'Witch anger at Catholic club ban'

Jakkass wrote: »

I think it's quite obvious which God is being referred to if we are discussing Catholicism.

If the Wiccans don't care who owns the hall. They can respect that the Catholic Church owns that hall and they can go elsewhere so as not to break their ethos out of respect.

Theres nothing small minded about it. Their religion prohibits it, therefore they cannot endorse or encourage witchcraft.

Is your problem with the fact that the Catholics refused, or with the Judeo-Christian value behind why they refused. I'm starting to think it is the latter.

Jakkass wrote: »

I think it's quite obvious which God is being referred to if we are discussing Catholicism.

If the Wiccans don't care who owns the hall. They can respect that the Catholic Church owns that hall and they can go elsewhere so as not to break their ethos out of respect.

Theres nothing small minded about it. Their religion prohibits it, therefore they cannot endorse or encourage witchcraft.

Is your problem with the fact that the Catholics refused, or with the Judeo-Christian value behind why they refused. I'm starting to think it is the latter.

Jakkass wrote: »

Witchcraft is considered to be sinful in Christianity in general. So I can understand the reasoning behind why they would want it off their property. For example if you went into a building with a Presbyterian ethos with alcohol they will tell you where to do. I know this because at my primary school they were arranging a bring your own booze party / BBQ on the grounds of the Presbyterian church for the parents. However they obviously had to change their arrangements on finding out. Which of course was the respectful thing to do. Likewise it would have been the respectful thing for the Wiccans to do in this case.



None of these people are against Christianity. Rather it is the act that is. The cocktails might be if they are opposed to serving alcohol on their grounds. The church I attend to doesn't have much of an issue with this for BBQ's or other church events.



I never said priests weren't human men. Indeed, I thought that was rather obvious. I personally see no need to deify priests like you are suggesting. I'm not even a member of the Church, but I can see that their decision is right on the ball. They have every right to refuse this gathering on their church grounds.



So what? You're boasting in that Witchcraft has less rules? Are you kidding me? Most Christians would argue that God revealed to us these rules so as to protect us from the dangers of the world, and to keep us separate from certain worldly activities which could be to our detriment.



I'm still not quite getting your point for two reasons.

1) You haven't quite explained what Catholic priests do that is against Catholicism, apart from a lame excuse to say that being with gay people and prostitutes isn't acceptable. That isn't against Catholicism. Likewise, you go on about a cocktail. Drinking isn't forbidden in Christianity, drunkenness is. Hence they are perfectly fine doing this as long as they are careful.

2) You assume that I think that priests are perfect. I don't. What I do think is the Church has every right to enforce their ethos concerning their property.



The Church doesn't have to tolerate what it considers to be against their faith on their grounds. It's as simple as that.



I'm still struggling to see the significance of this argument in this discussion so far.



It's funny that you say this. It is entirely in keeping with the teachings of Christianity, Catholicism, and the Gospel to prohibit anything to do with witchcraft from their premises.



Again, don't see the point with the above. Witchcraft was considered to be against Christianity in the first century also:





This is utterly irrelevant to whether or not they have the right to refuse the use of their property based on their ethos.



Are you suggesting that those who want to be in keeping with their faith aren't decent?