Thoughts on this...

AhSureTisGrand · 03-03-2011 12:10AM

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 · 03-03-2011 12:14AM

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 · 03-03-2011 12:23AM

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 · 03-03-2011 12:26AM

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 · 03-03-2011 12:34AM

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 · 03-03-2011 03:06AM

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 · 03-03-2011 10:45AM

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 · 03-03-2011 10:56AM

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 · 03-03-2011 03:20PM

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 · 03-03-2011 03:40PM

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

Donatello · 03-03-2011 03:57PM

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 · 03-03-2011 04:29PM

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 · 03-03-2011 04:37PM

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 · 03-03-2011 04:41PM

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 · 03-03-2011 04:48PM

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 · 03-03-2011 06:01PM

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 · 03-03-2011 06:11PM

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 · 03-03-2011 06:31PM

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 · 03-03-2011 07:02PM

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 · 03-03-2011 09:32PM

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/

Zombrex · 03-03-2011 11:16PM

Donatello wrote: »

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/

Er, you will notice the plea for tolerance came from the Vatican.

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."

Are you now saying that what the Vatican is actually saying is that people should only fully respect Catholic view point, should only tolerate the Catholic view point?

robindch · 03-03-2011 11:42PM

PDN wrote: »

The authorities won't put black kids with white families because it is important that the kids live in their own culture.

Hadn't realized that skin color determined culture.

Keylem · 03-03-2011 11:59PM

Wicknight wrote: »

Er, you will notice the plea for tolerance came from the Vatican.

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."

Are you now saying that what the Vatican is actually saying is that people should only fully respect Catholic view point, should only tolerate the Catholic view point?

What the Vatican may be saying is, love the sinner and not the sin - just my 2 cents!

John 8

The woman caught in Adultery, Jesus didn't condemn her, but also told her not to sin no more!

Donatello · 04-03-2011 03:28PM

...the judgement seems to take it upon itself to decide what Christians should believe. Briefly: Christians that can be trusted with children are those who sign up to the gay agenda, Christians that cannot be trusted and are dangerous to the proper development of children are those who believe the orthodox teachings of Christianity. Simply: Christians who dissent from the moral teachings of the Church they claim to be members of, are acceptable and good; Christians who strive to live these moral teachings are not. By the way, replace "Christians" with "Jews", "Muslims", "Hindus" etc for a full understanding of this judgement.

All of this is most interesting when we consider that debate between Hart and Devlin: "Can the law legislate for morality?" - every philosophy student's introduction to philosophical ethics. It seems the law now decides not only what is moral, but what various religions should believe. I am reminded of what one of our former government ministers said a few months ago: it is the law that decides what is right and wrong.

-- http://fatherdirector.blogspot.com/2011/03/legal-interference.html

Zombrex · 04-03-2011 04:08PM

Er, how does it decide what Christians should believe?

It no more decides what Christians should believe than Catholics decide what the rest of us should believe by not letting an atheist become a priest.

No one has to believe homosexuality is ok. But don't expect carte blanch to do what ever you like because you believe this, no more than they are going to hire a neo-Nazi to run the Holocaust museum.

Donatello · 04-03-2011 04:24PM

Wicknight wrote: »

Er, how does it decide what Christians should believe?

It no more decides what Christians should believe than Catholics decide what the rest of us should believe by not letting an atheist become a priest.

No one has to believe homosexuality is ok. But don't expect carte blanch to do what ever you like because you believe this, no more than they are going to hire a neo-Nazi to run the Holocaust museum.

Christians can only foster IF they agree with the state moral code on sodomy. If they disagree, they are considered unfit by the state. The state is telling the Christians that they must follow the state moral code in order to be fit parents. the state is telling Christians what they must believe in order to be considered for fostering. Maybe re-read my post just before this one? It explains the logic better than I just did.

Zombrex · 04-03-2011 04:48PM

Donatello wrote: »

Christians can only foster IF they agree with the state moral code on sodomy.

Yes. They can only foster if they agree not to make their kids work down a mine as well.

Whether you agree or not the State has a set of acceptable behavior and unacceptable behavior that they apply to people who act for or on behalf of the State.

It is why currently police officer in Ireland must arrest a doctor who gives a non-medical emergency abortion even if the police officer personally feels that it is a good idea. I'm pretty sure you don't object to that, but it works both ways.

It is silly to say the State should only invoke its moral authority when you personally agree with the decision.

Donatello wrote: »

If they disagree, they are considered unfit by the state.

Correct. As is the case with everyone else who works for the State.

Donatello wrote: »

The state is telling the Christians that they must follow the state moral code in order to be fit parents.

No the State is telling the Christiants that they must follow the State moral code in order to be fit foster parents (it is more complicated than that as has been pointed out, but for the sake of simplicity)

There is a difference between parents and foster parents.

Foster parents are servants of the State, charged with caring for children in State care. Ultimately the State is responsible for them and as such the State will ensure they are cared for in the way the State regards as best.

Donatello wrote: »

the state is telling Christians what they must believe in order to be considered for fostering.

Yes, as it does police, doctors, social workers street cleaners.

All organisations, including the Catholic Church, require that members of that organisation adhere to the standards of that organisation.

Let me sue the Catholic Church for intolerance for not letting me, an atheist, give mass. How DARE they tell me what to believe in order to be a priest :rolleyes:

04-03-2011 04:56PM

"prominent homosexualist" - lol, that gave me a chuckle

Donatello wrote: »

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

I wouldnt call describing contraception as evil "irrefutable"

the state is telling Christians what they must believe in order to be considered for fostering.

No, it's telling them what they are and aren't allowed discriminate and preach to young children about

Zombrex · 04-03-2011 04:59PM

bluewolf wrote: »

No, it's telling them what they are and aren't allowed discriminate and preach to young children about

... if the children are in the State's care and the Christians are acting for the State.

Just to be clear :-)

04-03-2011 05:00PM

Wicknight wrote: »

... if the children are in the State's care and the Christians are acting for the State.

Just to be clear :-)

Yeah I was just trying to say their actual beliefs werent being proscribed

Thoughts on this...

Comments