The Forum > Article Comments > The compelling need for a Federal Religious Discrimination Act > Comments
The compelling need for a Federal Religious Discrimination Act : Comments
By Michael Stead, published 6/10/2022Thorburn has been forced to resign one day after being appointed as the CEO of the Essendon Football Club on the basis of mainstream religious beliefs.
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- 3
- ...
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Page 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- ...
- 14
- 15
- 16
-
- All
Posted by Rhian, Monday, 10 October 2022 4:29:37 PM
| |
Dear Rhian,
Aren't we all sinners? Can't a Christian, a sinner themselves, hold the view that something is a sin without persecuting that category of sinners? Can't a Christian, a sinner themselves, leave the resolution of sins to occur between the sinner and God? Posted by Yuyutsu, Monday, 10 October 2022 4:44:45 PM
| |
Hi Yuyutsu
I think the answer to all three of your questions is "yes". Posted by Rhian, Monday, 10 October 2022 5:03:54 PM
| |
We are all sinners. We are all non-sinners. It depends which way you look at it. The lugubrious moan, "We are all sinners." is stock-in-trade for the guilt fostered by religion. "We are all sinners." means none of us is perfect. So what! Why should we be expected to be perfect? Reasonably, one can be expected to do or be the best one is capable of. Is that reasonable? It is more reasonable to try to do the best one is capable of. Sometimes we fail at that. Don't wallow in guilt. Pick yourself up and try to do better. My father thought of himself as a failure. He set himself a standard which he was incapable of reaching, and the result was that he was miserable. He suffered from religion. Do the best you can. Ask questions. If you must worship something worship the sanctity of doubt.
Posted by david f, Monday, 10 October 2022 5:26:37 PM
| |
Dear Rhian,
«I think the answer to all three of your questions is "yes".» That being the case, Christianity could not have been the real reason for kicking Thorburn out. It could have been just a pretext and we might even never find the true motive. --- Dear David F., Thank you for your wise words: 1) «We are all sinners. We are all non-sinners. It depends which way you look at it.» 2) «Don't wallow in guilt. Pick yourself up and try to do better.» Similar words were said by the great sages of all religions. Regarding your poor father: «My father thought of himself as a failure. He set himself a standard which he was incapable of reaching, and the result was that he was miserable.» This is very sad, but your father suffered from depression or some other psychological problem, not from religion. - Are there not many believers who do not consider themselves a failure? - Are there not many atheists who make themselves miserable by setting for themselves impossible goals? Here are some quotes from the Baal Shem Tov, the founder of Jewish Hasidism: "The ability to be joyous, by discerning the good and joyous within every experience, is considered by chassidim as a biblical command!" "Better to serve God with joy and without self-abnegation, because such behavior causes depression." "A person must always be happy." "Depression, even if due to regret over a sin, is a repugnant character-trait and an immense obstacle to the service of the Creator," - http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/1211258/jewish/Perpetual-Joy.htm Posted by Yuyutsu, Monday, 10 October 2022 11:33:29 PM
| |
Dear Yuyutsu,
I knew my father. You didn't. He suffered from religion. He was filled with religious crap about God and sin. It made him miserable. Religion makes not only my father suffer. It makes lot of other people miserable. You make judgments from a distance. You make judgments about people you don't know. He suffered from religion. Unfortunately you lack the ability to see evil where it exists. One place where it exists is in religious belief. Posted by david f, Tuesday, 11 October 2022 2:25:22 AM
|
Is Andrews a practicing Roman Catholic? If so, I agree with you, his comments seem spectacularly hypocritical. The RC church’s positions on homosexuality and abortion are virtually identical to those expressed in the two sermons at City on the Hill, with the notable difference being that the positions are not merely the opinion of a single preacher expressed several years ago, but the official doctrine of the worldwide RC church. And its views on contraception are arguably an even greater affront to women’s reproductive autonomy than its view on abortion.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church describes “homosexual acts” as “intrinsically immoral and contrary to the natural law,” and “homosexual tendencies” as “objectively disordered.” In a letter to bishops on the pastoral care of homosexual people, Pope John Paul II wrote that although “homosexual orientation” is not necessarily sinful, “it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder.”
How can it be ok for Andrews to be associated with a church that holds these official positions, but not for Thorburn to be associated with a church where a very similar view was once preached?