|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: The law and the Christian - Judges ruling on foster couple wider implications?
|
joan knox
Knoxy is my homeboy
# 16100
|
Posted
The clue would be in the title: 'endless, no-resolution-ever'
--------------------
Jesus saves, Allah protects, Buddha enlightens, Cthulhu thinks you'll make a nice sandwich
Posts: 906 | From: edinburgh | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
I haven't heard a sensible riposte about the plight of Catholic foster agencies which, I believe, voluntarily closed down here in the UK back in 2006.
Hang on. Up until now you were saying that BLAIR closed them down.
If the Catholic church voluntarily decides that it cannot abide by the law, that is the Catholic church's decision. It's not a 'plight'.
The church does not have a RIGHT to provide foster services. It's a choice. A choice that has to be made within the laws of the land. The idea that the church was somehow ABOVE the law of the land in these kinds of things died centuries ago (well, at least for most people).
That's certainly the case in a nation like the UK with no entrenched freedom of religion. Even in countries like the USA or Australia with freedom of religion established, it only goes as far as the basic tenets of faith. I doubt, for example, that in these countries you could prohibit church meetings on Sundays.
But I challenge you to point to any creed, anywhere, that says that providing fostering services to children is an essential part of the Christian faith and that Christianity just isn't Christianity anymore if you can't do it.
I think you'll find that the Catholic placement agencies were forced to close down by legislation that pertained to equality matters.
So they closed their doors before they were prosecuted I guess.
Overall I would go with this:
'' the High Court swept aside 2,000 years of Christian orthodoxy and tradition by divorcing sexual ethics from Christianity. Lord Justice Munby and Mr Justice Beatson ruled that there was no discrimination against Mr and Mrs Johns as Christians because they were being excluded from fostering 'due to their sexual ethics and not their Christian beliefs'. It is a manifest falsehood for High Court judges to claim that a believer’s moral beliefs about sex have nothing to do with his or her Christian faith.
While not dismissing the incontrovertible fact that Christians have diverse beliefs on the issue of homosexuality, it is equally incontrovertible that there is a canonical context for believing that homosexual behaviour meets with divine disapproval. And, unlike matters such as slavery and the subordination of women - concerning which there are tensions between the Old and New Testaments and counterposed witnesses - the biblical witness against homosexual practices is univocal.''
This IMO puts the case squarely where it should be seen - sexual ethics cannot be divorced from Christianity and the behaviour of individual Christians. Thats not to say Christians don't sin as they (and I) patently do. But call it for what it is - sin.
Saul the Apostle
PS how long does a 'dead horse' go on for?
Right, there are a whole bunch of things to say about this.
First, the only reason they 'closed their doors before they were prosecuted' is because the law was changed, by the legitimate law-makers, and they decided they could not change their behaviour accordingly.
Sometimes I think you have this idea that the law (not morality) should be eternal and unchanging. It's simply not true. We wouldn't need a Parliament. Alternatively we could have an endless stream of 'grandfather clauses', as they're called, that say 'this new law doesn't apply to you if you don't want it to'. But the consequences of that are pretty dreadful in the long term for the cohesion of society.
In terms of the claimed 'manifest falsehood', I can see the point that their sexual ethics are linked to their Christian belief. I would have liked a bit more analysis in that part of the decision, to be honest.
Nevertheless I think there's a confusion here between 'necessary' connection and 'sufficient' connection. Their particular stance on sexual ethics is neither unique to Christians, nor universally held by Christians. There might be some correlation between Christian faith and their sexual ethics, but neither is an inevitable consequence of the other. And I think that's what the judgment is getting at.
As for the whole business about the scriptures on homosexuality being univocal, and your demand to call it what it is - a sin...
*deep breath*
Please get it through your skull that WE DON'T ALL AGREE THAT THIS IS WHAT THE SCRIPTURES SAY!!!!
[edit: I was so cranky on that last bit that I made a typo]
[ 07. March 2011, 23:43: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
I think you'll find that the Catholic placement agencies were forced to close down by legislation that pertained to equality matters.
So they closed their doors before they were prosecuted I guess.
Indeed. Who needs facts when you can just make guesses to fuel your paranoia? If I had to guess I would base that guess on the identical situation in the States which involved Catholic Charities not wanting to do the job the government needed and the work being sent to someone else.
quote:
Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
This IMO puts the case squarely where it should be seen - sexual ethics cannot be divorced from Christianity and the behaviour of individual Christians. Thats not to say Christians don't sin as they (and I) patently do. But call it for what it is - sin.
Sure, but there's sin and then there's sin. According to the Catholic Church (and, apparently, you) open adultery within marriage isn't quite as sinful as monogamous homosexuality. After all, the Catholic Church considers those who remarry after divorce to be adulterers and yet (at least in the case of U.S.-based foster agencies) were willing to place foster children with these couples. I guess there are some moral principles that can be compromised in the face of anti-discrimination laws, as long as they don't involve Teh Ghey.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
To be clear, Saul, I don't object to your view that all homosexual acts are wrong. I might disagree with it, but I don't object to it.
What I object to is every time you talk as if it's the only possible interpretation of Scripture. As if the only way to believe that homosexuality is not sinful is to either ignore the Bible or to twist it for self-serving ends.
I find such a view to be an attack on my personal integrity. It basically implies that after all my years of struggling with this issue, I just decided to say 'you know what, stuff what the Bible says, I don't care what it says'.
Now that might have worked perfectly well for my atheist father, but it doesn't work for me and it's not what I did. I believe that homosexuality is okay because I finally, after much testing, came to the conclusion that the Bible never prohibits it. It only prohibits particular homosexual practices, in exactly the same way that it prohibits particular heterosexual practices.
Whether or not you agree with me is up to you. But I'm going to keep on insisting that you accept that it IS my view and that it's a sincerely held one.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
HughWillRidmee
Shipmate
# 15614
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Midge:
quote:
Originally posted by Haydee:
quote:
Originally posted by The Midge:
So in this case: could a fosterer express their opinions, if asked, without imposing them on their charge? Is it prejudicial to assume these potential fosterers are incapable of achieving this simply because of their particular brand of religion?
But that doesn't seem to be the case - the local authority involved has a number of Christian (and Muslim) foster carers. In this specific case the couple stated that, in the case of a teenager who thought they might be gay, they would "turn them round". And that they would tell a foster child, if the subject came up, that it wasn't OK to be gay. That was why the council had concerns. As the judges said, the council would also have had concerns if they held these beliefs about homosexuality for reasons other than faith. Faith is not the issue.
Given that when you make a placement you can't be sure whether the child will be in this situation in the future, how could you be sure their needs would be met with this couple?
So what is needed is training and guidance on how to keep true to one's religion whilst recognising duties to others. Not a law suit.
It should be ok to say "I believe x" whilst still loving the other.
Unfortunately many people with strong but unprovable convictions tend not to say "I believe x" but "I know x" - and that's wrong if the listener is unable to respond from a position of legal, educational, positional and independent equivalence.
--------------------
The danger to society is not merely that it should believe wrong things.. but that it should become credulous, and lose the habit of testing things and inquiring into them...
W. K. Clifford, "The Ethics of Belief" (1877)
Posts: 894 | From: Middle England | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
HughWillRidmee
Shipmate
# 15614
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
Well here is a short piece from the 'Anglican Mainstream' site.
quote:
There really is clash of values on view in this court case, and the judges are simply saying ‘we are secularists, Christianity has no place in our deliberations.’ The trouble is that senior judges, such as Lord Chief Justice Phillips, say that Muslims in Britain should be able to live under Sharia Law in certain sectors of life, so there is a legal place for religious values, albeit in cases where there is no conflict with the secular law. Their problem is that Christianity is unique in the UK: all our laws, our monarchy, our Parliament, our NHS, our schools and universities, were based on Christian praxis and values. They argue that while there is this Christian heritage, modern law is not based on religious rules. The judges need to pull a very large rug out from under themselves in order to claim that the law is wholly ‘secular’ – itself of course a very debated concept and commitment.
This case is about the Johns' conscience and the juggernaut of the secular post Christian/post modern state.
Saul
I think some people, accidentally or deliberately, have totally misunderstood what the case is about.
I suggest that it is about the quality of support and teaching that a foster child would receive whilst the responsibility of the local authority. That is, its not about conscience, its not about beliefs, its not about religion and its not about an attack on anyone or anything - its about children and its about caring.
IMO the world might be a better place if anyone who sees this judgement as primarily an attack on their cultural/religious preferences were to reflect upon the value of any preference which leads to the elevation of a sadly intolerant and frankly rather silly mantra over the emotional wellbeing of a vulnerable human being (and we're all vulnerable to a greater or lesser extent).
--------------------
The danger to society is not merely that it should believe wrong things.. but that it should become credulous, and lose the habit of testing things and inquiring into them...
W. K. Clifford, "The Ethics of Belief" (1877)
Posts: 894 | From: Middle England | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
quote:
Originally posted by Apocalypso:
A near-universal consensus is now a gnat? Wow. That's a pretty impressive about-face.
I am less and less convinced of the sincerity of your posts, and more and more inclined to suspect a wind-up, which renders further engagement here a waste of bandwidth.
I'm done.
hosting
Apocalypso,
Accusations of this sort breach Commandments 3 and 4, and belong in Hell. That's effectively an accusation of trolling. Please don't make such accusations here or continue the discussion in such a vein.
thanks,
Louise
Dead Horses Host
hosting
My apologies, Louise. I was trying to explain my reasons for ending my interaction on this thread with StA, and also tried to avoid making any accusation, since obviously I cannot know StA's intentions, but expressed my suspicions (and reasons for same). No outright accusation was intended, though I do see now on second reading that it comes across that way.
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Saul the Apostle
Shipmate
# 13808
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
To be clear, Saul, I don't object to your view that all homosexual acts are wrong. I might disagree with it, but I don't object to it.
What I object to is every time you talk as if it's the only possible interpretation of Scripture. As if the only way to believe that homosexuality is not sinful is to either ignore the Bible or to twist it for self-serving ends.
I find such a view to be an attack on my personal integrity. It basically implies that after all my years of struggling with this issue, I just decided to say 'you know what, stuff what the Bible says, I don't care what it says'.
Now that might have worked perfectly well for my atheist father, but it doesn't work for me and it's not what I did. I believe that homosexuality is okay because I finally, after much testing, came to the conclusion that the Bible never prohibits it. It only prohibits particular homosexual practices, in exactly the same way that it prohibits particular heterosexual practices.
Whether or not you agree with me is up to you. But I'm going to keep on insisting that you accept that it IS my view and that it's a sincerely held one.
Orfeo,
I accept your view. I actually respect your view. I suspect, indeed I know, that from where you are right now, you have come on an incredible journey. I respect that.
One of the dangers of orthodoxy, is that holders of that orthodoxy can easily (I include myself here) sit on this high ground and smugly look down on those who don't quite reach our 'standards'. If that comes across from my posts, well, I am sorry.
The above, came to me as I was out on a gloriously sunny day and enjoying the first hint of Spring here on the South coast of England.
Not sure if it was you, but someone on this thread, said that many of the people who post on this thread/site, have been hurt by the Church and Christians. That also made me think.
Allied to this, are the couple I've got to meet who are gay and whilst I've met gay people before, this is the first couple I've met. We're not friends, we just meet when we're walking our dogs on a small recreation ground near where I live and we get talking.
So, I can only answer your point. I accept your conclusions and I do accept it a sincere belief. I hope I do not dismiss your views, as I stated earlier I respect your views that you've so honestly made.
Saul
[ 08. March 2011, 06:19: Message edited by: Saul the Apostle ]
--------------------
"I cannot forecast to you the action of Russia. It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma; but perhaps there is a key. That key is Russian national interest."
Posts: 1772 | From: unsure | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Apology accepted, with thanks.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
I disagree with Saul on many points on this thread, but I can't help feeling that mountains are being made out of molehills here.
"Judeao-Christian" I have always taken as a recognition that many parts of Christianity predate Jesus by centuries - they were the faith of his fathers. So while mediaeval Europe by and large was happy to persecute Jews, it was also happy - by and large - to uphold the 10 Commandments as a standard on how to behave.
And to deny there was a consensus in the past on various issues we now debate seems plain silly. So does attaching too much weight to it; there was a time when there was a consensus that the sun went round the earth, for example. But our heritage as Brits is largely Christian, in a certain way. Whether it was the best way, is clearly moot.
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pre-cambrian
Shipmate
# 2055
|
Posted
I object to the suggestion that there used to be a consensus because it's a fluffy anachronism that ignores a whole range of historical realities, not least that for most of the time it is supposed to have existed the vast majority of the British population wasn't in a position to offer a consensus on the policy or operation of state, law or church.
--------------------
"We cannot leave the appointment of Bishops to the Holy Ghost, because no one is confident that the Holy Ghost would understand what makes a good Church of England bishop."
Posts: 2314 | From: Croydon | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
Perhaps a short pithy quote might do.
quote:
-The Abolition of Man C.S. Lewis
"A great many of those who 'debunk' traditional...values have in the background values of their own which they believe to be immune from the debunking process."
You're misusing the quote. Lewis isn't defending ‘traditional' (=Christian) ethics against secular revision there. What he is defending in TAOM is natural law, objective morality per se, the idea that some concept of morality must simply be accepted as a given for there to be moral discourse at all. He's talking about the tradition common to all humanity of approaching the world as if it were self-evident that there is such a thing as right and wrong. He's not objecting (in that book) to challenges to particular moral injunctions in a culturally prevalent tradition, he's objecting to a certain form of attack - one that ‘debunks' moral assertions by dismantling the basis of morality altogether, without facing the fact that their own values are as vulnerable to the morally-blind "why should I care?" attack as anyone else's.
Many people (orfeo's an excellent example) who affirm homosexuality do not thereby attack traditional values in the sense that Lewis was discussing, because their acceptance of it is founded on traditional morality: love, commitment and affection are good things, and stable partnerships in which they are expressed should be permitted. They are engaging within a moral context, not briefly and inconsistently stepping outside it to undermine all morality, preserving their own values only be rhetorical sleight of hand.
(I'd argue from Lewis' works - and would provide references if I could be arsed to do so - that he regarded the variation in sexual ethics between cultures as part of ‘positive law' rather than ‘natural law', and therefore the question of whether homosexuality is permissible isn't within TAOM thesis in any way - though of course Lewis did accept the then more-or-less-consensus view that homosexuality was wrong (and thought it should nonetheless be legal).)
quote:
Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
Overall I would go with this:
'' the High Court swept aside 2,000 years of Christian orthodoxy and tradition by divorcing sexual ethics from Christianity. Lord Justice Munby and Mr Justice Beatson ruled that there was no discrimination against Mr and Mrs Johns as Christians because they were being excluded from fostering 'due to their sexual ethics and not their Christian beliefs'. It is a manifest falsehood for High Court judges to claim that a believer's moral beliefs about sex have nothing to do with his or her Christian faith...
That is a blatant misreading of the judgment, and in particular the last sentence bears no relation to what was said. The judgment simply does not claim that the applicants' beliefs had nothing to do with their faith.
The case affirms that the council - which was already bound by clear policies to equal treatment regardless of sexual orientation - were entitled to take account of the likely impact of clearly expressed and deep-rooted non-acceptance of homosexuality by prospective foster parents. The decision was not at all that this non-acceptance had no religious basis, the decision was that the council were not acting unlawfully or unreasonably by taking account of it whether or not it had such a basis.
There is no suggestion that being a Christian should be divorced from trying to live ethically in relation to sexual matters or anything else. It's just not there. That's not what the judges decided, and you have thoroughly misunderstood their reasoning if you think they did.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Saul the Apostle
Shipmate
# 13808
|
Posted
Fundamentally, it is about which side you're batting for. Humanistic Secularism v Christianity IMHO.
The arguments in scripture about homosexuality are not the easiest; but taken as a broad whole, there is harmony; that is, homosexual relations are not what God wants for His children.
That has been Christian teaching and tradition for hundreds of years. There was a consensus on this matter, that view was clear , unambiguous and consistent, from all the major traditions, both Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox wings of the church.
This sums up my own perspective broadly on the theological side.........
''It is a matter for the Johns as to whether they appeal, but this aspect of the judgment against them is easily refuted. Genesis 19:1-29, the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, is actually irrelevant to the topic (being concerned with gang rape and sex with angels [cf Jude 7]), but it has often been adduced throughout church history as being concerned with homosexuality. Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 are more useful, being quite obviously concerned with homosexual behaviour and being unremittingly negative in their judgment. To insist that obedience to these scriptures may not constitute a Christian ethic on homosexuality must mean that the traditional beliefs on adultery, incest and bestiality (Lev 20:10-16) may also not constitute a Christian sexual ethic. It is to be observed that ‘lying with a man as with a woman’ is categorically proscribed. This is an unambiguous legal prohibition which stands as the foundation for the universal rejection of same-sex intercourse within Judaism.
Of course, quoting levitical law does not settle the question for Christian ethics. But the early church did consistently adopt the Old Testament’s teaching in matters of sexual morality (1 Cor 6:9-11; 1Tim 1:10; Acts 15:28f). The fact that malakoi and arsenokoitai are mentioned as wrongdoers who will not inherit the kingdom of God is sufficient in itself to refute the assertion of Munby and Beatson. Yes, the terms are open to interpretation, for neither translates directly as ‘homosexual’. But malakoi is pejorative Greek slang for ‘passive’ sexual partners – often young boys – in homosexual activity. And arsenokoitai has traditionally been interpreted as a male who lies with a male, directly linking it to Leviticus 18:22.
But perhaps the most crucial text for Christian ethics concerning homosexuality is Romans 1:18-32, which sets condemnation of the act in an explicitly theological context. This is also the only passage that refers to lesbianism. Rebellion against God leads to depravity, among which is listed sexual activity between members of the same sex. For Paul, homosexual acts are sinful and, indeed, evil.
When you set these scriptures in the context of God’s creative intention for human sexuality (Gen 1; Mk 10:2-9; 1Thess 4:3-8; 1Cor 7:1-9; Eph 5:21-33; Heb 13:4), it is as clear as the light of day that Christian beliefs can determine a particular ethical stance on homosexuality. Ergo this part of the Munby-Beatson judgment is profoundly in error.''
Saul
Grateful thanks to Cranmer for the quote.
[ 08. March 2011, 14:53: Message edited by: Saul the Apostle ]
--------------------
"I cannot forecast to you the action of Russia. It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma; but perhaps there is a key. That key is Russian national interest."
Posts: 1772 | From: unsure | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
pjkirk
Shipmate
# 10997
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
Fundamentally, it is about which side you're batting for. Humanistic Secularism v Christianity IMHO.
Your opinion can be as humble as pie, but it is still bullshit. As has been pointed out to you many times on this thread. The (non)decision has nothing to do with either. Sometimes I wonder if you bother to read what other post before you go on, forging ahead, in the wrong direction the whole time.
--------------------
Dear God, I would like to file a bug report -- Randall Munroe (http://xkcd.com/258/)
Posts: 1177 | From: Swinging on a hammock, chatting with Bokonon | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Saul the Apostle
Shipmate
# 13808
|
Posted
quote:
Your opinion can be as humble as pie, but it is still bullshit
Unacceptable
--------------------
"I cannot forecast to you the action of Russia. It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma; but perhaps there is a key. That key is Russian national interest."
Posts: 1772 | From: unsure | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Saul the Apostle
Shipmate
# 13808
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
quote:
Your opinion can be as humble as pie, but it is still bullshit
Unacceptable
I also checked the 10 Commandments. So you go to Hell pjkirk.
''......Attack the issue, not the person
Name-calling and personal insults are only allowed in Hell. Attacks outside of Hell are grounds for suspension or banning.''
StA
--------------------
"I cannot forecast to you the action of Russia. It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma; but perhaps there is a key. That key is Russian national interest."
Posts: 1772 | From: unsure | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
pjkirk
Shipmate
# 10997
|
Posted
Your opinion is bullshit I said. Your ideas. Your posts on the thread. See the difference?
--------------------
Dear God, I would like to file a bug report -- Randall Munroe (http://xkcd.com/258/)
Posts: 1177 | From: Swinging on a hammock, chatting with Bokonon | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
TonyK
Host Emeritus
# 35
|
Posted
[Host Mode ACTIVATE]
pjkirk - please stop the personal attack on Saul. You have been around long enough to know that this is not acceptable on this Board.
Note to all - 'Junior Hosting' is not required in any thread. If it is felt that a breach of the 10Cs has occured and no hostly response has resulted, contact us and, if necessary, an Admin. by PM, for action.
Anybody guilty of Junior Hosting may be required to do the job for real - and you wouldn't want that, would you? ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
[Host Mode DEACTIVATE]
--------------------
Yours aye ... TonyK
Posts: 2717 | From: Gloucestershire | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
Fundamentally, it is about which side you're batting for. Humanistic Secularism v Christianity IMHO.
The arguments in scripture about homosexuality are not the easiest; but taken as a broad whole, there is harmony; that is, homosexual relations are not what God wants for His children.
And just like that, you render your previous apology utterly meaningless.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
And to deny there was a consensus in the past on various issues we now debate seems plain silly. So does attaching too much weight to it; there was a time when there was a consensus that the sun went round the earth, for example. But our heritage as Brits is largely Christian, in a certain way. Whether it was the best way, is clearly moot.
Is there a pond difference in the meaning of "consensus," perhaps?
My (US) understanding is that "consensus" results from a fairly formal process to actively incorporate minority views in any decision made by, or action taken by, a consensus-seeking group.
Its use on this thread makes it sound like a synonym for "majority," though I'm not clear who's a Brit and who's a USAsian, so maybe the pond difference is nonexistent.
For me, this difference is crucial: majoritarian approaches frequently discount, exclude, dismiss and/or ignore minority views, sometimes leading to substantial alienation of the entities holding them.
Consensus works to avoid such alienation. This is why I have objected, with some heat, to the notion of a "Judaeo-Christian consensus."
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Saul the Apostle
Shipmate
# 13808
|
Posted
Honi soit qui mal y pense
I stand by what I've previously said. Short of meeting the Johns', I can't comment further upon the case or them in particular.
Whatever ones feeling about homosexuality, fostering, Christian values/behaviour, the Judges comments do signify something of a watershed.
For my part the Judges comments are a continuing march down the route away from traditional Christian behaviour and values; but this march has been progressing apace for some time and this is but one more piece in the overall mosaic. IMHO.
StA
--------------------
"I cannot forecast to you the action of Russia. It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma; but perhaps there is a key. That key is Russian national interest."
Posts: 1772 | From: unsure | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
Honi soit qui mal y pense
I stand by what I've previously said. Short of meeting the Johns', I can't comment further upon the case or them in particular.
Whatever ones feeling about homosexuality, fostering, Christian values/behaviour, the Judges comments do signify something of a watershed.
For my part the Judges comments are a continuing march down the route away from traditional Christian behaviour and values; but this march has been progressing apace for some time and this is but one more piece in the overall mosaic. IMHO.
StA
I'm genuinely confused. Is it a watershed or is just another step in a march that has been going on for much longer?
My understanding of what 'watershed' means isn't really compatible with the other statements in your post.
PS Please translate the first sentence of your post as well. Thanks.
[ 09. March 2011, 06:19: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
quote:
Fundamentally, it is about which side you're batting for. Humanistic Secularism v Christianity IMHO.
There I have to part company with you Saul. From where I am sitting it seems to me to be a clash between two principles: the duty to protect the weak and powerless, and the need to condemn homosexuality. The first of these I see clearly written many times in Scripture, the second I do not find there at all. While I accept that other Christians can disagree with my judgement on the latter, I think it is true that there are hundreds of verses talking about our responsiblity to care for those in need and a scant handful that (might) refer to homosexuality.
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Saul the Apostle
Shipmate
# 13808
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
Honi soit qui mal y pense
I stand by what I've previously said. Short of meeting the Johns', I can't comment further upon the case or them in particular.
Whatever ones feeling about homosexuality, fostering, Christian values/behaviour, the Judges comments do signify something of a watershed.
For my part the Judges comments are a continuing march down the route away from traditional Christian behaviour and values; but this march has been progressing apace for some time and this is but one more piece in the overall mosaic. IMHO.
StA
I'm genuinely confused. Is it a watershed or is just another step in a march that has been going on for much longer?
My understanding of what 'watershed' means isn't really compatible with the other statements in your post.
PS Please translate the first sentence of your post as well. Thanks.
In my understanding the 'watershed' is the implications (hence the OP) of the Judges comments; this legal case is part of the (in my view) the wider march of secular humanism in society or progress; one or the other depending on ones views. So the legal ruling was IMO a watershed and it has to be seen in context with a 'progressive' march in society (well in the UK) throughout the 20th century. Some of that march has been genuine progress, some less so, in my case the glaring one, is the 'progress' for women to slaughter children in the womb; called abortion, it is legalised murder. This is seen by some as 'progress', by other likes myself as a retrograde step that snuffs out life that has no voice.
The latin quote is from the Order of the Garter - roughly translated it is: Evil be to him who evil thinks.
Saul the Ap.
--------------------
"I cannot forecast to you the action of Russia. It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma; but perhaps there is a key. That key is Russian national interest."
Posts: 1772 | From: unsure | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Saul the Apostle
Shipmate
# 13808
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
Honi soit qui mal y pense
I stand by what I've previously said. Short of meeting the Johns', I can't comment further upon the case or them in particular.
Whatever ones feeling about homosexuality, fostering, Christian values/behaviour, the Judges comments do signify something of a watershed.
For my part the Judges comments are a continuing march down the route away from traditional Christian behaviour and values; but this march has been progressing apace for some time and this is but one more piece in the overall mosaic. IMHO.
StA
I'm genuinely confused. Is it a watershed or is just another step in a march that has been going on for much longer?
My understanding of what 'watershed' means isn't really compatible with the other statements in your post.
PS Please translate the first sentence of your post as well. Thanks.
In my understanding the 'watershed' is the implications (hence the OP) of the Judges comments; this legal case is part of the (in my view) the wider march of secular humanism in society or progress; one or the other depending on ones views. So the legal ruling was IMO a watershed and it has to be seen in context with a 'progressive' march in society (well in the UK) throughout the 20th century. Some of that march has been genuine progress, some less so, in my case the glaring one, is the 'progress' for women to slaughter children in the womb; called abortion, it is legalised murder. This is seen by some as 'progress', by other likes myself as a retrograde step that snuffs out life that has no voice.
Fundamentally, as the communists realised, it is about the fight for ideas and to a degree ideology. That is why i regard this ruling as a retrograde step. With the proviso that unlike the Judges I do not know the Johns' and there may be reasons why they don't think they'd make good foster parents, apart from their religious faith. If so this has not been said, so I am left to conclude it is about their religious faith.
The latin quote is from the Order of the Garter - roughly translated it is: ''Evil be to him who evil thinks.''
Saul the Ap.
--------------------
"I cannot forecast to you the action of Russia. It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma; but perhaps there is a key. That key is Russian national interest."
Posts: 1772 | From: unsure | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Well, you can see at as a watershed if you wish.
The judges themselves seem to place the watershed in 1917, and I'd be inclined to agree with them. That's where they date the basic principle that the law is secular, not Christian.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
By the way, having read the wording of your last post, it's worth repeating that it is fundamentally wrong to think that the judges had any view about the merits of the Johns as foster parents. The function of the court is to ensure that the council forms a view on the Johns according to law. The court doesn't have power to decide whether the council's decision is a 'good' decision or the 'best' one, only whether it is lawfully made.
Even if a judge thought the Johns were the most wonderful people the judge had ever met, that would not give the judge any power to decide that the council has to allow them to be foster parents.
That's a principle - separation of powers - that is much, much older than 1917. I'd say it's been established since at least the English Civil War.
Parliament makes laws. The executive (eg the council) implements them. And the courts see to it that the implementation is within the scope of the law.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
TonyK
Host Emeritus
# 35
|
Posted
[Host Mode ACTIVATE]
TonyK - please use the preview post button and read for comprehension as well as typography before committing your words to the world. [gives heavy slap on wrist]
pjkirk - I meant to refer you to Commandment 4 (If you must get personal, take it to Hell) rather than C3 (Attack the issue, not the person). No excuse, other than tiredness and 'late at night' (for me) confusion.
I have also explained myself on the thread in the Styx Board. Thank you to Apocalypso for raising the matter.
[Host Mode DEACTIVATE]
--------------------
Yours aye ... TonyK
Posts: 2717 | From: Gloucestershire | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Saul the Apostle
Shipmate
# 13808
|
Posted
It was telling that David Cameron was questioned on the Johns' case when he visited Derby on the 8th March.
The Conservative prime Minister seemed to agree with the Judges ruling about Mr and Mrs Johns.
The commentator Cranmer seems to be erudite in his interpretation of the visit by Cameron and Cameron's subsequent questioning on the case. I make no apology for quoting Cranmer as it is entirely relevant to the OP.
''Considering that the children to be fostered by Mr and Mrs Johns were aged just 5-10, the whole homosexuality objection by Derbyshire social workers was a ruse. It is ironic indeed that we have come to a point in society at which two inexperienced homosexuals can freely adopt a child while two very experienced heterosexual Christians may not. And the Prime Minister presumes to lecture us on the importance of tolerance and broad-mindedness. For Christ's sake, we're talking about the welfare of children. It is certainly conservative and ought to be Conservative to consider that the priority here is the mental, physical and spiritual wellbeing of the children. And it is certainly more Christian to be concerned with loving and nurturing them than with some abstract state orthodoxy of politically-correct child-rearing.
It is reported that the country needs some 10,000 additional foster carers to meet the growing need. Mrs Johns is 62 and her husband 65. While most people that age would be winding down to indulge in a retirement of health spas, golf and perpetual Saga holidays, they want nothing more but to continue fostering, caring and nurturing children who have a need for a secure home. It can’t be for the money, for the financial reward is meagre and the emotional stress considerable: Mr and Mrs Johns simply wish to give love; to suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto them: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.
Just how many boxes do Eunice and Owen Johns tick? Being black is a great start; so is their sense of social responsibility; their selfless compassion; their community mindedness; their parental example as role models – they were described by Derby City Council as ‘kind and hospitable people who would always do their best to make a child welcome and comfortable’.
John and Eunice Johns are the Big Society.
They and people like them have been doing it since long before David Cameron was an embryo.
But they happen to hold to Jewish, Christian and Muslim orthodoxy that homosexual practice is a sin, and so they are judged to be insufficiently committed to ‘gay equality’; they do not believe that gay sex is completely equivalent to the heterosexual kind.
Is that trivially tittilating test the new inviolable touchstone of Conservative expression? Is it now an immutable article of faith that all Conservative candidates must be ‘tolerant, welcoming and broad-minded’ not of a diverse electorate – which is a necessary attribute in a pluralist democracy – but of all beliefs and immoral behaviours?''
Telling words from His Worship I think.
For the full article see Cranmer's blog spot...
http://www.archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.com/
StA
[ 09. March 2011, 17:00: Message edited by: Saul the Apostle ]
--------------------
"I cannot forecast to you the action of Russia. It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma; but perhaps there is a key. That key is Russian national interest."
Posts: 1772 | From: unsure | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
The latin quote is from the Order of the Garter - roughly translated it is: Evil be to him who evil thinks.
Saul the Ap.
Latin?
I think the ruling on British educational standards is now in. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Saul the Apostle
Shipmate
# 13808
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
The latin quote is from the Order of the Garter - roughly translated it is: Evil be to him who evil thinks.
Saul the Ap.
Latin?
I think the ruling on British educational standards is now in.
![[Confused]](confused.gif) What is British education coming to.
Well spotted and I will wear a hair shirt for a whole week now. Before any Shipisti say it I am NOT in Opus Dei ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
S t A
--------------------
"I cannot forecast to you the action of Russia. It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma; but perhaps there is a key. That key is Russian national interest."
Posts: 1772 | From: unsure | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
Saul,
I don't think anyone is impressed by cutting and pasting from a pseudonymous blogger whose only qualification on the subject seems to be that he agrees with you.
cheers,
Louise
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Saul the Apostle
Shipmate
# 13808
|
Posted
I did think academic historian David Starkey's views on Question Time the other day was telling, when he spoke about the Johns case in particular, he referred to it as a ''new tyranny'' and an ''imposed morality''.
Starkey is himself gay and spoke very openly about his own background and his strong opposition to this 'new tyranny' as he called it that the Johns case seemed to him to be.
Saul
--------------------
"I cannot forecast to you the action of Russia. It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma; but perhaps there is a key. That key is Russian national interest."
Posts: 1772 | From: unsure | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
What do you know? Gay people can misinterpret court cases too.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Saul the Apostle
Shipmate
# 13808
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
What do you know? Gay people can misinterpret court cases too.
MT
look at the clip on Cranmer. I would be interested to unpack where he's coming from? I am guessing that he rather that people be up front about their views on homosexuality; within reason of course.
He quoted the Christian B&B owners and Starkey suggested they have a short statement in their window. You'd have to look at the clip to get his drift. I just thought it was an alternative voice from a man who is gay.
S.
--------------------
"I cannot forecast to you the action of Russia. It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma; but perhaps there is a key. That key is Russian national interest."
Posts: 1772 | From: unsure | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Pre-cambrian
Shipmate
# 2055
|
Posted
Saul, you keep on lauding the Johns and saying what wonderful foster parents they would make. However, I asked you some time ago, well a week in fact, when you had described them as ideal in every way what your response would be to others of their declared views on how they would look after a foster child, as follows: quote:
You now seem to have read the judgement so, putting aside the issue of homosexuality but referring to other evidence cited in the judgement, are you arguing that:
a. saying, as they did, that they would be unable to take a Muslim child to a mosque makes them eminently suitable to foster children; or
b. refusing to alter their Sunday church-going habits, as they did, meaning that the foster child would be either left behind and neglected or forced to go to their church, makes them eminently suitable to foster children?
Are you saying that either of those behaviours is "ideal in every way"?
An answer would be nice.
--------------------
"We cannot leave the appointment of Bishops to the Holy Ghost, because no one is confident that the Holy Ghost would understand what makes a good Church of England bishop."
Posts: 2314 | From: Croydon | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
What do you know? Gay people can misinterpret court cases too.
Yup. Last time I looked, I didn't claim an innate understanding of administrative law just because I'm queer.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
''Considering that the children to be fostered by Mr and Mrs Johns were aged just 5-10, the whole homosexuality objection by Derbyshire social workers was a ruse.
If someone wants to argue that the law requiring the Derbyshire social workers to consider the homosexuality issue should have been written differently, so that it was only asked in cases involving older children, then that case could be made.
But it could be made to the people who wrote the law. Not the people tasked with implementing it.
Separation. Of. Fucking. Powers.
Blaming the social workers on the ground is just as stupid as yelling at the shop assistant who is required to follow store policy and will get sacked if he/she doesn't. If you don't like the policy, go and yell at the store manager who might have some powers to alter the policy. Even more effective in the case of a larger store would be writing to the senior management or CEO, someone who actually has the power to do something.
All of which suggests that this Cranmer person has no great insight into what's going on here. Louise's comment is seconded.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
Saul,
I can tell you where David Starkey is coming from. He's paid a great deal of money to come out with controversial views on the TV and wireless in order to entertain. His actual field of expertise is Tudor History and even in that he's known to come out with extreme views in order to get lots of publicity. Being contrarian is part of his act.
If you'd like to cite him on Henry VIII's household, then he's an excellent authority, but on a controversial subject on the TV not so much.
cheers,
Louise
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Saul the Apostle
Shipmate
# 13808
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
Saul, you keep on lauding the Johns and saying what wonderful foster parents they would make. However, I asked you some time ago, well a week in fact, when you had described them as ideal in every way what your response would be to others of their declared views on how they would look after a foster child, as follows: quote:
You now seem to have read the judgement so, putting aside the issue of homosexuality but referring to other evidence cited in the judgement, are you arguing that:
a. saying, as they did, that they would be unable to take a Muslim child to a mosque makes them eminently suitable to foster children; or
b. refusing to alter their Sunday church-going habits, as they did, meaning that the foster child would be either left behind and neglected or forced to go to their church, makes them eminently suitable to foster children?
Are you saying that either of those behaviours is "ideal in every way"?
An answer would be nice.
Pre cambrian,
as far as I am aware, I have prefaced most of my comments about the Johns with the rider I do not know them personally. But, given that I am a traditionalist Christian, I generally will hope that other traditionalists will have certain values (doesn't always work out like that, but there you are) that are wholly positive. Again, my instincts are to find common cause with those who describe themselves as (committed) Christians; there is a common heritage and a common bond IMO.
The two issues you raise are red herrings IMHO.
NO foster parents would be ideal if one looks at the minutiae of their daily lives. I can't recall the quote about Mosque or Sunday church, from the Johns' but if you say they said that, well lets accept that as a given.
On balance of probabilities, a 5 to 10 year old may be a Muslim and may need Muslim worship, statistically a lower probability, but it could arise. But one would have to work that through with the social workers as a reasonable person/s. If the Johns can't home a child with those needs another family would have to be found.
Most 5 to 10 year olds, in actual real life, would most likely be thrilled to go to a Pentecostal church and if it was like many of them, it would be full of life, joy, worship and love. So its an Aunt Sally in my view for 99.9% of cases.
No one couple is totally ''ideal''are they, be fair? One has to look at the whole package and the fact that the Johns' don't see homosexuality as the greatest thing since sliced bread, is for me no deficiency. Of course for the new model secular humanists and gay rights people it obviously is an issue.
If people were honest, my suspicion is that for many, who are not gay, they are often ambivalent about gays, rather than actively 'hostile' as such. Speaking personally it just doesn't get on my 'radar' that much, but I'm not hostile; albeit I do have traditional views as a believing Christian.
At a tangent, how many people are gay as a %. I thought someone said earlier it was 1% of the population lead an actively gay lifestyle. This is not a trick question. I am genuinely interested.
S t A
[ 10. March 2011, 06:00: Message edited by: Saul the Apostle ]
--------------------
"I cannot forecast to you the action of Russia. It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma; but perhaps there is a key. That key is Russian national interest."
Posts: 1772 | From: unsure | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
What do you know? Gay people can misinterpret court cases too.
Yup. Last time I looked, I didn't claim an innate understanding of administrative law just because I'm queer.
Maybe - but I bet your fashion sense is fabulous!
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
What do you know? Gay people can misinterpret court cases too.
Yup. Last time I looked, I didn't claim an innate understanding of administrative law just because I'm queer.
Maybe - but I bet your fashion sense is fabulous!
BLATANT STEREOTYPING!!!
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
At a tangent, how many people are gay as a %. I thought someone said earlier it was 1% of the population lead an actively gay lifestyle. This is not a trick question. I am genuinely interested.
Ignoring the fact that you've trotted out the word 'lifestyle' in the totally inappropriate way that I've given up trying to correct just now, estimates of the percentage of the population that are homosexual varies enormously. Estimates from 2% to 10% are common.
My own view is that the discrepancy is best explained on the grounds 10% is closer to the percentage who have had some kind of same-sex sexual experience during their lives or same-sex attraction, and 2% is closer to the percentage that actually identify as homosexual in their orientation.
The percentage that actively live a 'lifestyle' involving sequins, feather boas, skintight tops in bright colours and whatever else you think a gay 'lifestyle' involves, I've no idea.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
If people were honest, my suspicion is that for many, who are not gay, they are often ambivalent about gays, rather than actively 'hostile' as such. Speaking personally it just doesn't get on my 'radar' that much, but I'm not hostile; albeit I do have traditional views as a believing Christian.
You appear to be saying that believing Christians perforce have "traditional views" on homosexuality. Say you're not.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
If people were honest, my suspicion is that for many, who are not gay, they are often ambivalent about gays, rather than actively 'hostile' as such. Speaking personally it just doesn't get on my 'radar' that much, but I'm not hostile; albeit I do have traditional views as a believing Christian.
You appear to be saying that believing Christians perforce have "traditional views" on homosexuality. Say you're not.
If he is, it's more evidence that the apology Saul gave me wasn't worth the pixels it was displayed on.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Saul the Apostle:
Fundamentally, it is about which side you're batting for. Humanistic Secularism v Christianity IMHO.
If "Christianity" is to be defined the way you want it to be defined, then I'm on the side of Secularism. My faith in Christ does not allow me to be anywhere else.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thread closed
Printer-friendly view
