Pope Benedict attacks government over Equality Bill

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Of course the Catholic church wants to make sure that everyone it employs is straight, they are of the opinion that all of the pedophiles they have sheltered for decades (if not centuries) are actually homosexuals. The Catholic church is also of the opinion that government recognition of same-sex relationships is at least a, if not a more, grave threat to society (and by extension humanity) than environmental destruction (such as seen in deforestation of rain forests in equatorial South America and Africa).

IMO, the question isn't so much whether the Catholic Church is going to complain; the question is how much weight their complaints should be given under the law.

My feeling is that the Catholic Church's feelings shouldn't receive any better treatment than those of any other company or organization, and that they certainly shouldn't be considered more important than the individual human rights of its employees and employment candidates.

Why anyone with a shred of humanity listens to the Hitler-youth pedophile shelterer at the head of the Catholic church, I can't imagine.

I think that's a bit unfair to the Pope... at least the "Hitler Youth" bit. He was enrolled in the Hitler Youth, as was required by law at the time, but refused to go to meetings at considerable personal risk to himself. I think he acted out against the Nazis as much as anyone in his position could be expected to do; criticizing him basically amounts to criticizing him for having grown up in Germany during the 30s and 40s, which is something he didn't really have any control over.

I think it's especially unwarranted considering that his own cousin was killed as part of the Nazi eugenics program. Effectively, calling Benedict a Nazi means that you're implying he was in league with the people who murdered one of his loved ones; I think that's pretty callous.

As for the "pedophile shelterer" bit... it does seem that's accurate.

 

[emiliano]

What are you havering about? I said regarding EDUCATION that ALL schools in Scotland MUST TEACH government approved courses. That is either the Scottish Higher Still system or the English A level system. This is not a new thing and has been around for a long time.

What about you? We are discussing who will the school employ to do the teaching.
Does the government tell the schools what religious courses a religious schools teaches? Can they approve what parts of the Bible they should use in their courses?

 

[Panda]

What about you? We are discussing who will the school employ to do the teaching.

We were and that moved onto what schools teach where you made some blabbering nonsensical post that had nothing to do with what you claimed to be responding to in my post.

Does the government tell the schools what religious courses a religious schools teaches? Can they approve what parts of the Bible they should use in their courses?

Um yes. Did you miss the part when I said that the government sets all formal courses? I am sure a school could teach other things on top of the government courses but these would not count for any qualification.

 

[emiliano]

What you seem incapable of understanding are that things like religion, sexual orientation, gender are not valid criteria for 99% of the jobs out there. A company does not have the right to discriminate just because they want to.
Sorry, but this there is a right to discriminate on the bases of the ethos of a religious institution, the ethos of the RCC allows them to discriminate on things like religion, sexual orientation and gender if the applicants are against their ethos and anybody can understand the reasons for that. I must say it against this is a bill at this stage, I thing that the Pope over reacted a bit on this issue cause this Bill has very little chances of success. There will no applications by gays anyway. You are right it is impossible for me to understand that in the UK there are laws that forces religious institutions to go against their ethos.
I guess that it is because in that country religious institutions represent only 1% of total of employers.

As for university different people drop out for different reasons. Some drop out because they don't like the course, the university or the area. Others drop out because they can't do it.

Thanks for the information and the fact that you got it right reasons for my post, Darken was giving formation about Australia’s private schools and Universities that I knew it was false. I agree with your replay as it goes in the same lines as the one I gave him.

 

[Panda]

What you seem incapable of understanding are that things like religion, sexual orientation, gender are not valid criteria for 99% of the jobs out there. A company does not have the right to discriminate just because they want to.
Sorry, but this there is a right to discriminate on the bases of the ethos of a religious institution, the ethos of the RCC allows them to discriminate on things like religion, sexual orientation and gender if the applicants are against their ethos and anybody can understand the reasons for that. I must say it against this is a bill at this stage, I thing that the Pope over reacted a bit on this issue cause this Bill has very little chances of success. There will no applications by gays anyway. You are right it is impossible for me to understand that in the UK there are laws that forces religious institutions to go against their ethos.
I guess that it is because in that country religious institutions represent only 1% of total of employers.

Why should your religious beliefs be a valid reason to discriminate? How is a religious belief more valid than other belief for rights to discriminate?

 

[emiliano]

Why should your religious beliefs be a valid reason to discriminate? How is a religious belief more valid than other belief for rights to discriminate?

Well that is why it is. I suppose that all religions are afforded the same right. Christianity isn't the only religion that has Ethos that consider homosexuality unnatural and take actions to preserve their Ethos, in the case of the RCC is exclusion for Islam is another. It is up to them to prevent the government from forcing them to go against their Ethos.

 

[Panda]

Well that is why it is. I suppose that all religions are afforded the same right. Christianity isn't the only religion that has Ethos that consider homosexuality unnatural and take actions to preserve their Ethos, in the case of the RCC is exclusion for Islam is another. It is up to them to prevent the government from forcing them to go against their Ethos.

Yes but why should any religious belief be allowed as a basis for discrimination? Why should only religious beliefs get this treatment? That is what I am getting at. What gives a religion the right to discriminate but doesn't let a political group discriminate? Even the BNP (British Nationalist Party) in the UK must legally allow people of any ethnicity to join it even though they are one of the most racist parties in the UK. They are being forced to go against their Ethos because discrimination is illegal. Why should a religious group not also be subject to the same thing?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What you seem incapable of understanding are that things like religion, sexual orientation, gender are not valid criteria for 99% of the jobs out there. A company does not have the right to discriminate just because they want to.

I'm glad you agree. So you're on-board with this bill, then?

Sorry, but this there is a right to discriminate on the bases of the ethos of a religious institution, the ethos of the RCC allows them to discriminate on things like religion, sexual orientation and gender if the applicants are against their ethos and anybody can understand the reasons for that. I must say it against this is a bill at this stage, I thing that the Pope over reacted a bit on this issue cause this Bill has very little chances of success. There will no applications by gays anyway. You are right it is impossible for me to understand that in the UK there are laws that forces religious institutions to go against their ethos.

The Catholic Church claims that opposition to sin generally, even by heterosexuals, is part of its ethos, as is treating homosexual people with charity.

But you raise an interesting issue: should governments and courts be in the position of ruling what is or isn't "properly" Catholic (or "properly" Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, etc.)? I'd say no... but this is the situation you create when you say that religions can discriminate on the basis of things that are legitimately part of their religion.

We've got publicly-funded Catholic schools here. A few years ago, an interesting case arose: a lesbian student at one of these publicly-funded Catholic high schools wanted to take her girlfriend to the prom; the school refused to allow it. The matter eventually wound up in the courts, who ruled that the Catholic religion didn't actually prohibit the two girls from attending a prom together. They decided that it wasn't "properly" Catholic to prevent it.

Do you want courts ruling on what is or isn't "properly" a part of your religion? Because that's what happens when you give churches an exemption from normal laws on the basis of their beliefs.

 

[Duck]

IMO, the question isn't so much whether the Catholic Church is going to complain; the question is how much weight their complaints should be given under the law.

My feeling is that the Catholic Church's feelings shouldn't receive any better treatment than those of any other company or organization, and that they certainly shouldn't be considered more important than the individual human rights of its employees and employment candidates.


I think that's a bit unfair to the Pope... at least the "Hitler Youth" bit. He was enrolled in the Hitler Youth, as was required by law at the time, but refused to go to meetings at considerable personal risk to himself. I think he acted out against the Nazis as much as anyone in his position could be expected to do; criticizing him basically amounts to criticizing him for having grown up in Germany during the 30s and 40s, which is something he didn't really have any control over.

I think it's especially unwarranted considering that his own cousin was killed as part of the Nazi eugenics program. Effectively, calling Benedict a Nazi means that you're implying he was in league with the people who murdered one of his loved ones; I think that's pretty callous.

As for the "pedophile shelterer" bit... it does seem that's accurate.

Ah, I did not know that he had not attended meetings at his own risk. For what it is worth, I withdraw the Hitler Youth allegation and apologize for thinking ill of him for that reason, and only for that reason.

 

[emiliano]

9-10th Penguin,
The Catholic Church claims that opposition to sin generally, even by heterosexuals, is part of its ethos, as is treating homosexual people with charity

.

The RCC teaches that we must love and have mercy on sinners and hate sin (Augustine)
If you have mercy for them, you must call them to repentance and a change in their behaviour. That is what John the Baptist and Jesus prfreached.
Mat 3:1 In those days John the Baptist came preaching in the wilderness of Judea,
Mat 3:2 and saying, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand!"
Mat 4:17 From that time Jesus began to preach and to say, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand."
This leaves no doubts that sinner must repent and the RCC excommunicate all obstinate sinners.
What is in the position of ruling what is or isn't "properly" Catholic (or "properly" Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, etc. are their respective sacred books. The Bible says in it books that:
1Cr 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
1Ti 1:10 These laws are for people who are sexually immoral, for homosexuals and slave traders, for liars and oath breakers, and for those who do anything else that contradicts the right teaching
What is currently on in the UK and as what I posted it will say that the Bill will not be changed by the Bill under consideration.
Myth Busting" document released by the Government Equalities Office states that that "the Equality Bill will not change the existing legal position regarding churches and employment".
The right of the RCC to discriminate on the basis of it Ethos has been already tested in the UK’s supreme Court, in the case of RC adoption agencies, their right to discriminate on these bases was up held.

We've got publicly-funded Catholic schools here. A few years ago, an interesting case arose: a lesbian student at one of these publicly-funded Catholic high schools wanted to take her girlfriend to the prom; the school refused to allow it. The matter eventually wound up in the courts, who ruled that the Catholic religion didn't actually prohibit the two girls from attending a prom together. They decided that it wasn't "properly" Catholic to prevent it.

This happen in Canada right?
I am sure that the school in question counselled the girls and asked them to repent an change this unnatural behaviour, they could not do anything else as the post says that this school was publicly-founded and those that pope addressed in his directive a Catholic
Schools. It is interesting . Parents that truly wanting a Catholic education for their children must not settle for this kinds of schools and the problem is solved.

Do you want courts ruling on what is or isn't "properly" a part of your religion?

No I don’t, but I have no trouble in this area. both my daughters are Christians and they know how to decide in these matters. The Bible the word of God is what tell us what is proper in our lives.

Because that's what happens when you give churches an exemption from normal laws on the basis of their beliefs.

Fortunately I chose the right country to migrate to, thank God we have nothing of that here.

 

[David69]

Pope turns a blind eye to the kiddie fiddlers in the church. so I will be suprised if we are going to pay for that to come to our country! maybe it is benedict that is the anti-christ.

A couple of years ago I told my Jewish doctor that the Pope will come to the N/E of England and gaze upon the Angel of the North and will realise the real Messiah! Maybe I am wrong!

 

[Mike182]

Does the government tell the schools what religious courses a religious schools teaches? Can they approve what parts of the Bible they should use in their courses?

This is a bit off topic, but If you want to know how Religious Education works in the UK, read this. It was written by my A-level RE teacher for a group of Druids wanting to know how they should go about getting Druidry taught in schools as part of RE.

Religious Education (RE), Paganism and UK Law | The Druid Network

 

[Panda]

.Fortunately I chose the right country to migrate to, thank God we have nothing of that here.

So you think religion is a valid reason to be excused from the law?

 

[darkendless]

.

Schools. It is interesting . Parents that truly wanting a Catholic education for their children must not settle for this kinds of schools and the problem is solved.

Parents who want a truelly catholic education are damaging their childs future. A catholic education is a very narrow education.

No I don’t, but I have no trouble in this area. both my daughters are Christians and they know how to decide in these matters. The Bible the word of God is what tell us what is proper in our lives.

Your last sentence is the dangerous one. We are a secular nation to avoid people using what you just said to justify their own stupidity.

People who think religious laws are above the laws of man need a reality check. Secular laws were made for everyone, not so some christians can whine about being disadvantaged.

.
Fortunately I chose the right country to migrate to, thank God we have nothing of that here.

Well our PM just stepped down as of this morning. So long Kevin Rudd, perhaps not having a christian PM might do us some good instead of giving us the short end of the stick.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The RCC teaches that we must love and have mercy on sinners and hate sin (Augustine)
If you have mercy for them, you must call them to repentance and a change in their behaviour. That is what John the Baptist and Jesus prfreached.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church; note the parts I've highlighted:

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

What is currently on in the UK and as what I posted it will say that the Bill will not be changed by the Bill under consideration.
Myth Busting" document released by the Government Equalities Office states that that "the Equality Bill will not change the existing legal position regarding churches and employment".
The right of the RCC to discriminate on the basis of it Ethos has been already tested in the UK’s supreme Court, in the case of RC adoption agencies, their right to discriminate on these bases was up held.

So is the Church lying, or is it just mistaken?

This happen in Canada right?

Yes, but it could happen anywhere where religions get an exemption from normal laws on the basis of their beliefs.

I am sure that the school in question counselled the girls and asked them to repent an change this unnatural behaviour, they could not do anything else as the post says that this school was publicly-founded and those that pope addressed in his directive a Catholic
Schools. It is interesting . Parents that truly wanting a Catholic education for their children must not settle for this kinds of schools and the problem is solved.

They must not settle for publicly funded schools? In this respect, I agree. Public funds come with responsibility. Anywhere that Catholic doctrine conflicts with that responsibility, doctrine must lose out... as long as the Church wants to suckle at the public teat, anyhow.

In the case of this UK law, something similar applies, though IMO the Church shouldn't have the choice to avoid its responsibility. The Catholic Church is a corporate citizen, and like any corporate citizen, it has a societal duty to abide by certain basic standards, including human rights.

No I don’t, but I have no trouble in this area. both my daughters are Christians and they know how to decide in these matters. The Bible the word of God is what tell us what is proper in our lives.
Fortunately I chose the right country to migrate to, thank God we have nothing of that here.

You have no publicly funded religious schools? Then you're fortunate.

 

[emiliano]

Originally Posted 9-10th Penguin:
They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.

This is new to me, are you saying that the Papacy at some stage changed the RC Ethos?
I doubt it’ I’ll researched when I find some time (I am watching the soccer Cup at the moment)but I just want to make another point, all sinner are called to repentance and accepted with conditions, they are called to chastity, they must repent and change.
2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.
So please don’t present the Canadian RC as accepting their behaviour. Obstinate unrepented homosexuals are expelled after been given opportunities for repentance, repented sinner are welcomed and helped to remain free of their vices “ By the virtues of self-mastery”