Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

News

The Pope is coming to UK to campaign against equality: Does this make him a respectable leader of faith or a bigot?

821 replies

Strix · 02/02/2010 08:43

What do you think?

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8492597.stm

OP posts:
sasamaxx · 05/02/2010 17:10

Eeeeuuuuwwwww!!! Nasty!

LeninGrad · 05/02/2010 17:11

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Tortington · 05/02/2010 17:14

seriously the whole sodom passage reads more tragic than a katie price album.

lot offers up his daughters to be raped becuase the people of the city want to fuck the angels.

the angels blinded the people and told lot to get the fuck outta there and they said "for fucks sake lot, don't fucking look back"

but his wife was a nosy old bitch and she just had to - and she was turned into salt

so he was too scared to live in a town and they all went to some caves with a bottle of cheap red from sainsbo's, then his daughter said - lets fuck our dad and get pregnant

cos there was nowt on the telly

Tortington · 05/02/2010 17:20

i'm thinking i should do a new version of the bible

Pogleswood · 05/02/2010 17:22

Yes,custardo,I went on to read that and thought that that is not even remotely acceptable now,(It doesn't seem to be condemned,so I presume it was a reasonable act at the time)so what does any of this tell us about how to live now?

I take your point,sasamaxx - my point was that this passage is widely used to argue that homosexuality is wrong,and that God destroyed Sodom because of it.That is not what the passage says to me now.(It's more along the lines of rape is wrong,to me..)I think it probably does mean the men are gay,but it seems a leap to get from this to "homosexuality is wrong"

Snorbs · 05/02/2010 17:22

Surely if you're so rat-arsed that you can't tell you're shagging your own daughter , you'd be too pissed to get it up?

sasamaxx · 05/02/2010 17:23

LOL- and there's worse stuff still in other bits of the Old Testament

sasamaxx · 05/02/2010 17:24

Fair enough Pogleswood

weblette · 06/02/2010 01:47

I think what bemuses me is that this is one line, or one passage, out of how many in the OT, never mind the NT, and a whole proscriptive line of belief develops out of it.

nooka · 06/02/2010 07:49

Well who would have thought the Bible apparently says that sodomy is terrible, but offering your daughters for a bit of a gang bang is just fine, and incest is too.

The OT is full of strange things, and reading the history of how it was put together, translated and interpreted is fascinating. But shouldn't be used as a way to live your life. On the other hand the NT contains some really simple instructions, and makes it very clear that those are the ones to be used to live your life.

Seems to me that there is enough work to be done in following that single greatest commandment "A new commandment I give unto you, that you love one another."[John 13:31-35] without dredging up obscure parts of the OT to get into a tizzy about. I can't remember much about the Catechism from when I was a child, although I remember chanting from the shiny red books prior to my First Holy Communion. Somehow I doubt that we covered any of the sexual sins aged ten. But when I was fifteen or so I took classes before Confirmation, and I don't recall using the Catechism at all - certainly we didn't discuss masturbating, adultery or homosexuality (I can't imagine much of that going down terribly well from a celebate priest to a bunch of mixed teenagers!)

Plus "render under to Caesar what belongs to Caesar" was I thought usually interpreted to mean follow the law of the land.

Reading the spiked article the line appears to be that as the Catholic church is a private institution it can discriminate however it chooses (although this would be illegal on the grounds of age, sex, race etc). But as many Catholic agencies, schools etc receive large amounts of public money, it cannot be treated as entirely private (and woudl still in any case be subject to the law). So the simple answer then would be to say that the church can discriminate (within the law), but not when in receipt of public funds, which is what happened with the adoption agencies, they either closed or disassociated with the church.

The Catholic church is a major employer, so it matters that they have this exemption, which should be for religious posts only (not cleaners, care workers, secretaries etc etc). It's strange that being an atheist or even an agnostic (personally I think I might be an apostate) would not preclude me from working in such a capacity, but having a female same sex partner would. And yet that is the other major command - "Love the Lord your God"

I really find it difficult to understand why the two biggest churches are getting so incredibly het up about women and gay people, both obviously created (and therefore presumably sanctioned) by god. If he thought they were that terrible, then why haven't they all been smote by lightning or somethign else horrible (plenty of examples in the OT).

sasamaxx · 06/02/2010 10:00

Just to point out, the Sodomites story is simply the most famous one dealing with homosexuality - there are several other references elsewhere in the bible - including in the New Testament.

amicissima · 06/02/2010 13:47

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

BethNoireNewNameForPeachy · 06/02/2010 14:07

Wearing a bukha is in noway a parallel to being gay.... gay is something you are, a burkha is a oiece of cloth that an be removed. If you say to someone 'sorry you cant come in here wearing a burkha*' they can physoically remove the cloth,whereas a gay person cannot.

Legislation for equality does not damage hope, it enable people to get hope and opportunity regardless of whether they are balck, have a disability,are gay, female, maybe even one day have a history of a MH. Whose hope is it supposed to damage anyway?
What opportunities?

Legislation against inequality is why most of us as females are able to work,read even, vote and have a claim on our children if we divorce. It is why someone can't be asked toacceptalower wage becuase they arefemale,sit in the rubbish seats becuase they are black,toleave the pool because their disability offends someone. It is a wonderful part of being Bristish and I am looking to seefurther implication of things such as the DDA, not less.

*I owuldn't ask someone toremove their burkha either but then they've never much bothered me tbh.

amicissima · 06/02/2010 14:35

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

BethNoireNewNameForPeachy · 06/02/2010 15:08

The point is at the level where asserting preferences based on nothing but bigotry will have significantly limiting affects on peoples lives.

I have no interest in dictating how peopledress, who they sleepwith or anything of that levelbut I think there is a public role where people could be denied jobs or other significant essentials- such as house leases or similar.

There but forthe grace of God go I (or my children)- it is self interest at least as much as putting the one in front first.

onagar · 06/02/2010 15:39

"Legislation for equality can discourage opportunity"

I don't even know what that means.

I've said this before I think but consider this. If the pope were allowed to refuse people employment because they were gay would it be wrong for other catholics to do the same? Surely you'd have to allow them to follow the example of their pope.

In which case if enough people became catholics (and in some countries that could be nearly everyone) you'd have gay people starving on the streets because it was legal to refuse to allow them to work.

It used to be ok to refuse people employment on the basis of being black, but we made that illegal too.

LeninGrad · 06/02/2010 17:01

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

nooka · 06/02/2010 17:13

If the churches were tiny and employed tiny amounts of people for purely religious work (or even if they were larger and employed people for purely religious work) then I think it would be as irrelevant as gentlemen's clubs only admitting men (given that they are not allowed only to employ men). Legislation in such circumstances would be overkill. But they are in fact large employers (almost 7,000 faith schools for a start, plus many agencies), and whilst may individual schools and churches may take an "enlightened" view about their employment practices, some may well not. The EU legislation which this proposal is intended to bring our law into compliance with had a loophole for religious orders, which was intended to apply to the priesthood, but has been interpreted as the church can employ whoever they like.

I think we also have to recognise that there are significant issues with homophobic bullying at schools, and that growing up gay is still very difficult. Schools are the foundation of our society and should have a particular role in combating prejudice and nurturing all children. Difficult when they are themselves (potentially) prejudiced. My personal view is that if they can't get over their issues with homosexuality they should not be in receipt of public funds, or given a special role in society (seats in the House of Commons etc)

I know this discussion has been about the Pope, but the Church of England has also actively campaigned against this proposal too (and have more power as the established church).

alexpolismum · 06/02/2010 19:55

I've just looked up Lot in Greek (I know it hasn't got much to do with the Pope, but after all this I was curious!) and the word used means 'know', generally as in 'meet and get to know'.

It's the following bit where he offers his daughters that I find a lot worse! He says something like 'they have never known a man, you can do as you please with them'. It makes you wonder why god bothered saving Lot, I'm not sure he was worth it!

I agree with onagar's last post. It doesn't say much about the message of love your neighbour that the church is supposed to be spreading.

sasamaxx · 06/02/2010 20:39

Alexpolismum: Ancient Greek I take it? (not a lot of point in looking up a modern Greek translation - the usual translation problems would apply)

We have already ascertained that many Bibles use the word 'know' but the intention is clear that they don't just want a chat.
The fact that your Bible then uses the word 'know' in relation to having sex with the daughters further supports the likeliehood that this is the intention with the first usage of the word. (in relation to the Angels)
There's no way the same word would have meant two different things when used in such close proximity - that's very basic linguistics.

Again - I know the conversation has moved on from Biblical references now - sorry!!

sasamaxx · 06/02/2010 20:41

Sorry for mis-spelling likelihood

PrincessFiorimonde · 07/02/2010 20:39

An earlier post here said (I'm paraphrasing): 'I don't want an openly gay [catholic] priest.'

But surely you don't want an 'openly hetero' priest either - in the sense of a sexually active priest shacked up with a woman?

Isn't the point that a priest is supposed to be celibate?

So, in other words, whether the hypothetical priest's orientation is either gay or hetero makes no difference, as long as he doesn't act upon his sexuality - either way?

daftpunk · 07/02/2010 22:01

PrincessFiorimonde;

Think that might have been me who said that....?

I've said everything that I can say about this, (and taken all the usual abuse) but y'know if people really stand back and see what's going on here, it's the liberal elite trying to turn this country into a secular state, and while you all stand around shouting for gay rights, you're more than happy for religious beliefs to be banned...

Your all liberal Fascists really...

sasamaxx · 07/02/2010 22:16

I think Daftpunk has a point - it seems that nowadays it's the done thing to persecute Christians. No one would dare start this thread about a Muslim/Jewish/Gay/Black leader - but Christians, it seems, are fair game.

onagar · 07/02/2010 22:51

"No one would dare start this thread about a Muslim/Jewish/Gay/Black leader"

Rubbish. I've posted in threads about Israel's behaviour. (I don't call that anti-jewish, but plenty do)
I've posted about the extremist muslims who want us to be forced to live under sharia law. I'm against all faith schools including Hindu, Jewish, Muslim and the rest. I've said that I disapprove of the Burkha as worn in this country. I've criticised the increasing fashion of giving school children halal meat just in case someone's religion requires it.

Find me a black leader who has admitted to covering up child abuse and/or wants exemption from UK law I'll have something to say about that too.

It's not persecution to demand that Christians obey the same laws as the rest of us.