Racism and homophobia - where we are in 2008

[Moos]

Slightly sensitive time of year to start one, but I wouldn't be punching your nose, if that's what you meant.

Better to be having a try at being more loving, tolerant, peaceful, humble and kind. Oops, was I being serious again? Bad Moos.

[SeanMacGabhann]

of course I didn't mean you...

as for the virtues you promote - I try, Moos, I try

Piers - lol. My typing is usually just nuts but that made me chuckle

[Moos]

Oh, sorry, that wasn't intended as a suggestion for you specifically! :-$

Arggh...

[SeanMacGabhann]

you so serious today - chill..... s'all goooood

I didn't read it as a suggestion to me - I just marked myself anyway...

Now, back to [joke deleted for fear of being taken out of context - Ed]

[Brendan]

Personally I think churches have a creepy obsession with what people choose to do behind closed doors which puts them broadly in the category of sickos.

[Moos]

...and that's where I leave the room. Night all!

xox

[Keef]

Do the majority of Catholics agree with what the pope is saying?

Forget agree, do most catholics actually know what he is saying? Admittedly, I am not catholic, so may lack the gift, but I heard this on the news this morning, and I've read the link from Sean, and yet I haven't got a clue what he's actually trying to say!

I'm not 100% sure he actually knows what he is saying.

[bignumber5]

Has anyone considered the possibility that the aging Pope is the Vatican equivalent of Phil, Duke of Edinburgh - old, slightly bigotted, few remaining marbles and poor impulse control, occsaionally drops casual verbal bombshells that don't represent the more diplomatic standpoint of the rest of his group? Just a thought.

Agree, tho, that he'd never issue a statement in similar tones regarding a racial group. Very much a point in favour of James' arguement, which I confess to poo-pooing at an earlier stage/page

(edited for getting m'names muddled!)

[indiepanda]

I was raised a Catholic and it was this sort of thing that was the final straw for me and religion.

I have a horrible feeling my mum still believes in this sort of bigoted c**p... even my dad who isn't religious thinks that homosexuality is a mental illness... and worst of all, my uncle once described homosexuality as being only one step up from peadophilia, and I think he really meant it (he isn't religious either)

It's not a subject I care to discuss with my family now because I find their views so offensive and no matter what I said, they wouldn't change them.

I don't think all Catholics universally follow what the pope says though - I went to a Catholic school and most of the girls didn't come from huge families - plenty were just two child families like mine. And my mum said the local priest used to tell female parishioners that contraception was between them and their concience and he wouldn't tell them not to use it.

Having said that, my mum was always a follower of the old vatican roulette method... tough the gamble paid off for her. However, I certainly wouldn't fancy having to stick a thermometer up my a**e every morning to check my temperature & work out if it was safe to have sex!

[ruffers]

I 'possibly' don't know enough about this to argue it theologically, but what I find fascinating is the fact that the Pope felt the need /chose to say this stuff.

Genuine question - why? What was he hoping to achieve?. Or have we got ten seconds of a four hour speech blown up?

[????]

I think that this pope is an 'intellectual theologan' whereas the last pope was more from the heart. He therefore ruminates on the theological questions without any empathy about what the effect of his philisophical meanderings (er, prejudice) may have in the real world....I genuinely don't think he means to stir up bigoted hatred but that's no defence for a man in his position whose words obviously will....

[Brendan]

Anyway I?m using this all as an excuse to boycott mass tomorrow.

[indiepanda]

My mum gave up trying to get me to mass a loooong while ago. When she realized her "the devil is going to come and get you" threats didn't work she didn't have anything else left to throw at me.

[Brendan]

You see my parents are both very religious and involved with the church but they never, even when we were kids tried to force us to go to church. They never tried to force the church?s beliefs on us either. In fact their own views are considerably more liberal than the crap the church peddles. They certainly wouldn?t agree that ?homosexual behaviour? is something the world needs saving from.

They are both also a lot more knowledgeable and well informed about religion in general and the teachings and political functioning of the church than most other Catholics I meet.

Oddly they still seem to see some kind of value (be it spiritual, moral or social) in being part of the church.

So I guess not all Catholics believe all this crap and it is still possible to consider yourself catholic or even be an active practicing Catholic and disagree with what the church says on certain issues.

I?m still not getting up to go to mass tomorrow though.

[????]

ahhhhhhhh......but I still sense your guilt....should have been a prod, none of that to worry about

[SeanMacGabhann]

Rather than start a new thread... I saw this yesterday

If you were gay wouldn't you feel a BIT more nervous??

[PeckhamRose]

Yep I would, and here is Andrew Copson's reply (he of the British Humanist Association).

[david_carnell]

I would have hoped that a centre left govt, of a mainly secular nature, and with nothing to lose in terms of opinion polls would have grown a pair and made this compulsory for EVERY child with no opt out for parents.

And banned faith schools from preaching any of this cobblers about the abomination of homosexuality or sex outside marriage.

But no.

I soMetimes genuinely despair. This is one of those times.

[Sherwick]

david_carnell Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I would have hoped that a centre left govt, of a

> mainly secular nature, and with nothing to lose in

> terms of opinion polls would have grown a pair and

> made this compulsory for EVERY child with no opt

> out for parents.

>

> And banned faith schools from preaching any of

> this cobblers about the abomination of

> homosexuality or sex outside marriage.

>

> But no.

>

> I soMetimes genuinely despair. This is one of

> those times.

I think you've forgotten what religion our previous beloved leader, Mr Blair, recently converted to..

[david_carnell]

I'd say Blair was an exception, in terms of religious devotion, rather than the rule.

And he repealed Section 28.

[Sherwick]

Yes, what a nice guy blair is/was.

In fact, he's so nice, he's now the Middle East Peace Envoy (!)

[david_carnell]

Woah there. I didn't make any further judgements on the man; merely I highlighted his record on homosexuality - which was good. Civil partnerships? Gay adoption? Workplace equality? All under Blair's Labour.

I believe Ruth Kelly is the only devout member of the govt so this dithering is especially galling in the way it panders to religious interest groups.

[Huguenot]

It does seem an extraordinary concession to an anti-democratic, fundamentalist, bigotted, medieval organisation.

If there were schools that were refusing to teach reasonable sex education then they should be closed, not pandied to.

[citizenED]

C'mon, this development is an expedient fudge just like many other things in politics. In order to get all that important PSHE info to the majority of children it was decided to make that concession to Christian groups. Better to get that message accross to most kids than to take on the political timebomb that is the issue of religious schools.

[david_carnell]

But surely all the respectable, secular schools were teaching this already? Who is it aimed at? It seems to be an announcement that does nothing.

Are there non faith schools that aren't currently teaching PSHE?