If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above.
You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.
To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
So you are comparing your level of tolerance to that of Islam? Huh.
Actually, the only lack of tolerance is see is coming from the supporters of SS unions. Look what happens when someone voices support for traditional marriage. Your Rules for Radicals at work.
Has the media ever asked Muslims involved in the wedding business if the would provide services for a SS ceremony/reception? As the video show, Dearborn(istan) would be an excelllent place for MSNBC to go and do a report.
Actually, the only lack of tolerance is see is coming from the supporters of SS unions. Look what happens when someone voices support for traditional marriage. Your Rules for Radicals at work.
Has the media ever asked Muslims involved in the wedding business if the would provide services for a SS ceremony/reception? As the video show, Dearborn(istan) would be an excelllent place for MSNBC to go and do a report.
This is just silly. Why would the media ask Muslims what they think about same-sex marriage? For one, we pretty much know the answer. But more importantly, there just aren't many Muslims in America. Less than 1% of the population. There are just two Muslim congressmen. There are no Muslim senators. There are no Muslim governors. On the flip side, over 90% of Congress identify as some form of Christian. Almost 90% of the Senate. Every president since Washington has espoused some form of Christianity.
More and more people in the US, and the rest of the first world, believe that gays and lesbians should be afforded the dignity and right to marry the person they love. Almost without fail, those who wish to deny them AND have the power to do something about it are conservative Christians. It makes a bit more sense to talk to them rather than Muslims who, however they feel, don't really have a say in government.
I know you believe that the Catholic Church will never waiver from the positions it currently holds. Maybe you are right. But I’m sure there were those who thought the Church would never waiver on it's prohibition on translating the bible to the languages it followers actually understood. Or its positions on torture and capital punishment- your Church used to be big proponents of them. But the Catholic Church has been coming in line with accepted morality more and more over last few hundred years. I expect it will continue.
There are people with genuinely held religious beliefs about women, other races, unwed mothers, etc that most decent people find abhorrent and we don't allow them to discriminate. I’m sure there were bakeries and catering companies 30 years ago that would have refused to supply a wedding of a mixed race couple and they honestly believed God was on their side. I imagine there were some hard-core protestants that wouldn’t have offered service at a Catholic wedding. We wouldn’t have much patience for these kind of people today. In another generation, I imagine we’ll feel the same way about those that refuse service for a Gay wedding. Maybe not you. But probably your kids, and almost certainly theirs. And the world will be a better place for most people.
As for assertion that intolerance is only coming from the proponents of same-sex marriage, it just doesn’t hold water. Yes they are demanding rights, sometimes loudly- they see them as the same rights you have, I imagine you would make the argument they are ‘special’ rights, but no matter- they want what you have. What I have. The ability to declare their love for another person and commit to a life together- publicly and without shame. It’s not that scary really. It will not diminish your marriage. The reality is that there are people, yourself among them, that want to shame them and personally declare that what they are doing is sinful, and you want to enshrine in law that it’s ok to do this. That is unnecessarily cruel. It’s not intolerance to point this out.
This is just silly. Why would the media ask Muslims what they think about same-sex marriage? For one, we pretty much know the answer.
They're the most anti-gay, anti-feminist people* in the whole damned world. Yet, the Left gives them a huge pass WRT to gay and women's rights issues, time and time again. WHY? Why do they do that?? They're so far to the Right of Republicans in this country, they make our social conservatives look like bloody Euro socialists. None of it makes any damned sense to me. Sure, most Republicans don't want gays to marry, but they aren't hunting them down and burning them alive, either.
(*pretty much anti-everything that doesn't spew directly out of the mouth of their degenerate prophet)
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
I always distrust articles that name-drop the New England Journal of Medicine without a link to the original article. Searching NEJM for a 2002 article on IVF I'm not finding it.
A history of infertility, either with or without assisted conception, was also significantly associated with birth defects.
Conclusions
The increased risk of birth defects associated with IVF was no longer significant after adjustment for parental factors. The risk of birth defects associated with ICSI remained increased after multivariate adjustment, although the possibility of residual confounding cannot be excluded.
They're the most anti-gay, anti-feminist people* in the whole damned world. Yet, the Left gives them a huge pass WRT to gay and women's rights issues, time and time again. WHY? Why do they do that?? They're so far to the Right of Republicans in this country, they make our social conservatives look like bloody Euro socialists. None of it makes any damned sense to me. Sure, most Republicans don't want gays to marry, but they aren't hunting them down and burning them alive, either.
Well two things. One, many on the left don't give them a pass. Two, and more importantly, as I said above, in America they are such a minority and without political power there is no reason to go on about them in the way you seem to want to. The left doesn't care about the views of Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs, etc. because either they have no relevance to the conversation. Conservative Christians have real power in America and they are the ones pushing laws that do damage to women and gays. Worrying about Mulisms is a waste of time for the left and a defection technique for the right.
I'm sure there are plenty of people who use religion as a veil for their own petty hatred, but isn't marriage a "thing" with a lot of the more hardcore Christian sects?
This isn't the most charitable way of putting it, so I apologize to Chongo here, but marriage is the means many sects use as control over the sex lives of adherents. Specifically, it's marriage which allows you to have sex.
It's important to note here, unless you want to extend having sex to people of your own gender, it makes no commentary on who you have sex with, as long as you're married to them. The focus is on the act, not the who with.
Of course, people have used religion to justify racism, too. I think one can argue whether there's any scriptural basis for that, but can you argue whether there is genuine scriptural basis for keeping sex away from unmarried people?
With much of Christianity, marriage is the gatekeeeper for sex.
I'm not asking you to agree with it, but can't you see how if marriage is used as the gatekeeper, extending it to include what a religion considers to be illicit sex will damage marriage as a means of control over sex?
Again, not asking you to agree with the policy, but I'm struggling to see where it unquestionably derives from hatred.
I think the disconnect here is non-Christians don't see value in having a gatekeeper for sex... or more accurately, don't place themselves in the shoes of someone who does.
Further, it should be noted the desire for a gatekeeper is often, though by no means exclusively, rooted inward (towards themselves), rather than outward (towards the gays).
Gays still get the shit end of the stick out of this, I'm not denying it, but I chafe at the notion that's the point.
3 And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any cause?” 4 He answered, “Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one’?[a] 6 So they are no longer two but one.[b] What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder.” 7 They said to him, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?” 8 He said to them, “For your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. 9 And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity,[c] and marries another, commits adultery; and he who marries a divorced woman, commits adultery.”[d][e]
Outlawing divorce implies he's asserting a certain level of control over your sex life, no?
Jesus raised the bar. In the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5)he said;
27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ 28 But I say to you that every one who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29
Poco, Jesus also said.
The Law and the Prophets
17 “Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them.[a] 18 For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished. 19 Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.
I understand you believe that. I also infer from your arguments and the arguments of those that agree with you that you believe that what Jesus is quoted as saying about marriage is more important that what he is quoted as having said about loving others as yourself. This means treating people, all people, with dignity. This means serving your fellow man. Even serving pizza at their gay wedding. This is a hard thing to do.
But more importantly, people with your beliefs are out of step with our modern society. Our society puts human dignity above religious dogma. Unfortunately, people that believe as you still cling to an inordinate amount of political power in our society. Fortunately, your numbers are dwindling. In a generation or two you will be sidelined.
I understand you believe that. I also infer from your arguments and the arguments of those that agree with you that you believe that what Jesus is quoted as saying about marriage is more important that what he is quoted as having said about loving others as yourself. This means treating people, all people, with dignity. This means serving your fellow man. Even serving pizza at their gay wedding. This is a hard thing to do.
But more importantly, people with your beliefs are out of step with our modern society. Our society puts human dignity above religious dogma. Unfortunately, people that believe as you still cling to an inordinate amount of political power in our society. Fortunately, your numbers are dwindling. In a generation or two you will be sidelined.
Not with your growing population of Muslims, they won't. Want to hazard a guess what Sharia law says about gays? You'll be wishing you had more Christians when Islam becomes a larger voting block.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Not with your growing population of Muslims, they won't. Want to hazard a guess what Sharia law says about gays? You'll be wishing you had more Christians when Islam becomes a larger voting block.
And how is the in the least bit relevant to the conversation? I currently live in the UK where by percentage of population there are five times as many Muslims as there are in the U.S. (my home country). I live in the land of "Sharia no-go zones" and our CONSERVATIVE prime minister pushed same-sex marriage through parliament last year. Who raised a stink? Conservative Christians. I'm not saying all, most, or even some Muslims agreed with it, but they were not the ones protesting it.
And how is the in the least bit relevant to the conversation? I currently live in the UK where by percentage of population there are five times as many Muslims as there are in the U.S. (my home country). I live in the land of "Sharia no-go zones" and our CONSERVATIVE prime minister pushed same-sex marriage through parliament last year. Who raised a stink? Conservative Christians. I'm not saying all, most, or even some Muslims agreed with it, but they were not the ones protesting it.
You aren't being serious, are you? Your fastest growing voting bloc is (by far) the most conservative element in your country. In fact, they aren't Tories at all, they're Theocrats. Once they have enough power do you think: A. they'll keep your gov't the way it is, or B. they'll put their clerics in charge? They haven't raised hell over gay marriage and other similar issues because they don't have the numbers, in a couple more generations, however...
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
You aren't being serious, are you? Your fastest growing voting bloc is (by far) the most conservative element in your country. In fact, they aren't Tories at all, they're Theocrats. Once they have enough power do you think: A. they'll keep your gov't the way it is, or B. they'll put their clerics in charge? They haven't raised hell over gay marriage and other similar issues because they don't have the numbers, in a couple more generations, however...
As I said, it's not my country. I'm an American living abroad- it's been 10 years but I still can't vote here. I can and do vote in US elections.
But maybe you are right. In a couple of generations they may be a problem. However, today, in my country of birth, a block of conservative Christians are pushing laws that, whatever their aim (discrimination vs. religious 'freedom') that seek to enshrine the ability to shame and degrade people based on out-dated religious sexual moralities. That's a problem today.
(
Last edited by Paco500; Apr 5, 2015 at 12:48 PM.
)
I understand you believe that. I also infer from your arguments and the arguments of those that agree with you that you believe that what Jesus is quoted as saying about marriage is more important that what he is quoted as having said about loving others as yourself. This means treating people, all people, with dignity. This means serving your fellow man. Even serving pizza at their gay wedding. This is a hard thing to do.
I see that meme posted a lot about Jesus being with tax collectors etc.
13 He went out again beside the sea; and all the crowd gathered about him, and he taught them. 14 And as he passed on, he saw Levi[a] the son of Alphaeus sitting at the tax office, and he said to him, “Follow me.” And he rose and followed him.
15 And as he sat at table in his house, many tax collectors and sinners were sitting with Jesus and his disciples; for there were many who followed him. 16 And the scribes of[b] the Pharisees, when they saw that he was eating with sinners and tax collectors, said to his disciples, “Why does he eat[c] with tax collectors and sinners?” 17 And when Jesus heard it, he said to them, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick; I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.”
Was Jesus there to validate their lifestyle? No, he was the to tell them repent and sin no more. This what he did with the woman caught in adultry.
But more importantly, people with your beliefs are out of step with our modern society. Our society puts human dignity above religious dogma. Unfortunately, people that believe as you still cling to an inordinate amount of political power in our society. Fortunately, your numbers are dwindling. In a generation or two you will be sidelined.
The Romans thought the same thing. So did the Ottomans, The leaders of "The Enlightenment", The Soviets, the Third Reich, Mao, Pol Pot. They're all gone now, yet the Church remains.
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
You aren't being serious, are you? Your fastest growing voting bloc is (by far) the most conservative element in your country. In fact, they aren't Tories at all, they're Theocrats. Once they have enough power do you think: A. they'll keep your gov't the way it is, or B. they'll put their clerics in charge? They haven't raised hell over gay marriage and other similar issues because they don't have the numbers, in a couple more generations, however...
This is what happen in Lebanon. The Lebanese allowed the PLO, who were getting kicked out of Jordan, to settle in Lebanon. Look what happened once they out numbered the Christians (Maronite Catholics). This Pew Report says by 2070, Muslims will be the largest population. http://www.perform.org/files/2015/03...FullReport.pdf
Things aren't going well in Kenya either. Islamist attacked a university, killing anyone who was Christian. They suspect it was the same group that attacked the mall. They used the same MO, asking who was muslim and asking them questions to test them.
(
Last edited by Chongo; Apr 5, 2015 at 02:47 PM.
)
I I also infer from your arguments that you believe that what Jesus is quoted as saying about marriage is more important than what he is quoted as having said about loving others as yourself. This means treating people with dignity. This means serving your fellow man. Even serving pizza at their gay wedding.
Jesus wasn't about forcing people to love & serve their neighbor. It's still all about personal choice (FWIW neighbor means "neighbor", not "everyone on planet Earth"). Granted Christians can be hypocritical in this regard sometimes. But if I come to you and command you to bake me a pizza or cake you should still have the right to say "No", regardless of whether you're in the business of baking or not... because you are not my slave... I don't know why this is a hard concept to understand since no one, not even liberals, like being forced into anything.
But more importantly, people with your beliefs are out of step with our modern society...
Christians are pushing laws that, whatever their aim that seek to enshrine the ability to shame people based on out-dated religious sexual moralities.
How is providing flowers or serving cake validating a lifestyle? I imagine most if not all of the businesses that have an issue serving a gay wedding would not hesitate to provide services to a wedding for someone who has been divorced- something Jesus actually talked about explicitly as being wrong. But in any case, I can on an almost daily basis provide services for people I fundamentally disagree with without 'validating their lifestyle.' I disagree with your outlook on many ethical issues, but would have no trouble serving you a pizza. I would guess you would do the same for me. But then I'm straight.
Originally Posted by Chongo
The Romans thought the same thing. So did the Ottomans, The leaders of "The Enlightenment", The Soviets, the Third Reich, Mao, Pol Pot. They're all gone now, yet the Church remains.
I don't doubt that the Church will remain, but it will do so as it always has, by changing. The Church adopted the festivals of the pagans and called them Christmas and Easter, they stopped the crusades, they stopped selling indulgences, they stopped torturing and executing ‘heretics’ (Protestants, Muslims, Jews, Old women), they allowed the Mass to spoken in languages other than latin, they stopped owning slaves, and they even recently stopped shielding pedophiles from the law. As much as the Church may put itself forward as a constant, they have bended on issue after issue to adapt to the world around them.
And as you brought up the Third Reich, while the Catholic Church certainly spoke out against the Nazi Regime, it remained officially neutral throughout the war and specifically allowed Catholics to be members of the Nazi party. The Church allowed its members to serve the Nazi regime without seeing it as ‘validating their lifestyle.’ It’s bizarre that the Church would take a tougher stance on gay marriage than on genocide.
From Fr. Z's blog. This is an interesting idea. Sorry, Father Z gets blunt.
We need a new approach.
Think about this.
When some homosexual couple comes to your Christian business for services at their immoral event, don’t panic. Go ahead and take their business!
Then explain what is going to happen next.
Tell them that the food and services will be just fine. And then inform them that all of the money that they pay for the services will be donated to a traditional pro-family lobby. If it is something like catering, where your employees have to be there to provide services, tell them that all your people will smile, be professional, and everyone of them will be wearing crucifixes and have the Holy Family embroidered on their uniforms. Then show them pictures of your uniforms. When the truck pulls up, speakers will be playing Immaculate Mary. Show them the truck and play the music.
“Oh, you would be offended by that? I’m so sorry. You approached us because we are Christians. Right? We are happy to provide services for you and we are grateful that you chose to come to our Christian catering business. We just want to be of help.”
Then tell them that you will take out an ad in the paper to let everyone know what you did with their money, thanking them by name for their business so that you could make the contribution.
I suspect this approach, if adopted far and wide, would put an end to attacks on Christian businesses.
Jesus wasn't about forcing people to love & serve their neighbor. It's still all about personal choice (FWIW neighbor means "neighbor", not "everyone on planet Earth"). Granted Christians can be hypocritical in this regard sometimes. But if I come to you and command you to bake me a pizza or cake you should still have the right to say "No", regardless of whether you're in the business of baking or not... because you are not my slave... I don't know why this is a hard concept to understand since no one, not even liberals, like being forced into anything.
I'm not sure you understand what the argument or these 'religious freedom' acts are all about. As a society we have decided that if you own a business you cannot discriminate against your customers because of your personal biases. Not many people would argue that it would be ok to not serve someone because they are black, or Irish, or a woman, or disabled, or even Catholic. What the law in Indiana was attempting to do was to enshrine in law the right to discriminate against people whose lifestyle goes against someone's 'sincerely held religious belief.' I'm afraid you don't have the right now to refuse to serve someone for discriminatory reasons. If you thought you did, you are mistaken.
Originally Posted by el chupacabra
Are you able to quantify these assertions?
I'm not sure what you are asking for here, but if you are asking for evidence that U.S. society as a whole has moved on and support the right of same sex marriage, look at any poll you can find. Here is a bunch. The majority of American's support marriage equality and the majority is growing. If you don't, you are out of step. Your views are outdated. Your numbers are shrinking.
I don't doubt that the Church will remain, but it will do so as it always has, by changing. The Church adopted the festivals of the pagans and called them Christmas and Easter, they stopped the crusades, they stopped selling indulgences, they stopped torturing and executing ‘heretics’ (Protestants, Muslims, Jews, Old women), they allowed the Mass to spoken in languages other than latin, they stopped owning slaves, and they even recently stopped shielding pedophiles from the law. As much as the Church may put itself forward as a constant, they have bended on issue after issue to adapt to the world around them.
Ah, the Black Legend rears it's head. BTW Latin is still the officail langauge of the Latin Rite Church. All the other Eastern Catholic Rites Have spoken langauges other than Latin for 2000 years.
What issue has the Church "bent' on?
And as you brought up the Third Reich, while the Catholic Church certainly spoke out against the Nazi Regime, it remained officially neutral throughout the war and specifically allowed Catholics to be members of the Nazi party. The Church allowed its members to serve the Nazi regime without seeing it as ‘validating their lifestyle.’ It’s bizarre that the Church would take a tougher stance on gay marriage than on genocide.
Now we're on to Soviet propoganda.
Catholics who voluntarily joined the National Socialist party received a Latae Sententia excommunication. One note of interest is that Pius XII saved more Jews than Oscar Schindler by hiding them in the convents and monasteries around Italy.
Ah, the Black Legend rears it's head. BTW Latin is still the officail langauge of the Latin Rite Church. All the other Eastern Catholic Rites Have spoken langauges other than Latin for 2000 years.
So you are saying the church didn't execute people for translating the bible? That they didn't make Thomas More, a man who took particular pride in torturing and killing those who did a saint?
Originally Posted by Chongo
What issue has the Church "bent' on?
I covered it above. Torture. The death penalty. The Crusades. The Inquisition. Slavery. The selling of indulgences. Shielding pedophiles from justice. How abut adding evolution to the list?
Originally Posted by Chongo
Now we're on to Soviet propoganda.
Catholics who voluntarily joined the National Socialist party received a Latae Sententia excommunication. One note of interest is that Pius XII saved more Jews than Oscar Schindler by hiding them in the convents and monasteries around Italy.
So you are saying the the Catholic Church did not remain officially neutral in WWII? That's news. I do note that by your careful phraseology, you acknowledge that the Church allowed it's followers to join the party 'involuntarily,' which means they allowed civil servants, union leaders, and others who, in order to keep their job were required to join up. If your stance on same sex marriage was as lenient, we would't be having this argument. Speak out against it, but don't officially oppose it (remain neutral). Allow those working in jobs that serve the public to provide services to gay customers (involuntarily). You can even save as many as many gays as you want by having them take vows of chastity in convents and monasteries in Italy. Just be as accommodating of gays as the Church was of the Nazis.
From Fr. Z's blog. This is an interesting idea. Sorry, Father Z gets blunt.
Take out the mean-spirited bits and I would welcome this approach. I like the idea of donating the fee to an organisation you support- even telling potential customers about it. As long as the uniforms weren't a costume just for customers you disagree with, wouldn't have an issue with that either. Blasting the music seems just rude- not the content, wouldn't matter if it was 'It's Raining Men,' would just be needlessly disruptive. The ad also seems mean-spirited.
I'm not sure it was the author's intent, but at it's core, it's a good workaround to a challenging issue.
So you are saying the church didn't execute people for translating the bible? That they didn't make Thomas More, a man who took particular pride in torturing and killing those who did a saint?
The Church did not execute anyone, that was done by the state. Thomas Moore is recognized by the CofE as a Martyr of the Reformation.
I covered it above. Torture. The death penalty. The Crusades. The Inquisition. Slavery. The selling of indulgences. Shielding pedophiles from justice. How abut adding evolution to the list?
None of those are dogmas. BTW, you forgot Galileo,
So you are saying the the Catholic Church did not remain officially neutral in WWII? That's news. I do note that by your careful phraseology, you acknowledge that the Church allowed it's followers to join the party 'involuntarily,' which means they allowed civil servants, union leaders, and others who, in order to keep their job were required to join up. If your stance on same sex marriage was as lenient, we would't be having this argument. Speak out against it, but don't officially oppose it (remain neutral). Allow those working in jobs that serve the public to provide services to gay customers (involuntarily). You can even save as many as many gays as you want by having them take vows of chastity in convents and monasteries in Italy. Just be as accommodating of gays as the Church was of the Nazis.
From Wikipedia of all places.
Catholic Church and Nazi Germany during World War II
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Several Catholic countries and populations fell under Nazi domination during the period of the Second World War (1939-1945), and ordinary Catholics fought on both sides of the conflict. Despite efforts to protect its rights within Germany under a 1933 Reichskonkordat treaty, the Church in Germany had faced persecution in the years since Adolf Hitler had seized power, and Pope Pius XI accused the Nazi government of sowing 'fundamental hostility to Christ and his Church'. Pius XII became Pope on the eve of war and lobbied world leaders to prevent the outbreak of conflict. His first encyclical, Summi Pontificatus, called the invasion of Poland an "hour of darkness". He affirmed the policy of Vatican neutrality, but maintained links to the German Resistance. Despite being the only world leader to publicly and specifically denounce Nazi crimes against Jews in his 1942 Christmas Address, controversy surrounding his apparent reluctance to speak frequently and in even more explicit terms about Nazi crimes continues.[1] He used diplomacy to aid war victims, lobbied for peace, shared intelligence with the Allies, and employed Vatican Radio and other media to speak out against atrocities like race murders. In Mystici corporis Christi (1943) he denounced the murder of the handicapped. A denunciation from German bishops of the murder of the "innocent and defenceless", including "people of a foreign race or descent", followed.[2]
Hitler's invasion of Catholic Poland sparked the War. Nazi policy towards the Church was at its most severe in the Polish territories it annexed to Greater Germany, where the Nazis set about systematically dismantling the Church - arresting its leaders, exiling its clergymen, closing its churches, monasteries and convents. Many clergymen were murdered.[3][4] Over 1800 Catholic Polish clergy died in concentration camps; most notably, Saint Maximilian Kolbe. Nevertheless, security chief Reinhard Heydrich soon orchestrated an intensification of restrictions on church activities. Hitler and his ideologues Goebbels, Himmler, Rosenberg and Bormann hoped to de-Christianize Germany in the long term.[5][6] With the expansion of the war in the East, expropriation of monasteries, convents and church properties surged from 1941. Bishop August von Galen's ensuing 1941 denunciation of Nazi euthanasia and defence of human rights roused rare popular dissent. The German bishops denounced Nazi policy towards the church in pastoral letters, calling it "unjust oppression".[7][8]
From 1940, the Nazis gathered priest-dissidents in dedicated clergy barracks at Dachau, where (95%) of its 2,720 inmates were Catholic (mostly Poles, and 411 Germans), 1034 died there. Mary Fulbrook wrote that when politics encroached on the church, German Catholics were prepared to resist, but the record was otherwise patchy and uneven with notable exceptions, "it seems that, for many Germans, adherence to the Christian faith proved compatible with at least passive acquiescence in, if not active support for, the Nazi dictatorship".[9] Influential members of the German Resistance included Jesuits of the Kreisau Circle and laymen such as July plotters Klaus von Stauffenberg, Jakob Kaiser and Bernhard Letterhaus, whose faith inspired resistance.[10] Elsewhere, vigorous resistance from bishops such as Johannes de Jong and Jules-Géraud Saliège, papal diplomats such as Angelo Rotta, and nuns such as Margit Slachta, can be contrasted with the apathy of others and the outright collaboration of Catholic politicians such as Slovakia's Msgr Jozef Tiso and fanatical Croat nationalists. From within the Vatican, Msgr Hugh O'Flaherty coordinated the rescue of thousands of Allied POWs, and civilians, including Jews. While Nazi antisemitism embraced modern pseudo-scientific racial principles rejected by the Catholic Church, ancient antipathies between Christianity and Judaism contributed to European antisemitism; during the Second World War the Catholic Church rescued many thousands of Jews by issuing false documents, lobbying Axis officials, hiding them in monasteries, convents, schools and elsewhere; including the Vatican and Castel Gandolfo.
Can someone good at elucidating sum up what the hell is going on here?
The question was raised about why SJWs go after bakeries and florists who won't provide services for gay weddings but give Muslim stores a wide berth. I think they're terrified of approaching said bakeries and florists for fear of reprisals. Hell, I mean really, who doesn't like to kick sand on Christians, they're largely a kindly-natured lot, and they sure as hell won't declare a fatwa against you (and murder your family) for ****ing with them.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
"Gov. Steve Beshear's administration is arguing in a brief filed with the U.S. Supreme Court that Kentucky's ban on gay marriage isn't discriminatory because it bars both gay and straight people from same-sex unions."
"Gov. Steve Beshear's administration is arguing in a brief filed with the U.S. Supreme Court that Kentucky's ban on gay marriage isn't discriminatory because it bars both gay and straight people from same-sex unions."
That's just reversing the "gay people can get married" argument.
Someone ought to go after the Muslim operations too though. If only to see if the similarly-minded Christian bigots come out in support of them or not.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
Someone ought to go after the Muslim operations too though. If only to see if the similarly-minded Christian bigots come out in support of them or not.
They're on the road to it, "we" can't have anyone with a different opinion or moral standard, because cakes and floral arrangements are serious business. That's obviously something that must be torn down and destroyed (unless they're part an ultra right-wing Islamic group, then the SJWs will just cower in fear and pray that they don't offend them).
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Trying to prevent a "Chuck and Larry" scenario it seems.
Too late, I've already performed a wedding ceremony for one MGTOW "couple".
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Someone ought to go after the Muslim operations too though. If only to see if the similarly-minded Christian bigots come out in support of them or not.
That said, while not a Social Justice Warrior, I can be a Social Justice Rogue at times.
I wonder if there are Social Justice Monks? I imagine they sit around all day flagellating themselves while venerating (and masturbating to) icons of Brianna Wu. Yikes.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Someone ought to go after the Muslim operations too though. If only to see if the similarly-minded Christian bigots come out in support of them or not.
Do people get cut any slack for thinking marriage is holy?
Lunch breaks are considered off-the-clock. You're not acting as an agent of the company and if you're hourly, you're not getting paid.
I think it's pretty fair that if you're still in uniform and using the company vehicle for transportation, that you could be reasonably construed as representing the company.
I think you have quoted these sources in their entirety on this forum. No need to read further.
Originally Posted by Chongo
The Church did not execute anyone, that was done by the state. Thomas Moore is recognized by the CofE as a Martyr of the Reformation.
I will concede that executions he carried out were done on the authority of the state based on its heresy laws. The state as led by Henry the VII, who was granted the title ‘Defender of the Faith’ by Pope Leo X. Are you saying the torture and execution of heretics under Henry and More were not sanctioned by the church? Can you back that up? And by the by, were the heretics they burned reconised by the Church as Martyrs of the Reformation?
Originally Posted by Chongo
None of those are dogmas. BTW, you forgot Galileo,
I’m sorry, I didn’t realise refusing service to gays was dogma. That’s new to me. But to be fair, the question you posed was:
Originally Posted by Chongo
What issue has the Church "bent' on?
Not what issue of DOGMA has the Church bent on. But you’ve moved the goalposts and brought dogma in to it, and we both know no matter how much the Church ‘reinterprets’ or ‘loosens’ dogma, the Church will never admit that it has bent, so this discussion will go nowhere. However this is not about dogma, it’s about decency and treating people with dignity. No one is asking you or anyone else to redefine their marriage, or to validate the lifestyles of others. Just be decent people and don’t publicly shame, degrade, or humiliate others.
Originally Posted by Chongo
From Wikipedia of all places.
Interesting that I made three points about the Church’s reaction to the Third Reich. 1. They spoke out against it- we, and the Wikipedia article you quote, agree. No need to discuss further. 2. The Church remained officially neutral. From the article you quoted.
Originally Posted by Wikipedia
Pius XII became Pope on the eve of war and lobbied world leaders to prevent the outbreak of conflict. His first encyclical, Summi Pontificatus, called the invasion of Poland an "hour of darkness". He affirmed the policy of Vatican neutrality, but maintained links to the German Resistance.
So the article added nothing to the discussion there. 3. The Church allowed members to join the Nazi Party if their work required it. The article you posted did not refute this. Why did you bother posting it? Again, if you and others in favour of ‘Religious Freedom’ laws would act as tolerant of Same Sex Marriages as the Church was of the Nazi’s, everything would be fine. Speak out against them all you want, but don’t discriminate in your job. Simple.
Look, I’m not one of those who thinks the Church is the epicentre of evil. Their stance on contraception in sub-saharian Africa has cause a lot of needless death and misery, but at least some of the blame needs to be laid at the feet of the people who are misguided enough to follow the Church’s teaching on contraception but not on fornication. But to stick your head in the sand and not admit that in the past your Church has been involved in some pretty horrible stuff is intellectually and morally dishonest. You should celebrate the fact that your Church has had the capacity for reform and has bought itself inline with more accepted ethical behaviour. If they had stuck to condoning slavery, torture, and execution, they might not have survived.
I don't think any institution is beyond criticism. I look at everything critically. Where I see fault, and it's appropriate to do so, I point it out. Where I see that that is worthy of praise, I'll do that as well. The Church does a lot of good for a lot of people. It has done and continues to bad things as well. As long as you think you think your Church is above ALL criticism, we will never see eye to eye.
(
Last edited by Paco500; Apr 6, 2015 at 06:05 PM.
Reason: Typo correction- thing to think)
Sure, most Republicans don't want gays to marry, but they aren't hunting them down and burning them alive, either.
and our CONSERVATIVE prime minister pushed same-sex marriage through parliament last year. Who raised a stink? Conservative Christians. I'm not saying all, most, or even some Muslims agreed with it, but they were not the ones protesting it.
Top