Catholic Bigotry?

[Evil Goblin]

Killing, theft, dishonesty, malfeasance, etc.. can be accepted as morally dubious without the necessity of tying into, franktly, outdated methods of trying to cope with social circumstances. This is confirmed by the fact that these core moral values are the only true surviving aspects of your religion despite 2000 years of human to human descendancy of the texts and beliefs. In modern times I, as an intelligent and informed person, have no need for the escape of social difficulties that your religion, or any others, provide.

I assume that your post is directed to me, in which case what do you mean by "your God"? I do not think you know what my religious views are. You should not confuse a rational discussion of what is with the promulgation of any particular way in which things should be.

You appear to be saying that moral correctness or otherwise is purely a personal view - I happen to agree with you and so there will, in the absence of an accepted objective standard (an impossible dream?) always be arguments and disputes on the basis of purely subjective views.

 

In essence all religions come with a lot of excess baggage and regulation that may have been applicable to the social situation of 2 millennia ago but is no longer so. 'Newly' accepted social circumstances such as being gay, remarriage, etc are not well handled by any of the mainstream religions.

Agreed.

 

Divinity is no longer required as a method of convincing the average intelligent citizen. With global communication accessible to all a general consensus is enough (see human rights charter and others) to establish a base moral compass. This was not the case 2 millenia ago and thus I could have accepted the need of a 'divine' assistant in these matters at the time.

Unfortunately, there are so many cases around the globe where what we consider to be human rights are competely ignored that the hope for some global consensus is a forlorn one. It will never happen.

[Rami]

Unfortunately, there are so many cases around the globe where what we consider to be human rights are competely ignored that the hope for some global consensus is a forlorn one. It will never happen.

 

True for the most part, except I don't agree with the last point. At a given point in history judicial powers were so local and so tied to single people that it would have been unimaginable that a fair(er) judicial system could ever be established on a larger scale. I'm sure local farmers extorted by their landlord over a thousand years past did not think it possible that laws could be enforced across an entire country or continent.

 

Judicial powers are still devolved to local authorities which, unfortunately, can still be corrupt and 'out of reach' of international watchdogs. It is however an ongoing process to bring these regions in line. I don't think it'll happen overnight or even in the next few decades, but we will get there. Globalisation of governance and judicial matters is only a matter of time.

[Evil Goblin]

Ah, Rami, the Humanist Dream of progress! Sadly, it is an illusion.

[MilitantDogOwner]

In my personal opinion, Homosexuals should not be allowed to adopt children. I think it is terribly wrong. I can very well understand the way in which the Catholic and Anglican Church are viewing the matter. If they are to be forced by law to enable Homosexuals to adopt children, then it's better to just get out now. Leave society to face the problems that society creates for itself.

 

I cannot accept that we as a society would allow a child to be brought into the homes of a Dad and a Dad.... or a Mum and a Mum, thus depriving that child of the contribution of both parents that even nature itself decrees.

 

Sorry a bit late to the party on this one....

 

"Nature itself decrees"...Really? Nature just called and said you're talking b&&&cks.

 

Look at wolf or lion packs for example. Yes the Male and the Female make the pup/kitten/whatever, but then thats the end of the envolvement of the Male. Usually the Alpha Female and the other Females raise the pups with next to no involvement with the Males.

 

But hey, as long as the Idiots Guide to getting it wrong (or the Bible as it is also known) says Nature is doing it wrong then who are we to argue?

[HeliX]

In my personal opinion, Homosexuals should not be allowed to adopt children. I think it is terribly wrong. I can very well understand the way in which the Catholic and Anglican Church are viewing the matter. If they are to be forced by law to enable Homosexuals to adopt children, then it's better to just get out now. Leave society to face the problems that society creates for itself.

 

I cannot accept that we as a society would allow a child to be brought into the homes of a Dad and a Dad.... or a Mum and a Mum, thus depriving that child of the contribution of both parents that even nature itself decrees.

 

Sorry a bit late to the party on this one....

 

"Nature itself decrees"...Really? Nature just called and said you're talking b&&&cks.

 

Look at wolf or lion packs for example. Yes the Male and the Female make the pup/kitten/whatever, but then thats the end of the envolvement of the Male. Usually the Alpha Female and the other Females raise the pups with next to no involvement with the Males.

 

But hey, as long as the Idiots Guide to getting it wrong (or the Bible as it is also known) says Nature is doing it wrong then who are we to argue?

 

That post you quoted was 2007. So yeah, a little bit late...

[HeliX]

Ah, Rami, the Humanist Dream of progress! Sadly, it is an illusion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment

I beg to differ

[Evil Goblin]

In anticipation of some retorts, the Divine aspect was required to enforce the notion that a punishment was applicable for straying off the moral compass. Punishment is now aptly covered by the well establish judicial systems all the way up to the UN courts. In short, a divine aspect is no longer needed for punishment either.

But Rami - those well-established judicial systems are merely enforcing a particular set of subjective views - they are in no way objective. It is stretching things to argue that they even have the justification of a majority opinion.

[Evil Goblin]

Ah, Rami, the Humanist Dream of progress! Sadly, it is an illusion.

http://en.wikipedia....f_Enlightenment

I beg to differ

Sorry, Helix - that is absolute codswallop. The Enlightenment and its' views were what gave rise to some of the greatest atrocities we know of - Soviet Communism and Naziism being two examples. And both those were based on the outdated Christian illusion that humans were, unlike all other animals, able to control their destinies.

[HeliX]

Ignoring the obvious Godwin's law violation, are you honestly saying tolerance, reason, knowledge and intellectual thought was what made Hitler decide on genocide?

[Evil Goblin]

Ignoring the obvious Godwin's law violation, are you honestly saying tolerance, reason, knowledge and intellectual thought was what made Hitler decide on genocide?

I am saying that the intellectual roots of Naziism (and Soviet Communism) lay in the Enlightment thinking. I therefore reject your invocation of Godwin's Law - there is a valid basis for what I say.

[Evil Goblin]

EG, I don't need to argue for anything to be changed or redefined - fertility is not the defining characteristic of a family. You do not need to be fertile to have a family.

Founding a family can and does involve adoption, it can and does involve a decision to be childless. Childless families are common.

That is your (and as it happens, my) opinion China. But that is all it is - someone else can validly have a different view of things and there is no objective way of saying we are right and they are wrong. With respect, I think you are being arrogant to say that you do not need to argue for anything - if the existing HRA does not clearly set out what you think it should then you do need to argue your case and not rely on vague, subjective opinion of what something means.

 

You're welcome to try, but don't be surprised if you are on to a losing game - stop hiding behind rationalizing what the Cardinal has said - do you really believe that a couple coming together and adopting children is not founding a family? And does it matter to you whether the family is gay or heterosexual?

Now where have I actually been trying to rationalise what the Cardinal said? I'm (by and large) trying to be neutral in the debate and to ignore my own prejudices. As it happens, I'm not and never have been a Roman Catholic and I disagree with much of that Church's teachings e.g. contraception, the sole purposde of sex being procreation.

[HeliX]

Ignoring the obvious Godwin's law violation, are you honestly saying tolerance, reason, knowledge and intellectual thought was what made Hitler decide on genocide?

I am saying that the intellectual roots of Naziism (and Soviet Communism) lay in the Enlightment thinking. I therefore reject your invocation of Godwin's Law - there is a valid basis for what I say.

 

There is nothing intellectual about desiring to remove a race from the world. There was also nothing in the Enlightenment about mass murder being a good idea.

[Evil Goblin]

Look at wolf or lion packs for example. Yes the Male and the Female make the pup/kitten/whatever, but then thats the end of the envolvement of the Male. Usually the Alpha Female and the other Females raise the pups with next to no involvement with the Males.

I think you are being unreasonable in equating the natural behavour of one type of animal with another. Humans, with their much more advanced brains and different rates of achieving maturity, have very different needs during their formative years. I can't remember the details as it was many years ago that I studied the subject to but I seem to recall that both male and female parents were necessary for the ideal raising of children.

 

But hey, as long as the Idiots Guide to getting it wrong (or the Bible as it is also known) says Nature is doing it wrong then who are we to argue?

The typical statement of an ignoramus!

[Evil Goblin]

There is nothing intellectual about desiring to remove a race from the world. There was also nothing in the Enlightenment about mass murder being a good idea.

You clearly are deficient in your understandings, Helix. When I get the time a bit later I will be pleased to enlighten you!

[Rami]

In anticipation of some retorts, the Divine aspect was required to enforce the notion that a punishment was applicable for straying off the moral compass. Punishment is now aptly covered by the well establish judicial systems all the way up to the UN courts. In short, a divine aspect is no longer needed for punishment either.

But Rami - those well-established judicial systems are merely enforcing a particular set of subjective views - they are in no way objective. It is stretching things to argue that they even have the justification of a majority opinion.

 

Yes, and so they will always be. Directions supposedly from 'Divine' origin would also be subjective, it would also be relayed by 'mere mortals' who would subjectively relay the message and there is no method of proving or disproving otherwise. Therefore it is entirely probable that the laws passed down by humans claiming to act on behalf of a Divine are merely guided by their own reasons. This is much evidenced by the actions of many religious institutions in the past and the present.

 

There is no way to take subjective viewpoints out of the equation, we must accept that the more fine grained you get, the more it is likely that people will disagree on the finer points. Compromise is a necessity. There is freedom of speech in many places, but one is not allowed to slander or defame another without due cause, a compromise in the favour of all.

 

We haven't found the best balance between pure logic and compassion for life, but the notion that it is better to bow to laws of a loosely defined 'Divine' whos word is passed on by 'chosen' humans is, in all shapes and forms, codswallop as well.

 

On the other topic at hand, facism was a cruel misinterpretation and mishandeling of Enlightenment ideas to the benefit of a select few and their ideological viewpoint. Communism was in turn going too explicit in their interpretation and execution. Despite the horrendous failure of both, aspects of both have now made a permanent presence in our society for the better. Neither invalidates the Enlightenment movement or it's ideals, though I'm not saying I agree 100% with all of it.

 

Moving forward means more dialogue and, at intervals, compromise. It will invariably mean boundaries will fade, including language boundaries. The notion that we are a single race who should have a common purpose is growing, despite opposition from conservative angles. Whether we destroy ourselves in the process or forcibly revert to a less civilised society on the way there, that remains to be seen.

 

Personally I think one thing is certain, we don't need to look to the heavens for guidance, doing so is a step backwards and an escape into ignorance.