Turn on thread page Beta

The Pope spreads a little more hate around the world watch

Announcements
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    He looks like the devil
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hy~)
    Is coercion wrong?
    Not fundamentally like blackmail.
    There are so many kinds that I can't fully answer that realistically. Coercion can, in some cases, start to become a form of blackmail, which i believe is wrong. Such examples of this are threats. but offering someone some toast and saying 'oh, go on.' when they refuse is coercion. im pretty sure we'll all agree that isnt wrong.

    I'm not saying the gov't never blackmails people, other governments, societies, groups, businesses etc. I think they are wrong for doing that, but I appreciate why and I do believe they aren't trying to **** things up and they're not acting purely out of self interest, but that doesn't justify doing it back, particularly threatening to refuse to save the lives of what could be thousands of people, indirectly killing them, for the sake of religious belief. Tollerance is taught very strongly in the bible, particularly by a lot of jesus teachings. Why can't the church base its views on those?

    In my opinion:
    ...because its afraid to lose what little integrity it has left when it has realised it's been wrong for so long. They all convince themselves that they should just keep at it and ignore everything that goes against them and it will all blow over. This is one **** storm that isnt going away and will probably cause the catholic church to end, if not in our generation then one of the next few.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Spacecam)
    The Catholic Church cannot "get with the times" as it upholds the teachings of Christ, which cannot change!

    I guess you're still up for a good old inquisition and crusade then?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    why doesn't he just use the force to eradicate gays?

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by n00)
    I guess you're still up for a good old inquisition and crusade then?
    Well said :p:

    I can't add to that. Point refuted in one sentence. Nice.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Srxjer)
    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.
    Hmm well no, I think a moral code is far more than a basic instinct to survive...we are not animals. Otherwise soctiety would get rid of people who are of no use to it. If humans did only think about survival, then homosexuality would not be acceptable anywhere, because if everyone were gay, we wouldn't reproduce so much, and as you say, "our species would have become extinct in a few short generations".

    I'm pleased to say that we live in a society where we don't make decisions about how other people live their lives outside of ours, by allowing people the freedom to make their own choices, therefore, why can't the pope do the same?
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by n00)
    I guess you're still up for a good old inquisition and crusade then?
    Expect rep at midnight.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Conor Tickner)
    Well said

    I can't add to that. Point refuted in one sentence. Nice.
    There's no need for an inquisition.

    However, I have long said we are due a religious war in the next twenty years. God-willing the Church will prevail.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    As much as I hate religion, the Pope is right. It is not for the government to tell people how they decide who they hire. This government tries to involve itself far to much in peoples lives. If you don't like something, however petty it is, it is your inalienable right to not hire them for it. I have the right to discriminate as much as I want.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Spacecam)
    There's no need for an inquisition.

    However, I have long said we are due a religious war in the next twenty years. God-willing the Church will prevail.
    Why exactly do you think this? And if what you think is overdue does take place, given the availability of nuclear weapons, then I'm fairly sure mankind will wipe each other of the face of the Earth and there will certainly be no winner.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Conor Tickner)
    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,

    Yep. I think employers should be able to decide who they employ. That being gay might be out of their control is irrelevant. We could reasonably say that most aspects of our personality our beyond our control. A less intelligent person can't help themselves, it's not their fault, but an employer should be able to tell them to **** off if they don't want them working for them.

    (Original post by Conor Tickner)
    ...and something which isn't wrong?
    Meaningless concept.

    (Original post by Conor Tickner)
    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?
    haha well firstly we're not anywhere near "every employer" being against it, so let's leave that wild hypothetical situation aside for a while.

    Regarding individual employers, though - well, then they can just miss out on that talented individual and their competitors will benefit instead.


    (Original post by Conor Tickner)
    Fair being synonymous to 'right' or 'justified' in this context.
    I still don't understand.


    (Original post by Conor Tickner)
    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.
    The notion of "tolerance" vs. "intolerance", and related dichotomies, I find quite absurd. It's nothing but a political buzz-word that a lot of kids like to use these days, and it simply refers to "tolerating" (i.e. insisting upon) an arbitrary set of values that are currently fashionable (homosexuality, heavily mixed-race communities, non-recognition of national identity, etc.).

    Inevitably, this requires intolerance (i.e. persecution of) the converse ideas and people who believe in them.

    Nothing changes really, and there's no moral high-ground to be taken here.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Scherzando225)
    we are not animals.
    We're 98.6% genetically identical to a chimp.

    Otherwise soctiety would get rid of people who are of no use to it.
    We do, that's what prisons are for.

    If humans did only think about survival, then homosexuality would not be acceptable anywhere, because if everyone were gay, we wouldn't reproduce so much, and as you say, "our species would have become extinct in a few short generations".
    I can see your point. However, it's not damaging to our society. We're not programmed with a lust for creating children. We're programmed with a lust for the act of sex itself. Plus, women still have lust even after the menopause.

    I'm pleased to say that we live in a society where we don't make decisions about how other people live their lives outside of ours, by allowing people the freedom to make their own choices
    I agree. But there are people with a lot of power who's choices will ultimately affect other peoples lives.

    therefore, why can't the pope do the same?
    He's very welcome to express his opinions, that's the very beauty of free speech. But, his views can be rebutted, as they have been.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    We should try to ban him on hate speech grounds, not really but we should have a huge protest, he's a vile creature.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paella)
    As much as I hate religion, the Pope is right. It is not for the government to tell people how they decide who they hire. This government tries to involve itself far to much in peoples lives. If you don't like something, however petty it is, it is your inalienable right to not hire them for it. I have the right to discriminate as much as I want.
    I disagree, its discrimination, they are supposed to judge on certain criteria and that has always been the case.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jackmb)
    I'll get you a shovel. :awesome:

    No need, he's in my freezer.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thunder_chunky)
    No need, he's in my freezer.
    :jebus:
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Rich coming from the head of the biggest peadophile enabling organisation around. Interesting people like Wilders are banned from this country yet this old fool will get a royal welcome.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gesar)
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8492597.stm

    What a ****. There're so many things to say about paedophilia in the church with regards to this.
    Yeah first and foremost beginning with the reason why the Church doesn't like to interact with homosexuals in anyway. If you were unaware those paedophilia cases were the result of homosexual lust. And one last thing. How is it equality to persuade the Church to employ homosexuals. It's favouring homosexuality over religion. Whatever you agree with, there is still a discrimination over one's religion and therefore a discrimination of one's opinion on a subject. Equality bull$$$$ much? Seems the militant feminist agenda once again but given homosexuals are a very small minority compared with half of the world the effect is much, much more devastating.

    The only bad thing about this whole situation is the tax bit but that's something excepted of people who are so blinded by ignorance (it's not an offence, seriously people a bit more general knowledge won't hurt) induce hate.....
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Komakino)
    I disagree, its discrimination, they are supposed to judge on certain criteria and that has always been the case.
    The only criteria they need judge on is 'how suitable is applicant x for the job position'. If a company, in this case the Church - an organisation designed to uphold and spread its code of beliefs, believes homosexuality is wrong then they shouldn't have to employ gay people as it could be damaging to the company. If they were to discriminate on other grounds that weren't integral to their beliefs, ie. not hiring ginger people when they have no reason to, then that would be wrong.

    For HSBC, a company with the sole intention of creating money in a capitalist society, to not hire gays is wrong as being gay doesn't affect your economical beliefs. However, for them to not hire a Communist is perfectly justified IMO as it could result in a lot of people's money being lost and global economic upset.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I see his point.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you like exams?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.