The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Do we have religious freedom anymore? > Comments

Do we have religious freedom anymore? : Comments

By Mike Bird, published 19/11/2015

Now 'tolerance' means that if you say anything that I find offensive, then I am fully justified in seeking punitive measures to destroy you.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 8
  7. 9
  8. 10
  9. All
Good article. That a Catholic Archbishop can be dragged before a socialist star chamber for issuing material which merely states the Catholic doctrine, to Catholics, is alarming in a democratic society such as ours. Particularly as Islamic doctrine preaching against democracy, freedom of speech and preaching for violence and death goes on in the same democratic society. And there is also the matter of the complainants preaching and making their own offensive (to many people) demands for homosexual 'marriage' who are actually supported by some of legislators who helped enact the crap laws that now seek to embarass and possibly prosecute a person, Archbishop or not, who has a 'natural right' to also express opinions contrary to those of the mob.
Posted by ttbn, Thursday, 19 November 2015 9:08:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
oh dear, there is only one thing new here, it's that fact that the religious are on the back foot. They do not enjoy the position they have had for so long.

How many religious groups want laws that enforce their world view?
Many Christians actually believe that only Christians are fit for office.
I don't recall any major religious groups advocating the removal of laws against homosexuality for instance.

over to you Runner say something crazy
Posted by Cobber the hound, Thursday, 19 November 2015 9:14:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The argument in favour of “same-sex marriage” is so illogical – think “carnivorous vegetarians” – that it is necessary for its supporters to silence its opponents. It fits with the use of the misleading term, “marriage equality”, the pretence that gays are not allowed to marry (when they can already do but don’t want to), the idea that the meaning of a word is a human rights issue, the labelling of opponents as religious bigots and homophobes. Even though ruthless dishonesty of the campaign has convinced most people to support the contradiction in terms that is “same-sex marriage”, numerical victory is not enough. The proponents, including those who did not give a toss abut the non-issue 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 or 60 years ago, must destroy the opponents. Who would have thought that the long progress to an inclusive, non-discriminatory society would have led to such fascist attitudes?
Posted by Chris C, Thursday, 19 November 2015 9:14:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To be fair, secularists pay taxes and have a right to define marriage any way they want. This just means that churches will need to have their own version of marriage that congregations adhere to. So, perhaps to enable the living of a Christian life, coalitions of churches could consider purchasing property like the Kidman cattle station to ensure flourishing.
Posted by progressive pat, Thursday, 19 November 2015 9:41:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Perhaps the Catholics should be paying tax if they want to be fully engaged with the broader community.

Perhaps you could advise if my children are permitted to go to a Catholic school noting we are not religious? Who is really discriminating now?

As to the assertion, those communities with LGBT living in them, what a joke, all communities have "these" people in them, what a dumb comment.

1 for effort, 0 for logic and 8 for, oh no we are getting scared now, we really are becoming more irrelevant as the clock ticks on.
Posted by Geoff of Perth, Thursday, 19 November 2015 12:03:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hound,

You are talking absolute rubbish, as usual. You pick on runner even though he has not even posted yet, and even without you knowing that he will.

You don't have to be "religious", as you name runner, to have the commonsense and the sense of right, decency, democracy and fair play that you do not have. I could never be called religious; but Christianity is not a bad basis to live by, even if you cannot always live UP to its ideals. There are 'natural rights' that the Archbishop was exercising, and their are so- called 'positive rights' enacted by human buffoons (called politicians) merely on their own ideas of what is right or wrong. The 'law' which is being inflicted on the Archbishop is a quite tyrannical and unnatural one, dreamed up by some nutty socialist
Posted by ttbn, Thursday, 19 November 2015 12:17:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes, it is very shocking and disturbing and outright wrong, but oh well, still not as bad as the lions...

The Catholic church has been in a symbiotic relationship with the state for that many centuries, helping to build that same mechanism which now turns against it.

"Whoso diggeth a pit shall fall therein: and he that rolleth a stone, it will return upon him." [Proverbs 26:27]

Discrimination is great, it's the sign of intelligence, it allows us to tell between good and evil, to eat that which is healthy and to throw out that which is poisonous - stop making it a crime!
Posted by Yuyutsu, Thursday, 19 November 2015 1:56:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
'Discrimination is great, it's the sign of intelligence, it allows us to tell between good and evil, to eat that which is healthy and to throw out that which is poisonous - stop making it a crime!'

Yuyutsu

have not agreed on much lately but what you say about discrimination is spot on.

what a perverted dictatorship the Greens are. Was the refugee terrorist in France on the same ship as Hanson Young on her publicity stunt? To think 10 % of Australians have been dumbed down to vote for these clowns.
Posted by runner, Thursday, 19 November 2015 2:12:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The sky is falling!
The title of this essay is essentially ridiculous - that is worthy of ridicule.
If you check out the regular contents of the authors website it almost always contains references to essays and books (etc) which are very much at the dim-witted end of the religious spectrum. Religion as an extension of and a consolation for a childish, even infantile emotional disposition. That is they almost always lack any kind of deeply considered discriminative intelligence.
Posted by Daffy Duck, Thursday, 19 November 2015 2:19:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Geoff of Perth,

"Perhaps you could advise if my children are permitted to go to a Catholic school noting we are not religious? Who is really discriminating now?"

In this case no one, if you want your kids to go to a Catholic school and to receive a more rounded education then their religion or lack of it is no bar, if there are vacancies then they can fill them and you will have the added satisfaction of joining those parents who help to subsidize the State system.
Posted by Is Mise, Thursday, 19 November 2015 2:52:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I disagree with the Catholic Church’s position on same-sex marriage, but it should have the right to argue its case on this issue. So should anyone else who supports or opposes ssm. The issue is one of freedom of speech, not religious privilege.
Posted by Rhian, Thursday, 19 November 2015 3:10:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I agree with the Catholic Church’s position on same-sex marriage, but it should have the right to argue its case on this issue. So should anyone else who supports or opposes ssm. The issue is one of freedom of speech, not religious privilege
Posted by LEGO, Thursday, 19 November 2015 4:37:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Perhaps a more useful litmus test of religious tolerance in any given country is the tolerance given towards non mainstream, and especially new and emerging religious and Spiritual groups.
Look what happened to Jesus of Galilee when he threatened the worldly power and privileges of the ecclesiastical establishment in his time and place.
Which means that Australia is one of the few countries in which such non mainstream groups are not the target of any kind of negative animus from self-righteous "cult-busters".
It also seems to me that the very worldly power claims (and the associated privileges) of the socially dominant establishment religions should always be consistently challenged.
This is especially the case with the "catholic" church which wrongly pretends that it is the only source of Truth in the world, and that it has a "great commission" to convert all of humankind to its one-true-way. Such is of course part of its mission statement. A mission statement that has totalitarian intentions.
In the case of the USA this challenge should be extended to all of those who have signed on with the Manhattan Declaration, which in my opinion is a manifesto for christian fascism.
Fascism coming to Amerika shouting freedom or "liberty" with one hand and simultaneously waving a Bible in the air with the other.

Meanwhile it is also obvious that the "catholic" church has always negatively manipulated the minds, bodies and emotions of all of the human beings in the societies where it has operated. It has of course always simultaneously manipulated the political aspirations of the societies in which it has operated. It does of course run the worlds largest "privately" owned propaganda machine. The manipulative tentacles of which reach into almost every village on the planet.
Posted by Daffy Duck, Thursday, 19 November 2015 6:20:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'm sure it's largely true that "public outrage is [being] fuelled by the reporting of the relevant document rather than the document itself." However, the document itself is full of flawed reasoning/information and misleading selectivity... biblically, theologically, and sociologically. Their stipulated commitment to respecting "those who experience same-sex attraction" (not respecting them enough to allow them to name themselves, though) is belied by the fact that they never engage with any of these people's voices, and they don't show any concern for their well-being except with some hypothetical, theoretical, and undefined statements at the start. Meanwhile, they show, and outline in great detail, great concern for the interests of organizations who do not want to recognize same-sex relationships in their policies. They oppose "unjust discrimination" (not, as Bird says, all "prejudice" against LGBTI people) while mounting an argument that discrimination against gay couples is just and should be undertaken by the secular government.

... to be continued ...
Posted by elcalebo, Thursday, 19 November 2015 11:29:27 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
... continuing ...

All that said, although the document could have done a much better job at being respectful to LGBTI people, and will certainly offend people and be construed as insulting, I too find "it a little creepy that a Catholic bishop is about to be hauled before a court for teaching Catholic beliefs to Catholics." It doesn't seem very consistent with religious freedom.

It's not a simple issue, though. Let's imagine that the document mounted an argument based on interpretation of scripture and theology that marriage is a special relationship involving (among other things) the two people to be of the same race, and that, therefore, mixed-race marriages should not be called marriages, and Catholic organizations should be allowed to deny them various spousal benefits. Perhaps it also mounted arguments about how the children have a right to two parents of the same ethnicity and disadvantaged when they don't have it. To support this, let's say it selectively cited some sociological studies suggesting that when one parent is a an indigenous Australian and the other is a white Australian, the child is worse off than when both parents are white (and implied that this indicates a problem with that kind of couple itself, rather than a problem with the society that disadvantages Aboriginal people). In that situation, I think we would be split on seeing it as a grey area vs. wanting the government to ban it... nobody would see it as a straightforward case where it should obviously be tolerated in the name of religious freedom (well, except maybe some racists, of which there are sadly a lot in Australia).
Posted by elcalebo, Thursday, 19 November 2015 11:30:10 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
ttbn,

Here you go again. I’m sorry, but Christianity is not much of a “basis” to live by at all. It is an immoral doctrine.

The concept of original sin is immoral; infinite punishment for finite crimes is immoral; the idea that a deathbed conversion can save someone, no matter how bad that person was throughout their life, is unjust and immoral; rewarding gullibility over good deeds is immoral; the revolting idea of scapegoating - the idea that people can throw their bad deeds on to someone else and have them die and take your “sin” with them - is immoral; The idea that a god watches people masterbating instead of feeding the starving is immoral. The Christian doctrine is as every bit as immoral as the Islamic doctrine and it is only by virtue of the fact that Christianity has been dragged kicking and screaming out of the Dark Ages and into modernity that it is no longer as overtly destructive as Islam.

Or did you not think that the crusaders had read the words of Jesus?

Anything in Christian theology that is good can be found elsewhere without the immoral rubbish that Christianity comes with.

LEGO,

Since you feel the other thread is not worth pursuing, perhaps you can inform me of why you disagree with same-sex marriage?
Posted by AJ Philips, Friday, 20 November 2015 12:31:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AJ Philips, all of those doctrines are disputed within Christianity. They are not straightforwardly what Christianity teaches. As a Christian, I think I probably dislike the same kind of Christianity you dislike.
Posted by elcalebo, Friday, 20 November 2015 1:27:14 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Two points, elcalebo.

Firstly, nothing I’ve said is out-of-line with the Christian doctrine. If you reject the notion of original sin and salvation, then you are not a Christian. No Adam, no Eve; no Adam and Eve, no fall; no fall, no need for redemption; no need for redemption, no need for a redeemer; no need for a redeemer, no need for the crucifixion or the resurrection, and no need to believe in that redeemer in order to gain eternal life.

Secondly, if I’m painting someone else and you choose to use the same label as that other person, then don’t complain to me if you get a bit of paint splashed on you. If nothing I said earlier relates to you, then you need to find a different label other than “Christian”.

Don’t invent your own religion, then act like I’m attacking some sort of strawman.
Posted by AJ Philips, Friday, 20 November 2015 1:45:19 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Of all the beliefs you named, original sin has the most consensus among Christians. However, different Christian traditions and theologians have understood original sin in different ways. If you examined all the versions, you may still find all versions of original sin immoral - fair enough. Personally, I am morally OK with some versions of original sin. I also think that the moral acceptability of original sin depends a lot on how that particular doctrine (& version of it) relates to other doctrines (e.g. I too find original sin + predestination + eternal damnation unacceptable).

I was not suggesting you are attacking a straw man exactly... I am perfectly happy for you to criticize the (sadly) many Christians who do hold to those beliefs. My point was simply that it is not accurate to describe these as the doctrines of Christianity. Perhaps Western fundamentalist Christianity would be a better overall description of who your target is. I'm more concerned with you (and, before you, these fundamentalists) misrepresenting Christianity than with you misrepresenting me.

But since you talked about me personally: I support a version of original sin, but I do not support the other beliefs you named (penal substitution, eternal damnation, irrelevance of action, certain views of sexual morality & its importance vis-a-vis regard for the poor). In fact, I think they're all contradicted by the Bible and orthodox Christian belief. I do not need to invent my own religion to say this; it is well within the bounds of orthodox Christianity to say this. All the beliefs you named are contested within Christianity, some directly contradict standard church statements of orthodoxy, and none (except original sin) come close to unanimity in Christianity (e.g. eternal damnation has been generally accepted in Western Christianity but not Eastern; penal substitution is a modern contortion of biblical imagery and theological concepts).

I have reached my daily allotment of 4 responses to this thread.
Posted by elcalebo, Friday, 20 November 2015 2:32:27 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
ttbn, accurate as always sir.

Cobber the hound, oh dear, there is only one thing new here, it's that fact that communists are on the back foot. They do not enjoy the position they have had for so long.

How many religious groups want laws that enforce their world view? A, actually Australia is a Christian nation, every religion other than Christianity is illegal on Australian soil & Christian Cannon law is one of the foundation stones our constitution stands on.
Many Christians actually believe that only Christians are fit for office. So true Cobber, corruption & criminality has been rising as there have been less Christians in leadership positions.
I don't recall any major religious groups advocating the removal of laws against homosexuality for instance & quite right too, GLBT lifestyle is endangering children & should be restricted.

over to other communists to say something crazy

Chris C, the attitudes are not fascist but trotskyist & were always intended to push us backwards to a feudal system in which the 1% ruling, left wing elites control the proletariat with an iron fist, up the Kyber pass.

progressive pat, To be fair, Christians pay taxes and defined marriage 2,000 years ago. This just means that communists will need to have their own version of marriage that communes adhere to. So, perhaps to enable the living of a Communist life, communists could consider purchasing property like the Kidman cattle station or moving to China, North Korea or Cuba.

Geoff of Perth, Perhaps the Catholics are paying tax & they are fully engaged with the broader community.

Perhaps you could advise if my children are permitted to go to a Catholic school noting we are not religious? A, yes your children can attend any Christian school & receive a better education than at government schools.

As to the assertion, those communities with LGBT living in them, what a joke, all communities have "these" people in them & YOUR children are being groomed by them.

10 for effort, 10 for logic, communism really is becoming more irrelevant as the clock ticks on.
Posted by imacentristmoderate, Friday, 20 November 2015 6:50:33 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
One wonders when the Chief Rabbi and the senior Imam will be dragged before some tribunal to answer, respectively, for the Bible's and the Qur'an's statements on homosexuality and Jewish and Muslim clerics statements on same gender marriage.

Fairs fair, and one would hope and expect that it is not sheer gutlessness that has singled out Catholicism.
Posted by Is Mise, Friday, 20 November 2015 7:25:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
//communism really is becoming more irrelevant as the clock ticks on//

You don't say. Communism stopped being relevant when the Cold War ended. Which makes the rest of us wonder why you keep ranting about it. Have you been frozen in ice for the last 30 years or something? Communist paranoia is so 20th century. The reds have had to move out from under your bed to make room for the towelheads.
Posted by Toni Lavis, Friday, 20 November 2015 7:29:58 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Quite true, Toni, communism as such is irrelevant and the local Green brand is not yet irrelevant but we're working on it.
Posted by Is Mise, Friday, 20 November 2015 8:52:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Of course AJ quotes partial truths about CHristian doctrine in order to justify his lies. Why should we be surprised as He mis represents the Creator he rejects in order to justify his own corrupt nature.
Posted by runner, Friday, 20 November 2015 9:09:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What is irrelevant is the Catholic church, to mend their ways they have to rename the Vatican city and declare the first pope as Mary Magdalin.

Religion is fast becoming outdated and selected fairy tales have come to an end.

There is that much wrong with stories in the bible that need to be rewritten or burnt. Man has been on earth for 2 million years +.
Posted by 579, Friday, 20 November 2015 9:09:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AJ,

Without a Christian background, you are not in a position to judge what is moral and what is not.

579,

Christianity is not "becoming outdated"; it is more important than ever. It is being derided and sneered at by empty people like you to the point that 'mass culture" has dragged society and the world down to the sorry state we are suffering we are now suffering.
Posted by ttbn, Friday, 20 November 2015 9:47:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Imacentristmoderate,

Keep up your good work.
Posted by ttbn, Friday, 20 November 2015 9:50:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What I find interesting is the posters who support the denial of free speech by exercising their right of free speech.
Posted by Is Mise, Friday, 20 November 2015 9:57:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Isn’t there a religious war going on in the middle east. Religion does not have any portal to stand on at all. It’s the biggest con job the world has ever seen, and would be far better living in the real world.
Fictitious stories have no place any more, people know they have been led up the garden path of Eden. Get the real stories, and not the selected version.
Posted by 579, Friday, 20 November 2015 10:17:31 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Basic Christian Doctrine is simplistic:

http://www.facebook.com/312383761871/photos/a.313018011871.150599.312383761871/10153098347171872/

"Without a Christian background, you are not in a position to judge what is moral and what is not."

But if you are a Christian isn't Jesus' quoted command to not judge? [Matthew 7:1]

Which is ironic since - in this instance - the Catholic Bishops of Australia Pastoral Letter "to all Australians" is making judgments about Catholic and Christian theology, doctrine and orthodoxy. As well as extending these to the secular realm.

Which I accept is their entitlement and I look forward to the conciliation of the parties involved in Tasmania.

However, as the author claims Professor Nichols' article "points to an increasing trend in social discourse for protagonists not simply to want to win the argument, the debate, or even the election; but to demand total obedience to and compliance with their own ideology." it must be noted, Mr. Bird, that it is the Catholic Bishops who are seeking obedience and compliance with their own ideology.

Which must also include legal redress to obtain: "As we argue, the meaning of marriage is confined to relationships between a man and woman entered into voluntarily for life to the exclusion of all others and which is open to the procreation of children." in order to avoid charges of hypocrisy. [footnote p. 5, DMM]

Fortunately it is only all heterosexual divorces and re-marriages which, presumably, will be annulled.
Posted by WmTrevor, Friday, 20 November 2015 12:25:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"But if you are a Christian isn't Jesus' quoted command to not judge? [Matthew 7:1]"
No as you are not reading it in the full context; rubeum allec'.
Posted by Is Mise, Friday, 20 November 2015 9:05:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
1 Jesus went unto the mount of Olives. 2 And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and taught them. 3 And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst, 4 They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. 5 Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou? 6 This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not. 7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. 8 And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground. 9 And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last, save one. 10 And runner did step forward, and said unto Jesus, I is I lord. I alone am without sin, I beseech you: let me cast the stone. 11 And Jesus said, By our own hand, runner. 12 And runner took a great stone and smote the woman mightily. 13 And Jesus was seen to shake his head and heard to mutter, Christ, why do I even bother?
- Runner 8:1-13
Posted by Toni Lavis, Friday, 20 November 2015 10:15:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
runner,

Oh please, do tell us all what the other side of the story is that I'm apparently overlooking, won't you?

ttbn,

How you could say this after the list of immoral Christian teachings I listed is beyond me.

<<Without a Christian background, you are not in a position to judge what is moral and what is not.>>

Perhaps you simply shut what I said out and that's why I got nothing but another assertion as a response?

Do you mind expanding on what you mean here? Surely, as a non-believer, you don't think our morality comes from Christianity. If that were the case, then how would you explain morality before Christianity? Or the fact that Christian nations didn't suddenly become more moral when it did enter the scene?

If you do think that our morality comes from Christianity, then please enlighten us as to how it did so despite its immoral teachings. Surely you don't mean the golden rule? That was around long before Christianity and if you think we needed religion to make us all aware of such a basic common sense rule of thumb, then I would worry about your personal moral compass. Such basic social etiquette is, after all, an evolved trait.
Posted by AJ Philips, Friday, 20 November 2015 10:34:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The existence of freedom of speech and religion seems clear. The booklet was written, printed and distributed was it not? It is still extant.

It has also been challenged and the parties are in conciliation talks... which is a part of freedom of speech and religion.

But that the Catholic Bishops are seeking obedience and compliance with their own ideology beyond their jurisdiction is a separate discourse. That is the area where freedom becomes imposition on the 'differently religious'.

To clarify, Is Mise... I did reference the verse and I have studied it in context across the synoptic gospels as well as that of Thomas and yes it is: non docent avia tua sugere ova.

"There is one Lawgiver who is able to save and to destroy. Who art thou that judgest another?" [James 4:12]
Posted by WmTrevor, Friday, 20 November 2015 11:30:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
WmTrevor - that comic is an even less accurate summary of Christian theology than the other guy's.

It's only the very privileged in this world who don't feel like they need saving from something.

It seems both that cartoon and AJ Philips's notion that there's "no need for redemption" without a specific theological belief are making the same mistake. Both are treating Christian beliefs as abstract from real life. I.e. both think God doesn't want to save people from poverty, slavery, injustice, alienation, war etc., like she did in the Bible (see e.g. Exodus 2, the founding story of the Jewish faith). Rather, she wants to save us from abstract theological doctrines. This is a completely different religion to true Jewish or Christian belief. That said, Christians (so-called... more like gnostics) invented this misconception and are entirely to blame when outsiders have picked it up too.
Posted by elcalebo, Friday, 20 November 2015 11:37:38 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
ttbn, I will assume you are not a Marcionite or anti-Jewish, i.e. that you meant to say "Without a Jewish or Christian background."

Nonetheless, I invite you to consult the various Biblical materials suggesting people outside of Jewish-Christian sacred history do have some access and accountability to moral standards. E.g. the Proverbs which rely on observation of the patterns of the world rather than special revelation (and incorporate content from non-Israelites, e.g. Prov 31:1-9). Or the various other nations held accountable in the Prophets, not to Israel's law but to more general moral standards (see e.g. Amos 1 - 2:5 ... note also Amos 9:7 which hints at YHWH's relationships with other peoples). Or the Noachide laws. Or Romans 2:6-16 which says that the Gentiles have the law's requirements "written on their hearts" and their consciences.

Having said that, it's undoubtedly true that Jewish and Christian teachings have affected this general, natural morality for the better (something AJ Philips seems to deny).
E.g. ceasing the practice of abandoning unwanted born babies (disproportionately girls) to die. Or the erosion of slavery until its revival in the era of colonization. Or the "self-evident" humanist notion that "all [people] are created equal," which certainly has not been self-evident for all societies; it's self-evident in liberal democracies because of years of Christian influence (though, sadly, even when the abstract principle is self-evident, people can ignore it in practice... American society, for example, constantly has to be reminded that black lives matter).
Posted by elcalebo, Friday, 20 November 2015 11:41:59 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
elcalebo,

Firstly, I have not said that there is no need for redemption. Whether or not we are in need of redemption depends on what you mean my “redemption”.

Secondly, I don’t necessarily deny that religion has had any positive effect on our current generally-agreed-upon notion of morality. What I would point out, however, is that you have no way of knowing that it was dependant upon it, nor that it was necessary (i.e. the assertion that we could not have gotten to the point that we’re at now (contrary to Christian theology predicting that the world would get worse) without Christianity).

You seem to touch, too, on this silly notion of ‘Judeo-Christian’ values, to which I have already put into perspecive at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7032#215553. No-one has ever been able to give me a clear explanation of what exactly a Judeo-Christian ethical system is beyond the Golden Rule (which was around long before either religion), and when one learns of the origins of the silly term, it’s no wonder.
Posted by AJ Philips, Saturday, 21 November 2015 12:14:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I agree with you that when someone uses the phrase "Judeo-Christian values," chances are they're about to say something completely stupid, reactionary, and ahistorical.

However, it would be fallacious of us to suppose that just because these people are stupid, we can't ever say anything positive about the impact of Jewish and Christian moral thought on societies. Fortunately you're not doing that. You acknowledge that this kind of positive influence is possible. But you quite rightly point out that it's hard to prove this causation, and impossible to prove that such causation was necessary (note: I don't claim it was necessary).

For an indication of the kind of positive influence I'm talking about (quite different to the "Judeo-Christian" rubbish), you may enjoy this debate between a Christian and a humanist on the inherent value of the human being. The humanist acknowledges that there does seem to have been important Christian influence on the liberal-democratic consensus that all humans are inherently valuable. He argues, however, that this humanism can stand alone without the metaphysical and transcendent considerations that originally gave rise to it. He also argues that it's better when standing alone.
(Of course, I'm not saying you have to agree with this humanist!).
http://veritas.org/talks/people-suffer-who-cares-secular-humanist-and-christian-dialogue/?view=locations&location=3260

Lastly: lest these comments be construed as Christian supremacism - various polls show that Muslims and atheists are often a lot better at supporting inherent human dignity in practice:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/148763/muslim-americans-no-justification-violence.aspx
http://religiondispatches.org/christians-more-supportive-of-torture-than-non-religious-americans/
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/01/18/who-would-jesus-torture.html

By the way, you seem like you might be repeating your pattern of treating one school of thought within Christian theology as if it's the only Christian stance on the matter (this time re: eschatology and whether the world will get better, worse, neither, both, or whether all options are open).
Posted by elcalebo, Saturday, 21 November 2015 6:42:00 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As an atheist and someone that supports marriage equality, I don't agree with much of what the catholic church is trying to say.

However, what I find particularly abhorrent is the attack on free speech and the attempts by the left whingers to crush dissenting opinions.

I find it strange that those purportedly fighting for social justice are also trying to impose the worst form of oppression.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Saturday, 21 November 2015 7:44:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The catholic church is a sham, they have lived a lie right from the very beginning. Unless that can be addressed and mend their mistakes their demise is assured. Only the blind can follow their belief.
Posted by 579, Saturday, 21 November 2015 8:43:14 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
579,

" Only the blind can follow their belief"

You are Catholic then?
Posted by Is Mise, Saturday, 21 November 2015 8:56:49 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AJ I think I can help answer your query, as far as what Judeo-Christian values could look like. I dont want to pretend that what I'm about to say is the only answer, because I can't control the intent of others. However.

Values are things that are done or believed by people, that are/were seperate from the laws of the land (possible inlcuding Western Civilisation, if thats what anyone wants to believe). As a modern day, non-religious example: I believe that gambling is bad so I choose not to gamble, but the law allows me to gamble if I wish.

So the question then is what are our Judeo-Christian values. Firstly though, some disclaimers:

-When I claim something as being from a Judeo-Christian value, I'm not saying that it was something that could only be gained exclusively from Jews or Christians, but that they were valued because they were Jewish or Christian values.
-I am not claiming that all, or possibly even the majority of the values of our modern society came from the Judeo-Christian background, merely that some have been brought down.

So. Some from the Judeo:
- Monotheism
- 10 Commandments
- Theological Debate (Again, not exclusive to the Jews but we were influenced by them)

And some from the Christian:
- Personal relationship with God (As a father figure)
- Service
- Separation of church and state. (Importantly this was not a value in the Catholic church, but it was recognised by Christ himself, render unto Caesar the things which are Caesars)

All of the above, while not gained exclusively from the Judeo-Christian value set are no doubt shared with them.

Ultimately that means that the people who have been raised with Christian values will find in them a Christian, or Judeo-Christian tradition. Meanwhile those who are taught the same values will find a different history for the traditions that they adhere to.

I think it all boils down to a matter of perspective, not exclusivity.
Posted by Prebs, Saturday, 21 November 2015 5:51:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
From the Booklet -

"marriage includes an emotional union, but it goes further than that. It involves a substantial bodily and spiritual union of a man and a woman."

Over 70% of marriage ceremonies in Aus (and probably at least a few other Western countries) are civil ceremonies ie. they are not religious ceremonies.

Society has already decided whether marriages [largely] involve a substantial 'spiritual union'.

But religious organisations and religious couples can still have a marriage with a "substantial bodily and spiritual union of a man and a woman".
Posted by McReal, Saturday, 21 November 2015 8:57:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
McReal

When the church calls marriage a “spiritual union” it is talking about the spiritual union between husband and wife, not the fact their marriage may have been conducted in church. A civil marriage or de facto marriage can be a “spiritual union”.

In my view there is no reason a same-sex marriage cannot also be a bodily and spiritual union
Posted by Rhian, Monday, 23 November 2015 11:52:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thank you, Shadow Minister:

"As an atheist and someone that supports marriage equality, I don't agree with much of what the catholic church is trying to say.

However, what I find particularly abhorrent is the attack on free speech and the attempts by the left whingers to crush dissenting opinions."

I'm also an atheist, but I'm disgusted at the completely diversionary and irrelevant attacks, the easy marks and free kicks, of the BS pseudo-left, who can't seem to mount any sort of case for free speech IF it's somebody else's. Gutless wonders.

I don't like the Catholic church - apart from being atheist, it seems, looking back through my genealogy, I come from a long line of Protestants on both/every side: my lovely old grandfather was a proud Callumthumpian. But Catholics have as much right to express their opinions as anybody else.

it doesn't mean that their opinion is correct, or even that it should be respected. But it should be allowed to be expressed, and it should be able to be criticised , even ridiculed.

If the BS 'left' can't get their pinny little heads around that, then they really have become irrelevant at best, and a danger to free speech at worst.

Ah, so that's why they wet themselves to apologise for terrorism, and to try to divert discussion away from it to straw men and red herrings. That makes sense now.

Thanks again, SM.

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Thursday, 26 November 2015 9:44:51 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Joe,

"I don't like the Catholic church - apart from being atheist, it seems, looking back through my genealogy, I come from a long line of Protestants on both/every side: my lovely old grandfather was a proud Callumthumpian"

Now don't be like that, think of all the Catholic ancestors that you have before the Protestants.

In my family I have among my immediate ancestors, Anglicans, Catholics, Methodists and Presbyterians.
My first ancestors in Australia were Presbyterian then the Anglicans and lastly the Irish Catholics.
Before them was a long period of 100% Catholicism and before that various pagan religions.
Posted by Is Mise, Thursday, 26 November 2015 10:30:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Is Mise,

No, I don't have any dislike for Catholics, I admire much of their practices for its spirit and honesty, and people's concern for each other. No, not so much the Church itself.

As long as people have genuine compassion for other people in desperate need, people from groups other than their own and followers of religions other than their own, I don't care what they believe, they are people I would be happy to be friends with.

I'm in a couple of singing groups and of course, at this time of the year, we're practising all manner of Christmas songs, which, as an atheist, I really enjoy. Many of them I've sung since primary school, of course. My atheism pre-dated primary school, but that hasn't stopped me enjoying some beautiful and stirring songs. And why should God have all the best tunes ?

Freedom of speech extends to everybody, including atheists, the Catholic Church and Islamic groups, as long as they are not inciting violence against any group. We can all get offended at a view which is different from our own, so that would be a ludicrous argument to use against it. For anybody who may be offended at something, I suggest you grow a pair, cop it and try to give as good as you've got. It can be fun.

For example, in the light of the micro-aggression campaign, where people are holding up signs about some perceived slight, I was planning on walking past people with their signs with one of my own saying "I'm probably a racist, but I don't give a toss" just to get some freedom of expression going. There's not enough of it around. Passionate dispute is vital to a healthy society.

As is red wine, of course.

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Thursday, 26 November 2015 10:58:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Loudmouth

I support your post. I was raised as a Catholic who went to mass every Sunday.

So why did my faith change, simple – since the mid 1990’s was aware of the most despicable abuse to children by priests, nuns, Salvation Army Homes and many other institutions run by Church and affiliated organisations.

I sent letters to respective leaders in government at the time. I remember one response being – nothing enlightening except – “keep going” with my cause.

We now have a Royal Commission into Institutional Abuse – and (we and many others) had no idea as to the extent of child abuse now uncovered.

I applaud those brave persons who are prepared to front the Royal Commission to relate their horrific experiences at the “hands” of those persons who were "supposed" to care for them.

So my question has to be (to Catholic Priests and other institutions involved in the care of children placed in their care for all those years yet receiving Government funding, whilst being abused) – who the F!@#K do you think you are to have abused so many of those children...and in the name of "faith"?
Posted by SAINTS, Saturday, 28 November 2015 7:52:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Note - we three children grew up in a loving family.
With the evidence the Royal Commission has unearthed of abuse, my mum and dad would be turning in their graves with much disgust that "any" child could/would be abused by anyone, albeit such child being placed in the care of any institution of whatever faith.

I am so pleased they not around to hear current evidence being broadcast by the Royal Commission into Institutional Child Abuse.

However, I am so pleased these "victims" are now able to relate the trauma's that have affected their lives, and now be able to get justice.

No child asked to be born - however that child didn't deserve to be abused in any way - by whoever, for whatever reason - either.
Posted by SAINTS, Saturday, 28 November 2015 8:11:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"In my view there is no reason a same-sex marriage cannot also be a bodily and spiritual union"

Posted by Rhian, Monday, 23 November 2015 11:52am

I fully agree. And such a spiritual union may not be an Abrahamic-religion one
Posted by McReal, Tuesday, 1 December 2015 11:09:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi McReal,

Then why not call I just that - a 'union' - end of story ? Why involve EITHER the State OR the churches in the private lives of homosexuals ? Or, of course, live in de facto relationships, like many heterosexual couples do quite happily ?

Admittedly, it's a handy stick to shove up the arses of both State and church authorities, and to blur the distinction between church and State, so of course it would serve Gramscian purposes of 'marching through the bourgeois institutions of the capitalist State'.

But I do think that Church and State should be kept separate: surely that is one of the most fundamental lessons of the Enlightenment ?

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Tuesday, 1 December 2015 11:54:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Joe.

Because the norm is 'marriage' - it's also still the ultimate in commitment.

As we know, marriage is both a legislated State event, as well as a church one; probably as a result of pre-Democracy theocracy administration.

We could stick with marriage as a State-sanctioned event; and the religious could have an additional church-sanctioned marriage.

But many religious people seem to think same-sex marriage affects their hetero-marriage or will affect it. I also think religious people are concerned they will see same-sex married clergy; and perceive SSM will be an issue if the Catholic church ever move towards marriage for their priests (many priests are gay; the clergy has been a sanctuary for gay Catholic men -

* http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_rcc.htm

* http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_rcc1.htm )

.
Posted by McReal, Wednesday, 2 December 2015 9:55:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Loudmouth - historically, marriage was mostly administered as an exchange of property between men. The Christian church gave it theological support and meaning, blessed marriage in general and individual marriages in particular, and gradually developed ceremonies to convey this blessing. But it was always a theological interpretation and blessing of a secular institution undertaken by the community. Then - in Western Europe at least - the Catholic church took it over in the 12th-13th centuries. There were complex theological and political reasons for this takeover, and it also had perhaps unexpected effects: e.g. the church strongly pushed the idea that the only thing required for marriage is the consent of the two parties; this meant that everyone had the right to marry, against the wills of their families and masters. Eventually marriage came under the jurisdiction of the nation-state, which I think was basically a secularization of church management of it (i'm a bit shaky on the history here). There are good and bad things about marriage being controlled "by the community" (i.e. in practice: by the powerful in the community), by the churches, and by the state. I think there are good reasons for state administration of marriage (with optional church blessing). It definitely doesn't imply a combination of church and state to have state management of marriage, because marriage was a secular institution (insofar as the sacred-secular distinction even exists in ancient times) long before it was church-controlled - in fact long before the Christian faith existed.
Posted by elcalebo, Wednesday, 2 December 2015 10:09:48 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Elcalebo,

You're right, in very different types of societies - hunter-gatherers, subsistence farmers, the aristocratic propertied class - women have been traded and exchanged between men, between families and between groups. The political peace was helped that way. In Aboriginal societies, men would lend their wives to others as an act of hospitality and, of course, beat them to death if they ran off. In subsistence economies, such as those in the Middle East and India etc. today, marriage are arranged with young girls to foster harmony between families. And so on.

And of course, all of these political practices had to be sanctioned by cultural religious principles in some way. Culture is almost invariably the veil drawn over male power, the sanctioning of power relations. Perhaps they could teach that in cultural studies, but I don't think they ever will. And religious principles spring out of cultural and political situations. Hence, the subordination of women has almost everywhere been approved by culture and religion. A pox on both of them.

It's interesting to speculate whether monogamy is associated with the principles of the Enlightenment, and - since people form unions which the State has to recognise - this State involvement was a welcome intrusion into religious monopolies. And, as democracy and new-found freedoms displaced obedience to the church/temple/mosque/charlatan, the powers of Church and State inevitably had to be sharply defined, and separated.

Perhaps the mark of a democratic society is the degree to which it can define, and confine, the powers of religious bodies. From the point of view of the State, i.e. the application of the powers and obligations of our elected representatives, monogamous unions between men and women can and must be recognised, and what churches etc. do is up to them - both forms of unions called 'marriage'.

But in order to maintain that separation of Church and State,

[TBC]
Posted by Loudmouth, Thursday, 3 December 2015 8:41:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
[continued]

the Church (etc.) must have the freedom whether or not to recognise what they consider to be a marriage. What the State recognises is up to IT: it should not be able to dictate to churches who they can or can't recognise as 'married', IF we are to maintain that separation.

On another matter, Catholic clergy child abuse, why not let priests get married ? That might have avoided so much abuse and misery over the last thousand years. Orthodox priests marry. Protestant clergy marry. Why this idiocy ?

Just saying :)

Cheers,

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Thursday, 3 December 2015 8:42:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This is completely off-topic but I'll respond anyway. I support married clergy (as well as clergy of all genders), but not for the argument you named. That argument has two fatal flaws:

(1) Child abuse does not happen more frequently in the Roman Catholic church than in other comparable religious or secular organizations.
(2) Celibate clergy abuse children at lower rates than non-celibate clergy.

This should of course not be taken as any kind of excuse for the horrific acts of sexual violence against children by Catholic priests, or for the horrific cover-ups and enabling undertaken by Catholic dioceses and bishops etc. It's just that those inexcusable acts are not unique to the Catholic church. They're also undertaken by other people who work with children, and by other organizations.

So this means married priests wouldn't solve the child abuse problem inside or outside the Roman Catholic church. (It would solve a few other problems, though. And I think the theological argument is open-and-shut in favor of making celibacy optional ... it's just the weight of tradition holding them back from changing that).
Posted by elcalebo, Thursday, 3 December 2015 8:54:23 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
G'day Elcalebo,

I agree with you, that of course child abuse is not confined to any one church, or even to churches alone. I'm not suggesting that allowing priests (in the Anglican as well as the Catholic Church) to marry will eliminate child abuse everywhere - of course, some non-celibates, both religious and secular, commit child abuse, a tiny few (I hope) of fathers even abuse their own daughters.

I'm not suggesting that such dreadful abuse can be eliminated by some one-shot remedy. But I suspect that it could greatly reduced.

In the nineteenth century, non-Catholic mission societies were often reluctant to appoint single men to work on Aboriginal missions. Perhaps it should be a requirement that anybody working closely with children be married. No, it's not a 100% sure-fire cure-all, but again it may go some way to minimising child abuse.

Currently churches would refuse to marry priests or nuns - in a couple of successful marriages that I know of, both priest and nun had to renounce their vows of celibacy, and leave their position. But of course, their union was recognised by the State, I.e. by the Office of Births, Deaths and Marriages. But whether churches recognise such marriages is an internal matter. However, in order to maintain the separation of Church and state, there would be no bar to the State's recognition of such a union - and to call it a marriage.

I'm puzzled how you would know that

(2) Celibate clergy abuse children at lower rates than non-celibate clergy.

Cheers,

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Thursday, 3 December 2015 9:27:02 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well, I can't find what I thought I previously read, and I'm thinking maybe I remembered it wrong. It seems like there aren't the stats to make the sweeping claim the way I made it. Sorry about that!

Here are some articles making similar points, though:
http://blogs.denverpost.com/hark/2010/05/25/scandal-creates-contempt-for-catholic-clergy/39/
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/15/priests-marry-catholic-church-paedophile-pope-francis
http://www.newsweek.com/priests-commit-no-more-abuse-other-males-70625

A lot of people in various articles note that 4% of Catholic priests between 1950-1992 were alleged to have conducted sexual misconduct towards children, while 10-20% of the American male population has committed sexual violence/abuse in general. This is obviously not a fair comparison. (It's also not clear whether the latter figure is actual abuse or reported abuse, which is much lower. If it's actual abuse, that's another reason why it's not a fair comparison).
Posted by elcalebo, Thursday, 3 December 2015 10:28:32 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Elcalebo,

I guess the bigger crime is that the employer covered up for the offences that their employees committed, and simply moved them to another site, often more than once, surely knowing that yet more crimes would be most likely committed. That what makes the actions of the major churches so reprehensible.

Like domestic violence, child abuse has much to do with control, of gutless stronger people over more vulnerable people - men over women, carers over people in their care.

Perhaps two proposals might help: that priests should be able to marry; and that anybody caring for others should be married. It won't solve the whole problem, but it might be a start.

Cheers,

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Friday, 4 December 2015 9:18:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
While I backtracked from my previous strong claim, it's still true that there is no evidence suggesting child abuse is caused by (or made more likely by) celibacy. This explanation has a ring of truth to it to non-celibates, but it's unproven and cannot be made a basis for the argument for married priests (which I support, but for other reasons). Married men and women can and do abuse children - their own and others' - a requirement for marriage definitely wouldn't solve the problem, and there's no proof that it would decrease it. It may increase it.

I agree that the employer cover-up is unconscionable, and is at least as horrific a crime as the abuse itself. Sadly, these Catholic dioceses are far from the only employers who do such things. (This should not be taken as me saying "it happens everywhere; it's unavoidable." It is very avoidable - we know some of the steps that can be taken to reduce this kind of behavior by both violent people and violence-enabling organizations. This makes it all the more unconscionable.)

I would say that what makes the actions of the church's representatives worse than similar violence (and similar institutional enabling/cover-ups) elsewhere is the hypocrisy. The churches do not claim to be perfect, but they do claim to be - in some sense - experts in morality. Clearly, they are the opposite when they act like this.
Posted by elcalebo, Friday, 4 December 2015 9:38:42 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 8
  7. 9
  8. 10
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy