hang on a second, isn't this legislation about whether churches are forced to hire people who fundamentally disagree with their beliefs? You wouldn't expect a bank to hire a communist ceo, why should a church have to hire someone who was at odds with their principles (an atheist for example)?

Whether you agree or not, as BigDummy points out, the Bible is pretty clear on what is and isn't a sin. Surely the religious freedom enjoyed in this country should allow churches to hire people with views consistent with their own?

coffeeking – Member

(Coffeeking's view that the science is wrong because he doesn't believe it)

Zokes' misunderstanding and lack of comprehension of the sentence. I simply stated that I haven't found what I would consider conclusive proof, not that conclusive proof does not exist. Stop jumping to conclusions. I don't believe some of the science as I believe it is based on false assumption, that doesn't mean I don't subscribe to the argument that it is natural, or that I think science is wholely wrong.

Well, as I'm sat at a PC in my office at uni now, which article would you like me to find in the library that would provide the conclusive proof?

Surely the religious freedom enjoyed in this country should allow churches to hire people with views consistent with their own?

Not when that's blatantly discriminatory. At the moment they basically have a special get out clause that allows them to discriminate. Please explain why their view on gays has any more credence than the BNPs view on black people, or my view on Daily Mail readers?

I fail to see how they are going to be 'forced' to appoint gay people to senior positions anyway. And would gay people want to do that?

hang on a second, isn't this legislation about whether churches are forced to hire people who fundamentally disagree with their beliefs? You wouldn't expect a bank to hire a communist ceo, why should a church have to hire someone who was at odds with their principles (an atheist for example)?

Whether you agree or not, as BigDummy points out, the Bible is pretty clear on what is and isn't a sin. Surely the religious freedom enjoyed in this country should allow churches to hire people with views consistent with their own?

No, it's not about being forced to hire any particular person, it's about whether churches are allowed to advertise jobs and decide not to hire someone because they're gay. It as the same as they aren't allowed to say "we don't hire any women for a job", or "no blacks or Irish". I'm guessing you'd agree that churches shouldn't be allowed to refuse to hire black people and women? Why are gay people different?

Also, it isn't for jobs where the church is hiring someone to preach, where beliefs are still allowed to be taken into account obviously, but more for things like secretarial, administration posts etc. where really what someone believes / does in their spare time is not relevant to the job at all.

Joe

Question..

Why would any person who is gay want to apply for a job in the Catholic church?

I think the bottom line is that all species like to shag,

Fnarr, fnarr….

Well, as I'm sat at a PC in my office at uni now, which article would you like me to find in the library that would provide the conclusive proof?

I've no idea what article I'd like you to find, if I did I'd already have my answers, I'm actually not sure what terminology I'd use to enter that search specifically (I'm also sat at a desk in uni, but unfortunately have work to do contrary to the students beliefs!). It's not something I've invested a lot of time into searching for, my considerations of "poor" proof have come from the generally over-inflated press-covered articles, rather than the (perfectly possible) lesser known ones that may exist.

But you're missing the point by "attacking" me; I was simply questioning what you (and by you I mean people in general who say "it's natural, look at cows in a field") define as gay behaviour and how that's used to parallel with human behaviour considering the supposedly vast differnce in level of self awareness, thought processes on partners and control over sexual instinct etc. As an academic I'd hope you'd be the first to ask those questions too.

I think the central point in this particular argument is not Ratzinger's red herring of "naturalness". Plenty of things are natural. Loads of other things are unnatural. Using shoes, for instance.

Ratzinger's problem is he thinks his mythical dead jewish zombie doesn't like the idea.

The fact of the matter is, if two or more adults consent to an activity between themselves, it doesn't matter and it's nobody else's business.

End of.

I'm not religeous at all, nor do I have any relevant views on sexuality or sexual practices, but I can see the Pope's dilema here, so I'm going to play devils advocate…

If, as the Pope clearly believes, that homosexual practices are a sin, then how can he appoint someone who admits to carrying out those acts to an official capacity in the Catholic Church?

If he is made to do that by law then the authority of whatever doctrine they believe in is undermined, he is charged with upholding and protecting these core beliefs.

So there's an interesting conflict coming to a head that's been on the cards for years, if the Catholic Church really really believes it is a sin then how can it just go, oh all right then, and capitulate, either way will invariable cause a schism that will probably damage the church anyway.

If they are forced in this country then presumably in countries where it is ok to descriminate against homosexuals they will continue to do so, so you'll have an organisation, wholly built on faith and belief, that operates in a conflicting manner, it's clearly untenable.

If, as the Pope clearly believes, that homosexual practices are a sin, then how can he appoint someone who admits to carrying out those acts to an official capacity in the Catholic Church?

Never seemed to be a problem with paedophiles.

wot grum said

it's clearly untenable.

good.

Religion follows the advances made by secular progress in ethics and always has.

Not that long ago, the alleged "church of England" were adamant in denying women the priesthood.

They can either lump it, or face prosecution from a morally superior and ethically sound secular culture.

In my opinion.

I saw the pope last night on telly and was struck that I was looking at a face of pure evil, but couldn't work out why. It took to today to work out why. It seems I'm not alone.

If, as the Pope clearly believes, that homosexual practices are a sin, then how can he appoint someone who admits to carrying out those acts to an official capacity in the Catholic Church?

The jobs they are talking about aren't like being a preacher or similar, where what you believe is relevant to the job. For example, various churches are major landowners, should they be happy to say that the people who clean the buildings or work there as secretaries shouldn't be allowed to be gay?

It is odd, given that they are a religion supposedly based on forgiveness and that you should hate the sin but love the sinner*, that they choose to single out a particular sin to ban people (I don't see them banning people who drink alcohol, use contraception, eat shellfish etc.), presumably because they're a bit queasy about bum-sex or something?

Joe

*which is a big part of why the paedophile thing in Ireland is so hard for them to deal with, and they have just tended to turn a blind eye to it.

"eat shellfish"

They'll be watching prawn videos next!

igmc.

Religion follows the advances made by secular progress in ethics and always has.

I know that, you know that, can't see how they can use that as a reason to change their belief on this particular issue. Using women in the Anglican Church isn't valid in this case, they are still not able to become Catholic Priests are they?

I'm not trying to defend anything or anyone with this, strictly neutral, but interested in how/if the Catholic Church is going to get out of this one.

can't see how they can use that as a reason to change their belief on this particular issue. Using women in the Anglican Church isn't valid in this case, they are still not able to become Catholic Priests are they?

a) I don't expect them to "use that" to change their beliefs. I expect it, as a general example, to support my argument as stated in my first sentence.

b) "Using women in the Anglican Church isn't valid in this case" See a).

As Ian Munro has brilliantly shown, Pope Benedict just looks evil. My gripe with all the main religions, apart from the blatant hipocrisy, pointless wars and so forth is that their faith is based on ancient books or scrolls.

Sure some of what they preach still has meaning and releavnce in the present world, but most of it is just completely irrelevant. Pope Benedict is just the embodiment of all that is ultimately decrepit and out of touch with mainstream religions today.

I'd go so far as to say that our Royal family is more in touch with reality than the Pope.

are we seriously worried about upsetting a group of people who's moral guide book includes details for the correct punishment of slaves?

(isn't it convenient how they don't mention those bits anymore?)

this pope chappy doesn't have a leg to stand on.

git.

Haven't read the other posts; I can imagine what the tone is; but I am going to wade in with my size 9s.

This whole equality thing is rank hypocrisy. I am not a religious person, I tend to believe that there is less likely to be a God than there is to be one and I think that there have been some terrible actions committed in the name of God/Allah/Jehovah etc. But this BS about equality really gets me down because it’s not equality. Christians don’t feel its equal (I know a fair few including my parents), they feel its the state imposing it’s own moral agenda on theirs at the expense of their religious freedom. And they are right. They feel they are being discriminated against because of their beliefs, and if I was religious, I would feel the same.

If the government would just admit that what they were doing was advancing one particular groups ideology (the gay caucus) over another (the Christian caucus) and say, hey sure, we’re discriminating against their religious belief but we’re comfortable with that because that’s just how its going to be, I’d feel a lot more comfortable. But they don’t, they dress it up as equality!

It is odd, given that they are a religion supposedly based on forgiveness and that you should hate the sin but love the sinner*, that they choose to single out a particular sin to ban people (I don't see them banning people who drink alcohol, use contraception, eat shellfish etc.), presumably because they're a bit queasy about bum-sex or something?

I think the answer is that it is defining oneself as "gay" that is the problem. If you steal something, you do not necessarily define yourself as a thief and assert that stealing should be legal. I've yet to meet a serious catholic who didn't understand that people have homosexual urges and be perfectly willing to forgive that. Their problem is the positive process of deciding that because one has those urges they are right, should be acted on despite a professed belief in a god who is known to abhor the act in question and then to go on to suggest that the church should change its view of the matter.

Nick is spot on here. Mr Woppit is too. But it's no good pretending that there is anything going on here but a profound clash between two sets of values.

How are they discriminating against the religious in this case? By not allowing them to discriminate freely? As has been stated, the law will not force them to allow gay people to be priests, only to prevent them discriminating against people where their sexuality or anything else has no relevance.

Christians don’t feel its equal (I know a fair few including my parents), they feel its the state imposing it’s own moral agenda on theirs at the expense of their religious freedom. And they are right.

What a load of nonsense. We have had the christian moral agenda imposed on us for hundreds of years – now we are starting to redress that balance and some people don't like it.

You're free to do or believe whatever you like in this country, unless you discriminate against other people.

Again, if there was a religion that didn't like black people, would you think that was ok?

Ah yes but it does have relevance to those people in that community. The best example is hiring teachers into schools or requiring Catholic adoption agencies to place children with homosexual couples. These examples are not within the scope of 'preaching ideology' and yet they would cause great consternation for many Christians.

What a load of nonsense. We have had the christian moral agenda imposed on us for hundreds of years – now we are starting to redress that balance and some people don't like it.

You're free to do or believe whatever you like in this country, unless you discriminate against other people.

Again, if there was a religion that didn't like black people, would you think that was ok?

Wow – you made my point for me perfectly and I actually agree with you. We did have a moral code imposed on us for many centuries and now we are imposing a different moral code.

I've said this before but this is effectively about one interest group's ideas being advanced at the expense of another's. It's not about equality.

"hiring teachers into schools"

The fact that the state funds so many religious schools makes my blood boil. If we're paying why shouldn't we be allowed to dictate their employment policies (even under existing law)?

If you want your kid to be segregated and indoctrinated go to the private sector – there's no way the state should be funding this.

The fact that the state funds so many religious schools makes my blood boil. If we're paying why shouldn't we be allowed to dictate their employment policies (even under existing law)?

If you want your kid to be segregated and indoctrinated go to the private sector – there's no way the state should be funding this.

Couldn't agree more – we should have the same system as the French and the Americans and have a clear separation of Church and state. It just makes life so much simpler.

yet they would cause great consternation for many Christians

I'm sure the idea that women are as perfectly capable of carrying out priestly duties as are men, once caused a great deal of "consternation" in other branches of xtianism.

(Hate to labour a point, but either some posters don't read previous arguments, or just tend to ignore the inconvenient – like the way they cherry-pick acceptable parts of their "holy" book…)

I've said this before but this is effectively about one interest group's ideas being advanced at the expense of another's. It's not about equality.

I'm not part of the gay 'interest group' but I still don't think they should be discriminated against. Why is that not about equality?

The fact that the state funds so many religious schools makes my blood boil. If we're paying why shouldn't we be allowed to dictate their employment policies (even under existing law)?

If you want your kid to be segregated and indoctrinated go to the private sector – there's no way the state should be funding this.

Couldn't agree more – and Cameron is a fan of faith schools too. 🙁

At the begining of this thread,somebody said they would be happy to have Stephen Fry, an out Gay man to babysit their kids.

I say please could Stephen Fry come round and Baby sit a mature man (me),we would have a lot to talk about,and somebody else look after the kids.

As for the pope, a bitter old man brought up in the past,and living the past,in the present and reinforcing the has been rules of his so called beliefs on a lot of very easily led people.

Get a life and get a proper job.

Also how long before the thread gets pulled for the over use of the word Gay it apears.

At the begining of this thread,somebody said they would be happy to have Stephen Fry, an out Gay man to babysit their kids.

That was Chris Hitchens, WAAAY before the beginning of this thread… 😉