You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
December 03, 2016, 01:04:54 AM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Hark!  The Herald!
Holiday Issue 2016

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: Infuriating Article  (Read 4368 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Brandon

Re: Infuriating Article
« Reply #50 on: September 18, 2010, 01:16:45 AM »
I have no idea where you got any of that from. I don't believe in "sin", I believe in objective cause and effect. However, the Church teaches, if I haven't already forgotten all I was taught back when I considered myself a Catholic, that all kinds of things are sins. Stealing, lying, the mere thought of coveting another's wife or possessions, thoughts of lust for anyone you're not married to, and a long list. My point was, if everyone sins, not just the "original sin", but minor things we do every day. Thinking bad thoughts, acts of petty selfishness, etc. So it stands to reason that most, perhaps all, of the people in that institution sin on a rather regular basis. Why are they allowed to continue working there, but this woman is not? Is it because she is open about her sin? Why, I thought the Bible commended honesty. No, I think it's far more likely, she isn't allowed to work there because they hate who she is, they hate what she is.

One thing that's always bugged me about the Catholic church, not all Catholics, mind you. I was raised Catholic and my grandparents are devout Catholics, and they are the kindest, most honest and fair people on the face of this planet. But the Catholic church as an institution has this tendency to pick and chose what parts of the Bible they want to apply and where. A priest molest a young boy, he gets a slap on the wrist. A hardworking woman teaching at one of their schools is a lesbian, they give her the boot. The Pope himself can lie and spread propaganda and, frankly, commit some of the most evil acts imaginable, and he walks away with not even a stern talking to. This woman has to find herself a new job for the horrendous crime of being in love. My point is, if NOTHING else, some consistency in how they apply biblical law would be nice.

I pointed out earlier how it wasnt hate, neither do I hate gays (in fact I tolerate them and even work within the church to change things), nor do I know a single catholic practitioner priest, monk, or bishop that I could define as homophobic. I dont deny that there are likely some (pure probability states they pretty much have to be there) but I do deny that the organization or people must hate gays just to disagree with the choice they make in their life (the choice reffering only to the choice of having sex or not with a person of the same sex). I presume that you are somewhat jaded, if the case is that you can not accept them as anything except evil, or hatred ridden people then I think it would be best that you not participate in these kinds of conversations. Its counterproductive to the debate and the idea of fair representation of people and groups

I want to comment about pedophile priests, but I said I no longer would. I recomend you review the other threads regarding that topic, especially the one I posted not to long about about punishment for a priests inappropriate actions. It does not happen all the time, and people seem to blame the pope directly for it which is at best Ill informed.

You also fail to relize that its a possiblity that she wanted to start conflict, as I mentioned earlier. To many people are to quick to jump to the side of gays when in this situation either or even both groups could be considered the victim


Offline Florence

Re: Infuriating Article
« Reply #51 on: September 18, 2010, 09:23:57 AM »
I pointed out earlier how it wasnt hate, neither do I hate gays (in fact I tolerate them and even work within the church to change things), nor do I know a single catholic practitioner priest, monk, or bishop that I could define as homophobic. I dont deny that there are likely some (pure probability states they pretty much have to be there) but I do deny that the organization or people must hate gays just to disagree with the choice they make in their life (the choice reffering only to the choice of having sex or not with a person of the same sex). I presume that you are somewhat jaded, if the case is that you can not accept them as anything except evil, or hatred ridden people then I think it would be best that you not participate in these kinds of conversations. Its counterproductive to the debate and the idea of fair representation of people and groups

I want to comment about pedophile priests, but I said I no longer would. I recomend you review the other threads regarding that topic, especially the one I posted not to long about about punishment for a priests inappropriate actions. It does not happen all the time, and people seem to blame the pope directly for it which is at best Ill informed.

You also fail to relize that its a possiblity that she wanted to start conflict, as I mentioned earlier. To many people are to quick to jump to the side of gays when in this situation either or even both groups could be considered the victim



I don't want to rant about this point, so I'll simply state: There mere fact that you consider tolerance to be an impressive thing shows the hate that society in general has for gay people.

If you do not know a single catholic who is homophobic you clearly don't know too many, that or you are just willfully ignoring that aspect of them. I think it's pretty cut and dry. If I campaigned against civil rights on the grounds that my religion told me black people were evil... you'd likely consider me a racist. But for some reason, when it's gay people, "oh, they're not homophobic, they just think it's wrong." Interesting double-standard, that.

As for me being jaded, I've said before, my grandparents being a great example, I KNOW that there are amazing people out there, who take the best out of religion, so it's not that I think that all Catholics are evil. But, frankly, I do think the Church is. Not even just on this point. I don't want to derail the topic into a discussion of how the Catholic Church is evil and the Pope should be arrested for crimes against humanity, but suffice to say, yeah, I think they're pretty evil. Personally, I think, if I should leave for being so certain of how evil they are, I think you should leave for being too naive to accept how evil they are. That's besides-the-point, of course, because this thread isn't ABOUT whether or not the Catholic church is evil, it's about whether or not this particular instance is wrong or not. I can argue whether or not they're wrong on a single issue regardless of my opinion on how evil they are in general.

To a side note, before getting back on topic, I don't blame the Pope for the child molestation controversy, I blame him for all the stuff he HAS done.

Now, back on topic, frankly, even if she DID do this just to stir up controversy, I still stand by my position. Just because she may have been in the wrong, doesn't mean they were in the right.

Offline Brandon

Re: Infuriating Article
« Reply #52 on: September 18, 2010, 09:53:50 AM »
I don't want to rant about this point, so I'll simply state: There mere fact that you consider tolerance to be an impressive thing shows the hate that society in general has for gay people.

If you do not know a single catholic who is homophobic you clearly don't know too many, that or you are just willfully ignoring that aspect of them. I think it's pretty cut and dry. If I campaigned against civil rights on the grounds that my religion told me black people were evil... you'd likely consider me a racist. But for some reason, when it's gay people, "oh, they're not homophobic, they just think it's wrong." Interesting double-standard, that.

As for me being jaded, I've said before, my grandparents being a great example, I KNOW that there are amazing people out there, who take the best out of religion, so it's not that I think that all Catholics are evil. But, frankly, I do think the Church is. Not even just on this point. I don't want to derail the topic into a discussion of how the Catholic Church is evil and the Pope should be arrested for crimes against humanity, but suffice to say, yeah, I think they're pretty evil. Personally, I think, if I should leave for being so certain of how evil they are, I think you should leave for being too naive to accept how evil they are. That's besides-the-point, of course, because this thread isn't ABOUT whether or not the Catholic church is evil, it's about whether or not this particular instance is wrong or not. I can argue whether or not they're wrong on a single issue regardless of my opinion on how evil they are in general.

To a side note, before getting back on topic, I don't blame the Pope for the child molestation controversy, I blame him for all the stuff he HAS done.

Now, back on topic, frankly, even if she DID do this just to stir up controversy, I still stand by my position. Just because she may have been in the wrong, doesn't mean they were in the right.

Tolerance goes both ways and is needed by all. If anyone is supposed to tolerate a homosexual person that homosexual person must also tolerate the same person. Not doing so is hypocrasy and it is most delicious

Anyway, seems I have to point it out again. It is not a sin to be gay, it is a sin when people act on that impulse. When you are a man and have sex with a man or if you are a woman and have sex with a woman you are sinning. You can be attracted to a person of the same sex, have romantic feelings about a person of the same sex, or even want to screw someone of the same sex's brains out but you are not sinning till you have sex with a person of the same sex. That is the official point of view and anyone saying different is improperly following the catholic faith.

However again you neglect (possibly ignore) the important distinctions Ive made a point of laying out there to disprove your point of view. Seriously I need to know, are you just going to ignore the evidence I point out in lieu of your own view points?
« Last Edit: September 18, 2010, 10:38:13 AM by Brandon »

Offline Trieste

  • Faerie Queen; Her Imperial Lubemajesty; Willing Victim
  • Dame
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: In the middle of Happily Ever After with a dark Prince Charming.
  • Gender: Female
  • I am many things - dull is not one of them.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 4
Re: Infuriating Article
« Reply #53 on: September 18, 2010, 10:11:50 AM »
Nope, back up. Debate is good, getting personal is not.

Please remember to target points, not people.

Offline Will

Re: Infuriating Article
« Reply #54 on: September 18, 2010, 10:51:37 AM »
If I campaigned against civil rights on the grounds that my religion told me black people were evil... you'd likely consider me a racist. But for some reason, when it's gay people, "oh, they're not homophobic, they just think it's wrong." Interesting double-standard, that.

That's not really an accurate comparison.  What they're doing here, in the OP, isn't denying a person their civil rights.  They're not preventing this woman from getting married.  They're just saying that she can't work in the church while doing it.  I'd be a lot less forgiving on this issue if they were attacking her civil rights.  So, no, it's not a double standard at all.

The rest of the post was pretty off topic. >.>  Bringing up the general evilitude of the Catholic Church is not going to help anything, and it's likely to send this thread spiraling into unproductive territory.
« Last Edit: September 18, 2010, 10:53:06 AM by Will »

Offline Florence

Re: Infuriating Article
« Reply #55 on: September 18, 2010, 11:27:24 AM »
Tolerance goes both ways and is needed by all. If anyone is supposed to tolerate a homosexual person that homosexual person must also tolerate the same person. Not doing so is hypocrasy and it is most delicious

Anyway, seems I have to point it out again. It is not a sin to be gay, it is a sin when people act on that impulse. When you are a man and have sex with a man or if you are a woman and have sex with a woman you are sinning. You can be attracted to a person of the same sex, have romantic feelings about a person of the same sex, or even want to screw someone of the same sex's brains out but you are not sinning till you have sex with a person of the same sex. That is the official point of view and anyone saying different is improperly following the catholic faith.

However again you neglect (possibly ignore) the important distinctions Ive made a point of laying out there to disprove your point of view. Seriously I need to know, are you just going to ignore the evidence I point out in lieu of your own view points?

Which evidence are you refering to? I may have overlooked it, and if you can point out what you're referring to, I'll address it directly. I must also note that I don't understand your point of tolerance. On one hand, how is that relevant? I was pointing out that tolerance should be something that's a given, not something that should be notable. Second hand, why should one tolerate intolerance? To me, that seems counter-productive. I'm pretty sure I recall a separate thread that covered this point, so I don't want to hijack the thread, but it just seems kind of bizarre to expect people to tolerate people who are trying to take away their rights. Unless you meant gay people need to tolerate straight people in general... which... I would have to ask you to point out where they don't.

That's not really an accurate comparison.  What they're doing here, in the OP, isn't denying a person their civil rights.  They're not preventing this woman from getting married.  They're just saying that she can't work in the church while doing it.  I'd be a lot less forgiving on this issue if they were attacking her civil rights.  So, no, it's not a double standard at all.

The rest of the post was pretty off topic. >.>  Bringing up the general evilitude of the Catholic Church is not going to help anything, and it's likely to send this thread spiraling into unproductive territory.

Hmm, I suppose it was a poor comparison, but my point was less about specific actions and just the attitude in general. People accept homophobic stances and attitude's, writing it off as religious or personal belief and thus not being homophobic, however, if someone espouses a racist ideal, regardless of their rational, it's viewed as racism.

As for bringing in the evils of the Church, I wasn't the one who brought that in, Brandon suggested that my belief that the Church is evil is effecting my opinion in this matter, and I was simply responding to that. Granted, I probably spent too much time addressing that point than I should have, but regardless, I didn't bring it up, I merely addressed it.

Offline Will

Re: Infuriating Article
« Reply #56 on: September 18, 2010, 11:36:45 AM »
Hmm, I suppose it was a poor comparison, but my point was less about specific actions and just the attitude in general. People accept homophobic stances and attitude's, writing it off as religious or personal belief and thus not being homophobic, however, if someone espouses a racist ideal, regardless of their rational, it's viewed as racism.

I still don't see how it's a double standard.  Keep it to yourself and your congregation, and most people couldn't care less what you believe.  As soon as you step out of your institution and start trying to enforce it on people that don't buy your doctrine, that's where the problems begin.  That goes for racism, homophobia, or anything (though I think homophobia is being used in a very loose sense, here.  Not liking lesbians or not considering them fit for work in a church isn't necessarily the same as being terrified of them).

Offline Brandon

Re: Infuriating Article
« Reply #57 on: September 18, 2010, 12:27:21 PM »
Which evidence are you refering to? I may have overlooked it, and if you can point out what you're referring to, I'll address it directly. I must also note that I don't understand your point of tolerance. On one hand, how is that relevant? I was pointing out that tolerance should be something that's a given, not something that should be notable. Second hand, why should one tolerate intolerance? To me, that seems counter-productive. I'm pretty sure I recall a separate thread that covered this point, so I don't want to hijack the thread, but it just seems kind of bizarre to expect people to tolerate people who are trying to take away their rights. Unless you meant gay people need to tolerate straight people in general... which... I would have to ask you to point out where they don't.

Hmm, I suppose it was a poor comparison, but my point was less about specific actions and just the attitude in general. People accept homophobic stances and attitude's, writing it off as religious or personal belief and thus not being homophobic, however, if someone espouses a racist ideal, regardless of their rational, it's viewed as racism.

As for bringing in the evils of the Church, I wasn't the one who brought that in, Brandon suggested that my belief that the Church is evil is effecting my opinion in this matter, and I was simply responding to that. Granted, I probably spent too much time addressing that point than I should have, but regardless, I didn't bring it up, I merely addressed it.

Acctually you started the whole evil argument, see below

Quote
A priest molest a young boy, he gets a slap on the wrist. A hardworking woman teaching at one of their schools is a lesbian, they give her the boot. The Pope himself can lie and spread propaganda and, frankly, commit some of the most evil acts imaginable, and he walks away with not even a stern talking to.

Due to the language used, the lack of examples, the ignorance, and the inability (or unwillingness) to listen to the truth I felt I needed to point out the possiblity of bias formed through what seems to be a person who is simply jaded with the church. You've only reinforced that presumption

I could go on for days about how you are wrong about the church and the pope Benedict, but thats not what this thread is about nor do I think you would really listen. Just like a lot of other people around here. I wont let you demonize them but I wont shut my eyes and pretend that things arent happening either, fair representation is what I want and its what is needed

Now if you really want to look at it, I said before and i reiterated a few times that being gay is not the sin in their eyes. Having sex with a person of the same sex is. You didnt listen to that, you continued to put the human element into it when its not about hating a person but hating an action that they see as a sin. Thus I see it as demonizing the church by spreading a flat out lie that they hate homosexuals


Offline Noelle

Re: Infuriating Article
« Reply #58 on: September 18, 2010, 07:51:53 PM »
I could go on for days about how you are wrong about the church and the pope Benedict, but thats not what this thread is about nor do I think you would really listen. Just like a lot of other people around here.

Nope, back up. Debate is good, getting personal is not.

Please remember to target points, not people.

Seriously. Can we stop doing this? This is incredibly passive-aggressive and unnecessary. Not agreeing =/= not listening.

Offline Florence

Re: Infuriating Article
« Reply #59 on: September 18, 2010, 08:11:14 PM »
I still don't see how it's a double standard.  Keep it to yourself and your congregation, and most people couldn't care less what you believe.  As soon as you step out of your institution and start trying to enforce it on people that don't buy your doctrine, that's where the problems begin.  That goes for racism, homophobia, or anything (though I think homophobia is being used in a very loose sense, here.  Not liking lesbians or not considering them fit for work in a church isn't necessarily the same as being terrified of them).

It's a common mistake that homophobia has to be a fear. A phobia is an irrational fear, hatred or disgust, not strictly fear. I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree on whether or not it's a double-standard, because I've not much more to say on the matter.
Acctually you started the whole evil argument, see below

Due to the language used, the lack of examples, the ignorance, and the inability (or unwillingness) to listen to the truth I felt I needed to point out the possiblity of bias formed through what seems to be a person who is simply jaded with the church. You've only reinforced that presumption

I could go on for days about how you are wrong about the church and the pope Benedict, but thats not what this thread is about nor do I think you would really listen. Just like a lot of other people around here. I wont let you demonize them but I wont shut my eyes and pretend that things arent happening either, fair representation is what I want and its what is needed

Now if you really want to look at it, I said before and i reiterated a few times that being gay is not the sin in their eyes. Having sex with a person of the same sex is. You didnt listen to that, you continued to put the human element into it when its not about hating a person but hating an action that they see as a sin. Thus I see it as demonizing the church by spreading a flat out lie that they hate homosexuals



I've not reinforced it, I've outright confirmed it. And also stated it's irrelevant, as I am fully capable of forming an opinion on a case to case basis. Also, it does little to help enforce civil debate when you refer to disagreeing with you as "refusing to listen to the truth". Saying they hate gay sex but not gay people is utter semantics. It's an irrational expectation of gay people to all be celibate to please their arbitrary sense of morality.

I'd rather not have this thread locked, however, so lets try to have the original topic continue, shall we?

Offline Serephino

Re: Infuriating Article
« Reply #60 on: September 18, 2010, 10:00:09 PM »
I believe the stance that being gay is not a sin, but acting upon it is one is a fairly recent development.  I vaguely remember hearing about how the church talked about it and decided to start allowing openly gay priests.  Up until then it was widely thought that being gay was a sin, but it seems they could no longer ignore the research that says it isn't a choice.  I suppose the fact that they finally admit it instead of continuing to call it a mental disease is something.....

It's incredibly frustrating and damning to hear about a priest molesting a boy and it getting quietly swept under the rug while this woman was let go.  I'm sure they wanted to keep this quiet too, but still, why let the priest stay a priest and then turn around and tell her to resign?  I don't get it all all, and it only reaffirms my conclusions about the church. 

Offline Will

Re: Infuriating Article
« Reply #61 on: September 18, 2010, 10:05:26 PM »
It's a common mistake that homophobia has to be a fear. A phobia is an irrational fear, hatred or disgust, not strictly fear. I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree on whether or not it's a double-standard, because I've not much more to say on the matter.

The particular issue of definition was just an aside to my main point, which you didn't really address.  How is it a double standard?  They aren't forcing their beliefs (hateful though they may be) on anyone outside of their church, so I wouldn't care if they were the most racist people on the planet.  The issue isn't what they dislike, it's what they do about it.

Offline Brandon

Re: Infuriating Article
« Reply #62 on: September 18, 2010, 11:48:30 PM »
I've not reinforced it, I've outright confirmed it. And also stated it's irrelevant, as I am fully capable of forming an opinion on a case to case basis. Also, it does little to help enforce civil debate when you refer to disagreeing with you as "refusing to listen to the truth". Saying they hate gay sex but not gay people is utter semantics. It's an irrational expectation of gay people to all be celibate to please their arbitrary sense of morality.

I'd rather not have this thread locked, however, so lets try to have the original topic continue, shall we?

That's bull. Im calling you out on this one. The difference between hating the sin and the sinner is massive. Calling it semantics is just downplaying the reality of the situation so it fits in your view point.

Offline Trieste

  • Faerie Queen; Her Imperial Lubemajesty; Willing Victim
  • Dame
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: In the middle of Happily Ever After with a dark Prince Charming.
  • Gender: Female
  • I am many things - dull is not one of them.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 4
Re: Infuriating Article
« Reply #63 on: September 19, 2010, 01:02:35 AM »
*sigh*