If the “heart” of the matter is truly something as petty and piss-ant (or whatever the Australian slang for “trivial matter that no sane person should be arguing about” is) as quibbling over the use of a word, then giving in would like yielding to the irrational squabbling demands of a bawling two year-old. Allowing this distinction is giving a reward to bigotry, as well as being utterly foolish enough to trust that bigots would be okay with compromise and that they wouldn’t try to introduce further distinctions between good straight “marriage” and suspect, second-class “civil union.”
Is it ok for bigotry to wear a religious mask of conviction?
“I don’t believe aborigines deserve the right to vote, that is my religious belief”. Thinking this is of course anyones right, but can they justifiably form a political action committee to obtain these goals?
Since when? Do you mean they’re now for them?
The church disapproves of condoms, but many catholic couples use them.
Just as the church disapproves of birth control pills, but many catholic couples use them.
The church strongly disapproves of abortions, but many catholic women have them. (In fact, they are more common for catholic women than women of other churches. Possibly because of the previous statements about birth control methods.)
The church disapproves of masturbation, but all catholic boys and most catholic girls do it.
Previously, the church disapproved of eating meat on Friday, but many catholics did so. Enough that this rule has been dropped, except for the 6 or 7 Fridays in Lent.
The church rules still have 8 or so “Holy Days of Obligation”, where all catholics are supposed to attend Mass on that day. But most catholic churches are nearly empty on those days, despite this rule.
It’s said that on some of these church rules, lay catholics have ‘voted with their feet’ – they simply decline en mass to follow the church’s official rules.
(Many of these rules seem to be ones about sex. And ignoring church teachings on sex has been going on for a long time. Decades ago, in parochial school, I heard a joke about this, with the punch line about the Pope: “He no play’a the game, he no make’a da rules”.)
In 2010 in an interview with a book author, the Pope floated a trial balloon. He used the example that it might be OK for a homosexual prostitute to use a condom. This raised a lot of hope that the Church may be trying to take a more reasonable position on AIDS and condoms. This also generated a huge backlash from more conservative elements. He then had an official statement issued that carefully walked back his earlier comments. The statement basically said that using a condom and transmitting AIDS were both evils and a “lesser evil” is still an evil and using condoms is “not really the way to deal with the evil of HIV infection.”
To t-bonham@scc.net, The Pope is the Catholic god’s advocate on Earth, to them his Dogma is infallible. Believers ‘voting’ on truth is ridiculous and this entire thing unravels if popular opinion is consulted on matters of the divine.
This is how the world has worked since the dawn of time.
Of course they can justifiably form a committee, I couldn’t justify it but they can as they have a different set of thinking.
You stated, “The church can say gay marriage is wrong just like some religions say alcohol should be banned. No big deal, it’s why we have separation. I don’t see the issue here?”
I’m showing you the issue here.
On topic, I can beat you bloody if I fell like it, it’s ok cause I have a different set of thinking.
No, only specific ex cathedra pronouncements by the Pope are infallible. To quote the current Pope Benedict: “The Pope is not an oracle; he is infallible in very rare situations”.
And I don’t think Pope Benedict has made any such ex cathedra statements so far.
Has it always been thus?
No you could say that you want to beat me but it is against the law.
If you are saying that people shouldn’t push their own beliefs because they disagree with your view then you are fighting a losing battle. People will ALWAYS push their own agenda and some will be more enlightened. It is up to each group to put their agenda forward and who ever argues/bribes best will win.
But the original question was around whether Catholics will be or should be treated like white power etc is valid. Yes some will say they are hateful etc and some will say, no they are right as it is biblically founded. Me I think they are misguided and as the world changes so will they as they have done for 1700 or so years.
Again the church can believe what they want and can also agitate for change, they should if they wish just as we should also push change.
repost
Which has nothing to do with that fact that I don’t think it’s wrong and my religious belief should be respected.
Sure. But just because two sides disagree doesn’t mean both sides are half right.
Whether or not they are biblically founded is irrelevant, their beliefs are bigotry.
Yeah, individuals thinking for themselves. That would be terrible!
It just wouldn’t be religion.
That’s not what papal infallibility means.
But in these kids of arguments, to them it’s NOT irrelevant. I’ve heard people actually say “I can’t decide what is God’s law”, and they do it entirely straight faced because they seem to have conveniently forgotten all of the other of God’s laws in the old testament which they like to pretend aren’t there.
That aside, it is slightly different to argue with someone who believes that the word of God is telling them their belief is justified, and someone who simply thinks it’s correct. They can lead you to equally irrational conclusions with their beliefs, but the emotion attached to them is probably going to be higher with the former.
Absolutely. Genetic testing on human for instance is an important issue and ones beliefs on it can have nothing to do with religion whatsoever, if they do though, the onus is on them to convince people without their background to agree with them.
You can believe homosexuals marrying is a mistake, but then it is to you to put forth the facts and/or rhetorical argument that lead you to that conclusion.
Saying, “I just believe it’s wrong” is not good enough in a society that legislates itself.
Oh that that were so - as long as we’re “respecting” religious beliefs and the right to hold irrational, bigoted, illogical or bottom line unproven views (sun goes around the earth anyone) it’s not simply a matter of saying “well that’s all very well religionist, now produce some proof”. The special position that belief/views inspired by religion hold in our society allow someone to have them and effectively say “well actually I don’t have to justify what I think, it’s my religious belief”.