Yes, Martin you’re right about non-existence of non-violent communities, no matter what kind of body of doctrine they hold or not hold.

BTW I do have nothing against you personally, or your catholic religion specially; I just do not see the logic in any religion. I was Christened a Catholic myself by parents who didn’t really believe, in fact my dad was an atheist at heart, and my mother believes in God but doesn’t practice her religion- but they just Christened us for my grandparents’ sake. My youngest brother wasn’t christened as my grandparents had given up their religion by then, as well.

How would you rate communities though, to say that one can be superior to another? Is it the level of violence that is counted?
The amount of homosexual couples that live there? The amount of women who had an abortion? What is the standard you would judge a community by? Isn’t that hard or impossible to decide?
The things that seem immoral in one community (or person) can seem moral in another.
In the light of this article: Is a community that judges and uses judgmental language towards homosexual couples in their community more moral than a community that is accepting homosexuals?

Who decides that? And why would the group that decides this ‘know it all better’ than the non-deciding group?
Are they superior too?
And why, who decides that? This group, themselves? And why would they be right? Because they say so?

To be continued...

Because God said so: to so-called prophets, who heard voices in their head said it was the word of God? Why would you believe that? Anyone could say things like that.

If anybody hears voices in their head today and acts upon these voices it’s called mental illness and they’d be taken care of in a psychiatric hospital or medicated.

Why is it so believable that the voice that the prophets heard was ‘the real’ voice of God?
And why do you not hear the real voices of homosexuals?

And why would you believe, for example, that Mary was a virgin and had been holding hands only with Joseph till Jesus was born; that Eve was made out of Adam's rib(someone with uterus envy wrote that one); that God gives people the freedom of will but along with that a list with do’s and don’ts such as the commandments? That God doesn’t judge but you go to hell if you’re a sinner? God is Love? Well, if anyone tries to nail MY son to a cross, if I had this almighty power NO ONE would crucify my kids.

Why would a group that believes the illogical things that seem to come with religions be superior to a group of people who don’t believe it?

Why believe all this and not believe that homosexuals, like anyone else, just want and need to be accepted without being constantly judged by people with morals that tell them that this is all wrong?

One more thing about that emotional link about abortion- emotive language can do much, but I could also write a very emotional story about all the women who are forced to have babies, can't feed them and watch them die in their arms. Or women who just can't cope either mentally, emotionally, or financially, especially women without partners.

In another thread I said something about contraception- that it should be freely available- that would prevent a lot of abortions.
I bet the bible has something negative to say about or oppose contraception as well and nothing will ever change- not ever.

I don't think homosexuals are forcing their beliefs on the church. Even in the Anglican case, the Priests are still vowed to celibacy.

Still, I don't think they are in a safe place, they are kidding themselves.

The Church and Christian zealots force their views on everyone else. The church has the power to dominate our Government. It stands over Government and business and makes sure we pay tax for their expensive private schools. Religious schools which refuse to follow the NSW Government Anti Discrimination Act. So they have representation, no taxation, and domination over government.

The Church is a an easy perk. An oasis for paedophiles and con-men to hide. Don't worry, the Church will cover it all over for you. It is all about power in an interest group with an agenda.

It is basic for modern democracy that the church and state must be separate in civilized fairness.

To force Christianity on unwilling Australians is abuse.

Who cares what the church says about gay people? Their violent sentiments would be illegal in another other organisation.

Lets make this clean, cut, clear and easy.

Let the church be independent do what it wants. Under this freedom, let them have the freedom to pay tax. Let them have the freedom to have no more funding from any Governments, state or Federal, for any of their private schools.

Why should tax money from "evil" gay taxpayers fall in the clutches of so many greedy homophobic church organisations? Is that fair?

I mean, they are supposed to be independent, and insist on going by their own rules. Fine. Do so. But don't expect our taxpayers money.

Start paying taxes.

Pay your own bills, don't expect gay taxpayers to pay them for you.

Saintfletcher,

as Big Kim would suggest - take those pills!

I can't see the Genesis for your last post, but, if we are talking about a minority group (ie gays) forcing their opinion upon society, then, why should the majority not be allowed to protect their position?

Regarding Church tax exemptions, then provided the poor & destitute that fall upon 'Church' resources are prepared to pay user cost fees, then bring the taxes on!

And about the chestnut of State funding of schools, show me where all the students going to these schools can enrol and the infrastructure costs saved by the State being part of the new tax regime and again all is sweet.

Because the Church has been undertaking the role of the State for millenia, it's not its fault that it (and the State) know it can do it better & cheaper in the area of human services. Now when the Australian Defence Forces get contracted out, I hope you aren't to upset when they refer to them as Crusaders!

Perhaps it is time for a new beginning.

I think that it should not be the schools’ task to teach religion at all. What parents want to teach their kids is up to them.
But schools should be banned from indoctrinating children.

Schools ought to teach skills and offer information as unbiased as possible. The teaching of one religion is not being biased.

If there must be religious education then let all schools participate and let religious education be unprejudiced. Either ALL schools should stop teaching religion, or they ALL should teach ABOUT religion. No school should teach a specific religion.

Let this subject be about knowledge and history of the different main world religions. Teach the different views of different religions; don’t teach them that one religion is right and the others are wrong.

Children will gain much more understanding of religion as a whole.

Teaching children to accept, uncritically, the one religion chosen by their parents’ narrow minds is not really teaching them about religion; it’s more like brainwashing them.
It is narrowing their view, not opening their mind.

We want people with open minds in the future, people who can be more accepting of one another.
We want children to grow up as people who can make a difference to the future of all communities, who can be understanding, tolerant, peaceful and compassionate.
Teaching kids to be prejudiced from an early age is not going to achieve that.

I will have to agree with Saintfletcher that I’d rather not pay my taxes to schools that are in fact, educating children in narrowing their minds. I’d rather pay for the open minds of the next generation.

Not possible from funding? Well they got to change that too, then.
I’m sure there are some experts who can work out how to pay all education for children out of our taxes without the need for parents to pay extra for some ‘privileged’ schools.
All schools should be treated as being privileged. If people are equal, then their children are equal and so their education opportunities should be equal as well.

Bosk: The implications of the Cathar heresy. If you can't see what this would have meant for Europe what can we say to each other?
http://www.languedoc-france.info/120102_implications.htm

Abraham Lincoln – anti abolitionist, was responsible for the war that killed more American soldiers than all others combined. The way you read history Bosk, to be consistent you'll have to gather all the shadows and conclude 'This grim handed killer . . ." http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/FB10Aa03.html

Persist in this superficial literacy and all you'll have to offer is a shadow play.

Your accusing tone every post is getting tiresome too.

Celivia,

We rate cultures the same way we have always, how do they act? How do we know what is right/wrong? Collective human experience, authority of Revelation and Reason, prayer, conscience, saints/holy men and women, wisdom recorded that has stood the test of time. Would our culture stack up well? I'm sure future generations will see much of what we did as unbelievably stupid. But they will have the benefit of hindsight and their own lights. They will be just a chronologically snobbish as we are today. We believe the current generation has finally reached the height from which all other generations can be judged, forgetting that every generation ends up the same distance from God. Does this mean we stop striving because its hard work to see through the characteristic lies of the Age? The individuals who have transcended it have saved their souls. Its easy to give the spirit of the age its head, just as it is easy to be a snob.

Your baptism is a huge event. You have no idea. Its like a seal Celivia, it wasn't an accident. His people are suffering and you can help.