View Full Version : Vatican issues gay policy document
Here they go again. (http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/11/29/vatican.gays/index.html)
Yet they graciously say "anyone who's clearly overcome homosexuality can start the process of becoming a priest". Or in other words. Anyone who's willing to lead a life of misery and denial is allowed to be a priest. Fair enough. That's what priests ought to be doing anyway, right? It's just an interesting question who would WANT to practice preaching in such an institution of hate and intolerance. It's a blessing, really. That's one way of looking at it - since they're completely driving away all the (even moderate) liberals and especially young people, with such a rigorous old-fashioned stance. They'll just run out of priest, except for the ones who're just using priesthood as an excuse to cover up their unnatural tendencies. Heading towards a Roman Catholic Church run by zoo-, necro- and paedophiles.
Yes it's absolutely stupid: the fact you're straight or homosexual doesn't change things as you don't have to have sexual relationships in catholic religion (yoou can be married in muslim, protestant religions...)
The MAIN and DANGEROUS problem here is that they MIX the idea of HOMOSEXUALITY and PEDOPHILY.
Sorry but these 2 things are really different !!
You can be Homosexual AND paedophile ...of course it happends...but in mind of a lot of people who are "far" from homosexual world it's already often linked: "if you are homosexual, you're paedophile" ;one more reason why they are afraid by homosexuaxity.
They are insane. It's 2005 in the backyard. Don't they ever look at the calendar? Their bullshit (excuse my French) belongs to the last century. :bum:
Yep, total bullshit. I HATE religion, it is the cause of so much hate :( As Nath said they like to think that homosexuals and and paedophiles are the same :rolleyes: If they can't see the difference there really is no hope for these idiots.
Well, I think this (http://www.liebe-ist.biz/Image(470).jpg) top I have pretty much sums up my feelings. :bebebe:
madeldoe
30-11-2005, 09:28
Well, I think this (http://www.liebe-ist.biz/Image(470).jpg) top I have pretty much sums up my feelings. :bebebe:
:laugh: had me rollin!
waste of a good argument really. so all's im gonna say is :bebebe:
even within a certain religion there are huge discrepancies in belief..case in point: the vatican has stated that taking life at any point in development is immoral/wrong etc. the vatican issued such statement in stating their opposition against stem cell research. as with extracting stem cells from eggs that could potentially become life, it is taking life because after extraction, life cannot develop. with that being said, 73% of the catholics in the state of michigan voted FOR stem cell research. just thought i'd throw it out there. i don't think religion is not really good or bad. certainly many people have died due to kings and rulers using it as a justification for their actions but then again, nations have thrived and survived because of such religious institutions. if you want to weigh out all the good vs. all the bad in terms of religion, the debate would go on for centuries. and it has. i prefer to just take it as it is. i have my beliefs and i do not impose them on anyone. after all, buddha and jesus said pretty much the same things. something about love.:D and not to forget, this country was founded by people who wanted religious freedom but didn't get it. ironically, they were fleeing from england and a few countries in europe..but that's another story. the again, the first settlers killed, pilfered, and exploited. what can you say about that? sure, it's terrible but most of who i am has alot to do with this country. should i trace back to its religious beginnings and blame how it was founded and why? i can't do that. (this country is still 80% christian. that is, at least 70% of every household goes to some kind of religious practice at least once a week) i think religion is fascinating on a political, social, and of course spiritual level. it's something i've studied and i don't hate it. it's like...with war. i don't hate war but of course i find it unnecessary and utterly destructive in every aspect of culture and politics, but i realize destruction is also a part of human nature. there's nothing to do about it. hating it is useless. just don't participate or support it. be rational. yeah..i've gotten off my rocker...
Khartoun2004
30-11-2005, 20:10
[off] Lux, interesting points. I personally don't have a problem with other people's religious beliefs. However, I do have a problem with people trying to push their beliefs on others.
The founding fathers of the United States were for the most part Unitarians and Universalists (Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Ben Franklin, and James Madison to name a few). The basis of the first amendment right to Freedom of Religion is based on the Unitarian belief in a free and independent search for the truth, for all individuals. It is also the reason why we have a seperation of church and state in this country. Therefore, I am not in least bit surprised that people who remember that this seperation exists, would vote to continue something like stem-cell research whether they agree with it or not on a spiritual level. Religion has no place in government policy, or laws. In the US the Constitution is the bible, not the First Testement.
It is also the reason why we have a seperation of church and state in this country. Religion has no place in government policy, or laws. In the US the Constitution is the bible, not the First Testement.In principle, but in reality? To me the US look like an extremely religious country with no clear separation of church and state. The US president has to swear on a bible to become president, which is a blatant breach of the separation of church and state, no elected person should have to swear on a religious book to access a political position, unless the country is a theocracy. And as far as i know, it's the case for all official positions in the US, people have to swear on a bible and say speech including stuff like "and so help me god", where's the separation? You can't have a real separation of church and state when people keep making references to god in official contexts, which is the case of all US politicians who can't make a single public appearance without mentioning god. No, the US is close to a theocracy, religion is present everywhere and influences all political decisions.
[off] Lux, interesting points. I personally don't have a problem with other people's religious beliefs. However, I do have a problem with people trying to push their beliefs on others.
The founding fathers of the United States were for the most part Unitarians and Universalists (Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Ben Franklin, and James Madison to name a few). The basis of the first amendment right to Freedom of Religion is based on the Unitarian belief in a free and independent search for the truth, for all individuals. It is also the reason why we have a seperation of church and state in this country. Therefore, I am not in least bit surprised that people who remember that this seperation exists, would vote to continue something like stem-cell research whether they agree with it or not on a spiritual level. Religion has no place in government policy, or laws. In the US the Constitution is the bible, not the First Testement.
Yet you have "in god we trust" written over your money, and your president uses dangerous rhetoric about "god" being on the side of the US troops in Iraq (exactly the reason why stupid fundamentalists are proclaiming American occupation as the continuation of the crusade wars.) I'm not saying America is run by the Bible per se. But it's a fact Bush got reelected largely due to christian conservaties. And his rhetoric is blatantly christian more often than not.
LOL... I see Amber beat me too it. :p
Khartoun2004
30-11-2005, 22:12
Freddie and Amber, are both correct, which is unfortunate. However, I was talking about the founding fathers and 1776 with the signing if the Declaration of Independence and 1783 with the signing of the Constitution. Not present day America and the current clowns in power.
It is quite obvious that the Bush administration and the ultra-right in Congress love to ignore the actual language of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights certainly doesn't exist at all in their minds.
the founding fathers of america were very clear to separate church and state. very clear. despite the subtleties, they knew it would not be a good idea. please don't attribute bush as a representative of this country and what it stands for because he is not, nowhere near anything the value and achievements of this nation. please. jesus. anyway, if you look at one case in particular, the issue of marriage and divorce. marriage as institution is made legal by LAW. the same goes for divorce. nowhere in the bible does divorce have any support. before everyone rains more shit on the US, let's try to be objective. the law of the united states, the supreme law of the land IS the constitution. regardless of what policies and subtlties presidents have implemented, that is just that. presidents come and go. church and state in this country is still separate.
swearing on the bible and having god in the currency does not make this country a theocracy. no where close. actually, christianity and god is more of a social common ground that seeps on to politics and media. a way of uniting people on a broad level. as i said, church or religious attendance is strong in this country so it is common for politicians and media to unite the masses with using symbols such as religion and god.
sorry to double post but LOL@that comment ^ we americans share much different perspectives. i don't think any one is wrong or right but people get so hostile sometimes. i don't know why.
on another note. if there is no such separation between church and state, are you saying the church runs the state? that is all law is governed by, and derives from the bible? that is inaccurate. each state has its own set of law that varies from state to state. but above all, each state abides by the constitution, hands down. the constitution specifies freedom of many things, that have nothing to do with the bible. this could be an abismally dull essay and i don't see how church and state are one entity. they are not.
But it's a fact Bush got reelected largely due to christian conservaties. And his rhetoric is blatantly christian more often than not.
that is not a fact. a little more than half this country voted for bush. if statistics show that alot more than half attend religious institutions, that means that many religious people did NOT vote for bush. and many people voted for bush because he is generous with tax breaks for the wealthy and small business entreprenuers.
and also, to quote my friend..whom i made answer a question very concisely:
the separation of church and state in the US depends on locality and furthermore on how one interprets the establishment clause. If one goes by the strict interpretation that the there shall be no state established church (like the church of england) then, yes church and state are separate. If one goes by the interpretation that no one religion should get some favored status, then hell no.
favoritism! of course. exactly. and also, if there were NO separation, there would be a law to make people donate money to the church, among other things. there are faith based initiaves in recent times but those are indirect monies anyway.
The church doesn't run the country per se. Only indirectly through all the "believers" who of course happen to be conservative, who vote for a certain side and thus give the country it's international political face. It's all connected. Of course hte church isn't formally in charge (that wasn't even implied). So it's futile to even compare the bible to the constitution. The church runs the country in a more subtle way, together with a selected small oligarchy of rich old men who represent all the corporate capital. Religion is (and always was, through history) a perfect tool to keep a common mortal on a leash of fear and ignorance.
I wont post after this cause this is pointless. and i wasn't referring to your posts. scroll up. it WAS implied. it is not futile when others have compared the bible and the constitution.
1. There are many different branches of Christianity in the US, and by saying most of them are conservative you leave out certain groups such as the evangelics.
2. Bush disenfranchised many conservatives with his lavish spending on defense and other departments.
3. If you look back on the history of the US, conservatives only started voting for the republican after one crucial election. was it carter? i am not sure, but it was a very intense campaign and election. it might have been in the 70s.
4. By small oligarchy i hope you mean the less than 1% of all Americans who control over 90% of the wealth. in which case, control has little to do with religion, and more to do with money. which would make the US a plutocracy. you could argue that those who have money ultimately control things by making huge fiscal donations and indirect monies but the fact of the matter is that on ever level of government, the people have a vote in who gets to be in office. the votes are tallied and then whoever is elected, wins. then again, you can argue those who have money are the ones who get to run a campaign to begin with. that is true for all politics and not just the US.
Would you mind to use caps to begin the sentence, please? It's not a chat.
1. There are many different branches of Christianity in the US, and by saying most of them are conservative you leave out certain groups such as the evangelics.
Yes, to be exact I was mostly referng to the branch of roman catolics, who are the ones bringing the most conservative votes in.
2. Bush disenfranchised many conservatives with his lavish spending on defense and other departments.
Depends what you consider disenfranchising. From what I know most pastors were very enthusiastic about numerous military actions as well as the prolonging the withdrawl of the troops from Iraq. I'm not sure they were all fundamentaly against lavish spending. That was a given from the get go, by electing a president who did similar things in the past already. IMO
3. If you look back on the history of the US, conservatives only started voting for the republican after one crucial election. was it carter? i am not sure, but it was a very intense campaign and election. it might have been in the 70s.
4. By small oligarchy i hope you mean the less than 1% of all Americans who control over 90% of the wealth. in which case, control has little to do with religion, and more to do with money. which would make the US a plutocracy. you could argue that those who have money ultimately control things by making huge fiscal donations and indirect monies but the fact of the matter is that on ever level of government, the people have a vote in who gets to be in office. the votes are tallied and then whoever is elected, wins. then again, you can argue those who have money are the ones who get to run a campaign to begin with. that is true for all politics and not just the US.
It's not realy a formal plutocracy, nor is it an oligarchy (at least not a formal one), so I was clearly using that expression in jest. And no... money alone isn't enough. You need a strong base of religious people to get one side of the population, and corporate backing to get the other side of the population which responds to money more. Is this true for all politics? In essence yes, but mostly not in modern western type democracies. Every Euro country lacks an ultra-religious south which the US has in abundance. People who respond to simple, bible-based ideas. It takes those people to make or break an election... along with corporate backing.
Anyway, this is way of topic already. My original point was... Vatican is in need of some serious modifications. These gray old men, trying to justify their homophobic views with dubious 2 thousand year old verses are looking increasingly ridiculous.
vBulletin® v3.7.3, Copyright ©2000-2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.