Reality Check,

You say: "Sorry rancid, just stating that if you are looking for 'farming accidents' they are more likely to happen on a farm. I wasn't talking about what crops were being grown. I may or may not be a Catholic farmer, another presumption on your behalf!"

I say: I don't know what you are on about re: presuminmg you were a Catholic farmer. I couldn't care less what religion you are or what your job is.

You said I said: "One other thing, the reality in my area is that the Catholic Schools are sucking funds away from road works and other things that will assist the whole community." This is because recently the local council funded a road into the teachers' car park of a local Catholic school while ignoring the dangerous roads in the area. Peoples' lives are more important than teachers' car suspension or a private company's infrastructure. When I asked the local Labour councillor why council was building new roads into schools while roads in the area are dangerous she said "where's your evidence that council funded the road". She refused to tell me if council had funded the road and I had to find out myself. A helpful Liberal politician found out for me.

You also said: "You assume that Catholic schools don't assist the community - maybe why so many non-catholics seek enrolment - and that they suck funds (of taxpaying Catholics perhaps?) away from roadworks - what, to tar their playgrounds?" So who is assuming now? Besides I don't assume it, I know from experience that in certain cases private schools can be downright harmful to folk outside their community.
You say: "rancid, you obviously have got a raw deal along the way from aspects of the Church that are perfunctory, but, try & put those aside and say "what is the real world situation, and what can I do to improve it?" I say: too right I have had a raw deal and your condescending carryon and trivialising of such matters isn't going to improve anything."

Solomon. You have spelt my name wrong twice. Could you please try to spell it correctly?

I think you have totally misunderstood what I have said. That just shows me that you may very well be damaged and that you may very well be a victim of discrimination and that your view is clouded. Of course I might be wrong and there is an angle that I haven’t considered. I don’t see how you can read what Dr Donnelly said to be a witch hunt. I read what he says so differently.

Could you please tell me why you think it’s a witch hunt and what it is that you think I am so worried about?

Your reply just shows me how easy it is for people to become confused. What I was trying to say in relation to tolerance is that we are making a mistake by just expecting tolerance of difference, especially when we so often have to try to pretend that we are the same so as to be seen as being fair and equal.

When you only have to tolerate a person you don’t have to treat them fairly or with kindness, you just have to put up with them – you are not obliged to treat them with respect. We should be expected to treat each other and everybody with respect and in a manner that is fair and just. We should also use common sense in relation to what is right and what is wrong and what examples we should set for our children.

Did you know that it is not against the law to discriminate because of malice, spite or prejudice.!

I also wonder, why do you think I am mean?

lil_e,
You are right to express an opinion that is what a democratic society is about. Those that restrict opposition to ideas prefer totalitarian control. Expressing difference does not reduce your right to be fully respected as a person. But the opinion noted does reflect some of the current educational agenda of social conformity - to accept and not to question. You will note the post by Pericles, Posted Tuesday June 21, quote, "Otherwise, the entire medium will eventually be overwhelmed by single-issue zealots, which will diminish its value as a source of fresh views and an exchange of ideas".

Pericles assumes new ideas have unquestionable value, and historically established and tried moral and biological views are promoted by zealots. There has not been one sucessful society in history, established on accepting gays as being "perfectly normal", that has survived to demonstrate it is best practise. Are such self distructing social mutations of evolution to be pitied?

Sexual identity given by teenage Peers may have some influence upon sexual disorientation. There is nothing abnormal in being a sensitive male, but ones bullying football peers may want to brand him a "sheila". That does not mean he is to deny his biological orientation and become gay, merely because bullies see him that way.

Education alone is not the answer to social problems, i.e. as unwanted pregnancies are high among young medical students. A group you would think would know how babies are conceived. Again drug education has not reduced the abuse of legal and illegal drugs among our youth, if anything it has increased inquisitive experimentation.

Philo...

"There has not been one sucessful society in history, established on accepting gays as being "perfectly normal", that has survived to demonstrate it is best practise. Are such self distructing social mutations of evolution to be pitied?"

So, can you name one successful society in the world that has survived in it's original form? I think you reach too far. Try not to name any European culture. A true study would show that they are nothing like their originals. And if we look to the oldest current cultures I think your Christian sensabilities may be a little shaken to see that they are muslim (middle eastern), hindu (Indian) and let's not turn to the age of the Asian cultures, e.g. Chineese - can't see too many Christians there!.

Now before you get your knickers in a knot, I was raised and have Christian values... I just accept that there are plenty of ways to behave in a good, compassionate, honest and hopefully spiritual way... which seems to me to be the point of religion. I can't see any all mighty judging me unworthy if I have lived peacefully and honestly as being unworthy because I didn't follow the exact dogma of a particular faith... so Ghandi can't get in because he was Hindu?!

People, live well and wait for the answer (if there is one!) on the other side.. then maybe the Krishnas can say "I told you so!")

I will leave the whole sexuality debate as it is completely irrelevant to any discussion - except the person discovering theirs...

Peace,
JustDan

Whoa there Philo, please don't fall into the habit of reading meaning into my posts that isn't there.

"Pericles assumes new ideas have unquestionable value, and historically established and tried moral and biological views are promoted by zealots."

There's some subtle shape-shifting going on here, which is either thoughtless or malicious. Whilst I accept the summary of my position as "new ideas have unquestionable value", I must also caution you that it is not necessarily the content of the idea, but the fact that the idea is expressed, that has unquestionable value.

That is to say, I (and others) may think the idea is rubbish, but that it has value in that, having been expressed, it causes people to think. They way you have expressed it, one could easily believe that you intend people to think that I value every new idea, simply because it is new.

This may have been an unintentional slight, but you then go on to contrast this with a suggestion that I consider that only zealots promote historical values. It may just have been careless phraseology on your part, but it is a generalization that I did not put forward, nor is it a position that I hold.

Taken together, they represent a distortion of my views that I totally reject. It might also be seen as subtle manipulation of my words in order to establish a classic "straw man" argument that you can debunk. Please don't do this, it does you no credit.

In fact, given the way you earlier twisted lil_e's position to read "all views of life are equally valid", a casual observer might deduce that you are already "hooked on distortion". I truly hope this is not the case.

Philo you said: “There is nothing abnormal in being a sensitive male, but ones bullying football peers may want to brand him a "sheila". That does not mean he is to deny his biological orientation and become gay, merely because bullies see him that way is just so true.

I have one of those sensitive boys. He is 7 years old. He is so kind and gentle, soft and caring. He is very intelligent and has a beautiful heart and is so against aggression and violence. He suffers so much as his feelings and emotions are intense. School is a nightmare for him and its not just the football peers that want to brand him a Sheila. He fears the teachers and the children as there is so much mean and aggressive behaviour happening that even if you are not being directly bullied, you are not safe because chances are very high that you will get caught up in the fall out or in the cross fire and worse still nobody cares. He has become paranoid about doing anything that might be seen as girly, he wont dance and he fears being humiliated. He feels that the teachers don’t like him because of his sensitivities and he complains that they ignore him and that they won’t discipline the children, they blame him and say that he needs to toughen up. Its as though everybody believes that life is tough so you have to get used to it.

I believe that children usually take their cues from the adults and that we are teaching our children not to care through lack of discipline, compassion, understanding and action.

If my son finds the world is hostile and that people are mean to him and he gets ostrasized, teased, bullied and harassed because of his sensitivities and branded a girl or gay, when he comes across a Homosexual that treats him with respect and cares about him, he may very well believe that that is where he belongs and where he will be safe and who can blame him!