Thoughts on this...

MrPudding

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-12598896

For those of you brave enough the judgement is here:

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/375.html

I have not read the full judgement yet, but I think this is the correct decision. Just to add, had this been an atheist couple that had homophobic* views, I would hope for and expect the same judgement.

MrP



*Please note, I am not necessarily saying the christian view on homosexuality is homophobic, it is merely a convenient label for such views when held by a person who does not have a universal moral authority telling him that homosexuality is wrong.

Donatello

MrPudding wrote: »

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-12598896

For those of you brave enough the judgement is here:

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/375.html

I have not read the full judgement yet, but I think this is the correct decision. Just to add, had this been an atheist couple that had homophobic* views, I would hope for and expect the same judgement.

MrP



*Please note, I am not necessarily saying the christian view on homosexuality is homophobic, it is merely a convenient label for such views when held by a person who does not have a universal moral authority telling him that homosexuality is wrong.

It's very sad. I'm sure this couple would make fine parents. On the news last night it said that the interests of the child must come first... Then they serve the child's best interests by placing him/her with two fellas. Or two ladies.

Of course we know that a child does best developmentally with two parents (that would be a man and a woman like). Ah well. It's political correctness gone mad.

See how nutty this is:

They withdrew their application after a social worker expressed concerns when they said they could not tell a child a homosexual lifestyle was acceptable.

See, they are enforcing their moral values on the Christian couple! How liberally tolerant! NOT.

More madness:

But Lord Justice Munby and Mr Justice Beatson ruled that laws protecting people from discrimination because of their sexual orientation "should take precedence" over the right not to be discriminated against on religious grounds.

They said that if children were placed with carers who objected to homosexuality and same-sex relationships, "there may well be a conflict with the local authority's duty to 'safeguard and promote the welfare' of looked-after children".

Simon, a gay man, had this to say below the BBC story:

PC gone completely mad! Mr and Mrs Johns said, "We are prepared to love and accept any child. All we were not willing to do was to tell a small child that the practice of homosexuality was a good thing."
I am a gay man and I would not tell a 'small child' that homosexuality is a 'good thing' .For a teenager unsure of sexual orientation it could be up for discussion but this decision is madness!

antiskeptic

MrPudding wrote: »

.. but I think this is the correct decision. Just to add, had this been an atheist couple that had homophobic* views, I would hope for and expect the same judgement.

That's possibly because it aligns with a particular worldview you have ("all sexual orientations are equally valid so long as noone is getting hurt" or some such).

For my own part, I think the judgement the correct one in that it is consistant for a secular state to require it's servants to operate according to a secular manifesto. In this case, the foster carers are in effect, employees of the state/offering a state service.

If they don't want to adhere to the rules of the secular employer then they shouldn't take the job.

I don't imagine it'll be long before the secular authorities come knocking with their equality agenda at the door of parents and their children however.

antiskeptic

Donatello wrote: »

See, they are enforcing their moral values on the Christian couple! How liberally tolerant! NOT.

A secular states moral values taking precedent is what occurs when you separate church and state. I'd much prefer that (a democracy) to the alternative (a theocracy).

God help us if Christian values (at root of which lies a Christians motivation) are foisted onto the unbelievers. As if you anything other than push sin underground. Better have it out where it can at least be seen.

Donatello

antiskeptic wrote: »

A secular states moral values taking precedent is what occurs when you separate church and state. I'd much prefer that (a democracy) to the alternative (a theocracy).

That separation is artificial and contrived. That approach leads to what BXVI called a dictatorship of relativism. Might is right.

Whatever happened to pluralism, tolerance, and diversity?

Diversity for some, it seems; discrimination for others. Now Christians must conform to the new moral code. And soon we shall see that Christians must accept gay weddings too. Oh, but you say, it is optional now. True, but sooner or later it will be mandatory, and priests and ministers will be jailed for failure to comply.

Ah well. I'll not be officiating at any gay weddings. Nor will I be on the guest list.

Good laws protect unbelievers (and everyone else) from the worst excesses of their wickedness.

How come you can edit your post without it saying so?

antiskeptic

Donatello wrote: »

That separation is artificial and contrived. That approach leads to what BXVI called a dictatorship of relativism. Might is right. Whatever happened to pluralism, tolerance, and diversity?

The judges appear to have ruled that the homosexual orientation is to be tolerated (in the sense that teaching an impressionable mind that it is wrong is effectively (technical) intolerance.

Diversity for some, it seems; discrimination for others. Now Christians must conform to the new moral code.

They needn't take the job of foster carer if it offends their morality. A foster carer is an extension of the state and it's the states view on morality that needs to be conveyed by this particular arm of the state.

This isn't your own child - remember.

And soon we shall see that Christians must accept gay weddings too.

What do you mean 'accept'? I'd doubt the Catholic church will be forced to carry out gay weddings

Donatello

antiskeptic wrote: »

The judges appear to have ruled that the homosexual orientation is to be tolerated (in the sense that teaching an impressionable mind that it is wrong is effectively (technical) intolerance.

They needn't take the job of foster carer if it offends their morality. A foster carer is an extension of the state and it's the states view on morality that needs to be conveyed by this particular arm of the state.

This isn't your own child - remember.

What do you mean 'accept'? I'd doubt the Catholic church will be forced to carry out gay weddings

Yet you admit that it won't be long before the state police come knocking on parent's doors. They are already teaching the kids moral depravity at schools in the UK.

Some Catholic priests will, sadly, offer to conduct gay weddings in RC churches. I hope by that stage the bishops will do something.

Morbert

Donatello wrote: »

That separation is artificial and contrived. That approach leads to what BXVI called a dictatorship of relativism. Might is right.

Whatever happened to pluralism, tolerance, and diversity?

Typical Catholic Church rhetoric.

Though maybe the have a point regarding gay marriage

Marauding Gay Hordes Drag Thousands Of Helpless Citizens From Marriages After Obama Drops Defense Of Marriage Act

Donatello

Morbert wrote: »

Typical Catholic Church rhetoric.

Though maybe the have a point regarding gay marriage

Marauding Gay Hordes Drag Thousands Of Helpless Citizens From Marriages After Obama Drops Defense Of Marriage Act

I think you'll find all the crap about tolerance, pluralism and diversity from the lefties - they are their buzzwords. The Catholic Church, on the other hand, has been the true champion of true equity among all human beings from the start.

MrPudding

Donatello wrote: »

Whatever happened to pluralism, tolerance, and diversity?

Hmmm, can't decide whether to go with :rolleyes: or .

Donatello wrote: »

Diversity for some, it seems; discrimination for others. Now Christians must conform to the new moral code.

No, if you read the judgement they make it quite clear that this is not the case.

No one is telling christians what they have to believe or what moral code they have to follow. They are telling people, irrespective of their religious believe or lack of belief, that if you want to do certain things you have to abide by certain rules.

Donatello wrote: »

And soon we shall see that Christians must accept gay weddings too. Oh, but you say, it is optional now. True, but sooner or later it will be mandatory, and priests and ministers will be jailed for failure to comply.

It is sad that you see equality as a bad thing. You must be really looking forward to the day when schools are no longer allowed to discriminate against children and teachers because they don't believe in or follow your precious church.

Donatello wrote: »

Ah well. I'll not be officiating at any gay weddings. Nor will I be on the guest list.

And I bet the gay community is gutted.

Donatello wrote: »

Good laws protect unbelievers (and everyone else) from the worst excesses of their wickedness.

Wickedness according to who?

MrP

Donatello

MrPudding wrote: »

No, if you read the judgement they make it quite clear that this is not the case.

No one is telling christians what they have to believe or what moral code they have to follow. They are telling people, irrespective of their religious believe or lack of belief, that if you want to do certain things you have to abide by certain rules.

It is sad that you see equality as a bad thing. You must be really looking forward to the day when schools are no longer allowed to discriminate against children and teachers because they don't believe in or follow your precious church.
MrP

The state is legislating for morality - the state says gay sex is a good thing (contrary to what the Church teaches) and that parents ought not to teach kids otherwise. That's not equality - that is the state enforcing their moral code.

You could argue that for a long time the Church has its moral norms enshrined in law. But now, the state is getting its own back and turning things on their head. But the state will learn the lesson in its own time what happens when a nation spurns God and all that is true, beautiful, and good.

For now it is foster kids, but the time is coming when all parents will be compelled to teach their kids that gay sex is a healthy, normal and good thing. If you don't comply, your kids will be taken into care as you are obviously an unfit parent. Roll your eyes all you want, but that is what is coming.

Even what I am saying here is tolerated, for now, by boards.ie, but the time is coming when people such as myself will be banned for airing our values and opinions.

* Wickedness according to God Who says that abortion, gay sex, etc... are moral evils.

JimiTime

I personally would like a separation of church and state (as in a denominational organisation), but I would like to see Christianity retained as the reference for the state. I understand how many would object, but I think any other way will only reap a bad result and lead to a moral, ethical and judicial blindness. I like Martin Luther Kings view that:
"The church must be reminded that it is not the master or the servant of the state, but rather the conscience of the state. It must be the guide and the critic of the state, and never its tool. If the church does not recapture its prophetic zeal, it will become an irrelevant social club without moral or spiritual authority."

With regards to this case, I would be interested in knowing how it became an issue. Knowing that, I'd form an opinion. On first look, I think its typical, but ludicrous. However, if these foster parents had a bee in their bonnet about telling people about the sin of homosexuality, then I'd probably side with the state. If its a case of the state quizzing them about 'If the question of homosexuality arose' kinda thing, then the states an ass!

Donatello

JimiTime wrote: »

I personally would like a separation of church and state (as in a denominational organisation), but I would like to see Christianity retained as the reference for the state. I understand how many would object, but I think any other way will only reap a bad result and lead to a moral, ethical and judicial blindness. I like Martin Luther Kings view that:
"The church must be reminded that it is not the master or the servant of the state, but rather the conscience of the state. It must be the guide and the critic of the state, and never its tool. If the church does not recapture its prophetic zeal, it will become an irrelevant social club without moral or spiritual authority."

With regards to this case, I would be interested in knowing how it became an issue. Knowing that, I'd form an opinion. On first look, I think its typical, but ludicrous. However, if these foster parents had a bee in their bonnet about telling people about the sin of homosexuality, then I'd probably side with the state. If its a case of the state quizzing them about 'If the question of homosexuality arose' kinda thing, then the states an ass!

That's it. The notion of separation of Church and state only means there ought to be no state religion. It does not mean, however, that believing Christians should not seek to enter politics in order to establish a civilisation of love based on Christian teachings. In the marketplace of ideas, Christians have as much right to set out their stall and promote their produce as non-believers. The bishops, as leaders of Holy Church, likewise, have the right to counsel Her political children as they see fit and there is nothing the state can do about that.

MrPudding

Donatello wrote: »

The state is legislating for morality - the state says gay sex is a good thing (contrary to what the Church teaches) and that parents ought not to teach kids otherwise. That's not equality - that is the state enforcing their moral code.

That is not what the court says here. It makes no comment on the moral right or wrong of homosexual behaviour, it most certainly does not sat it is good, it simply says you can't say it is bad.

Donatello wrote: »

You could argue that for a long time the Church has its moral norms enshrined in law. But now, the state is getting its own back and turning things on their head. But the state will learn the lesson in its own time what happens when a nation spurns God and all that is true, beautiful, and good.

Seriously, read the actual judgement in the second link, go to paragraph 55 where there is a quote from a previous case. They accept that there was an influence from religion in the law, but he makes some very interesting points, first of all, the law will protect you right to believe something, but it will not protect the contents of that belief.

Laws LJ wrote:

The common law and ECHR Article 9 offer vigorous protection of the Christian's right and every other person's right to hold and express his or her beliefs, and so they should. By contrast, they do not, and should not, offer any protection whatever of the substance or content of those beliefs on the ground only that they are based on religious precepts.

This leads to:

Laws LJ wrote:

But the conferment of any legal protection or preference upon a particular substantive moral position on the ground only that it is espoused by the adherents of a particular faith, however long its tradition, however rich its culture, is deeply unprincipled; it imposes compulsory law not to advance the general good on objective grounds, but to give effect to the force of subjective opinion. This must be so, since, in the eye of everyone save the believer, religious faith is necessarily subjective, being incommunicable by any kind of proof or evidence. It may, of course, be true, but the ascertainment of such a truth lies beyond the means by which laws are made in a reasonable society. Therefore it lies only in the heart of the believer who is alone bound by it; no one else is or can be so bound, unless by his own free choice he accepts its claims.

This is the interesting part. The law cannot afford to be subjective, it must be objective. it cannot enforce a view or opinion found in religion because there is no proof for the validity of that view or opinion.

For example, you are saying that your christian, in particular catholic opinions should be at the forefront of legal thought, they should be taken into account when a law or judgement is made. Would you feel the same if it was islamic views or opinions that had to be taken into account? Particularly if that view or opinion caused you to be impacted in a negative way on the basis of something you didn't believe.

Donatello wrote: »

For now it is foster kids, but the time is coming when all parents will be compelled to teach their kids that gay sex is a healthy, normal and good thing. If you don't comply, your kids will be taken into care as you are obviously an unfit parent. Roll your eyes all you want, but that is what is coming.

Whilst I am not saying this isn't going to happen, who knows what will happen in the future, it is most certainly not going to happen off the back of this judgement, nor is it going to happen off the back of any legislation currently in force or planned (as far as I am aware.) Enforcing equality laws at a central government, local government or even business level is very different from enforcing those same laws at a private level.

And again, they are not telling people they have to say it is healthy or good, simply that they can't say it is bad.

Donatello wrote: »

Even what I am saying here is tolerated, for now, by boards.ie, but the time is coming when people such as myself will be banned for airing our values and opinions.

You are probably correct. And that is not necessarily something I personally agree with.

Donatello wrote: »

* Wickedness according to God Who says that abortion, gay sex, etc... are moral evils.

Cool. So we have established who, it is god. Now, whose god?

JimiTime wrote: »

I personally would like a separation of church and state (as in a denominational organisation), but I would like to see Christianity retained as the reference for the state. I understand how many would object, but I think any other way will only reap a bad result and a blind lead.

The problem is, if the state did this it would result in discrimination. As Lord Justice Laws put it, much better than I ever could, "Therefore it lies only in the heart of the believer who is alone bound by it; no one else is or can be so bound, unless by his own free choice he accepts its claims."

JimiTime wrote: »

With regards to this case, I would be interested in knowing how it became an issue. Knowing that, I'd form an opinion. On first look, I think its typical, but ludicrous. However, if these foster parents had a bee in their bonnet about telling people about the sin of homosexuality, then I'd probably side with the state. If its a case of the state quizzing them about 'If the question of homosexuality arose' kinda thing, then the states an ass!

The opening paragraphs of the judgement lay out the details, such as they are.

I think it comes down to this: there are guidelines as to what type of person can become a foster parent. In order to establish if a person fits this requirement clearly some questions must be asked. have a read of the opening of the judgement and see what you make of it.

MrP

MrPudding

Donatello wrote: »

It does not mean, however, that believing Christians should not seek to enter politics in order to establish a civilisation of love based on Christian teachings. In the marketplace of ideas, Christians have as much right to set out their stall and promote their produce as non-believers. The bishops, as leaders of Holy Church, likewise, have the right to counsel Her political children as they see fit and there is nothing the state can do about that.

The thing I like about reading your posts is they give the impression that you think christianity is the only religion on earth.

MrP

Donatello

MrPudding wrote: »

The thing I like about reading your posts is they give the impression that you think christianity is the only religion on earth.

MrP

Catholicism is the only true religion. Other religions have aspects of truth, but the Catholic religion is the true religion revealed by God. The separated children have much Christian truth, and we long for their return to the bosom of the Church.

Meanwhile, the state has no right to tell parents what to teach their kids. Even the dreadful UN recognises that parents are the primary educators of their children and have a right to teach them as they see fit.

By saying that a parent can't say sodomy is bad, you are asserting your own morality for to deny to condemn something is essentially to condone it.

If you can't say sodomy is bad, then by your silence you would seem to condone it. Certainly if they kid asks the parents, they can't say it is bad, and the kid will conclude that it must be good. This is all a lot of silly nonsense and I think much of Britain can see that.

The fact is, the state has its own moral code. The Church has its own moral code. For a long time, the Church was able to see that the state laws closely aligned with God's laws. Now the state is getting its own back by trying to impose the new moral code, one doctrine of which is that you are not able to say sodomy is bad. The secularists are every bit as dogmatic as the Catholic Church. They have their own decrees, similar in tone to the decrees of the great Council of Trent. In the state's case though, such decrees would go something like this:

If anyone dare to say that sodomy is bad, let him be accursed.

AhSureTisGrand

Donatello wrote: »

Catholicism is the only true religion.
[/I]

............................................________
....................................,.-'"...................``~.,
.............................,.-"..................................."-.,
.........................,/...............................................":,
.....................,?......................................................\,
.................../...........................................................,}
................./......................................................,:`^`..}
.............../...................................................,:"........./
..............?.....__.........................................:`.........../
............./__.(....."~-,_..............................,:`........../
.........../(_...."~,_........"~,_....................,:`........_/
..........{.._$;_......"=,_......."-,_.......,.-~-,},.~";/....}
...........((.....*~_......."=-._......";,,./`..../"............../
...,,,___.\`~,......"~.,....................`.....}............../
............(....`=-,,.......`........................(......;_,,-"
............/.`~,......`-...............................\....../\
.............\`~.*-,.....................................|,./.....\,__
,,_..........}.>-._\...................................|..............`=~-,
.....`=~-,_\_......`\,.................................\
...................`=~-,,.\,...............................\
................................`:,,...........................`\..............__
.....................................`=-,...................,%`>--==``
........................................_\..........._,-%.......`\
...................................,<`.._|_,-&``................`

Zombrex

Donatello wrote: »

Whatever happened to pluralism, tolerance, and diversity?

Diversity for some, it seems; discrimination for others. Now Christians must conform to the new moral code.

Yes is they want to work for the State, and its a moral code of tolerance and diversity.

Are you seriously invoking the loss of standards of tolerance to complain that a Christian couple lost the right to educate children in state care that homosexuality is immoral?

JimiTime

MrPudding wrote: »

The problem is, if the state did this it would result in discrimination. As Lord Justice Laws put it, much better than I ever could, "Therefore it lies only in the heart of the believer who is alone bound by it; no one else is or can be so bound, unless by his own free choice he accepts its claims."

Indeed it would, and discrimination is not automatically a negative thing. We discriminate in many things including sexual preferences such as beast, child and incest orientated attraction, polygamy etc.

I believe that if the state does not have at least recognize The Living God, then its blind and rudderless. Again, I understand that many, such as yourself, would take exception to this view.

The opening paragraphs of the judgement lay out the details, such as they are.

I think it comes down to this: there are guidelines as to what type of person can become a foster parent. In order to establish if a person fits this requirement clearly some questions must be asked. have a read of the opening of the judgement and see what you make of it.

MrP

Cheers, just read the first parts. My conclusion is that its unfortunate that the state are ruling out a suitable Foster couple, but if thats the way the state wish to be, then I suppose Christians are not suitable for the task of fostering children in the UK. Again though, I believe the state is the problem. Its like the gay adoption issue. Christian agencies are no longer suitable in this now that it has been decided that they cannot discriminate in order to keep children in the naturally ideal environment of having a mother and father.

I disagree with the state, and believe they are extremely shortsighted, both in looking forward AND in looking back. Inevitably, mankind will govern itself to its injury.

antiskeptic

Donatello wrote: »

That's it. The notion of separation of Church and state only means there ought to be no state religion.

Indeed. Not Christianity, not Islam, not anti-theism.

It does not mean, however, that believing Christians should not seek to enter politics in order to establish a civilisation of love based on Christian teachings.

Indeed. Everybody is entitled to seek to enter politics and form society into the shape they see fit - it's impossible to argue otherwise unless you invoke "One True Religion and I'm taking my ball home" or other such circularity.

When the majority who are voted in desire to shape society in a way that is counter the view of a particular religion then that's fine - they are as entitled to shape it that way if voted in by the electorate to do so.

In the marketplace of ideas, Christians have as much right to set out their stall and promote their produce as non-believers.

To the topic at hand so...

The secular state has formed a view about homosex. That view holds homosex to be as acceptable as heterosex. It is the right of those who sought (and were successful in their seeking) to establish a civilisation so to do so. That theirs isn't a Roman Catholic view is neither here nor there.

Manach

Then you would accept that people like Donatello and I would have issue with the homosexual lifestyle and have a right to object to its normalivisation with what the Church would describe as a tradition family lifestyle, which so far is the same one the Irish Courts have adhered to based on the wording of the constitution which gives the family a special place in Irish society.

Morbert

Manach wrote: »

Then you would accept that people like Donatello and I would have issue with the homosexual lifestyle and have a right to object to its normalivisation with what the Church would describe as a tradition family lifestyle, which so far is the same one the Irish Courts have adhered to based on the wording of the constitution which gives the family a special place in Irish society.

We want you to leave them alone.

Donatello

JimiTime wrote: »

I believe that if the state does not have at least recognize The Living God, then its blind and rudderless. Again, I understand that many, such as yourself, would take exception to this view.

Benedict XVI would agree wit you. Can't remember what he said exactly or even find it at this hour, but he essentially said that a society detached from God is headed for totalitarianism and disaster. That's more or less what he said. I'll hopefully remember to try to find the quote later today but it could be tricky.

Manach wrote: »

Then you would accept that people like Donatello and I would have issue with the homosexual lifestyle and have a right to object to its normalivisation with what the Church would describe as a tradition family lifestyle, which so far is the same one the Irish Courts have adhered to based on the wording of the constitution which gives the family a special place in Irish society.

Hence their desire to dump the constitution and produce a new, God-less constitution.

Donatello

NEW YORK, MARCH 1, 2011 (Zenit.org).- If education does not respect religious and cultural values, then it runs the risk of becoming a "tool of control," says a Vatican representative.

Jane Adolphe, speaking on behalf of Archbishop Francis Chullikatt, permanent observer of the Holy See to the United Nations, said this Monday when addressing the 55th session of the Commission on the Status of Women on Monday.

Adolphe is an associate professor at the Ave Maria School of Law in Naples, Florida, and a member of the Holy See delegation to the U.N. commission.

Taking up the theme of "access and participation of women and girls in education, training, science and technology, including for the promotion of women's equal access to full employment and decent work," Adolphe noted that first and foremost, education "must be firmly rooted in a profound respect for human dignity and with full respect for religious and cultural values."

"If this is absent," she added, "then education is no longer a means of authentic enlightenment but becomes a tool of control by those who administer it."

She insisted that education needs to be guided by "values rooted in the natural law common to humanity".

antiskeptic

Manach wrote: »

Then you would accept that people like Donatello and I would have issue with the homosexual lifestyle and have a right to object to its normalivisation with what the Church would describe as a tradition family lifestyle, which so far is the same one the Irish Courts have adhered to based on the wording of the constitution which gives the family a special place in Irish society.

Of course I would accept it. I myself would see it as better for society that the traditional family unit be upheld as the ideal (which would, of neccessity, mean that other family unit types don't receive the same support). In the recent election, for instance, I voted for those candidates/parties who best reflected the view I hold as to the shape society should take.

My point is that others have the same rights that you and Donnatello have. And that they have arrived at a different version of what's normal to you and have made that view the prevailing view in England at least. And that until such point as the English equivilents of you and Donnatello can steer what's "normal" to their own preferred point and make it prevail, the law is right to reflect and uphold the current norm. That's a function of the law afterall.


I wouldn't see the Irish courts continuing for all that long in the current vein. If not by revolution then little by little, bit by bit do norms get changed from the one to the other. Like continental drift. Not that I'd see godless society moving away from God's norms as a bad thing per se. Sin (and it's consequences) is one of the most poweful levers available to God in his bringing a man to (non-Catholic) salvation.

Zombrex

Donatello wrote: »

NEW YORK, MARCH 1, 2011 (Zenit.org).- If education does not respect religious and cultural values, then it runs the risk of becoming a "tool of control," says a Vatican representative.

Jane Adolphe, speaking on behalf of Archbishop Francis Chullikatt, permanent observer of the Holy See to the United Nations, said this Monday when addressing the 55th session of the Commission on the Status of Women on Monday.

Adolphe is an associate professor at the Ave Maria School of Law in Naples, Florida, and a member of the Holy See delegation to the U.N. commission.

Taking up the theme of "access and participation of women and girls in education, training, science and technology, including for the promotion of women's equal access to full employment and decent work," Adolphe noted that first and foremost, education "must be firmly rooted in a profound respect for human dignity and with full respect for religious and cultural values."

"If this is absent," she added, "then education is no longer a means of authentic enlightenment but becomes a tool of control by those who administer it."

She insisted that education needs to be guided by "values rooted in the natural law common to humanity".

Well said by the Vatican, if more here would follow their lead ...

Donatello

Wicknight wrote: »

Well said by the Vatican, if more here would follow their lead ...

You know the UN diplomats hate, HATE, the Holy See. They regularly shout down the Holy See representatives, berate them, and have them stalked by UN security guards. This is all accounted by Austin Ruse of C-FAM, who has witnessed the exchanges into the early hours at the UN. These UN folks want the Holy See out, permanently. As it is, they are there, as a witness of Christ and His truth, even if they are largely ignored, mocked and reviled.

antiskeptic

Donatello wrote: »

You know the UN diplomats hate, HATE, the Holy See. They regularly shout down the Holy See representatives, berate them, and have them stalked by UN security guards. This is all accounted by Austin Ruse of C-FAM, who has witnessed the exchanges into the early hours at the UN. These UN folks want the Holy See out, permanently. As it is, they are there, as a witness of Christ and His truth, even if they are largely ignored, mocked and reviled.

I can't for the life of me see why the "holy see" should have a place a the UN* (other than for now defunct traditional reasons). If the "holy see" why not a whole raft of other religious.

3 cheers for the UN diplomats.




* United Nations ... not United Under Christianity Nations.

Donatello

antiskeptic wrote: »

I can't for the life of me see why the "holy see" should have a place a the UN* (other than for now defunct traditional reasons). If the "holy see" why not a whole raft of other religious.

3 cheers for the UN diplomats.




* United Nations ... not United Under Christianity Nations.

The Holy see is there trying to protect the lives of innocent, such as the unborn, children, families, protecting marriage etc...

Would you rather they were not there, doing their best to thwart or at least minimise the damage the femi-nazis in the UN are trying to achieve?

Bad things happen when good men do nothing and all that?

AhSureTisGrand

Donatello wrote: »

The Holy see is there trying to protect the lives of innocent, such as the unborn, children, families, protecting marriage etc...

Would you rather they were not there, doing their best to thwart or at least minimise the damage the femi-nazis in the UN are trying to achieve?

Bad things happen when good men do nothing and all that?

You're assuming he possesses your wisdom and sees the UN as comprised of "femi-nazis".

Donatello

AhSureTisGrand wrote: »

You're assuming he possesses your wisdom and sees the UN as comprised of "femi-nazis".

What else would you call those who want to force abortion and sodomy on the whole world, punishing with the full force of the law those who disagree with their nefarious goals?

AhSureTisGrand

Donatello wrote: »

What else would you call those who want to force abortion and sodomy on the whole world, punishing with the full force of the law those who disagree with their nefarious goals?

You're telling me they want to rape people and force women to have abortions?

Donatello

AhSureTisGrand wrote: »

You're telling me they want to rape people and force women to have abortions?

Well, the latter is already happening in China, and Peter Tatchell, prominent homosexualist, wants the age of consent reduced in Britain, so we're moving in that general direction.

AhSureTisGrand

Donatello wrote: »

Well, the latter is already happening in China, and Peter Tatchell, prominent homosexualist, wants the age of consent reduced in Britain, so we're moving in that general direction.

But if the two people are capable of consent (judged to be old enough in this case), it's not statutory rape. As for China, I don't see how it's representative of the UN besides being a member of it. And seeing as the UN essentially lets any country in that wants to be, that hardly counts for much

AhSureTisGrand

Also, seeing as the Nazis abhorred homosexuality and forcing abortions on women is a wee bit misogynistic, I'd say the "femi-nazi" label is somewhat inaccurate :pac:

rockbeer

antiskeptic wrote: »

I can't for the life of me see why the "holy see" should have a place a the UN* (other than for now defunct traditional reasons). If the "holy see" why not a whole raft of other religious.

The "Holy See" isn't really there to represent the catholic religion, rather it's there as the surviving remnant of the Holy Roman Empire (which is what Vatican City is). Bizarrely, VC is still a country and that's the only reason it is allowed a place at the UN. Any other religion lucky enough to have a whole country entirely dedicated to containing its head office would be allowed in too.

I don't think it's right, just saying...

Zombrex

Donatello wrote: »

You know the UN diplomats hate, HATE, the Holy See. They regularly shout down the Holy See representatives, berate them, and have them stalked by UN security guards. This is all accounted by Austin Ruse of C-FAM, who has witnessed the exchanges into the early hours at the UN. These UN folks want the Holy See out, permanently. As it is, they are there, as a witness of Christ and His truth, even if they are largely ignored, mocked and reviled.

Its good to see then that despite that the Vatican is preaching tolerance and acceptability of those different to them, and saying that education should not be used as a tool to spread one intolerant view point like these foster parents were attempting to do, but instead respect and tolerate current cultural views that they personally may disagree with.

Where these foster parents Catholic? If so they should have listened a bit more to their church.

PDN

antiskeptic wrote: »

I can't for the life of me see why the "holy see" should have a place a the UN* (other than for now defunct traditional reasons). If the "holy see" why not a whole raft of other religious.

To be fair, the Vatican was created as a state is by the Lateran Treaty in 1929. This was a political treaty conducted on behalf of Italy by its government (albeit a Fascist one) and therefore has the same legal standing as the Treaty 8 years earlier by which Britain granted independence to the Irish Republic.

So the Vatican has the same rights to be at the UN as does Ireland.

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

Where these foster parents Catholic? If so they should have listened a bit more to their church.

No, they aren't Catholic, they belong to an afro-Caribbean Church known as the Church of God of Prophecy.

We already have a situation where most local authorities in the UK will not place black foster children with white parents. I spoke to a director of an adoption agency who told me that a majority of the afro-Caribbean population of the UK would belong to churches that disapprove of homosexual acts, and church members are much more likely to foster children than non-church goers. So, if this ruling results in prospective foster parents being quizzed on their opinion of homosexuality, then the most obvious net result will be a much greater racial inbalance regarding which kids get fostered and which live in institutions. White kids will be many more times likely to find foster parents than black kids.

It's a bit of a catch-22 situation. The authorities won't put black kids with white families because it is important that the kids live in their own culture. But now they won't place them with most black families because the authorities don't like the religious views which are a part of their culture.

Donatello

Wicknight wrote: »

Its good to see then that despite that the Vatican is preaching tolerance and acceptability of those different to them, and saying that education should not be used as a tool to spread one intolerant view point like these foster parents were attempting to do, but instead respect and tolerate current cultural views that they personally may disagree with.

Where these foster parents Catholic? If so they should have listened a bit more to their church.

Noooooo. You got it wrong. Like totally.

The state is using education to spread their own, new moral code which is intolerant of other views, like the Christian one. The Christians in this case are not prepared to teach their foster kid that sodomy is OK. The state says they must, hence they can't foster. The state is at fault, not the couple.

twinQuins

And if the couple wished to instill white nationalist beliefs in the child? That would also be okay?

Donatello

Dr. Jeff Mirus offers a few pertinent and irrefutable arguments against this decision:

Thus (the argument runs) if contraceptive promiscuity is rampant, it doesn’t mean that we have to live that way. If abortion is legal and “safe”, it doesn’t mean we have to abort. And now, if gays are allowed to marry, it doesn’t mean that we can no longer honor marriage in the traditional way. Despite a significant unease at the growing social pressure to accept these evils, a pressure which comes close to brainwashing when applied to children in schools, many believing Catholics have been reluctant to insist that their own moral vision be enshrined in law for the simple reason that this is portrayed as penalizing those with a different point of view.

This has frequently led to a kind of paralysis on the part of many people who, though they more or less instinctively adhere to traditional values themselves, are reluctant to shape either law or custom to reflect those values. If a new law or a new right does not prohibit one’s own morality but merely opens a certain freedom to others, it somehow seems arbitrary to oppose the change. In effect, our response has been weakened by a misplaced sense of fair play.

I say “misplaced” because it is never “fair” to enshrine evil publicly just so those who wish to do evil may indulge in it without any sort of stigma. It is quite wrong to view the application of natural law to socio-political questions as a sectarian activity. In fact, such an application is the only conceivable basis for a public life which does not unjustly discriminate. Moreover, we have to recognize that the worldviews which are clashing here are mutually exclusive. While it is true that good naturally tends to restrict evil, the opposite is also true. Evil always tends to restrict and even eliminate good, and, unlike good, evil makes no allowance for either principle or prudence.

Not too many years ago, those who wished to live promiscuously, to abort their children, or to engage in a publicly sanctioned gay lifestyle would have argued that they were discriminated against. How is it, then, that people with traditional values are not seen as the victims of unjust discrimination when they cannot take advantage of most contemporary media without being subjected to a continuous cheapening of human sexuality, when they have no choice but to permit themselves and their children to be constantly pushed to accept legalized murder, when the taxes they pay are used to support activities that are definitively immoral (that is, not merely a matter of prudential judgment in specific instances), and when they cannot even express themselves freely on moral issues without the risk of being indicted for hate-speech?

Perhaps the unhappy position we now find ourselves in is best illustrated by the recent decision of the British High Court in London to uphold a local council in denying adoption to a Christian couple on the grounds that their opposition to homosexual acts makes them unsuitable guardians for children. Even a single generation ago, this judgment would have been unthinkable. A little over ten or so years ago, gay parents would not have been considered by most adoption agencies. Now it is those who regard homosexual acts as immoral who are rejected.

Read the whole thing here.

Yep.:(

Daily Telegraph condemns ‘secular inquisition’ for banning Christians as foster parents

Perhaps there is a historical irony here, because we are witnessing a modern, secular Inquisition – a determined effort to force everyone to accept a new set of orthodoxies or face damnation as social heretics if they refuse.

Zombrex

Donatello wrote: »

Noooooo. You got it wrong. Like totally.

The state is using education to spread their own, new moral code which is intolerant of other views, like the Christian one.

The intolerant Christian one you mean? I think you should read the article you posted again, no where in it is the Vatican calling on people to respect intolerance.

Donatello wrote: »

The Christians in this case are not prepared to teach their foster kid that sodomy is OK.

And that it is wrong, which is the education of intolerance of homosexuals and homosexual relationships.

And as the Vatican article says education should not be used to spread intolerance of cultural values. Homosexuality being ok is a cultural value, and these foster parents should not educate children in their care to be intolerant of that.

If you don't agree with that the Vatican says that is fine. But it seems silly to try and present what they are saying as something along the lines of saying we should respect education of intolerance when the article says the exact opposite.

Donatello

Wicknight wrote: »

The intolerant Christian one you mean? I think you should read the article you posted again, no where in it is the Vatican calling on people to respect intolerance.



And that it is wrong, which is the education of intolerance of homosexuals and homosexual relationships.

And as the Vatican article says education should not be used to spread intolerance of cultural values. Homosexuality being ok is a cultural value, and these foster parents should not educate children in their care to be intolerant of that.

If you don't agree with that the Vatican says that is fine. But it seems silly to try and present what they are saying as something along the lines of saying we should respect education of intolerance when the article says the exact opposite.

Are you for real or are you just taking the piss? I can't tell.

The 'Vatican' teaches the sodomy is a grave moral evil. What part of that do you not understand?

The Vatican is criticising those who would use education as a tool to spread moral evil such as sodomy or abortion.

I'll try and explain what the passage means for you:

NEW YORK, MARCH 1, 2011 (Zenit.org).- If education does not respect religious (e.g. Catholic values) and cultural values (e.g. Catholic culture e.g. crucifixes in public buildings), then it runs the risk of becoming a "tool of control," says a Vatican representative.

Jane Adolphe, speaking on behalf of Archbishop Francis Chullikatt, permanent observer of the Holy See to the United Nations, said this Monday when addressing the 55th session of the Commission on the Status of Women on Monday.

Adolphe is an associate professor at the Ave Maria School of Law in Naples, Florida, and a member of the Holy See delegation to the U.N. commission.

Taking up the theme of "access and participation of women and girls in education, training, science and technology, including for the promotion of women's equal access to full employment and decent work," Adolphe noted that first and foremost, education "must be firmly rooted in a profound respect for human dignity and with full respect for religious and cultural values."

"If this is absent," she added, "then education is no longer a means of authentic enlightenment but becomes a tool of control by those who administer it." (like in the case of the Christian couple refused fostering because they were not prepared to say that sodomy was good)

She insisted that education needs to be guided by "values rooted in the natural law common to humanity (The Natural Law. The same as what the Catholic Church teaches. E.g. Sodomy and abortion are evil. States should not promote nor force people to accept as normal what is in fact evil.)".

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

No, they aren't Catholic, they belong to an afro-Caribbean Church known as the Church of God of Prophecy.

We already have a situation where most local authorities in the UK will not place black foster children with white parents. I spoke to a director of an adoption agency who told me that a majority of the afro-Caribbean population of the UK would belong to churches that disapprove of homosexual acts, and church members are much more likely to foster children than non-church goers. So, if this ruling results in prospective foster parents being quizzed on their opinion of homosexuality, then the most obvious net result will be a much greater racial inbalance regarding which kids get fostered and which live in institutions. White kids will be many more times likely to find foster parents than black kids.

It's a bit of a catch-22 situation. The authorities won't put black kids with white families because it is important that the kids live in their own culture. But now they won't place them with most black families because the authorities don't like the religious views which are a part of their culture.

Actually they recently stop that.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-12513403

Zombrex

Donatello wrote: »

Are you for real or are you just taking the piss? I can't tell.

The 'Vatican' teaches the sodomy is a grave moral evil. What part of that do you not understand?

I understand it fully. But it teaches that to Catholics, people who have accepted its authority and are open to what it teaches. It also teaches tolerance of alternative views, as demonstrated by that article you produced.

No it is some what irrelevant to this case since, as PDN points out, these foster parents weren't Catholics. But it still is a pleasing, if somewhat unexpected, position for the Vatican to take.

Donatello wrote: »

The Vatican is criticising those who would use education as a tool to spread moral evil such as sodomy or abortion.

No they aren't, sodomy or abortion aren't the subject of that article, intolerance is.

The Vatican is criticizing those who would use education as a tool to spread intolerance. They say that in the article.

must be firmly rooted in a profound respect for human dignity and with full respect for religious and cultural values.

Not just Catholic values, but religious and cultural values, in general. Homosexuality being ok is a cultural value, and the Vatican is saying that education must have respect for that and a general respect for human dignity.

Nothing about moral evils of sodomy. :rolleyes:

MrPudding

Donatello wrote: »

You know the UN diplomats hate, HATE, the Holy See. They regularly shout down the Holy See representatives, berate them, and have them stalked by UN security guards. This is all accounted by Austin Ruse of C-FAM, who has witnessed the exchanges into the early hours at the UN. These UN folks want the Holy See out, permanently. As it is, they are there, as a witness of Christ and His truth, even if they are largely ignored, mocked and reviled.

Good. It should not be part of the UN.

PDN wrote: »

To be fair, the Vatican was created as a state is by the Lateran Treaty in 1929. This was a political treaty conducted on behalf of Italy by its government (albeit a Fascist one) and therefore has the same legal standing as the Treaty 8 years earlier by which Britain granted independence to the Irish Republic.

So the Vatican has the same rights to be at the UN as does Ireland.

That is not strictly true... I don't have time right now, but I can give a more detailed explanation later if anyone is interested... It is far from clear cut and there is a world of difference between it and Ireland.

MrP

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

Actually they recently stop that.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-12513403

An incredible quote from the new guildelines is that placement must give "due consideration to the child's religious persuasion".

So if a child's religious persuasion is a form of Christianity that disapproves of homosexual acts - then what?

JimiTime

PDN wrote: »

An incredible quote from the new guildelines is that placement must give "due consideration to the child's religious persuasion".

So if a child's religious persuasion is a form of Christianity that disapproves of homosexual acts - then what?

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

An incredible quote from the new guildelines is that placement must give "due consideration to the child's religious persuasion".

So if a child's religious persuasion is a form of Christianity that disapproves of homosexual acts - then what?

No I idea, I wasn't making a comment on the correctness of the decision, just pointing out that the guidelines have changed.

I would personally be very interested in finding out how a social worker determines the child's religious persuasion in the first place. But that is probably a different discussion.

Donatello

Those who are promoting the homosexual agenda are using time-proven tactics which have been employed by secular humanists for some time now. In the words of Ralph Martin, 'First, a plea is issued for a dominantly Christian society to 'tolerate' what appears to be a deviant behavior. Then pressure is applied to place the deviant behavior on an equal footing with traditional Christian values. Secular humanists argue that a pluralist society cannot do otherwise. They then try to make the deviant behavior seem normal and behavior governed by Christian values seem abnormal - a threat to a pluralist society. The last step is often to use the legal system to protect immorality and to undermine what Christians have always considered righteous behavior.' (A Crisis of Truth, pp. 101-102).

-- http://lasalettejourney.blogspot.com/