Religious freedom

gimmebroadband

Not to confuse oppression with persecution, What are your thoughts on religious freedom, do you think that oppression of religious freedom is on the increase worldwide? Governments creating laws to undermine religious values and expression etc.

For example:

United Kindgom

British Ban Independent Religious Broadcasts

http://www.angelfire.com/co/JeffersonBible/Oppression/rouk.html

United States

Minnesota Legislator Attacks Buddhism
Kentucky School Removes Scripture, Reopens 'Quiet Room'
Seattle Fines Churches for Sheltering Homeless
School Bible Clubs Contested in Arizona
Compromise Urged in Kentucky Ten Commandments Case

http://www.angelfire.com/co/JeffersonBible/Oppression/rousa.html


Canada

Canadian Board Decides Against Christian Program in School
Canada Regrets Refusing Jews Asylum

http://www.angelfire.com/co/JeffersonBible/Oppression/rocanada.html

AhSureTisGrand

gimmebroadband wrote: »

What are your thoughts on religious freedom, do you think that oppression of religious freedom is on the increase worldwide?

These links are ten years old so it's kinda difficult to tell.

Minnesota Legislator Attacks Buddhism

There's a difference between free speech and oppression

Canadian Board Decides Against Christian Program in School

Well they are public schools, so non-Christians would end up paying for the programme.

Canada Regrets Refusing Jews Asylum

This is from 1939, and I'm not sure it's really about oppression of religion

PDN

No, I think that worldwide there is a steady increase in religious freedom.

georgieporgy

What about that roaring lion that never sleeps? Are we to assume he is on a break?

PDN

georgieporgy wrote: »

What about that roaring lion that never sleeps? Are we to assume he is on a break?

No, he just switches tactics.

gimmebroadband

Christians treated too harshly by courts: UK Equalities Commission.

In what is being interpreted by some as an abrupt “u-turn,” the UK’s Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) has said that Christians are being treated too harshly by judges in legal battles, mostly over complaints brought forward by homosexuals.

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/christians-treated-too-harshly-by-courts-uk-equalities-commission

alex73

There is nothing morally wrong with a Christian who his a registrar performing registration of same-sex civil partnerships. That 2 men or 2 women want to get legal rights for property,inheritance, pension... that's their business.

As for a councillor refusing to council them.. All he had to say kindly that it was not his/her area of expertise and that they had no experience in the area. Which is an honest response.

Penn

alex73 wrote: »

As for a councillor refusing to council them.. All he had to say kindly that it was not his/her area of expertise and that they had no experience in the area. Which is an honest response.

How was it not his/her area of expertise? They're a relationship counsellor. The homosexual couple wanted relationship counselling. The fact that they are homosexual does not mean that their relationship is necessarily any more different than a relationship between a heterosexual couple.

philologos

alex73: The company that he worked for explicitly offered that service to LGBT couples. In failing to do so he breached his contract with the company and as a result they took disciplinary action.

Christians need to be clear with their employer and discuss this in advance of things happening. In Mrs. Ladelle's case she should have talked with her employers prior to the Civil Partnership Bill coming in to see if she could arrange alternative work or come to an agreement with them in a positive manner rather than hauling them to court. We need to try and engage with people positively rather than negatively.

rainbow kirby

alex73 wrote: »

As for a councillor refusing to council them.. All he had to say kindly that it was not his/her area of expertise and that they had no experience in the area. Which is an honest response.

The councillor worked for Relate - which provides relationship counselling services to couples regardless of the sexual orientation of the couple. If he's not willing to counsel a gay couple, he shouldn't have taken the job in the first place.

alex73

rainbow kirby wrote: »

The councillor worked for Relate - which provides relationship counselling services to couples regardless of the sexual orientation of the couple. If he's not willing to counsel a gay couple, he shouldn't have taken the job in the first place.

I wasn't familiar with the case. He should just have followed the text book drill of counselling. Its not a sin to listen to 2 men or 2 women . Seemingly the "divorce" or separation rate for is high. When Canada legislated for Gay marriage the 1st "wedding" was all over the media.

What wasn't reported all over the world was that the couple divorced 5 days later. Seemingly there was no Divorce law in place at the time for gay couples even though they could get marred. They put a media ban in place on the case, So the media could report the marriage but not the divorce...

Festus

PDN wrote: »

No, I think that worldwide there is a steady increase in religious freedom.

The "freedom" of Christians to speak out against homosexual marriage would suggest otherwise.

PDN

Festus wrote: »

The freedom of Christians to speak out against homosexual marriage would contradict that.

Hardly. Most Christians are perfectly free to speak out against homosexual marriage if they wish.

However, even if they weren't, that would hardly compare to the religious oppression faced by religious people in most previous generations. Or indeed, to the oppression experienced by many people here in Ireland on religious grounds only a few decades ago.

Festus

PDN wrote: »

Hardly. Most Christians are perfectly free to speak out against homosexual marriage if they wish.

You are entitled to maintain an opinion based on a fantasy if you so choose but when homosexual marriage becomes a civil right then speaking out against it will be treated as a violation of the rights of others. We are not free to break the law even if our religion encourages us to do so.

If homosexual marriage becomes law and a civil right in whatever country you choose to pay your taxes in are you prepared to stick your head up and call a sin a sin?

AhSureTisGrand

Festus wrote: »

You are entitled to maintain an opinion based on a fantasy if you so choose but when homosexual marriage becomes a civil right then speaking out against it will be treated as a violation of the rights of others. We are not free to break the law even if our religion encourages us to do so.

If homosexual marriage becomes law and a civil right in whatever country you choose to pay your taxes in are you prepared to stick your head up and call a sin a sin?

Oh that must be why people who advocate abortion are thrown into the back of a van and whisked off to prison

AhSureTisGrand

Festus wrote: »

We are not free to break the law even if our religion encourages us to do so.

Yes you are. You just get punished for it

Orion

PDN wrote: »

Hardly. Most Christians are perfectly free to speak out against homosexual marriage if they wish.

Anyone can speak out against it if they like. Protesting and having opinions is a right and I, as an atheist, support that right even when I disagree with the opinions.

The problem with a lot of christians is that they don't accept opposing opinions themselves and refuse to listen or even support the right to have an opposing position. Therein lies the rub.

[edit]And just to tie this in to the OP - WTF? When I saw angelfire as the links I thought I was back in 2001. And then I was! But to answer it anyway religious freedom is on the increase in most areas. Even in China there is a growing, if unofficial, tolerance for religion as a concept (as opposed to acceptance of an organisation such as the rcc).

PDN

Festus wrote: »

You are entitled to maintain an opinion based on a fantasy if you so choose but when homosexual marriage becomes a civil right then speaking out against it will be treated as a violation of the rights of others. We are not free to break the law even if our religion encourages us to do so.

You are the fantasist. You are claiming oppression on the basis of something you imagine might happen.

Who is stopping you from expressing your opinion about gay marriage? Like in the real world we live in now - not what you think might happen in the future?

If homosexual marriage becomes law and a civil right in whatever country you choose to pay your taxes in are you prepared to stick your head up and call a sin a sin?

I already call things sin. I call it sin when two heterosexual people have sex outside of marriage (as is their civil right). Nobody has arrested me for that yet.

Yet remember how things used to be.

I personally know a family who, because of their religious beliefs (Baptist), were shunned in their community in the West of Ireland 25 years ago. Local shops refused to serve them. They had to drive 10 miles to buy a pint of milk. I don't hear of that kind of oppression nowadays.

Nor do I hear of Evangelical church groups being unable to rent property because they needed fire insurance and the local broker said he couldn't provide cover because the priest told him not to. Yet I experienced that very scenario here in Ireland 17 years ago.

Nor, I think, would we tolerate a situation today where a teacher could threaten a non-Catholic girl that if she didn't attend mass then he'd drag her in by her hair. Yet I had to go and confront a headmaster 15 years ago over that very issue.

The experience of many of us is that there is much less oppression these days on account of our religion.

Festus

AhSureTisGrand wrote: »

Oh that must be why people who advocate abortion are thrown into the back of a van and whisked off to prison

I was speaking of a future world. You however appear to be speaking of the present. Do you have evidence to support your assertions?

Just to be clear I have no problem with murderers and anti-life advocates being imprisioned.

Festus

PDN wrote: »

You are the fantasist. You are claiming oppression on the basis of something you imagine might happen.

I am looking to the future, yes. What will happen will happen.

PDN wrote: »

Who is stopping you from expressing your opinion about gay marriage? Like in the real world we live in now - not what you think might happen in the future?

The future is where we are heading. Not the past. Are you prepared for such a future?

PDN wrote: »

I already call things sin. I call it sin when two heterosexual people have sex outside of marriage (as is their civil right). Nobody has arrested me for that yet.

Who'se talking about fornication between heterosexuals. I'm talking about married buggers and tribades. Is it the case that you find homosexual behaviour acceptable? Is that why you want to change the subject?

Are you prepared to call homosexual activity between "civil couples" a sin?

PDN wrote: »

Yet remember how things used to be.

I personally know a family who, because of their religious beliefs (Baptist), were shunned in their community in the West of Ireland 25 years ago. Local shops refused to serve them. They had to drive 10 miles to buy a pint of milk. I don't hear of that kind of oppression nowadays.

Nor do I hear of Evangelical church groups being unable to rent property because they needed fire insurance and the local broker said he couldn't provide cover because the priest told him not to. Yet I experienced that very scenario here in Ireland 17 years ago.

Nor, I think, would we tolerate a situation today where a teacher could threaten a non-Catholic girl that if she didn't attend mass then he'd drag her in by her hair. Yet I had to go and confront a headmaster 15 years ago over that very issue.

The experience of many of us is that there is much less oppression these days on account of our religion.

Live in the past if you like. Will it prepare you for a potential future?

Festus

First one to call me a homophobe concedes my point.

AhSureTisGrand

Festus wrote: »

I was speaking of a future world. You however appear to be speaking of the present. Do you have evidence to support your assertions?

I was being sarcastic. Free speech is tolerated in modern democracies. My point was that you are allowed protest against constitutional rights (in his case, the right to life of the unborn).

Just to be clear I have no problem with murderers and anti-life advocates being imprisioned.

By this I assume you mean you would imprison people for things they have said. I can only hope this future of which you speak does not involve leaders who share your views

AhSureTisGrand

Festus wrote: »

Are you prepared to call homosexual activity between "civil couples" a sin?

Why wouldn't he be?

Festus

AhSureTisGrand wrote: »

I was being sarcastic. Free speech is tolerated in modern democracies. My point was that you are allowed protest against constitutional rights (in his case, the right to life of the unborn).

Sarcastic. adjective form of sarcasm. I'll google that and get back to you.

AhSureTisGrand wrote: »

By this I assume you mean you would imprison people for things they have said.

Of course. Starting with Obama. Then Norris.

AhSureTisGrand wrote: »

I can only hope this future of which you speak does not involve leaders who share your views

I hope it does, but it probably won't

Unfortunately the future is already here. Almost all our leaders seem to be prepared to say wrong is right



If in the future we have leaders who share my view the world will be a better place.

AhSureTisGrand

Festus wrote: »

Sarcastic. a form of sarcasm. I'll google that and get back to you.

Of course. Starting with Obama. Then Norris.

Festus

AhSureTisGrand wrote: »

Why wouldn't he be?

I'm asking him, not you. He's the one changing the subject.

AhSureTisGrand

Festus wrote: »

I'm asking him, not you. He's the one changing the subject.

And I'm wondering why you think he wouldn't

Festus

AhSureTisGrand wrote: »

And I'm wondering why you think he wouldn't

I'll make it simple for you, Mr. Confused.

He changed the subject.

The point I made regarded homosexual practice.

The point he made regarded heterosexual practice.

Now I will explain it.

If he had no issue with calling homosexual practice a sin he would have said so. But he didn't. Instead he introduced the concept of a certain hetoerosexual sin.

That's called dodging the bullet and leads me to believe that he is trying to be "nice" to the LGBT elements lurking on this thread.

Being nice to those who want to make perversion acceptable, and legally acceptable at that, leads me to believe he is being selective and not prepared to call a spade a spade, or a sin a sin.

Orion

He was giving a comparison - the point was that he calls something a sin and hasn't been arrested for doing. That was in direct response to your challenge to stick your head up and call a sin a sin. Nitpicking on the actual 'sin' is just muppetry. Muppetry is probably also a sin in your mentality.

Festus

Orion wrote: »

He was giving a comparison - the point was that he calls something a sin and hasn't been arrested for doing. That was in direct response to your challenge to stick your head up and call a sin a sin. Nitpicking on the actual 'sin' is just muppetry. Muppetry is probably also a sin in your mentality.

I disagree. I think he is trying to dodge the bullet and is afraid he will be called a homophobe.

Both are sins and I accept he condsiders sex outside marriage a sin.

What I want to know is if he considers homosexual sex within a "civil" same-sex union a sin.

That is not muppetry. That is asking for clarification.

As for whether or not muppetry is or isn't a sin... probably best you start a thread to discuss it.

Orion

Festus wrote: »

I disagree. I think he is trying to dodge the bullet and is afraid he will be called a homophobe.

Does that mean you concede his point based on your earlier post about homophobia?

Festus wrote: »

Both are sins and I accept he condsiders sex outside marriage a sin.

That's big of you.

Festus wrote: »

What I want to know is if he considers homosexual sex within a "civil" same-sex union a sin.

Why? What relevance has that to the OP? Or are you just trying to score points?

Festus wrote: »

That is not muppetry. That is asking for clarification.

I disagree. I think you are acting the muppet purely for the sake of an argument. You have dragged non-relevant issues into a thread that started off about freedom of religion. And then use strawman arguments to back up your 'points'. That's my definition of muppetry.

Festus wrote: »

As for whether or not muppetry is or isn't a sin... probably best you start a thread to discuss it.

Funny. Did you miss me stating from the outset that I'm atheist. Sin isn't in my non-belief. Don't confuse mockery with sarcasm.

Festus

Orion wrote: »

Does that mean you concede his point based on your earlier post about homophobia?

No.

Orion wrote: »

That's big of you.

Is that mockery or sacrcasm? I haven't googled sarcasm yet.

Orion wrote: »

Why? What relevance has that to the OP? Or are you just trying to score points?

It's relevant to his reponse to my comment.

Orion wrote: »

I disagree. I think you are acting the muppet purely for the sake of an argument. You have dragged non-relevant issues into a thread that started off about freedom of religion. And then use strawman arguments to back up your 'points'. That's my definition of muppetry.

I disagree. I think the freedom religion once had to call a sin a sin is being eroded and I presented a salient point for the sake of the argument.

Orion wrote: »

Funny. Did you miss me stating from the outset that I'm atheist. Sin isn't in my non-belief. Don't confuse mockery with sarcasm.

Did you miss the big banner that states this is the Christianity Forum? Have you read point 5 of the Charter? If you want to discuss this issue without reference to and the acceptance of an understanding of what sin is would you not be better off opening this for discussion in a forum that supports your non-belief.

Orion

Festus wrote: »

Did you miss the big banner that states this is the Christianity Forum? Have you read point 5 of the Charter? If you want to discuss this issue without reference to and the acceptance of an understanding of what sin is would you not be better off opening this for discussion in a forum that supports your non-belief.

Have you read points #2 (other beliefs, however, are welcome) & #4 (be honest about your faith)? I've been quite open about my position. I am not ridiculing your belief system. I'm ridiculing your 'arguments' such as they are.

Just as an aside you are aware that 'Festus' has a meaning of "festive" which has a synonym of "gay". It might be juvenile but I love the irony regardless.

PDN

Festus wrote: »

Live in the past if you like. Will it prepare you for a potential future?

Of course I'm mentioning the past. The OP asked "do you think that oppression of religious freedom is on the increase worldwide?"

Any reasonable or sane person will take such a question as inviting a comparison between the past and the present. If the present situation regarding religious freedom is better than the past then that tells us that such freedom is on the increase. Can you understand that concept? It isn't exactly rocket science.

You, however, seem to think that the way to gauge if religious freedom is increasing or not is to ignore the past, and instead to imagine what you think the future might be like. Then, with unbelievable brass neck, you accuse me of being a fantasist because my evidence-based approach doesn't agree with your imaginations about the future.

He changed the subject.

The point I made regarded homosexual practice.

The point he made regarded heterosexual practice.

Now I will explain it.

If he had no issue with calling homosexual practice a sin he would have said so. But he didn't. Instead he introduced the concept of a certain hetoerosexual sin.

That's called dodging the bullet and leads me to believe that he is trying to be "nice" to the LGBT elements lurking on this thread.

Being nice to those who want to make perversion acceptable, and legally acceptable at that, leads me to believe he is being selective and not prepared to call a spade a spade, or a sin a sin.

Do you actually believe the stuff you post here? You can't really think so confusedly in real life - do you?

The reason I referred to a heterosexual practice was to demonstrate your lack of logic. You were creating the argument that, in your imagined future, people will face arrest for saying gay marriage is a sin. The argument (and a particularly nasty argument) is that if we give people certain civil rights permitting them to behave contrary to Christian moral guidelines, then we might get arrested for saying such behaviour is sin. Therefore you portray a situation of increasing religious freedom (where you and I cannot enforce our views on others) as if it were one of decreasing religious freedom.

I am heartily sick of you, and others of your ilk, playing the victim card by essentially saying, "We're oppressed victims because we no longer have the power to ram our opinions down other people's throats anymore."

Therefore I pointed out a huge fallacy in your argument. We have the freedom to criticise sinful behaviour that has already been enshrined in people's civil rights, and I exercise that freedom to criticise without fear of arrest. Therefore it is scaremongering to argue that we won't have the freedom to express criticism of other sinful behaviour if gay marriage becomes a civil right.

For what it's worth - and to stop you dragging this thread further off-topic with your thoroughly unpleasant insinuations as to my motives or dishonest allegations about dodging bullets - let me make my position clear:

1. I view all homosexual practices as sinful, and I have expressed that point in public, in print, in postings on this board, and in dialogue with members of the LGBT community. I also take the same approach to hetrerosexual activity outside of marriage. Nobody has arrested me for doing so and (outside of your rathered fevered imagination) there is no likelihood of me facing such arrest.

2. I support the right of non-Christians, living in a secular society, to engage in activity which I as a Christian consider sinful. Therefore I support the rights of Hindus to pray to multiple gods, for Roman Catholics to bow before plaster statues of Mary, for unmarried couples to shack up together, or for gay couples to live together and form civil partnerships.

3. If I wanted to live in a society where religious people have the power to force others to conform to their religious standards, then I would go and live somewhere really free like Saudi Arabia or the parts of Afghanistan that are still under the control of the Taliban.

Fanny Cradock

Festus wrote: »

Of course. Starting with Obama. Then Norris.

Oh my!

Festus

Orion wrote: »

Just as an aside you are aware that 'Festus' has a meaning of "festive" which has a synonym of "gay". It might be juvenile but I love the irony regardless.

quite juvenile

from a dictionary:

Synonyms
1. gleeful, jovial, glad, joyous, happy, cheerful, sprightly, blithe,airy, light-hearted; vivacious, frolicsome, sportive, hilarious. Gay,jolly, joyful, merry describe a happy or light-hearted mood. Gay suggests a lightness of heart or liveliness of mood that is openlymanifested: when hearts were young and gay. Jolly indicates agood-humored, natural, expansive gaiety of mood or disposition: ajolly crowd at a party. Joyful suggests gladness, happiness,rejoicing: joyful over the good news. Merry is ofteninterchangeable with gay : a merry disposition; a merry party; itsuggests, even more than the latter, convivial animated enjoyment.2. brilliant.


That "gay" is now taken to mean homosexual or queer is nothing more than a perversion of the English language

Festus

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Oh my!

Why so shocked. Am I not allowed to consider murderers and pederasts worthy of prision?

Festus

PDN wrote: »

For what it's worth - and to stop you dragging this thread further off-topic with your thoroughly unpleasant insinuations as to my motives or dishonest allegations about dodging bullets - let me make my position clear:

1. I view all homosexual practices as sinful, and I have expressed that point in public, in print, in postings on this board, and in dialogue with members of the LGBT community. I also take the same approach to hetrerosexual activity outside of marriage. Nobody has arrested me for doing so and (outside of your rathered fevered imagination) there is no likelihood of me facing such arrest.

2. I support the right of non-Christians, living in a secular society, to engage in activity which I as a Christian consider sinful. Therefore I support the rights of Hindus to pray to multiple gods, for Roman Catholics to bow before plaster statues of Mary, for unmarried couples to shack up together, or for gay couples to live together and form civil partnerships.

3. If I wanted to live in a society where religious people have the power to force others to conform to their religious standards, then I would go and live somewhere really free like Saudi Arabia or the parts of Afghanistan that are still under the control of the Taliban.

You made your "position" clear. No I will make mine. I do not consider secular societies to be Christian and as a Christian I want to live in a Christian society. A society where if people want to sin they can but not a society that says sin is acceptable and supported by the state.

For an example of current increasing religious freedom what about this ?

Ok, it didn't happen in Ireland but with the current attitude towards religion in this country how long do you think it will be before something like this happens here?

Fanny Cradock

Festus wrote: »

Why so shocked. Am I not allowed to consider murderers and pederasts worthy of prision?

I have no idea what you mean about Obama being a murderer. As for Norris, while I don't defend his words there is no suggestion that he is actually engaged in sexual activity with a minor.

Festus

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I have no idea what you mean about Obama being a murderer. As for Norris, while I don't defend his words there is no suggestion that he is actually engaged in sexual activity with a minor.

There is no evidence that Obama has every performed or had an abortion but he still supports child murder hence an accessory before and after the fact.

Likewise Norris. Just because on-one has said they had relations with him when they were under 18 does not mean that he would not support that and indeed his words lead one to believe that he would have no issue with legalised pederasty.

Orion

Festus wrote: »

as a Christian I want to live in a Christian society.

I think you should read some of the teachings of the man you claim to follow. According to your own faith he preached tolerance and forgiveness. Two things you are seriously lacking. In fact most western societies laws are based on fundamental christian teachings. Commandments 4-10 are the basis for most western laws. And most western societies practice tolerance of other beliefs and practices - which is christian in itself.

Festus

Orion wrote: »

I think you should read some of the teachings of the man you claim to follow. According to your own faith he preached tolerance and forgiveness. Two things you are seriously lacking. In fact most western societies laws are based on fundamental christian teachings. Commandments 4-10 are the basis for most western laws. And most western societies practice tolerance of other beliefs and practices - which is christian in itself.

I think you should read further. Tolerance? Where does it say he supports the right to sin? The Ten Commandments are clearly intolerant.

Forgiveness, yes, with the directive "go and sin no more". He also accepts we are weak humans and may sin again, and He will forgive us again, but He did not say - "go and revel in it".

As for your final point - polygamy is a belief and practice of some so call Christian faiths but it is not tolerated.

gimmebroadband

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I have no idea what you mean about Obama being a murderer. As for Norris, while I don't defend his words there is no suggestion that he is actually engaged in sexual activity with a minor.

Whilst Obama might not be a murderer per se, many American Catholics see him as an advocate of the culture of death!

"Most analysts agree that it will not be possible for Barack Obama to win this election without the votes of the majority of Catholic voters. Measured at approximately 25% of the American electorate, Catholic voters often determine electoral outcomes in a number of important battleground states. And overall, the candidate who garners the majority of their votes, wins the national election.

According to polling data internals, the Catholic vote is still absolutely up for grabs. It's currently split right about down the middle.

And Barack Obama has made no secret of his intention to override the Pope's authority in seeking the Catholic vote. Obama contends that the other matters of "social justice," like global poverty and ending war are on an equal footing with the matters of life -- abortion and euthanasia, particularly.

Not only do Barack Obama's positions on human life issues lie in absolute contradiction with Pope Benedict XVI, his positions are the most radical of any post-Roe candidate ever to seek the Presidency. Far more radical than Bill Clinton, John Kerry and Hillary Clinton.

Obama has at least been forthright in proclaiming that the very first thing he will do as President is sign the Freedom of Choice Act, which codifies Roe in national law and strikes down every single protective restriction to abortion in all 50 states, including parental notification and partial-birth abortion bans.

And 35 years of valiant pro-life work to provide even the most meager protections for our unborn citizens go... Poof!"

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/obamas_culture_of_death_and_th.html

Fanny Cradock

Festus wrote: »

There is no evidence that Obama has every performed or had an abortion but he still supports child murder hence an accessory before and after the fact.

Then you better start building bigger jails because current you are going to have to put millions upon millions in jail along with him. You'll also have to start rewriting laws to legally define abortion as murder.

Festus wrote: »

Likewise Norris. Just because on-one has said they had relations with him when they were under 18 does not mean that he would not support that and indeed his words lead one to believe that he would have no issue with legalised pederasty.

Norris has gone on record explaining exactly what he thinks.

Benny_Cake

gimmebroadband wrote: »

Whilst Obama might not be a murder per se, many American Catholics see him as an advocate of the culture of death!

"Most analysts agree that it will not be possible for Barack Obama to win this election without the votes of the majority of Catholic voters. Measured at approximately 25% of the American electorate, Catholic voters often determine electoral outcomes in a number of important battleground states. And overall, the candidate who garners the majority of their votes, wins the national election.

According to polling data internals, the Catholic vote is still absolutely up for grabs. It's currently split right about down the middle.

And Barack Obama has made no secret of his intention to override the Pope's authority in seeking the Catholic vote. Obama contends that the other matters of "social justice," like global poverty and ending war are on an equal footing with the matters of life -- abortion and euthanasia, particularly.

Not only do Barack Obama's positions on human life issues lie in absolute contradiction with Pope Benedict XVI, his positions are the most radical of any post-Roe candidate ever to seek the Presidency. Far more radical than Bill Clinton, John Kerry and Hillary Clinton.

Obama has at least been forthright in proclaiming that the very first thing he will do as President is sign the Freedom of Choice Act, which codifies Roe in national law and strikes down every single protective restriction to abortion in all 50 states, including parental notification and partial-birth abortion bans.

And 35 years of valiant pro-life work to provide even the most meager protections for our unborn citizens go... Poof!"

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/obamas_culture_of_death_and_th.html

One or two things. Firstly,how has Obama "overrode" the Pope's authority? The Pope's opinions hold absolutely no legal standing and anyone can choose whether to give them credence or not.A national leader must take account of the views of all citizens,not just a particular group or minority.Secondly,the "Freedom of Choice Act" is going nowhere fast after over 2 years of the Obama presidency,so he is hardly giving it much priority - pandering for votes at a Planned Parenthood dinner there,I think.

gimmebroadband

Benny_Cake wrote: »

One or two things. Firstly,how has Obama "overrode" the Pope's authority? The Pope's opinions hold absolutely no legal standing and anyone can choose whether to give them credence or not.A national leader must take account of the views of all citizens,not just a particular group or minority.Secondly,the "Freedom of Choice Act" is going nowhere fast after over 2 years of the Obama presidency,so he is hardly giving it much priority - pandering for votes at a Planned Parenthood dinner there,I think.

He has over rode the pope's Authority by advocating a death culture as oppose to life according to the Gospel!

It seems that Catholics Votes in the US determines what kind of President will get elected - they thought Obama was different, and from what I read on other forums, Obama will be a one-night-wonder, and is not likely to get a 2nd term.

Orion

gimmebroadband wrote: »

Barack Obama's positions on human life issues lie in absolute contradiction with Pope Benedict XVI,

I absolutely agree. Obama is on record as opposing the catholic church's policy of aiding and abetting child abusers and the cover up of incidents of child abuse.
Ratzinger, on the other hand, has been complicit in exactly that for 20 years. #

He is also directly responsible for the deaths of millions of Africans who refuse to use condoms because of his edicts and catch AIDS as a result. And that's without even going into his chequered past before moving to Rome. You couldn't have picked a worse role model than Ratzinger imo.

gimmebroadband

Orion wrote: »

I absolutely agree. Obama is on record as opposing the catholic church's policy of aiding and abetting child abusers and the cover up of incidents of child abuse.
Ratzinger, on the other hand, has been complicit in exactly that for 20 years. #

He is also directly responsible for the deaths of millions of Africans who refuse to use condoms because of his edicts and catch AIDS as a result. And that's without even going into his chequered past before moving to Rome. You couldn't have picked a worse role model than Ratzinger imo.

What a load of shyte!!! If that's the case all Catholics are complicit by your analogy, as we are in agreement with the Pope!!

Orion

So you are in agreement with the policy of hiding reports of child abuse from the civil authorities, assisting in cover ups of child abuse, threatening people who reported child abuse and facilitating child abusers by keeping their actions secret? In that case you are as bad as Ratzinger and his underlings in my opinion.

However, the majority of catholics did not actually commit these actions. Agreeing with his actions makes you a fool imo (there are other words I'd use but the filter would get them) but as discussed earlier you have that right. It is not criminal to have an opinion.

Ratzinger did actively frustrate investigations and ordered his minions to do whatever it takes to protect child abusers. That makes him complicit in the crimes of others and a criminal himself for protecting them.

mdebets

Festus wrote: »

For an example of current increasing religious freedom what about this ?

Ok, it didn't happen in Ireland but with the current attitude towards religion in this country how long do you think it will be before something like this happens here?

Nothing to do with religious freedom. He twice violated the building code of his area, and it wouldn't have made a difference if he would have put up a cross, an upside down cross to worship Satan or a Wallmart sign. They all would have been taken down, because they violated the building code.
Then the guy gets chicken and doesn't put it up anymore, because he thinks he would violate another code. So it's his fault, for not reading all building codes in his area and adhering to them.
As to the argument that the code doesn't actually says what the city is claiming it says to get him to remove the cross. Why isn't he going to a lawyer and if this is true he could sue the city and put his cross up again.

So that's not a story about reduced religious freedom, but a story that you better read the laws of your area, before you put something up in your front garden. And don't whine if you violate a law and have to take it down.

gimmebroadband

@ Orion. I am guessing that you are not a Catholic, the priest in Confession is there as Persona Christi - in the person of Christ! Effectively it's between the penitent and Christ, the priest imparts absolution on Christ's behalf! If the Goverment wants the Seal of Confession to be broken, then they should contact Jesus Christ!