The Pope spreads a little more hate around the world Watch

ciawhobat
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#61
Report 8 years ago
#61
(Original post by weet_ABI_x)
Are you honestly comparing homosexuality to racism and paedophilia.........!
yes of course, they're all completely absurd practices in the end, just like everything else we humans do. That in 2010 one is celebrated and the other two are demonised is simply a peculiarity of our times. In different places and/or in different times, they have all been viewed quite differently.
0
quote
reply
Scherzando225
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#62
Report 8 years ago
#62
(Original post by Srxjer)
I'm going to have to disagree with you there.
that's nice :yep:
0
quote
reply
ciawhobat
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#63
Report 8 years ago
#63
(Original post by Kreuzuerk)
There is a limit to which the freedoms of the Catholic Church extend, because whilst they are entitled to freedoms of their beliefs, it is imperative that those very beliefs do not infringe others. I agree that the nature of such faith means that anyone wishing to become part of the clergy should clearly also follow those values however, I do think that in cases of recruitment for administrative positions, such as a cleaner for example, the sexuality of that individual is utterly irrelevant. So long as that individual, through vocal output, does not attempt to undermine the church's stance on the subject, it matters little as to whether he is homosexual or not. In fact, it is utterly irrelevant. This piece of legislation is therefore designed at limiting the capacity for such a wide-scale blanket-ban of individuals whose beliefs, although not in line with their employer, have no real consequence.

To answer your analogies, a racist should not be automatically disregarded from any possible employment solely because of his beliefs, rather it is a matter of his competency for the role. If that role is as a cleaner, it matters little whether he is a racist or not because all that he will be doing is cleaning. All that matters is whether he is a good cleaner or not.

And please, don't refer to people as 'son', it's unbecoming.
Well, Junior, if someone's homosexuality was so hidden from view that it wouldn't impact upon their working role in the church, then that's fine for everyone, and the church surely wouldn't even know about it in the first place.

But surely the only homos that would get into work on the back of this bill are the ones who would be rejected otherwise, based on their overt ******ry and inability to simply act as a neutral and bland cleaner (for example).

If an employer doesn't want gay people, and a gay person wants to try their luck then that's fine by me, but they'll have to just keep it quiet. I think that sexuality is reasonable grounds to discriminate upon when considering employing someone, though (along with gender, race and other unmentionable concepts).
0
quote
reply
username156343
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#64
Report 8 years ago
#64
Not that I care what the pope says, but the equalities laws can be a load of crap.
quote
reply
Srxjer
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#65
Report 8 years ago
#65
(Original post by ciawhobat)
Junior
Are you stuck in 1950's Texas?
0
quote
reply
Spacecam
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#66
Report 8 years ago
#66
(Original post by Annie72)
I think he needs to get with the times!!. Of course the Catholic church is perfect isnt it..........<< sarcasm by the way. In case anyone thinks I am knocking the Catholics well I was baptised in the faith, long since lapsed though.
The Catholic Church cannot "get with the times" as it upholds the teachings of Christ, which cannot change!

Society and religion aren't compatable. I don't understand why everyone thinks this Pope is so out-of-touch, there was never (and never will be) going to be a Pope that suddenly came in and decided to change all this, because he can't.

The Pope is, after all, a religious leader and is subject to the teachings of the Church and it is his responsibility to make sure Catholics uphold these teachings.

If you want to be a "Christian" and have teachings that change to the qualms and whims of the day, become a Protestant! You're welcome to it.
0
quote
reply
Spacecam
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#67
Report 8 years ago
#67
(Original post by Annie72)
I just know how the Catholic church works.
I highly doubt it - as you wouldn't have such a biggoted opinion and so openly anti-papist. I pity you.
0
quote
reply
Conor Tickner
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#68
Report 8 years ago
#68
(Original post by ciawhobat)
Well, Junior, if someone's homosexuality was so hidden from view that it wouldn't impact upon their working role in the church, then that's fine for everyone, and the church surely wouldn't even know about it in the first place.

But surely the only homos that would get into work on the back of this bill are the ones who would be rejected otherwise, based on their overt ******ry and inability to simply act as a neutral and bland cleaner (for example).

If an employer doesn't want gay people, and a gay person wants to try their luck then that's fine by me, but they'll have to just keep it quiet. I think that sexuality is reasonable grounds to discriminate upon when considering employing someone, though (along with gender, race and other unmentionable concepts).
Even if you take that stance, which is questionable at best, what about grounds for dismissal? If someone is employed by an anti-gay employer and does not reveal his sexuality, but a few months down the line it is discovered, not by him acting inapropriately at work, but by being seen with another man and admits to it when questioned, for example. Do you think the employer has the right to dismiss the man instantly simply because he is gay? If not, how do you justify that the man would never have gotten the job in the first place if he had admitted to being gay, however briefly and however little he would have acted as such in the workplace?
If for example, any and every business was allowed to refuse to hire gay people, what if it was particularly unpopular to hire gay people at a certain time? It is fair that gay people should have extreme difficulty finding a job? Or do you think it's right that anyone should have to hide a part of who they are in order to get by in society? There are limits, of course, for when those parts of a person hurt or interfere significantly with others, but the fact that a man is openly gay (and by that i don't mean prances around like a queen all the time, he simply admits to it and in his private life, which everyone definitely should be entitled to, he has sexual relationships with other men) is totally irrelevent and insignificant. I can't think of a job where it would be inapropriate.
Running a government is extremely difficult. It is virtually impossible to please everyone. The equality bill takes a big step in removing a severe injustice in society and although not perfect, has been decided upon by the people you (general public) voted for to decide these things.
The Church has had too much power and influence for a long time and it still does.
The salvation army situation was frankly ridiculous in my opinion. I would have prefered the salvation army should be able to threaten whatever they want without consequence, but the moral decision is with them, not the government.
0
quote
reply
little_penguin
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#69
Report 8 years ago
#69
(Original post by Conor Tickner)
Running a government is extremely difficult. It is virtually impossible to please everyone. The equality bill takes a big step in removing a severe injustice in society and although not perfect, has been decided upon by the people you (general public) voted for to decide these things.
The Church has had too much power and influence for a long time and it still does.
The salvation army situation was frankly ridiculous in my opinion. I would have prefered the salvation army should be able to threaten whatever they want without consequence, but the moral decision is with them, not the government.

The Salvation Army is a church group too, so why can they morally object to govt interventions when the Catholics can't?
0
quote
reply
Gesar
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#70
Report Thread starter 8 years ago
#70
(Original post by Scherzando225)
Your post reflects the main problem with everyone's view on catholicism in this thread. You think that a minority of a group reflects the whole of a group. True, there have been made paedophilic priests, but these are the only ones represented in the media; what about the hundreds of thousands of priests accross the globe who are not paedophiles?

Just because some white people have murdered other people (ie hitler), it doesn't mean all white people are murderers.

The catholic church certainly didn't 'let' priests get away with things, it would have been a few individuals within that that allowed it to go on. True, what these few people did is horrendus, but don't let it give you the wrong impression of a faith that does a lot of good accross the world.
The Vatican refuses to act on allegations of child abuse. The abusing priests are moved to another parish, and not punished. In fact, the church prevents them from being legally punished. Recently they have come under fire from the UN about it, and the vatican dodged all points and requests put to them.

Simply put, the vatican retains child abusing priests whilst actively protecting them. It doesn't matter if this number is as small as five, or in the thousands. The fact is they protect the child abusers, but woe betide humanity if there's ever a gay priest.
0
quote
reply
Srxjer
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#71
Report 8 years ago
#71
(Original post by Spacecam)
so openly anti-papist. I pity you.
Catholicism - as with every religion - deserves to be scrutinized, especially when it infringes modern morality.

I see she must've hit a nerve, considering the ad hominem remark.
0
quote
reply
Hy~
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#72
Report 8 years ago
#72
^ And modern morality is? How does an Atheist know what is moral?
0
quote
reply
ciawhobat
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#73
Report 8 years ago
#73
(Original post by Conor Tickner)
Even if you take that stance, which is questionable at best, what about grounds for dismissal? If someone is employed by an anti-gay employer and does not reveal his sexuality, but a few months down the line it is discovered, not by him acting inapropriately at work, but by being seen with another man and admits to it when questioned, for example. Do you think the employer has the right to dismiss the man instantly simply because he is gay?
Yea, pretty much - especially if it was known at the time of his appointment that being gay was so frowned upon by his employer.

(Original post by Conor Tickner)
If for example, any and every business was allowed to refuse to hire gay people, what if it was particularly unpopular to hire gay people at a certain time? It is fair that gay people should have extreme difficulty finding a job?
I don't really understand what "fairness" means here, sorry.

(Original post by Conor Tickner)
Or do you think it's right that anyone should have to hide a part of who they are in order to get by in society? There are limits, of course, for when those parts of a person hurt or interfere significantly with others, but the fact that a man is openly gay (and by that i don't mean prances around like a queen all the time, he simply admits to it and in his private life, which everyone definitely should be entitled to, he has sexual relationships with other men) is totally irrelevent and insignificant. I can't think of a job where it would be inapropriate.
Most people do, all the time. To have it any other way would require a completely different societal arrangement, I would imagine - one that has never really existed and probably never could.
We all act differently in different situations, and with different people.

The extent to which someone else "being gay" bothers or offends people, will vary. You may not give a ****, but it is strongly offensive to other people. Personally I don't give a ****, but then I also don't care about hearing/saying various "racial slurs" - mere words, but they will stir up tremendous feelings of anger and upset among many people when they hear them. Similarly, just knowing someone is gay can be quite a bother to certain people.


As for a more "acceptable" reason why being gay can be an issue in the workplace - basically the same reason men and women are often segregated; to remove sexual attraction and all its complications from situations that really could do without that kind of fuss.
0
quote
reply
Conor Tickner
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#74
Report 8 years ago
#74
(Original post by little_penguin)
The Salvation Army is a church group too, so why can they morally object to govt interventions when the Catholics can't?
They can.

But their point was to imply that the government would be the ones responsible for their reductions in the help they offered. This is simply not the case. They would be the ones making that decision to shut it down and it was simply blackmail.

Protest all you want, thats fine, but blackmail is just wrong and if the gov't hadn't given in and they had gone through with their threats then the slavation army would be the ones doing the wrongdoing.
0
quote
reply
Hy~
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#75
Report 8 years ago
#75
(Original post by Conor Tickner)
They can.

But their point was to imply that the government would be the ones responsible for their reductions in the help they offered. This is simply not the case. They would be the ones making that decision to shut it down and it was simply blackmail.

Protest all you want, thats fine, but blackmail is just wrong and if the gov't hadn't given in and they had gone through with their threats then the slavation army would be the ones doing the wrongdoing.
Is coercion wrong?
0
quote
reply
jackmb
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#76
Report 8 years ago
#76
(Original post by thunder_chunky)
I preferred the old Pope. Can't we get him back somehow?
I'll get you a shovel. :awesome:
0
quote
reply
carcinoma
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#77
Report 8 years ago
#77
Its in His Job Description.

Religions disgust me!
0
quote
reply
little_penguin
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#78
Report 8 years ago
#78
I'm no fan of some RC church policies, or indeed religion in general but the Pope is only standing up for his faith.

If I was gay I would be so appalled by the RC church's stance on homosexuality that I wouldn't want to work for them in any capacity. Equally, if I was the RC church I wouldn't want to hire someone who clearly couldn't uphold the beliefs central to my 'business' as I wouldn't feel they would be the best candidate for the job. Religion is, after all, nothing except a certain code governing faith and beliefs and, as long as people upholding religious practices aren't doing anything to to harm society, they should be allowed to believe in what they want and live according to their beliefs.

I'm a medic and I wouldn't dream of transfusing a Jehovah's Witness even though I would for everyone else. This flies in the face of equality and yet no-one can say it is wrong. The only people harmed are the JWs themselves and as they believe it is wrong to accept blood and would rather die than have a transfusion I have no place to impose any societal belief that transfusing to save a life is correct.
0
quote
reply
Conor Tickner
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#79
Report 8 years ago
#79
(Original post by ciawhobat)
Yea, pretty much - especially if it was known at the time of his appointment that being gay was so frowned upon by his employer.
So people deserve to be stripped of their livelihood and their careers because of something out of their control? something that they choose not to be ashamed of or shunned by society for, and something which isn't wrong? What if all someone wants to do is become a *insert job* and he has all the intelligence, the skills, the charisma, everything required to do that job perfectly, but he can't because he is gay and every employer is against it. Who is in the wrong, the man or the employers?


(Original post by ciawhobat)
I don't really understand what "fairness" means here, sorry.
Fair being synonymous to 'right' or 'justified' in this context.

(Original post by ciawhobat)
Most people do, all the time. To have it any other way would require a completely different societal arrangement, I would imagine - one that has never really existed and probably never could.
We all act differently in different situations, and with different people.
So why can't we work towards that society? The closer we get to it the better. Intollerance is a bad thing. Protection of people who certain members of society are intollerant of is a good thing. The more we eliminate intollerance the better off society is.

(Original post by ciawhobat)
The extent to which someone else "being gay" bothers or offends people, will vary. You may not give a ****, but it is strongly offensive to other people. Personally I don't give a ****, but then I also don't care about hearing/saying various "racial slurs" - mere words, but they will stir up tremendous feelings of anger and upset among many people when they hear them. Similarly, just knowing someone is gay can be quite a bother to certain people.


As for a more "acceptable" reason why being gay can be an issue in the workplace - basically the same reason men and women are often segregated; to remove sexual attraction and all its complications from situations that really could do without that kind of fuss.
The differences between 'being offended by', 'being hostile towards' and 'being disturbed by' etc. are not clear. nobody is claiming they are. nor are they claiming that a perfect way to deal with it is here, but the people in charge, for the most part (power corruption exempt) are trying to find the best way. Having people in society who have to hide and be shunned and display so little of themselves that we are all robots is not a society i want to live in. Obviously people can only express what is 'socially acceptable' and these ideas will vary from person to person, but people don't like to change, even when they should. The more the gov't pushes people to reduce their requirements for 'socially acceptable' the better off our society will be. We will never reach the 'perfect' situation where everyone is 100% accepted, its unrealistic, but there is absolutely even less chance that we will overshoot and suddenly killing people or paedophilia are acceptable.

Obviously things get more complicated elsewhere with other issues, but the underlying argument for me in this area of ethics and this issue is that intolerance is fundamentally wrong. The only case where it can be overriden is because protecting people is right, and is stronger than the wrongness of intolerance.
0
quote
reply
Srxjer
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#80
Report 8 years ago
#80
(Original post by Hy~)
How does an Atheist know what is moral?
My morality definitely isn't from scripture, that's for sure.

I think it's a combination of instinct and our ability to use our intelligence to develop ideas which in turn benefit our society. Because, evolutionally speaking; without this ability, our species would have become extinct in a few short generations. We knew that working together produces the best results.

Religious scripture allows people to condone certain atrocities from their ingrained morality; homophobia, sexism, racism etc.

My morality is purer than any theist's. I don't need the fear of hell to spur me on, or the promise of eternal life. I ask for no reward.
0
quote
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Were you ever put in isolation at school?

Yes (199)
27.56%
No (523)
72.44%

Watched Threads

View All