that in Europe
That is more or less the case, Joe, but less so than it was. In the UK, for a long time but even more so since the economic crash, the governments have been trying to cut back on "spend[ing] taxpayer money on the needs of the poor", which has led to, for example, a huge increase in the number of UK food banks. These are in large part "churches filling the gap."

Article on UK food banks

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope's Survey
From: akenaton
Date: 01 Dec 13 - 05:03 AM

Another anomaly lately has been the prosecution of a Christian couple who own a Guest House and refused to rent a double bedded room to a couple of male homosexuals.
They appealed the prosecution on the grounds that their Christian beliefs did not permit homosexual practice.
They lost the appeal and were fined around £2000.

This meant that they had to close down their business or give up their Christian faith.
It is believed that Christians are being targeted by activists who are using "human rights legislation" to weaken the position of committed Christians.

I suppose its all VERY simple, the rights of one section of the community matter. The rights of committed Christians do not!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope's Survey
From: GUEST,musket again
Date: 01 Dec 13 - 05:05 AM

That's precisely what I mean. The legitimacy of the legislation in terms of our signing up to the Human Rights covered by that constitutional court. The Church of England and their counterpart in Wales have been promised they can't be made to account for their discrimination by making it illegal for them to conduct gay marriage. Of course, this is no more than a delaying clause as the legislation will be challenged on our commitment to human rights charter obligations. The Monarch being asked to dilute her religious role is just a smokescreen. We are a constitutional monarchy. She signs what she is told to and if she objects, it is signed by the Prime Minister as first Lord of the Treasury. Presumably the constitutional crisis that would entail would mark the end of monarchy. Disestablishing the church would be a far easier option and Liz knows it.

I said that Catholics are already, once the act becomes live, sitting ducks for legal action. Just as they were for refusing to accept gay couples as potential foster parents for an agency they ran in Leeds.

The position for Muslims is easier. If you believe you tend to believe most of it. The term boutique Muslim only applies when sheiks get pissed and order prostitutes to theirroom when on business in London. Boutique Christians tend be those who run round the pick n mix counter. Most of them, if I'm correct.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope's Survey
From: DMcG
Date: 01 Dec 13 - 05:21 AM

I said that Catholics are already, once the act becomes live, sitting ducks for legal action

My hope, but not my expectation, is that the survey that started this thread could mean we never get to that point. But if we do, there are still a lot of games that can be played that stop the Catholic church being such an easy target. For example, it could adopt the model common in France that there is a church service that is not a marriage from a legal viewpoint, followed by a registration elsewhere, such as a civil registry office, which would be in law where the marriage took place, and so the Church would be in accord with the law.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope's Survey
From: akenaton
Date: 01 Dec 13 - 05:39 AM

But D McG, I'm sure you know, it's actually all about the word.

The "liberal" activists who produce this "show" are simply using homosexuals, the vast majority of whom don't want "marriage" in any form, to assist them in wrecking all forms of religious faith, which they see as bastions of conservatism.

It's like being beaten with a club, "either accept our agenda or we will make up words to demonise you, we have the power of the media and the politicians are running scared"

It is in actuality a form of Fascism and can be seen in action on these threads.
I've been happily married for 45 years, have 4 children and have had a conventional sex life, yet have my sexuality questioned by a couple of people who have never met me, know nothing about me, but have taken exception to me expressing my views on this forum.

Pathetic!

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope's Survey
From: GUEST,musket again
Date: 01 Dec 13 - 06:58 AM

Nothing to add to that.

When someone shows their arse, its rude to point at it.

Mind you, it's good to hear from the spokesman for "most homosexuals."

zzzzzzz

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope's Survey
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Dec 13 - 07:15 AM

Mr. Shaw [is] vehemently opposed to the thought of the Catholic Church imposing anything on anyone

I'm more than happy to have rules imposed on me by any organisation I have joined voluntarily as a consenting, informed adult. I am perfectly happy for consenting Catholics to have the Church's rules imposed on them if that's what they want (in fact, that would be none of my bloody business). I am not happy with the egregious immorality of forcing children to undergo religious instruction in schools, to be herded to church services or to be signed up to a complex mass of theology at the age of two weeks old that will later prove difficult for them to unhitch themselves from. If anyone thinks this kind of stuff is in any way "moral", well, you've lost me there.   

And Mr. Musket and Mr. Shaw appear to believe that because the Catholic Church does not have the proper stance on homosexuals or women or abortion, then it should have no right to speak on any issues whatsoever.

Are you stooping to lies now? Just yesterday in this thread I defended the right of the Church to have a voice. I complained that that voice is way too loud, considering the puny numbers of Catholic arses on Sunday morning pews. Kindly do not misrepresent me.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope's Survey
From: GUEST,musket
Date: 01 Dec 13 - 08:06 AM

Amazing how people twist what you are saying if it doesn't please them.

Let me make it clear. There is no proper stance. Equality of opportunity for all is above stance, as it is a key tenet of democracy and freedom. If a Church wishes to propose restrictions on that then that's fine too. Just don't be upset when decent normal rational people dismiss it. If they can't be trusted with freedom and equality, what moral right have they to demand to be heard on any issue?

I think you will find that to be very different to the words put in my mouth above. I am surprised to read it from respectable decent people like Joe. The church or mosque in any community has a role to play. Resolving the medieval aberrations will make them a contributing piece in the jigsaw puzzle rather than an increasingly irrelevant one. You can't speak of sustaining old ideas on the basis of evolution. My phone is out of date less than a year since it came out. Society doesn't like being kept waiting. It wants things to be fit for purpose now or it buys into something else.

By the way, I wish the Catholic Church put as much effort into resolving the crimes carried out in its name as it does on the worthwhile and admirable stances Joe is pleased to be associated with.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope's Survey
From: DMcG
Date: 01 Dec 13 - 08:22 AM

You've just unwittingly damaged many decades of my thinking Donovan's lyrics were better than they were. He wrote, simplifying: "Freedom is a word I rarely use without thinking/Of the times/when I've been loved" and until I looked it up moments ago I though it was ".. of the times/when I've been low". Much better, in my view, as it recognises that freedom comes at a price. Very "Brave New World": Freedom is the right to be unhappy. Instead, it turns out to be an empty soppy phrase, oh well...


But when you actually think about it, freedom and equality are incompatible. Equality almost always comes with a loss of freedom (you are not free to be prejudiced, for example.) There are some really good [non-religious] books on the subject.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope's Survey
From: GUEST,musket
Date: 01 Dec 13 - 09:14 AM

Aye. If you use semantics and take words out of context, anything is possible.

In this case though the context is the freedom to enjoy equality of opportunity regardless of what you can't or shouldn't have to alter in order to achieve it.

Freedom unrestrained would include the freedom to hate, so it would also include the freedom not to be affected by the impact of hate. This gets somewhat circular so I would recommend you recognise the context.   There's only one person who posts on Mudcat.org who purposely alters the context to push his point and there is only one who is so consumed with hate he tries using words beyond his demonstrated intelligence. The rest of us, you and I included are capable of recognising context.

I too have problems with Donovan lyrics. I occasionally am asked to sing my take on Catch the Wind. I get the first bit of the second verse and the last bit of the last verse tits up. Strangely, it doesn't alter the meaning of the song. We can all get lover's balls. Even my greyhound and he doesn't have any. But try telling him that when he is fawning over our cleaner's lurcher. ....

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope's Survey
From: akenaton
Date: 01 Dec 13 - 11:31 AM

"Mind you, it's good to hear from the spokesman for "most homosexuals."

Let me explain to you Ian, you don't need a spokesperson.

Simply look at the figures for those countries which have introduced "homosexual marriage" the take up rates are miniscule, especially for age groups who would be expected to be "sexually active".

Your remarks on the basic nature of my education may be correct, but do you no credit at all, as either a supporter of equality or as a person.
I have had a basic education, because I was brought up in a very loving but very poor family.
I felt it was my duty to leave school as soon as was humanly possible, so that I could contribute to the family finances.

I believe that I am reasonably intelligent, intelligent enough to form an argument and hold a civil discussion, I do not feel the need to bolster my arguments with personal abuse......perhaps that is being stupid?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope's Survey
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Dec 13 - 12:05 PM

Simply look at the figures for those countries which have introduced "homosexual marriage" the take up rates are miniscule

Well they would be if they called it that. And my take-up rate of delicious, dry-cure streaky would be minUscule if they called it "pig's abdominal body wall contractile tissue".

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope's Survey
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 01 Dec 13 - 12:42 PM

I haven't commented on your education. I will however comment on your use of your education, whatever it was, to articulate lies to substantiate your odious views. You don't have to be thick as pigshit to wish to discriminate. I doubt either the Pope or the Archbishop of Canterbury left school to be pushed up chimneys but they share distaste for high office for women or equal rights for gay people.

Stop trying to look hurt, it doesn't wash. Education and wisdom can be mutually exclusive. Something I learned very quickly when I worked down the pit.

Perhaps if every post you type didn't contain personal abuse aimed at a section of society, you might well be able to hold a civil discussion.. But no. Your outburst on another thread less than an hour ago was so far from decency, I find it difficult to see how you could ever recover it.

Earlier in this thread, Joe Offer said

"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."

Perhaps if he thought on about how hurtful you are to people you don't even know, let alone judge, or if he thought on about how a church in his country, Westboro, has said that the eight people who died in the helicopter crash in Glasgow deserved to die as it was God's reaction to allowing gay marriage in Scotland....

I don't consider them or you as stodgy. I have another word I could use.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope's Survey
From: Don Firth
Date: 01 Dec 13 - 01:54 PM

Ake:   The "liberal" activists who produce this "show" are simply using homosexuals, the vast majority of whom don't want "marriage" in any form, to assist them in wrecking all forms of religious faith, which they see as bastions of conservatism.

Blatantly untrue.

Ake again:   Simply look at the figures for those countries which have introduced "homosexual marriage" the take up rates are miniscule, especially for age groups who would be expected to be "sexually active".

May be true where he lives, but definitely not where I live. Once gay marriage was legalized in this state, within days there was a great surge in the number of marriage licenses issued—to same-sex couples. And that's been the case in every state in which same-sex marriage has been legalized

AND—there are a large number of churches that are willing to perform same-sex marriages, so at least in the enlightened area in which I live, if a particular church or denomination wishes to refuse to perform such marriages, there are plenty of others that will.

So Ake's oft repeated claim that gay men don't want marriage in any form is simply not borne out by what is actually happening in the real world.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope's Survey
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 01 Dec 13 - 03:58 PM

It isn't true where he lives. Scotland is a multicultural melting pot with large numbers of gay couples and both main cities enjoy gay pride marches.

But there again, he doesn't live in the real world.   I wish he would stop shouting his bile towards the real world though. One day bigotry might die, but whilst ever small pockets thrive, the world is a sadder place than it should be.

I noted in another thread that there are over 400 creatures we know to exhibit homosexual tendencies, but only one that persecutes them.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope's Survey
From: Joe Offer
Date: 01 Dec 13 - 05:25 PM

Musket, do you actually see fairness in comparing anybody to the bigots at Westboro Baptist Church, http://www.godhatesfags.com/

You know, it's kind of like the Hitler argument rule - if you have to resort to comparing your opponent to Hitler, it means you're losing the argument.

Most people who oppose gay marriage aren't hateful about it - they're just uncomfortable, and maybe they don't know anybody who's gay and they're a bit afraid. It they are dealt with gently and nonaggressively, they'll come around.

But the bigots at Westboro Baptist, ought to be in jail.

But you do understand, Musket, that Joe Offer favors gay marriage - right? I also favor the ordination of women.

As of June, 2013, Pew Research reported that there were at least 71,000 gay marriages in the U.S. I'd say that's pretty popular, Ake.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope's Survey
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Dec 13 - 05:46 PM

Most people who oppose gay marriage aren't hateful about it - they're just uncomfortable, and maybe they don't know anybody who's gay and they're a bit afraid. It they are dealt with gently and nonaggressively

Why yes, let's be gentle and non-aggressive to bigots. Why not? After all, the victims of their bigotry, going backs many hundreds of years, were treated so gently and non-aggressively, weren't they?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope's Survey
From: Stringsinger
Date: 01 Dec 13 - 05:51 PM

" Equality almost always comes with a loss of freedom"   

I'm not convinced. Inequality comes with a loss of freedom for some. It's the opposite of equality. Being equal in a democratic society means that ultimately everyone will share
in the same amount of freedom.

Freedom to do harm or commit to destructive behavior is not freedom at all but a twisting of the definition of freedom.

There doesn't exist anyone on this planet that is totally free of everything. Freedom is relative.

Catholics have a choice to follow or not and impinge on their freedom by the rules of the institution. In other words, they have the freedom to not be free of the rules.

For non-Catholics, however, the Pope's edicts, however socially conscious and constructive lacks the freedom to break the yoke of institutional imprisonment since these progressive ideas of freedom of Choice, birth control, accepting homosexuality,
and ordaining women to the priesthood can't be swept under the carpet. These "antediluvian" edicts dilute the Pope's message.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope's Survey
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Dec 13 - 06:30 PM

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.

Never got back to this, such is the confusion through which we live, but I'm back with it now. You see, Joe, denial here is useless. You seem to be confusing hatred of Hitchens with facts vs. propaganda. Unfortunately, Mother Teresa did say those things about the poor needing to rejoice in their lot, she did say those things about Bhopal and she did say those things about abortion being the main threat to world peace. She did treat her staff horribly, she did allow appalling conditions to prevail in her establishments, she did dismiss the need to employ qualified medical staff and she did, quite improperly, corruptly one could say, divert millions of dollars that people had donated for the poor into founding convents. And she afforded herself the best medical facilities in the US when she herself needed treatment, in stark contrast to the lack of care meted out to those people unfortunate enough to find themselves in her institutions. All these things are matters of fact, inconvenient though those facts may be. They are on record, and I discovered them myself, not by believing Hitchens' "propaganda" (facts, actually, but hey) but by looking into it and finding it out for myself. You can do the same if you want to. You can find her sayings, her speeches and videos of her homes all over Youtube and elsewhere on the web. But only if you want to. If you don't want to, you can slag me and Hitchens off instead. Your choice. We're watching.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope's Survey
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Dec 13 - 06:33 PM

I didn't even like Hitchens, by the way, but I'll let that particular annoyance pass for now.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope's Survey
From: DMcG
Date: 01 Dec 13 - 06:49 PM

" Equality almost always comes with a loss of freedom"   

I'm not convinced. Inequality comes with a loss of freedom for some.

We are getting well outside any area of expertise on my part, but I would say there is an inevitable tension between equality and freedom to such an extent that it is how the conflicts between these are traded that is the primary difference between the mainstream political parties. As a crude example, calling on an earlier comment of Joes: a party that believes people should retain as much freedom to spend their earnings how they wish will tend to be to a low taxation government which necessarily means they have less to spend on social provision to address inequalities, even though that damages equality. Conversely a government that thinks social provision is very important will necessarily have to raise the taxes to pay for it, even though that reduces the taxed persons freedom to spend how they wish.

Now, you are right that inequality means a loss of freedom for some. There are two ways you can address that. You can let things be, and hope society finds a solution, but the prospect of that is normally pretty slim. Or you can apply legislation, which necessarily affects a much larger number of people to some extent, in the hope that it improves things significantly for a smaller number. And that's all about judgement, predictions and hope about how things will turn out, not firm foundations. Occasionally, a government will act because it is the moral course, but that's rare - its much more likely to be about voting trends than morality. And that, I suggest, is the situation with gay marriages. I would hope the government is proposing it because they believe it to be right. Let us say I have my doubts if that's the reason.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope's Survey
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Dec 13 - 07:06 PM

Gosh, I omitted to mention that Mother Teresa accepted donations from Papa Doc, and, in return, publicly praised him. Fact, Joe, not propaganda. Maybe she was just a confused old lady, huh? (who managed to inflict... oh, never mind...)

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope's Survey
From: GUEST,musket again
Date: 02 Dec 13 - 01:16 AM

Joe. Is it really extreme to indicate how bad bigotry is?

People within religious organisations continually claim that those who don't share their take on life have some sort of secular agenda. Senior church leaders refer to losing court cases where their prejudice has had an effect on innocent people and they call it persecution. Apparently, a couple who ran a hotel here in The UK thought it right that they could refuse a couple who had booked a room on the basis they happened to both be men. A nurse visiting old people in their home couldn't see what the fuss was when she was asking people to pray with her and leaving them leaflets when they refused or became confused or upset.

They asked the courts to suggest it was they who were being persecuted rather than those who suffered from their blinkered bigotry.

So when I point out how bad religious bigotry can get, it makes you wonder. Do you think there is a point where intolerance remains acceptable? Where would we draw the line? Who would draw it?   

Presumably the Ugandan priest who happily admitted on camera he ordered the corrective rape of a young lesbian is beyond the pail? Westboro? How's about Akenaton? Whilst we read this, he is busy on another thread saying lots of tests have been carried out showing gay porn to "normal" men and checking to see if they get an erection. He reckons that a) they don't and b) that proves that being gay is unnatural and normal people find it repulsive.

Fancy a game of spot the difference?

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope's Survey
From: Joe Offer
Date: 02 Dec 13 - 01:33 AM

Stringsinger says: For non-Catholics, however, the Pope's edicts, however socially conscious and constructive lacks the freedom to break the yoke of institutional imprisonment since these progressive ideas of freedom of Choice, birth control, accepting homosexuality, and ordaining women to the priesthood can't be swept under the carpet. These "antediluvian" edicts dilute the Pope's message.

I disagree, Frank. I think you have to take a person or a group's positions on various issues and deal with them individually. You can't just say, "He doesn't follow my agenda on thus, thus, and thus, so I can't believe what he says on issues we might agree on." Even though you consider a person's opinions on some issues to be neanderthal, I don't think that gives you the right to discount that person (or group) altogether. If we write people off totally because of partial disagreement, then we'll never come to agreement and cooperation on anything.

And when you're dealing with a group, that sort of polarization is even more deadly. I belong to the Catholic Church, which has positions you oppose on treatment of women and homosexuals. But I, part of the "loyal opposition" in the Catholic Church, agree with you on both women's and homosexual issues. So, do you discount and condemn me for belonging to an organization whose positions I share your opposition to?

It gets really messy when you issue blanket condemnations. Most people are blind-sided on at least some issues. If you use blind-sidedness as a criterion for considering people valueless, you can ignore almost everybody in the world and convince yourself you are vastly superior to them.

I think it's better not to get bogged down in that sort of combative relationship. Better to take people for their good points, and coax them along where they're behind. The more people we can get to seek common ground together, the better off we are.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope's Survey
From: Joe Offer
Date: 02 Dec 13 - 01:57 AM

Musket, you're stretching the bounds of credibility again, with your reference to a Ugandan priest who happily admitted on camera he ordered the corrective rape of a young lesbian is beyond the pail?

Yes, it's beyond the pale. But when you bring up examples of really perverted people as proof of how horrible a group is that wouldn't dream of supporting such conduct, what are you proving?

"Corrective rape" is a totally repulsive concept. Do you really think that any civilized human being would approve or condone such conduct?

On the other hand, I have to say that I have a difficult time understanding middle eastern communities that punish women who are victims of rape. I can see where an individual might do such a thing, maybe even a family - but for an entire community to do that? It makes me think I really need to learn more about the reality of life in the middle east, because it's nearly impossible for me to believe that such a thing can happen. It's a real threat to my generally positive view of humankind.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope's Survey
From: akenaton
Date: 02 Dec 13 - 04:10 AM

And there is always the possibility that you or I, or Frank, may be WRONG on some details of a particular issue.

Ian of course, is never WRONG.....as he has more "faith" in his ideology than the whole of the Catholic Church or Islam put together. :0)

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope's Survey
From: GUEST,Grishka
Date: 02 Dec 13 - 04:33 AM

It makes me think I really need to learn more about the reality of life in the middle east, because it's nearly impossible for me to believe that such a thing can happen. It's a real threat to my generally positive view of humankind.

Not only the Middle East and Mexico have mindsets undreamt of in our philosophy. There are many unreflected items of "common sense" (see a Mudcat thread of that title) in our western societies that amount to taboos of thinking. Some are suddenly exposed when a new problem arises, or simply by comparing different western countries. Marriage is a good example - it seemed such a self-evident institution that we forgot to discuss its meanings, and the various distinct reasons behind its legal aspects, before same-sex marriage became an audible postulation. (In fact the Catholic Church has always praised and blessed people of the same sex living together and sharing their possessions; some even wear golden rings.)

It is easy to say "those people are/were deluded/hateful/hypocritical/power-hungry..." when we feel to have gained a better moral stance on a particular problem. Typically a decade later, we find that the new stance was not too good either. "Anti-authoritarian" education in the 1970s is a good example. We can only claim a progress when we have learned more about human nature and the motives behind apparently irrational opinions. The opinion-makers currently in power, mostly journalists, often lack incentive to think it through. So do most Mudcatters (who fortunately have very little influence).

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope's Survey
From: akenaton
Date: 02 Dec 13 - 04:49 AM

While we discuss semantics, I can never understand why the huge rates of sexual disease amongst male homosexuals is never a factor.
I seems to be completely ignored by the pro "homosexual marriage" folks.    It is a very large "elephant in the room".
Its OK saying, well "marriage" will improve the situation, but most of us know in our hearts that there is a deeper problem in the behaviour itself.
Male homosexuality has links to extreme promiscuity and high levels of risk taking, that is obvious. Figures are available for annual and lifetime sexual partners and they are many times higher amongst male homosexuals than amongst heteros.
As I have said before, marriage does not make a man monogamous, the creation and upbringing of children and the influences of an extended family are what keeps most men "on the rails"
These options are not available to, or sought by the vast majority of
homosexuals, who feel free to carry on a hedonistic and highly promiscuous lifestyle.....as shown by the sexual health figures.

I am amazed that sensible people within and outwith the Church, do not see this situation as any sort of impediment to the promotion of homosexuality as a safe, healthy, or normal lifestyle.

Settle down a minute and think if your views would alter if the present increasing infection figures were to continue for say another five years.
Hove can this state of affairs just be ignored?
The health agencies are cowardly and their procedures ineffective, the "services" them selves have in many cases become "Public corporations"....all administration and no positive action.

Subject: RE: BS: The Pope's Survey
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Dec 13 - 06:25 AM

...by the vast majority of homosexuals, who feel free to carry on a hedonistic and highly promiscuous lifestyle...

My word, you really are deluded, aren't you?