@ Enrique - I don't know whether the remark you posted below is aimed at me or what it even actually means?
Blimey!!!! And Andrew is called stoopid!
Not even an idiot could interpret that as criticism of the Church or even Ann
Twice remarks like this since I posted last night hmm
The Pope has reaffirmed the Roman Catholic Church's position that homosexual acts are sinful, but homosexual orientation is not.
That's a rule. It's not open to interpretation in any way that allows a person to convince themselves that it's okay for practising/devout Catholics to engage in homosexual acts. It's clear.
This is also clear, I am not stating my position on homosexuality or religion - this is the Pope's position. Take it or leave it but you can't have both. You can't take it and leave it.
The Church (any church/any religion/any god) sets the rules and if you want the membership badge then you accept and obey the rules.
Tesco sets the price of goods on their shelves. You can't go in and say you're fine with everything but you want to pay the Asda price for bread. If you want Tesco products, you pay the Tesco price. Them's the rules.
Of course, religion is different. We're all free to call ourselves what we want in public, to claim to be the most virtuous, nobody knows what we do behind closed doors.
The badge of church membership/devoutness is an invisible one. There are no consequences on this earth if you choose to ignore certain tenets of any religion.
But if you are a believer, you will know and accept that there are consequences in the afterlife.
And of course, if you don't really believe, then that doesn't matter anyway.
I simply object to people saying they are true believers (of anything) and then not actually following the rules. Why bother believing at all in that case? Why claim you believe? It's just vanity, ego.
I couldn't care less about Ann's beliefs, if she didn't use them as the basis of her intolerance of others.
But if she didn't have the crutch of religiousity to excuse her intolerance then people would be quite right much less sympathetic.
I do find it baffling that posters can say I disagree with Ann's beliefs but I like her as a person.
What is a person? How much of what constitutes a person is made up of their beliefs and values?
I am intolerant of Ann in direct proportion to her intolerance of others and I don't think you can separate her beliefs from her personage.
She is her beliefs and she lives them and people who separate the two do her a great disservice. It's quite patronising to Ann to imply one can see a part of her that is not the sum of her beliefs and values. Something she can't see. As though to imply 'ahhh, she's so cute!'
My intolerance of Ann should not be misconstrued as an endorsement of Andrew, Dapper, Jonny et al
When I speak of Ann's understanding of her religion, I would suggest that, similar to her politics, where she is somewhere off to the right of Dave Cameron, with her religion, she would sit on the less tolerant side of the Pope.
That's fine. Her choice and all that.
She put herself in a TV show because she's arrogant and vain and knowing she would be subject to scrutiny and mockery, knowing full well that her views are out of step with society.
I don't admire or applaud her for that in the same way that I don't admire Rees-Mogg for his honesty in expressing his views on abortion.
I wonder if all of her reality TV adventures are just to take revenge on Cameron for not giving her the seat in the Lords she craved.
Sadly, from my perspective, it appears as though, in the year of The Woman, either Ann or Jess, (how does that fit with the Madonna or Whore theory?) are most likely to win, voted for, in the main, by women.
Now that's what I call progress!