Thanks, I agree with the "gay and bisexual charity" that is quoted as saying that "his remarks are 'reprehensible'."
He's wrong, but two wrongs don't make a right. UK Government seems to be trying to find a compromise acceptable to both sides in the debate and (unusually for me about anything Cameron does) I agree with their approach.
So you think it is ok that my religious group won't be able to hold marriages for its gay members because another religious group happens to object?
I'm another one who thinks that the things religious people have said about equal marriage - in far more public ways than posting on DS - are way worse than anything the pro-equal-marriage people have said. Telling people to be more polite to their oppressors always makes me squirm a bit.
Well put! Being religious doesn't give someone a free pass with regard to discriminatory and prejudiced attitudes and practices and it's not surprising that those attitudes provoke people, including many religious people who don't share those attitudes.
The CofE hierarchy, other churches' hierarchy and particular individuals who practise and call for discrimination are losing any right to call themselves a moral force. Or their credibility in trying to do so, at any rate.
The impact of prejudiced views isn't diluted because it derives (ostensibly) from religion.
Well put! Being religious doesn't give someone a free pass with regard to discriminatory and prejudiced attitudes and practices and it's not surprising that those attitudes provoke people, including many religious people who don't share those attitudes.
The CofE hierarchy, other churches' hierarchy and particular individuals who practise and call for discrimination are losing any right to call themselves a moral force. Or their credibility in trying to do so.
It's funny, but the thing that got me most about the CoE was not the nasty rhetoric, but when they lied about supporting Civil Partnerships in 2004. To hear leaders of a church tell such a blatant untruth amazed and appalled me.
It's funny, but the thing that got me most about the CoE was not the nasty rhetoric, but when they lied about supporting Civil Partnerships in 2004. To hear leaders of a church tell such a blatant untruth amazed and appalled me.
An obvious rule break even from a lay point of view. I mean who doesnt know that one of the commandments is "thou shalt not bear false witness".
Seems as if they should clean their own house before commenting on other peoples
It's none of those; it's not about expressing anything. It's about having entrenched opinions, and having a completely closed minds to anyone else's arguments. Let's see...who does that fit?
You cannot claim I have a closed mind and believe that, the naysayers have no rational, logical or fair reasons to deny equality, there's only baseless ignorance, lies and stupidity. Then they clim there's God on their side yet God is also on side of the religious that support equality
All that and neither term that I supposedly always use
It's funny, but the thing that got me most about the CoE was not the nasty rhetoric, but when they lied about supporting Civil Partnerships in 2004. To hear leaders of a church tell such a blatant untruth amazed and appalled me.
I wouldn't worry too much as your chosen religion seems a lot more viable in 2012 and beyond than the CofE does. (And magnitudes more than the Catholic Church)
So sit back and enjoy catering for and providing a service for people living in the modern era. (If you are ever allowed to by those wanting to hold back everyone from doing just that and losing people in great numbers for doing so. But then, that is why they are trying to stop everyone!)
Everyone will be force to the CofE ways and/or get shut down and shut up if anyone objects. Welcome back to the dark ages!
It's funny, but the thing that got me most about the CoE was not the nasty rhetoric, but when they lied about supporting Civil Partnerships in 2004. To hear leaders of a church tell such a blatant untruth amazed and appalled me.
Yes, I'd imagine they'd try and get some wiggle room and say that the vast body of the CofE in general supported civil partnerships (which couldn't be proved, either way), if challenged.
But, yes, it looks to me like a deliberate lie to try and deflect from accusations that they see something wrong with gay relationships, which is why they oppose equal marriage, which is not an acceptable attitude any longer (and never should have been).
Well put! Being religious doesn't give someone a free pass with regard to discriminatory and prejudiced attitudes and practices and it's not surprising that those attitudes provoke people, including many religious people who don't share those attitudes.
The CofE hierarchy, other churches' hierarchy and particular individuals who practise and call for discrimination are losing any right to call themselves a moral force. Or their credibility in trying to do so, at any rate.
The impact of prejudiced views isn't diluted because it derives (ostensibly) from religion.
Yep. And as I say, they seem to have a lot more of a public platform than the campaign for equal marriage - the Quakers don't get huge articles in the national press like Cardinal O'Brien with his "gay marriage is like slavery" idiocy.
It's funny, but the thing that got me most about the CoE was not the nasty rhetoric, but when they lied about supporting Civil Partnerships in 2004. To hear leaders of a church tell such a blatant untruth amazed and appalled me.
Yes! I think it's cos with the rhetoric you can sort of semi-defend them by saying, "Oh, well, they truly believe it's a sin" and whatever, but just flat-out lying about something that happened 8 years ago, there's not really a justification for that.
Yes, I'd imagine they'd try and get some wiggle room and say that the vast body of the CofE in general supported civil partnerships (which couldn't be proved, either way), if challenged.
But, yes, it looks to me like a deliberate lie to try and deflect from accusations that they see something wrong with gay relationships, which is why they oppose equal marriage, which is not an acceptable attitude any longer (and never should have been).
Well Sentanamu said the bishops in the House of Lords supported it, which Hansard directly contradicts, so I am afraid they can wriggle as much as they like, they lied.
Well Sentanamu said the bishops in the House of Lords supported it, which Hansard directly contradicts, so I am afraid they can wriggle as much as they like, they lied.
Ah, I didn't know he'd been that precise. A flat out lie that someone should challenge him on. Gobsmacking.
Yep. And as I say, they seem to have a lot more of a public platform than the campaign for equal marriage - the Quakers don't get huge articles in the national press like Cardinal O'Brien with his "gay marriage is like slavery" idiocy.
Yes! I think it's cos with the rhetoric you can sort of semi-defend them by saying, "Oh, well, they truly believe it's a sin" and whatever, but just flat-out lying about something that happened 8 years ago, there's not really a justification for that.
they should support it then shouldn't they?:sleep:
I wouldn't worry too much as your chosen religion seems a lot more viable in 2012 and beyond than the CofE does. (And magnitudes more than the Catholic Church)
So sit back and enjoy catering for and providing a service for people living in the modern era. (If you are ever allowed to by those wanting to hold back everyone from doing just that and losing people in great numbers for doing so. But then, that is why they are trying to stop everyone!)
Everyone will be force to the CofE ways and/or get shut down and shut up if anyone objects. Welcome back to the dark ages!
There are lots of people in the Anglican church who want to move on as well - trouble is the hierarchy are so worried about African and other branches seceding that they are prepared to go to any lengths to play to the conservative side.
They will lose in the end - good people will turn to more welcoming and open-hearted churches. It has happened before and it will keep happening as long as they cling to old-fashioned and repressive dogma instead of moving with the times.
The future for religion is with ones that move with the times and provide what it's modern follows need. Old nonsense religion has lost it power and will be questioned more and more. The days of religion getting away with never being questioned are over.
Would God have a place in this proposed modern religion?
i happen to think you've probably not been very far at all, but that 's another thread. if you want to keep writing it all off as nonsense, that's up to you. i don't agree with the church's stance on this matter, but you won't hear me deride anybody's sincere beliefs from any faith. that is all.
Some 'sincere beliefs' deserve much worse than mere derision.
Would God have a place in this proposed modern religion?
Who?
It's fiction so it can be anything you want it to be and include and exclude anyone.
Just pick 'n' mix what figure head you like, which book you are going to base it on and which bits you will state as if they were facts and which bits you are going to pretend don't exist at all even though they are in the same book.
It's fiction so it can be anything you want it to be and include and exclude anyone.
Just pick 'n' mix what figure head you like, which book you are going to base it on and which bits you will state as if they were facts and which bits you are going to pretend don't exist at all even though they are in the same book.
Excellent. I'll have Harry Potter because thats a popular one on DS to interchange with God Belief therefore I'm sure to get a lot of followers.
The Harry Potter books of course are the true story of his life. We shall live as Harry did. If you are a muggle, tough luck
Well Sentanamu said the bishops in the House of Lords supported it, which Hansard directly contradicts, so I am afraid they can wriggle as much as they like, they lied.
The Bishop of Leicester told the same lie on the Today programme last Tuesday. It isn't just one person being forgetful but more like an agreed "party line".
It's fiction so it can be anything you want it to be and include and exclude anyone.
Just pick 'n' mix what figure head you like, which book you are going to base it on and which bits you will state as if they were facts and which bits you are going to pretend don't exist at all even though they are in the same book.
Are you saying God is fiction? If so, I must disagree and so does He.
The Bishop of Leicester told the same lie on the Today programme last Tuesday. It isn't just one person being forgetful but more like an agreed "party line".
I'd love to hear what they'd say if challenged. Was the Bishop of Leicester challenged on it?
Comments
So you think it is ok that my religious group won't be able to hold marriages for its gay members because another religious group happens to object?
The CofE hierarchy, other churches' hierarchy and particular individuals who practise and call for discrimination are losing any right to call themselves a moral force. Or their credibility in trying to do so, at any rate.
The impact of prejudiced views isn't diluted because it derives (ostensibly) from religion.
It's funny, but the thing that got me most about the CoE was not the nasty rhetoric, but when they lied about supporting Civil Partnerships in 2004. To hear leaders of a church tell such a blatant untruth amazed and appalled me.
An obvious rule break even from a lay point of view. I mean who doesnt know that one of the commandments is "thou shalt not bear false witness".
Seems as if they should clean their own house before commenting on other peoples
You cannot claim I have a closed mind and believe that, the naysayers have no rational, logical or fair reasons to deny equality, there's only baseless ignorance, lies and stupidity. Then they clim there's God on their side yet God is also on side of the religious that support equality
All that and neither term that I supposedly always use
I wouldn't worry too much as your chosen religion seems a lot more viable in 2012 and beyond than the CofE does. (And magnitudes more than the Catholic Church)
So sit back and enjoy catering for and providing a service for people living in the modern era. (If you are ever allowed to by those wanting to hold back everyone from doing just that and losing people in great numbers for doing so. But then, that is why they are trying to stop everyone!)
Everyone will be force to the CofE ways and/or get shut down and shut up if anyone objects. Welcome back to the dark ages!
But, yes, it looks to me like a deliberate lie to try and deflect from accusations that they see something wrong with gay relationships, which is why they oppose equal marriage, which is not an acceptable attitude any longer (and never should have been).
Yes! I think it's cos with the rhetoric you can sort of semi-defend them by saying, "Oh, well, they truly believe it's a sin" and whatever, but just flat-out lying about something that happened 8 years ago, there's not really a justification for that.
Well Sentanamu said the bishops in the House of Lords supported it, which Hansard directly contradicts, so I am afraid they can wriggle as much as they like, they lied.
There are lots of people in the Anglican church who want to move on as well - trouble is the hierarchy are so worried about African and other branches seceding that they are prepared to go to any lengths to play to the conservative side.
They will lose in the end - good people will turn to more welcoming and open-hearted churches. It has happened before and it will keep happening as long as they cling to old-fashioned and repressive dogma instead of moving with the times.
Someone did
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2012/may/23/john-sentamu-claims-civil-partnerships-false
Would God have a place in this proposed modern religion?
Read post 664 for the answer to that.
One would assume he would have to
Yes of course SULLA - it is the dogma that can stifle a religion and enable people to use it to oppress others.
Some 'sincere beliefs' deserve much worse than mere derision.
Who?
It's fiction so it can be anything you want it to be and include and exclude anyone.
Just pick 'n' mix what figure head you like, which book you are going to base it on and which bits you will state as if they were facts and which bits you are going to pretend don't exist at all even though they are in the same book.
Excellent. I'll have Harry Potter because thats a popular one on DS to interchange with God Belief therefore I'm sure to get a lot of followers.
The Harry Potter books of course are the true story of his life. We shall live as Harry did. If you are a muggle, tough luck
The Bishop of Leicester told the same lie on the Today programme last Tuesday. It isn't just one person being forgetful but more like an agreed "party line".
Are you saying God is fiction? If so, I must disagree and so does He.
so does who?