Do you ever get fed up of other people's views on your religion?

[GoldandOrangeAnnunziata]

I'm a Catholic.

I know the Catholic church has covered up some truly awful things. I know their attitude towards gay marriage isn't great.

But I get so bloody fed up of people assuming we are all like that. It's so upsetting. The Church does wonderful work too. It seems like every thread on here about Catholicism just gets bogged down in this vile hatred.

:(

I know niminy.

I mean Catholics who aren't really Catholics!

This has been done to death before.

I'm not answering any questions I have already answered before on MN. I suggest others do the same.

I'm nothing if not impressive

There are plenty of gay and bisexual Catholics and Christians. I may be in a minority but its not a minority of one. We have the Soho masses, we have openly gay clergy (celibate allegedly, but so are the straight ones). There is a huge movement towards a total overhaul of sexual and social teaching within the church and its not only from the laity, Religious are pushing for it too. I don't have a problem reconciling my sexual identity with my faith which leaves me open to a barrage of criticism but I know my theology and I know myself. You can't tell anything about who I am or what I believe based on who I love and how I fuck. I am strictly monogamous (inability to remain faithful is often a charge levied at bisexuals) but I can't say if that is down to my faith/religion or simply that I see no joy in cheating on one who has placed their trust in you.

"Over the pope as expression of the binding claim of ecclesiastical authority, there stands one's own conscience which must be obeyed before all else, even if necessary against the requirement of ecclesiastical authority. This emphasis on the individual, whose conscience confronts him with a supreme and ultimate tribunal, and one which in the last resort is beyond the claim of external social groups, even the official church, also establishes a principle in opposition to increasing totalitarianism".

Joseph Ratzinger (before he become pope )

I had a very odd experience once where an athiest friend (who bloody set me up) and a very evangelical acquaintance both rounded on me and told me, at great length, that I was "doing it wrong".

"As I understand it, to be a Catholic you have to agree with the Pope. If you don't do that, you're not Catholic, you just believe some of the same things as Catholics."

I think I have addressed this in my previous post.

Well, if religious people didn't want to have influence over the way I live my life I wouldn't feel any need- nor have any right to- question their beliefs.

But while they still have influence in education, and in social and scientific policy making then I feel I do have that right.

Pointing out that the Pope is a bit of an arse isn't going to make the Lords Spiritual disappear though is it?

Or make the country able to afford to replace all the faith schools?

Plus, why can't people of faith influence social and scientific policy when secular people can? That's censorship.

Ethelb

Many secular people are religious. I think you misunderstand the intended use of the word.

Do you mean "atheist" in this context? If so, then I don't know understand why atheists and theists can't all contribute as individuals. What censorship are you referring to????

I was questioning seekers suggestion that religious people shouldn't be able to influence education, social and scientific policy. If that was the case that would be censorship.

I would describe myself as religious and secular.

"Plus, why can't people of faith influence social and scientific policy when secular people can? That's censorship."

There are 25 unelected bishops in the House of Lords who have significant influence on policy and lawmaking.

Unelected. There because of their faith position only.

seeker read my post, make sure you understand it and stop speaking at me like I am an idiot.

I'm sorry -I didn't think I was speaking to you like an idiot- I apologise if I did.

I was just pointing out that there are unelected religious people influencing public policy and lawmaking. That's one of the things i mean by people of faith thinking the have the right to an influence in the way I live my life.

seeker. I f'ing know. As I pointed out in my previous post. Suggesting I am unaware of the influence religious people have in the UK is speaking to me like I am an idiot imo.

I'd be more than happy for the bishops to lose their seats.

Who do they represent? Me? I'm not Anglican. The Church of England isn't the church of my country. It's a nonsense. They don't represent Baptists, Church of Scotland, Methodists, Catholics, Orthodox Christians, any of the other Christian denominations, Sikhs, Muslims, Jews, Hindus or any of the other religions, atheists....

No objections from me to the concept of Disestablishmentarianism.

@sleepy that's the other thing. These threads go "bastard catholics, bastard catholics" oh yes, who experience privilege in this country because of the presence of the Lords Spiritual.

WTF. Have people never heard of the reformation?

What did "Plus, why can't people of faith influence social and scientific policy when secular people can? That's censorship." mean then?

' As I understand it, to be a Catholic you have to agree with the Pope. If you don't do that, you're not Catholic, you just believe some of the same things as Catholics.'

Try again.

And small point of information on another point, rates of child abuse in England among priests are actually lower than those among the general male population. That doesn't excuse cover-ups, etc, I know.

You suggested that you would go on questioning other people's beliefs as long as people of faith were able to influence policy etc.

I asked, why should people of faith not be able to influence them? As I believe you were suggesting? (sorry if I wasn't clear)

I was saying that IF people of faith were not allowed to influence policy/society then that would be censorship. I never for a second suggested that people of religion were banned from doing so NOW.

Because I am not an idiot.

Ethelb - I seem to be making you angry and I don't know why.

I'll stop.

"And small point of information on another point, rates of child abuse in England among priests are actually lower than those among the general male population."

Well, I should bloody well think so! Presumably there are fewer murderers, torturers, rapists and shoplifters among priests than the general population too!

It does get somewhat tedious being told you are a thick bigot, yes.

Thankfully most of the time this doesn't happen, hardly ever in RL and only occasionally on MN - most discussions have been fairly respectful. I am quite happy for my belief to be attacked, but personal attack is pretty crap. There is always the one who will come along spouting forth vileness at you.

Sometimes I'd like to have this discussion without a/ faith schools b/ bishops in the HoL and c/ The Pope coming into it though

How would you like the conversationnto go, madhairy?

Goodness I didn't think there would be so many responses! Glad I'm not the only one.

How about respectfully? I'm surprised at you, that was Novack's little way of belittling me wasn't it?

Madhairday

Can you quote the post where seeker was disrespectful please. I can't find it.

I would quite like the conversation to be able to separate the individual and the institution.

I feel sometimes individual posters are sometimes almost blamed for the existence of faith schools/house of lords. When these are complex political institutions that have been developed over centuries and have more to do with being British than being individual faith followers today.

I don't need to have my beliefes respected, but I do need to have the source of my understanding respected. I have been educated in science, politics and ethics to degree/post grad level and I find in RL people (even friends) conveniently forget this when I disagree with them.