Foxy,

Sorry for this diversion.

Pericles,

“... most historians agree that religion is at the heart of the Troubles.

"Though [Henry VIII] did it more from pragmatism than from passion, the fighting he started in England between Catholic and Protestant wasn't done for over 200 years..."”

Noone is denying the labels put on the groups though the most ardent contributor I’ve met was an atheist in spite of his partisan alignment for political purposes. Boazy was just saying religion is peripheral and not related to the modern conflict.

Anyway why use a cbc news reporter’s comments to try to demonstrate what most historians agree (cf. the link I had to the comments of Professor Steven Ellis)?

"Much of the religious paving for a "British" union was Protestant, and from the sixteenth century Ireland voiced its resistance to an English embrace through a strong retention of Catholicism over most of the country. Centuries of effort to retain Ireland in a British union foundered from 1916, leading to the creation of a largely Catholic state over 26 of the island's 32 counties"

That is closer but that more explains how Brits lost the land before 1916. Are you saying but for the Catholic withdrawal by 1916 the English would have had the land and wouldn’t have invaded so there is a religious nexus albeit historical? Note that the theatre director who wrote the information in your second link pointed out that Roman Catholics had civil rights in England by 1829 so the real religious conflict between the Anglicans and Catholics was over well before 1916. Hence Boazy’s assertion it was about land.

"My "theory" is that the Troubles in Ireland have religion as their primary cause and motivation. And what happened in the twelfth century?

"...This opened the door for the Norman invasion of Ireland beginning in 1169"

Normans, mjpb. Not English. Nor even Scottish.

Back to school for you too, I'm afraid...”

King Henry II ensured that he took the place of Normans about 1171 to ensure Normans didn’t form a rival Norman state in Ireland.

Thanks to everyone who's contributing to this thread.

It just keeps rolling along...

Corri, I agree with your thoughts on the religious leaders who exclude people because of their sexual preference. I cringe every time Pell opens his mouth...

I prefer to listen to what the Dalai Lama has to say - he makes more sense to me.

boaz... you couldn't resist throwing bestiality in there could you?

For the umpteenth time, what has that got to do with the price of moon pies in Tanzania?

Wait, no, forget it. Whatever it is, I'm sure you've developed some diabolical way to tie gay people to any kind of immorality. Next they'll be more prone to parking infringements.

As for "my god says it's bad so it's mean of you to say I'm bad because it's what my god says and how dare you criticise the beliefs of my god"

You lot managed to ditch the craziness in the OT, and much of the other assorted bigotry. But evidently, you still have a way to go: start here, boaz: http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/int/long.html

After the 'intolerance' section, you can move on to the 'cruelty and injustice' bit, then the 'injustice' section.

Vanilla,

“I know I irritate some of you ... pointing out the failings of religion. I am sorry.”

If you thought things were the other way around you wouldn’t be an atheist. Tempering your expression with the idea that Fractelle cited would remove any excuse for anyone to be offended:

"We are formed and molded by our thoughts.

Those whose minds are shaped by selfless thoughts give joy when they speak or act.

Joy follows them like a shadow that never leaves them."

Buddha

Wow that priest sure was optimistic thinking he could argue with such an accomplished lawyer as Kirby. Now he has a High Court Judge publically interpreting the Bible to make him look emotional and silly. No wonder he is hiding from media:

“In reply he argued Mr Lane's interpretation of biblical injunctions against homosexuality was not a universal one, and the biblical quotations used were unreliable mid-19th century translations...".

"To defy modern knowledge and to stick to uninformed interpretations is truly irrational... It is a reason why the churches are losing rational adherents."”

“But it is that notion of emotional and intellectual inferiority that some people attribute to others that I'm trying to fight — that notion that some people are lesser people because of something arbitrary, prejudiced and scriptural."

Good luck with fighting those things.

In their personal correspondence Lane didn’t hold anything back did he? I bet a High Court Judge wouldn’t take too kindly to being called a “hypocrite”, “coward”, “liar”, “deceiver”, and a “lawless one”. I’m guessing that while he considered the Archbishop’s reply to his complaint sensible he wanted something more and his choice of those letters as tools for “public conversion” at the St James Institute was no coincidence. He knew that articles like this would be produced. Many of Rev Lane’s parishioners probably won’t like his letters.

“Four million people have died in the Congo ... Whatever spirituality is, it is the thing that helps us even conceive of this kind of horror, and hopefully, in whatever tiny way, help.”

I think you are onto something there.

TRTL.. I lump homosexual behavior in with the other listed behaviors because they listed in Leviticus 18 and mentioned frequently in the New Testament.

It appears, that the gay lobby has done a 'job' on the community by convincing many that gay sex is ok between consenting adults but not adults and children. Now.. you know, and I know, to borrow your terms, that Islam allows/permits/ marriage of old men to pre-pubesecent children. (though most muslims when pushed will claim 'pubescent' is the minimum..but they simply don't know their Quran) The point being.. Western society currently condemns child sexual abuse, but not homosexual behavior. It once DID condemn both. So...whats changed?

Simple.. a very active and sustained political and information war against previously held beliefs. That same war is now being fought by Nambla, for their pet cause.
But lets not hijack the thread into a gay rights thing please.. out of consideration for the main topic.. 'religiosity' as a value.

It seems that the biggest difficulty some of you have is that the Bible does in fact condone some behavior and condemn other types. This is something which relates primarily to the Church, the only way this connects to the broader society is that we all live in a democracy and if 'we' can gain enough votes to outlaw homosexual behavior again.. there is possibility it might happen. The chances are pretty slim on that one, because most people prefer the Highway to Hell... even when they know its heading there.

TRTL..we can never.. EVER escape the fact that morality is an issue which divides the community. If anyone thinks I'm going to cave in on this any time soon, they are dreaming. It goes with this, that there will be competing interests at work in the political realm.
Such...is life.

Corri, I understand ur position, but respectfully decline to agree :)

Re homosexuality: The fact is it doesn't really matter what religious people (particularly Christians and Muslims) think about gay people. I mean it matters — all views should be aired and be up for debate — but it doesn't matter any more than what my neighbour thinks about Collingwood Football Club supporters or mjpb thinks about the Association of Psychological Science or what I think about creationists. At the end of the day, our personal prejudices do not a policy make, and we live in a secular community generally committed to equal rights for all its citizens, and homosexuality in Australia is legal and very broadly accepted by the community. The only exception is when gay people — like Kirby J for instance — want to be a part of the church that rejects them. Then it's for that church to have that conversation. As indeed, in that case, they are.

Likewise, people are free to connect homosexuality with pedeophilia or beastiality. But the fact that no such link actually exists to intelligently inform the way we live in our communities.

mjpb, I'm afraid I'm once again having trouble following one of your posts. Some of it, I think, is just pointing out that I'm a bit of an idiot in for suggesting, "notion of emotional and intellectual inferiority that some people attribute to others that I'm trying to fight." You're right. It sounds silly looking back at it, and I'm sure it's very hypocritical of me and I am frequently guilty of the exact same thing. I had a couple of glasses of wine and got pretentious