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.
The fact that people flout these rules at the risk of going to hell tells me they don't really believe in it all. Not really. Pity they won't just take those convictions and run with them.
There's a spread. The harder you try, and the more honestly repentant for failure, the more slack I cut you.
This isn't slack in my challenge, it's slack in whether I'm outraged by their position.
Dieseltec owner Brian Klawiter made headlines yesterday when he posted on Facebook that he's "a Christian," and that he, "would not hesitate to refuse service to an openly gay person or persons". He then went as far as threatening to put a gay person's vehicle back together with "all bolts and no nuts", just so they can "see how that works".
...
"I can't say I regret posting. I feel strongly about morals and belief. But the response: These people are using every tactic imaginable to absolutely destroy my business," Klawiter said.
They've lanuched a word-of-mouth campaign against you? Geez, I can't imagine why. You unethical d-bag.
"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
He was making a point about penises and vaginas, not literally sabotaging vehicles.
I understand that, but the mere threat is enough to raise my hackles. You don't say shit like that when you own a business that's reliant upon quality standards and takes pride in its work, that's beyond idiotic.
"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'm disappointed that no-one else finds this offensive. As usual most of you take issue with what I say or how I go about saying it rather than sticking your necks out and and admitting that that 'courage' website is a dick move.
Calling it offensive belittles how terrible it actually is. It's straight-out hateful. It's symptomatic of the kind of thinking that in less civilised times brought us the crusades, the inquisition, etc.
The reason I stopped posting in this thread was accepting that you can't argue with someone who's main proof point for their belief is what it says in a book. The only proof point for the authority of the book is that the book claims authority for itself.
We are trying to use reason and compassion in an argument with people who lack even a basic understanding of the concepts. It's not worth it.
So I only post this to let you know you are not alone. That whole 'courage' thing really got to me as well.
While I'm easy enough to wind up, I am not easily outraged. Its not just the 'rules' its specifically the use of the word 'courage' as the answer to any questions or complaints from that those who have to suffer under those rules.
You just have to be brave and live your entire life lying to everyone you know, denying your true self and likely being miserable and unfulfilled for most of it. We poor, straight Catholics have to keep it in our pants for a couple of years before we can get married and go nuts, you just have to also spend 50+ years living a lie. It just requires a little bit of courage on your part. Thats what it says to me. I'm disappointed that no-one else finds this offensive. As usual most of you take issue with what I say or how I go about saying it rather than sticking your necks out and and admitting that that 'courage' website is a dick move.
I was pointing out that your message is great, I do agree with it, but it doesn't get good public penetration because you don't deliver it very eloquently, putting people off (that's often one of my faults, too, which is why I'd never be a good politician).
"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
“There are not one hundred people in the United States who hate The Catholic Church, but there are millions who hate what they wrongly perceive the Catholic Church to be.” Venerable Archbishop Fulton Sheen
Oh, I despise the Roman Church, but not for the reasons mentioned in this thread...
"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
More pearls from the Gospel of St. John Chapter 15
The World’s Hatred
18 “If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you.[c] 19 If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you. 20 Remember the word that I said to you, ‘A servant[d] is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will persecute you; if they kept my word, they will keep yours also. 21 But all this they will do to you on my account, because they do not know him who sent me. 22 If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have sin; but now they have no excuse for their sin. 23 He who hates me hates my Father also. 24 If I had not done among them the works which no one else did, they would not have sin; but now they have seen and hated both me and my Father. 25 It is to fulfil the word that is written in their law, ‘They hated me without a cause.’ 26 But when the Counselor comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness to me; 27 and you also are witnesses, because you have been with me from the beginning.
On the whole, the Roman Church is to righteousness what Sasha Grey is to chastity.
"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 was pointing out that your message is great, I do agree with it, but it doesn't get good public penetration because you don't deliver it very eloquently, putting people off (that's often one of my faults, too, which is why I'd never be a good politician).
You're right and so is Paco. There is no point reasoning with someone who has rejected reason. It simply doesn't work.
I've tried more gentle approaches though and not had much more luck. These people tend to be well-drilled (programmed) to be every bit as suspicious of softly delivered logic nuggets as they are of the fastballs.
I think the ones to target now are the people who don't really care one way or the other but are conditioned to pander or forgive any view or act justified by religion. These people need to be re-trained to question religion and to stop treating it as if the rules of common sense and decency do not apply. Just because people have the right to believe whatever stupid crap they want doesn't mean you shouldn't ever tell them that what they believe is stupid or wrong.
If 40% of the people you interact with regularly share your stupid belief, 1% tell you its stupid and the other 59% just skirt around the issue (or defend you against the 1%) then what cause will you ever have to question that belief?
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
The license shows that Anthony Corbett Sullivan and Richard Frank Adams were married April 21, 1975, in Boulder, Colo., years before others thought two men should be allowed to wed and decades before a majority of Americans would say it was okay with them, too.
They saw a story in the Advocate about a woman named Clela Rorex, a young feminist county clerk in Boulder, Colo. One day not long after she took office, a gay couple asked whether they could marry. She checked the law and didn’t see anything that said they couldn’t. She asked a county attorney, and he couldn’t find anything, either.
The letter is the official response from the U.S. government after Adams informed officials of his nuptials and asked that his new husband, an Australian citizen facing deportation, be extended a spouse’s visa.
Denied, the immigration service said, for the following reason:
“You have failed to establish that a bona fide marital relationship can exist between two faggots.”
The judge who wrote the final word on whether Sullivan and Adams could stay together in the United States or be forced to strike out in search of a country that would take them was Anthony M. Kennedy, then a circuit judge and now the Supreme Court’s pivotal justice on gay rights.
You're right and so is Paco. There is no point reasoning with someone who has rejected reason. It simply doesn't work.
I've tried more gentle approaches though and not had much more luck. These people tend to be well-drilled (programmed) to be every bit as suspicious of softly delivered logic nuggets as they are of the fastballs.
I think the ones to target now are the people who don't really care one way or the other but are conditioned to pander or forgive any view or act justified by religion. These people need to be re-trained to question religion and to stop treating it as if the rules of common sense and decency do not apply. Just because people have the right to believe whatever stupid crap they want doesn't mean you shouldn't ever tell them that what they believe is stupid or wrong.
If 40% of the people you interact with regularly share your stupid belief, 1% tell you its stupid and the other 59% just skirt around the issue (or defend you against the 1%) then what cause will you ever have to question that belief?
So it's okay to demonize these people then? You don't see the irony here?
Just like I'm going to come to the defense of homosexuals, I'm going to come to Chongo's defense if he's accused of hating gay people.
Chongo has his faults. That's not one of them.
Further, getting traction on something is hard work. There's no fault in not being up to the challenge, but there is fault in thinking a spiteful rant makes an acceptable substitute.
What's the difference between radical enslavement and the normal kind?
No argument from me on the rise of Christianity (which for all intents and purposes is the rise of Catholicism). As I've said before, "get medieval" didn't have true meaning until I studied how the Catholic Church operated in the middle ages.
What's the difference between radical enslavement and the normal kind?
No argument from me on the rise of Christianity (which for all intents and purposes is the rise of Catholicism). As I've said before, "get medieval" didn't have true meaning until I studied how the Catholic Church operated in the middle ages.
The rise of Islam is responsible for the slave trade. Who do you think captured those sold into slavery? No one is clean when it comes to the slave trade. The big difference is that while the west ended institutional slavery, it still exists in many Islamic countries.
Who do you think captured those sold into slavery?
Oh my god, its the 'blacks are just as guilty as whites when it comes to slavery' argument, reframed under religion. You are a font a terrible arguments.
Oh my god, its the 'blacks are just as guilty as whites when it comes to slavery' argument, reframed under religion. You are a font a terrible arguments.
Though this is one reading of his statement, I'm not sure that's what he's saying.
Oh my god, its the 'blacks are just as guilty as whites when it comes to slavery' argument, reframed under religion. You are a font a terrible arguments.
I'm actually confused on your reading as well. Who are the black people? Were (are) most Muslim slavers black?
Though this is one reading of his statement, I'm not sure that's what he's saying.
He thought you were talking about Catholicism with regards to slavery, and immediately threw Islam under the bus. I understand that's he's sensitive after the past page or so but that point is a travesty.
He thought you were talking about Catholicism with regards to slavery, and immediately threw Islam under the bus. I understand that's he's sensitive after the past page or so but that point is a travesty.
Okay, that makes sense.
Why is that such a crazy response, then? It would have been horribly unfair of me to slag medieval Catholics as slavers. They did all kinds of ****ed up shit, but they weren't slavers.
Why is that such a crazy response, then? It would have been horribly unfair of me to slag medieval Catholics as slavers. They did all kinds of ****ed up shit, but they weren't slavers.
He didn't say it wasn't Christians, though. He just decided to spread the guilt around.
Well, then I apologize because I assumed since we were talking about America and slavery, the muslim connection was dealing with colonial slavery. Now I'm more lost as to what the point of bringing the muslims up was.
Well, then I apologize because I assumed since we were talking about America and slavery, the muslim connection was dealing with colonial slavery. Now I'm more lost as to what the point of bringing the muslims up was.
If someone mistakenly accuses medieval Catholics of being slavers, Muslims come up as the genuine slavers of the period.
Alright, I think I get it. My bad Chongo, I misunderstood what you were referencing because you misunderstood what subego was referencing. It's misunderstood references, all the way down.
So it's okay to demonize these people then? You don't see the irony here?
I think the irony may be your choice of the word demonize. The difference in the argument is that we see the actions and arguments of anti-same sex normalisation in society as wrong. Those that argue against it from a religious perspective see the people themselves as evil- literally demoizing them if you will. The argument will come back that it is only the actions of gays they have an issue with, while at the same time accepting that same-sex attraction is innate and the only path to redemption is to 'courageously' deny these urges. Basically, living as your are, as nature or 'God' made you, is evil. We are calling out words and actions that run antithetical to decency and compassion. They are saying people that love other people of the same sex are doomed to hell. Who is demonizing who? And how is is wrong to call this out just because people insist on (selectively) following a bronze-age moral code?
Originally Posted by subego
Just like I'm going to come to the defense of homosexuals, I'm going to come to Chongo's defense if he's accused of hating gay people.
Chongo has his faults. That's not one of them.
I, nor you, cannot not know his heart or mind, only his words. I have a nephew (by marriage) who grew up in a small town in North Carolina. Very red-state, very bible belt. I first met him when he was eight. Within minutes, I knew he was gay. He was from a large family, none of his siblings were gay, there is no gay community, no evidence of nurture for his sexuality. I never discussed this with anyone but my wife. She saw it too. He is a very bright guy, did well in school (the only one of 6 kids that went to college- one of four that actually graduated highschool). He had girlfriends, went to prom, all pretty 'normal.' But then he went off to college and went a bit nuts. Lots of partying, alcohol and drug abuse. It was looking bad- and then he broke down completely. In this darkest point, he was finally able to admit to himself that he was gay. It was hard. I give credit to most of his family- they supported him. His hometown did not. Once he came out, a weight lifted from him. He cleaned up. He got back into school and did well. He met an amazing partner. Last year, this broken child got married and is successful and happy. He is the only child in the family in a stable relationship. This is at the cost of most of the relationships from his childhood.
Chongo argues that he is a coward. That he is dammed. Maybe that is just posturing on an anonymous internet forum. But for all I know, my nephew reads this.
I'm not the one who chose to name the Apostolate Courage International. The name does not mean that people with SSA are cowards. They are not cowards. It does take a lot of courage to leave that lifestyle, because some of those who do sure get "hated on"
I have listened to several Catholic Answers shows with the director of Courage. It is not a "pray the gay away" group. Would you deny help to those who are trying to follow Jesus? If you would, that is hate.
I'm not the one who chose to name the Apostolate Courage International. The name does not mean that people with SSA are cowards. They are not cowards. It does take a lot of courage to leave that lifestyle, because some of those who do sure get "hated on"
In one sentence you claim you don't think homosexuals are cowards. In the next you say they can only show courage by leaving 'that lifestyle.' It is either comical or tragic that you believe the easy path for a Catholic, or almost anyone from a Judaeo/Christian/Muslim background, is to live as an 'out' homosexual.
Originally Posted by Chongo
I have listened to several Catholic Answers shows with the director of Courage. It is not a "pray the gay away" group. Would you deny help to those who are trying to follow Jesus? If you would, that is hate.
What I deny is that it is possible for someone to be truly happy by denying who they are. There are those of many faiths who suppress their sexuality and take vows of chastity in the name of faith. That is their choice and I respect that. What I don't respect is a culture that shames people into this life by telling them that they are evil by nature- that to live the way they were created, to love who they love, is an abomination. That is tragic. That is hateful.
In one sentence you claim you don't think homosexuals are cowards. In the next you say they can only show courage by leaving 'that lifestyle.' It is either comical or tragic that you believe the easy path for a Catholic, or almost anyone from a Judaeo/Christian/Muslim background, is to live as an 'out' homosexual.
What I deny is that it is possible for someone to be truly happy by denying who they are. There are those of many faiths who suppress their sexuality and take vows of chastity in the name of faith. That is their choice and I respect that. What I don't respect is a culture that shames people into this life by telling them that they are evil by nature- that to live the way they were created, to love who they love, is an abomination. That is tragic. That is hateful.
No, you said that they can only show courage by leaving the lifestyle. I said it takes courage because they will get hated on. Are you one of those haters? It sounds like it because you would deny someone the peace that surpasses all understanding.
No, you said that they can only show courage by leaving the lifestyle. I said it takes courage because they will get hated on. Are you one of those haters? It sounds like it because you would deny someone the peace that surpasses all understanding.
So you do agree that it take courage to be an open, practicing homosexual, particularly if you come from a religious background? That's encouraging.
And no, I would not hate someone who attempted to deny who they are, I would grieve for them. They will not find peace by following a philosophy of self-hatred.
Originally Posted by John from couragerc.org
How could people understand that I had something inside of me that I hated? I despised being sexually attracted to men, especially my own peers.
John's attractions are innate. His shame is the tyranny of others. I would not deny John happiness. But I'm confident couragerc will not provide it.
I, nor you, cannot not know his heart or mind, only his words. I have a nephew (by marriage) who grew up in a small town in North Carolina. Very red-state, very bible belt. I first met him when he was eight. Within minutes, I knew he was gay. He was from a large family, none of his siblings were gay, there is no gay community, no evidence of nurture for his sexuality. I never discussed this with anyone but my wife. She saw it too. He is a very bright guy, did well in school (the only one of 6 kids that went to college- one of four that actually graduated highschool). He had girlfriends, went to prom, all pretty 'normal.' But then he went off to college and went a bit nuts. Lots of partying, alcohol and drug abuse. It was looking bad- and then he broke down completely. In this darkest point, he was finally able to admit to himself that he was gay. It was hard. I give credit to most of his family- they supported him. His hometown did not. Once he came out, a weight lifted from him. He cleaned up. He got back into school and did well. He met an amazing partner. Last year, this broken child got married and is successful and happy. He is the only child in the family in a stable relationship. This is at the cost of most of the relationships from his childhood.
Chongo argues that he is a coward. That he is dammed. Maybe that is just posturing on an anonymous internet forum. But for all I know, my nephew reads this.
If that's not hate, what is?
I'm damned too, Paco.
That's what I'm finding unfair to Chongo in all this. Not to put too fine a point on it, but by his rules, people who jerk-off and don't feel guilty are damned.
To put it another way, there are plenty of Catholics who are homophobic, but believing in Catholocism doesn't default you to hating gays any more than it does to hating people who like a wank every now and then.
If Catholocism was about hating the damned, Catholics would have to hate almost everyone.
The most I'm going to accuse Chongo of is not having a lot of homosexuals as close friends. Am I off base in thinking you don't have lots of Catholic friends?
If you do, is this how you talk to them?
Edit: and to clarify that "friends" statement, I'm not saying either you or Chongo don't want such friends. I don't have any close black friends. That's not because I don't want to, but because I haven't really had the opportunity.
(
Last edited by subego; Apr 21, 2015 at 08:09 AM.
)
That's what I'm finding unfair to Chongo in all this. Not to put too fine a point on it, but by his rules, people who jerk-off and don't feel guilty are damned.
To put it another way, there are plenty of Catholics who are homophobic, but believing in Catholocism doesn't default you to hating gays any more than it does to hating people who like a wank every now and then.
If Catholicism was about hating the damned, Catholics would have to hate almost everyone.
While I understand the point you are trying to make, I feel it's more than a bit disingenuous. Where are the pizza shops preemptively refusing to to serve at the weddings of mastrubators? Adulterers? Divorcées? Athiests? Users of birth control? This kind of persecution- this public shaming- which if not 'hatred' is certainly 'hateful,' is reserved for homosexuals. I will say again, I can't know what is in someone's heart or mind. I can only judge their words and actions. The words and actions are hateful.
Originally Posted by subego
The most I'm going to accuse Chongo of is not having a lot of homosexuals as close friends. Am I off base in thinking you don't have lots of Catholic friends?
If you do, is this how you talk to them?
I had many more Catholic friends in America (just haven't met many Catholics in the UK), but they were, almost without exception, socially liberal and/or 'lapsed.' My Mother is a practicing Catholic. She converted in protest of the Episcopal Church's ordination of a gay Bishop. My political/ethical conversations with her are at least this heated. I love her deeply but fundamentally disagree with her on many, many issues. I suppose I love the sinner but hate the sin.
Further than that, are you asking if I would have the courage of my convictions if someone in real life made some of the arguments being made here? Absolutely. Would I walk up to a Catholic/Fundamentalist on the street and lambast them unprovoked? Absolutely not. I don't do public shaming.
Originally Posted by subego
Edit: and to clarify that "friends" statement, I'm not saying either you or Chongo don't want such friends. I don't have any close black friends. That's not because I don't want to, but because I haven't really had the opportunity.
I do have friends that I fundamentally disagree with on some very important ethical issues. Those that I am particularly close to I can have fully honest, brutal, conversations with. More casual friends we both avoid contentious issues out of respect.
So it's okay to demonize these people then? You don't see the irony here?
I'm not advocating demonising anyone. I'm saying that to change insular, fundamentalist attitudes the most effective way might be to encourage the tolerant, uninvested majority to stop being so tolerant of anything with a #religion hashtag stamped across it and start questioning things that they know to be wrong.
As soon as religion starts to lose its special sacrosanct status when it comes to being questioned or argued with, so much of this nonsense will begin to crumble.
Originally Posted by subego
Just like I'm going to come to the defense of homosexuals, I'm going to come to Chongo's defense if he's accused of hating gay people.
Chongo has his faults. That's not one of them.
In a sense, it seems you don't have to hate homosexuals to hate them. Or to propagate hatred in their direction which might be a more accurate description. As most reasonable Catholics will say, hate the sin not the sinner, its just they have a disconnect when it comes to appreciating that in this instance the two are not as separate as they'd like them to be. This is rather ironic since I often try to take a similar line when I criticise religion by criticising the belief or the religion itself rather than the believer but of course, they are usually unable to separate themselves from their belief in this instance and tend to take offence at what I say.
(
Last edited by Waragainstsleep; Apr 21, 2015 at 10:11 AM.
)
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
While I understand the point you are trying to make, I feel it's more than a bit disingenuous. Where are the pizza shops preemptively refusing to to serve at the weddings of mastrubators? Adulterers? Divorcées? Athiests? Users of birth control? This kind of persecution- this public shaming- which if not 'hatred' is certainly 'hateful,' is reserved for homosexuals. I will say again, I can't know what is in someone's heart or mind. I can only judge their words and actions. The words and actions are hateful.
As I said earlier, marriage is the gatekeeper for sex if you're Catholic.
If the gatekeeper lets in people who are not allowed to have sex under any possible circumstance, it has ceased to function as a gatekeeper.
With the exception of divorcees, none of the examples you provide are people who are not allowed to have sex under any possible circumstance.
The most I'm going to accuse Chongo of is not having a lot of homosexuals as close friends. Am I off base in thinking you don't have lots of Catholic friends?
Edit: and to clarify that "friends" statement, I'm not saying either you or Chongo don't want such friends. I don't have any close black friends. That's not because I don't want to, but because I haven't really had the opportunity.
A lot, no, I have had close friends who are SSA. One was a mutual friend of my sister from highschool. She insisted he wasn't even after I told her he was bowling in the "gay league" where I bowled. I have mentioned before that I have three cousins and my neighbor across the street, whom I have known since I was a child, are SSA. BTW, my neighbor has a "pray and vote for religious liberty" sign in her from yard. She is also an Extraordinary Minister of the Holy Eucharist. I believe she is also a member of Our Lady of the Assumption Sodality
Top