View Full Version : Should we tell the Pope to pop off?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8492597.stm
'The Pope has urged Catholic bishops in England and Wales to fight the UK's Equality Bill with "missionary zeal".
Pope Benedict XVI said the legislation "violates natural law". Supporters of the law see this as a wish to keep a ban on gay people in Church positions.'
the legislation "violates natural law".
Most species have gay members. Heck, even just recently it was reported that a pair of swans, who mate for life, had got divorced and remarried. Then there's the species who are intersex, and even a few that even change sex.
If humanity violates natural law then then so do many many species. Maybe the Pope should recommend that they are round up and shot?
I have nothing against Catholics, but the Catholic Church is another matter. And don't get me started on the Pope. He's an embarrassment to the catholic Church.
I'll tell you a true story. My mother was born and brought up in Trieste, Italy. There's one catholic ceremony where a statue of Mary is paraded through the streets and everyone is supposed to give something. Aparently the statue is dripping with gold by the end. Anyway, My mums mother had nothing to give, so she gave her wedding ring. My mums eyes were opened and she hated the Catholic Chuch from then on. Is it any wonder?
The Catholic church are rich beyond anyone's wildest imagination. It's immoral. And as for the Pope going to Africa saying that condoms spread Aids, well, I'm surprised anyone still turns up to his 'audiences'.
As far as Catholicism is concerned Jesus said 'no-one comes to the Father except through me'. He didn't say 'me and/or the Pope".
The problem with Catholicism is the Catholic church, not Catholics themselves.
IMO.
It's also kind of strange having an ex-member of the Hitler Youth, whose own church has been damaged by protecting child abusers, lecturing us about 'natural law'. AFAIK, Christ said nothing at all about homosexuality anyway.
Spectral Morn
02-02-2010, 22:16
Gentlemen, proceed with caution. Please keep it mind that there are Christians as members of this forum, both of the Catholic variety and Protestant.
I have no major issue with anything said so far, but I can foresee a number of possible/potential problems. So please keep that in mind.
Regards D S D L
Spectral Morn
02-02-2010, 22:24
It's also kind of strange having an ex-member of the Hitler Youth, whose own church has been damaged by protecting child abusers, lecturing us about 'natural law'. AFAIK, Christ said nothing at all about homosexuality anyway.
That I am afraid to say is wrong.
As God, Christ came to complete the Law, not replace it. Therefore the Old Covenant Laws (those original ones..The 10 commandments and Deuteronomy stand , not the crap the priests added later) have full authority from God. You may not like or agree with them, but they are Gods word/law for what he wants of his creation...the ideal.
We no longer have the ideal..it all went to hell in a handcart when sin entered his perfect creation, and caused everything to go wrong. Sadly no human is perfect, we all fall short and it is mankinds sinfulness that has led to all the crap that we have today..even in the church.
Regards D S D L
The Grand Wazoo
02-02-2010, 22:36
Danger, Will Robinson, Danger!
Neil, your first post was great. Your second, not so much so, I fear. Step away from the thread my friends!!!
By that standard, we shouldn't be eating pork or shellfish, as laid down in Levitcus!
Spectral Morn
02-02-2010, 22:48
By that standard, we shouldn't be eating pork or shellfish, as laid down in Levitcus!
True.
Regards D S D L
The Vinyl Adventure
02-02-2010, 22:51
My temper Runs short quickest with the cathlic church too. Seems to me to be to much about controling people as aposed to sharing faith with people if that makes sence... But yeh, Like kris says, I have no issue with catholics them selves...
I recon if the pope was an Islamic leader he would be concidored an extremeist, it's only because we (the west) are so used to the hypocracy and tyrany of the catholic church it passes us by to the extent it does ... Just my view like, I maybe wrong!
Spectral Morn
02-02-2010, 22:53
Danger, Will Robinson, Danger!
Neil, your first post was great. Your second, not so much so, I fear. Step away from the thread my friends!!!
Sorry Chris
But...I don't like false information being presented as correct. What Joe said about Jesus and the Law was wrong.
I am not by typing saying that I don't have struggles/issues with it and what it says. Its very hard in its content and implementation. However my understanding is that it was presented to mankind to show that mankind could not live by/or follow it.
Regards D S D L
Danger, Will Robinson, Danger!
Surely you mean 'Danger, Will Young, Danger!'
Steve Toy
02-02-2010, 23:42
I find the Catholic church's view on celibacy for priests and prohibiting birth control for everyone else pretty abhorrent and downright bloody irresponsible in the 21st Century. I agree that the issue is with the institution itself and not catholics. Churches themselves are not created by God, they are created by men who choose a particular way to worship God.
I'm neutral on this one. I know Roman Catholics who disagree with the Pope re. birth control. I'm a Confirmed Anglican, my wife is a Catholic and her father a practising one. I was married to her in a Catholic church. The priest who performed the ceremony is unique in that he's married with children - he defected to Catholicism having been ordained as an Anglican vicar. They didn't refuse him on account of him not being celibate - they can't come between a man and his wife as it is against the scripture and they aren't going to refuse a new member, especially not a priest.
Most of France is Roman Catholic yet their birth rate is incredibly low. The propaganda only works in the third world where it does the most damage. It's more about expansionism of the Catholic empire than about spreading the word of God. It was thus from the outset.
Steve Toy
02-02-2010, 23:54
Gentlemen, proceed with caution. Please keep it mind that there are Christians as members of this forum, both of the Catholic variety and Protestant.
I have no major issue with anything said so far, but I can foresee a number of possible/potential problems. So please keep that in mind.
I appreciate your concerns Neil but outside of the sectarian hot-spots of Northern Ireland and Glasgow we should be ok discussing these things. This is not a matter of faith, it is a matter of politics.
The Grand Wazoo
03-02-2010, 00:19
I'm really trying hard to come up with the words I need to use without being perceived as being inflammatory............and I'm failing badly. Having typed & retyped this post countless times, I'm still unable to say what I need to say!!
I'll just say this about me then, because I can speak on this subject without fear of conflict:
I was brought up to believe in the Catholic faith. By the time I was 8 years old I came to the conclusion that I had been fed with some fundamental misconceptions but that these had been based upon good intentions. (I know those are not the words an 8 yr old would use, but we're all grown ups here, aren't we?)
Spectral Morn
03-02-2010, 00:55
Gentlemen, proceed with caution. Please keep it mind that there are Christians as members of this forum, both of the Catholic variety and Protestant.
I appreciate your concerns Neil but outside of the sectarian hot-spots of Northern Ireland and Glasgow we should be ok discussing these things. This is not a matter of faith, it is a matter of politics.
Those who engage in sectarianism are not imo, either Catholic or Protestant Christians They are Tribal
Catholics or Protestants. Sectarianism is not compatible with being a true Christian.
However the issues in Joe's post are matters of faith, not politics. It is clear (whether we like it or not) that the issues the Pope is issuing a Papal missive about, is part of God's law, which has not been revoked. We can disagree with it if we choose (having been given freedom of choice to do so), but its black and white and not open to re-interpretation. It stands as is. No where in the Old Covenant or New is it changed. Jesus came to fulfill the Law not do away with it.
The issue of celibacy, is man made. It is true that Paul urges celibacy as an ideal for those involved in Gods work, but he states it is a gift that some will have always, some sometimes and some not at all. Therefore it is wrong to force it on those who can't or don't have that gift. The Catholic Church (and everyone bar the Eastern Orthodox Church who allow married priests)was the only Church at one time, which introduced this to protect Church property from the claims of wives and children...after a priest was dead.
I have no problem with Birth Control that does not abort eggs. There are Birth Control methods that sadly don't stop the womans monthly cycle, but prevent eggs from seeding into the womb. Imho only those types that stop the cycle totally are okay. Use of Condoms and all barrier methods are imho okay. In terms of Africa and Aids, the forbidding of condoms is imvho terribly wrong, but not being a Catholic I can't fully understand the objection to condoms. However any decision that condemns people to illness and death is not a good one.
Child abuse and allowing it to go on. Jesus said it best, and I paraphrase slightly" If any harm comes to any of these little ones in my name, or they are caused to stumble in their faith. Better that person, have a millstone hung around his neck and be cast into the deepest part of the ocean...." I would not want to be in their shoes on judgement day. How anyone could allow this to happen is beyond me. On every/any level its wrong. The guys who did it, new about, and did nothing, or covered it up should be de-frocked, ex-communicated and thrown into jail forever imho.
You do not mess with Widows, Children or Jews.
From my own point of view you either are a Christian or your not. Denomination is both a man made curse and as a result of freedom of choice/thought..it also can imho, be a barrier to a true relationship with God.
Regards D S D L
Steve Toy
03-02-2010, 01:03
I think Joe's OP was deliberately inflammatory to a degree but he was only letting off a bomb of controversy the way I have recently on a different topic. The discusion so far hasn't turned ugly and I do believe the ensuing debate has been healthy, probing and well within our ethos. Matters of faith themselves are open to discussion provided they remain repectful to people's beliefs and I feel so far that this respect has been maintained throughout.
We can discuss interpretation of scripture - that is healthy and should even serve to consolidate faith where pertinant.
For me it is important to be critical of the hierarchy and politic of any given church and how it impacts on the well-being of human beings in these troubled times where resources are ever dwindling and the demand for them is ever increasing.
(having been given freedom of choice to do so)
It is my belief that God himself gave us this freedom and the responsibility to manage the Earth's resources and take responsibilty for the outcome of our actions. God set us free to do what is right according to our consciences. We will be judged both in life and in the after life for the choices we make.
This is unfortunately why God allows people to die in Earthquakes. The allegorical aspect of Genesis even points in this direction.
As for homosexuality, nobody can be responsible for their sexual orientation. It is morally wrong in my view to exercise homophobia under any name including that of religion. Natural law prevails in this respect in that gays cannot procreate through their sexual activity.
All consensual sexual relationships are morally permissible and by legitimising homosexual unions as a society we can at least facilitate gays forming lasting, meaningful relationships recognised by society.
Ethics, morality and legitimacy of our sexual orientation should exist and be accessible to all regardless of faith. To exclude anyone on the grounds of their sexual orientation at any level, even withinn the hierarchy of any given church is to marginalise, stigmatise and to prejudge fellow decent human beings.
The Grand Wazoo
03-02-2010, 01:21
After a brisk dog walking session (very brisk because it's bleeding freezing out there tonight) I've gathered a few of the thoughts I was trying and failing to get across.
The above stated view has been extended since I was the tender age of eight to all other organised religions as I learnt a little bit about them - the basics tennets are sound but they belong to no person, people, race or religion - they are no different for any fair minded individual on the planet whether they have religious beliefs or not. They are not connected to religion whether they were written down in the name of religion or not.
My view on the Pope and his latest statements:
Given the previous few paragraphs, I'm surprised anyone could find this man's interpretation of the body of folklore that he happens to believe in is any more surprising than that of anyone else's. If his followers choose to break the law in pursuit of his views, then they presumably will be aware of the consequences.
As far as discussions on religion in general go - I've never met anyone who's been truly convinced by the other view - we've all heard the various arguments about religion & we each still hold our beliefs, whatever they may be. Whatever the belief, as long as we all hold to those fundamental tennets, we can all carry on as we are & no-one is any the worse off. But, and this is a big but, I'd like to think that my non-belief can be respected with as much understanding as I hold for others who are religious. That extends to my feeling (without prejudice to anyone) that religion is nothing more than folklore.
I've said enough.
I will not comment on the Catholic Church positions (or its various Popes) across the history, as many people identify themselves to it. But they have always puzzled me... :scratch:
Steve has eloquently expressed what are my feelings about the general issues.
I just find it baffling that mere humans can be so certain about God's will, eg about which bits of the OT we should follow and which we should ignore.
I just find it baffling that mere humans can be so certain about God's will, eg about which bits of the OT we should follow and which we should ignore.
You are not Catholic, it seems... :)
There's a dogma (defined in the First Vatican council in 1870) : it is called "Papal infallibility" and is part of the "Infallibility of the Church".
So, some "mere humans" are (dogmatically) connected to the Holy Spirit and cannot err in their beliefs.
It's a bit too convenient, I know. ;)
You are not Catholic, it seems... :)
There's a dogma (defined in the First Vatican council in 1870) : it is called "Papal infallibility" and is part of the "Infallibility of the Church".
So, some "mere humans" are (dogmatically) connected to the Holy Spirit and cannot err in their beliefs.
It's a bit too convenient, I know. ;)
Actually I am Catholic, and have the certificate to prove it!
But who told the Catholic church in 1870 that the Pope was infallible? Had he always been infallible without realising it?
Well, in 1870, Italy was unified and Rome became the capital. The séparation between church and state started (and was finalized in 1929).
I guess the church was a bit nervous about all that...
Ah, right, thanks. I did do Italian unification for A level history, but that was several decades ago!
Ah, right, thanks. I did do Italian unification for A level history, but that was several decades ago!
No problem, I had to look myself in the encyclopedia... didn't remember the exact date either ! ;)
Actually I am Catholic, and have the certificate to prove it!
But who told the Catholic church in 1870 that the Pope was infallible? Had he always been infallible without realising it?
It should be remembered that the Pope is not infallible at all times. It is only in certain occasions and on specific matters. For example, the Pope will say that Catholic priests should be celibate. This is not an infallible statement and can change in the future (and has changed in the past).
I'm not exactly sure of the exact circumstances in which a statement becomes/is infallible.
As to the retrospective nature of papal infallibility, yes, I think it did extend back (kind of). I don't know enough about this to fully and properly explain it, but I'm fairly sure papal infallibility was not a new concept when finally recognised in 1870. I would have to do some research on that one.
Spectral Morn
03-02-2010, 14:42
It should be remembered that the Pope is not infallible at all times. It is only in certain occasions and on specific matters. For example, the Pope will say that Catholic priests should be celibate. This is not an infallible statement and can change in the future (and has changed in the past).
I'm not exactly sure of the exact circumstances in which a statement becomes/is infallible.
As to the retrospective nature of papal infallibility, yes, I think it did extend back (kind of). I don't know enough about this to fully and properly explain it, but I'm fairly sure papal infallibility was not a new concept when finally recognised in 1870. I would have to do some research on that one.
That too would have been my understanding. However without researching it, it will be difficult to be exact as to when this theological decision was made/implemented, and why?
I find it hard to understand how this came about (I think power and control are too obvious, as answers). Even a fairly rudimentary understanding of Jesus teachings..would lead you to think that his ministry/death and resurrection (if you believe that) was aimed at removing the role of high priest. When the curtain was torn in the Holy of Holies in the temple in Jerusalem, it was to remove any barriers to God. Jesus took on the role of High priest and communication with his Father was now possible through and by him (Jesus), and not a human agent. No human is perfect or has infallibility. None of the disciples were perfect, they were all flawed even Peter, who Catholics claim was the first Pope. His early ministry in Jerusalem is full of problems and misunderstandings. From my point of view if those who walked with God (Jesus) were deeply flawed both before and after Jesus death and the arrival of the Holy Spirit how can a man elected thousands of years later have infallibility. Imho its a get out of jail free card, it prevents challenge and allows control...at least that is how it appears today.
It should also be pointed out remembered theologically, that the forgiveness of Sins is only possible by faith in Jesus, and does not require a middle man (I.E a Priest). Catholic confession is therefore totally not required. All one has to do is confess your sins (also turning away from them-repenting) to the Father through the Son (Jesus)...and he (The Father)will forgive them. Its as easy and simple as that, though the cost was a life horribly lost on the cross. Of course one has to genuinely believe, and have a relationship with the Father through the Son..for this to work.
In an earlier post I said that denomination was a problem, and imvho it is this kind of barrier that traditional Catholic teaching causes (there are problems to greater and lesser extents in most Christian denominations). However in the last 30 years or so, a group of Evangelical Catholics have grown in the Catholic Church, and they, imvho are on the right path to solving the issues extant in the traditional Catholic Church.
Regards D S D L
Because the when the Pope is infallible he is essentially not acting as a human but as the Pope - God's representative on earth. So, there is a distinction made between the Pope as man, the physical person, and the Pope as office, the Papacy, appointed by Jesus when he said to Peter upong this rock I wil build my Church. So, when an infallible statement is made, it is the Holy Spirit talking through the Pope, not Pope Benedict (or whoever) speaking on behalf of God.
And, each Pope is a direct successor of Peter, not of the previous Pope.
To make things more confusing, the Pope is merely the Bishop of Rome. The primacy of this seat was only really established in the Tenth and Eleventh Century.
Spectral Morn
03-02-2010, 15:10
Because the when the Pope is infallible he is essentially not acting as a human but as the Pope - God's representative on earth. So, there is a distinction made between the Pope as man, the physical person, and the Pope as office, the Papacy, appointed by Jesus when he said to Peter upon this rock I will build my Church. So, when an infallible statement is made, it is the Holy Spirit talking through the Pope, not Pope Benedict (or whoever) speaking on behalf of God.
And, each Pope is a direct successor of Peter, not of the previous Pope.
To make things more confusing, the Pope is merely the Bishop of Rome. The primacy of this seat was only really established in the Tenth and Eleventh Century.
That is what is believed, but there is no Christ sanctioned text for this. The passages in the New Covenant (quoted by Catholic doctrine/teaching) do not offer any justification for how the role of Pope developed.
The succession does not imvho hold water either, it is a man made/sanctioned institution. to much is derived as justification from a few ambiguous lines of scripture. Imho it only refers to Peter's new role as head off the church (not that it was a Church as such, just a group of Messianic Jews..Followers of The Way) in Jerusalem and his ministry there and helping the church to grow. It can be argued that Paul's role was more important and instrumental in guiding Church growth and theological teaching.
I am with Luther/Calvin on these issues, but not their replacement theology in regard to the Christian Church replacing the Jews. The Christian Church is grafted into the Olive branch which is the Jews, not the other way round..I don't see how anyone can arrive at any other understanding of Romans Chapter 8 to 13....sadly they have :(
Regards D S D L
There is, as you would expect, quite a long and detailed justification for the status of the Pope and what he can do. And, it has not always been the subject of common agreement within the Catholic Church either. The arguments and development of Catholic theology, particularly during the Medieval Period, is intensely fascinating. However, I'm a little rusty now and really should get back into it because I do find it all very fascinating, and at times gob-smackingly crazy!
And, of course, it is just such issues which led to the diversity of Churches we have today.
Spectral Morn
03-02-2010, 15:24
There is, as you would expect, quite a long and detailed justification for the status of the Pope and what he can do. And, it has not always been the subject of common agreement within the Catholic Church either. The arguments and development of Catholic theology, particularly during the Medieval Period, is intensely fascinating. However, I'm a little rusty now and really should get back into it because I do find it all very fascinating, and at times gob-smackingly crazy!
And, of course, it is just such issues which led to the diversity of Churches we have today.
You should read the early Church Fathers too. The routes of many of the errors that crept in are to be found here as well....especially in regard to the Jews.
Church history is very interesting. Sadly the current BBC2 series is to shallow imho.
Regards D S D L
I don't know enough about this to fully and properly explain it, but I'm fairly sure papal infallibility was not a new concept when finally recognised in 1870. I would have to do some research on that one.
The papal infallibility was recognized as a dogma in 1870.
The roots of it are in the Great Schism : disputes of jurisdiction crystallized by the "Papal Supremacy" (by the pope Leo IX) which was promoted as a doctrine and stated that "the pope, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered."
This doctrine was established in two phases (1st: around 400, 2nd: from 1075 to the 13th century).
In brief: it started as an attempt to gain the supremacy of the Christian Church, knowing that such a doctrine could never be accepted by other Christian Churches...
A doctrine, can change. A dogma... not really, unless the Church dismantles.
As for homosexuality, nobody can be responsible for their sexual orientation. It is morally wrong in my view to exercise homophobia under any name including that of religion. Natural law prevails in this respect in that gays cannot procreate through their sexual activity.
Hi Steve, can you explain a bit more what you mean with the highlighted sentence - it seems to suggest that gays will die out without intervention, because they can't procreate? Are you suggesting therefore that gayness is hereditary? I wasn't aware of that as being a strong theory, can you expand/provide some links? Certainly, the old "nature vs. nurture" argument applies, though.
Steve Toy
03-02-2010, 22:16
Alex, I was simply stating fact. The obvious conclusion to draw would be that over time homosexuality will neither spread nor decline. As such it should not be regarded as a threat to civilisation.
Alternatively you can add two and two and get five. ;)
I think "stating fact" is highly debatable, but let's not go there! Why you think that it would spread (like a disease?) or why anyone would regard it as a threat to civilisation, is beyond me, though - I don't think you can catch gay! ;)
But anyway, back to the pope...
I have my own feelings regarding devout Catholicism. A long story but my parents lie separately in the cemetary (one in a garden of rest after cremation and the other buried with a headstone dedicated to both of them) because of some now outdated rubbish told me at a time when I could hardly think straight and I believed what I was told. Nine years on and my blood still boils thinking about the situation..
Steve Toy
04-02-2010, 01:31
I think "stating fact" is highly debatable, but let's not go there!
What is debatable exactly about the possibility of procreation resulting from a homosexual union? Why are you being obtuse Alex?
Why you think that it would spread (like a disease?) or why anyone would regard it as a threat to civilisation, is beyond me, though - I don't think you can catch gay!
Like a disease are your words not mine. I don't regard gays to be a threat to civilisation but some in the Catholic Church, notably the Pope, seem to.
By spread I mean the proportion of gays to heterosexuals would increase. Clearly this isn't going to happen - sexuality is a matter of orientation not choice and it is certainly not a disease to be transmitted.
Conclusion: the Catholic Church has no reason to feel threatened by homosexuality for nothing they say or do will have any effect on anyone's sexual orientation. Disallowing gay priests amounts to discrimination and anti-discrimination laws should be applied even to religion.
We are already 6 billions and increasing. I doubt "civilization" (if we can qualify as such the living habits of some of this planet's human beings) is in any danger at all because of some sexual tastes.
History teaches us (I hope that one day we will end up learning from past lessons) that most of the destruction is due to greed of power (often with the hlp of religious institutions), not sexual tastes.
Beechwoods
04-02-2010, 07:32
We are already 6 billions and increasing. I doubt "civilization" (if we can qualify as such the living habits of some of this planet's human beings) is in any danger at all because of some sexual tastes.
History teaches us (I hope that one day we will end up learning from past lessons) that most of the destruction is due to greed of power (often with the hlp of religious institutions), not sexual tastes.
Damn right. It's far easier to criticise what other people do in their lives, than sort out your own. Call it diversionary tactics! Just look up J Edgar Hoover's private vs public positions on the matter of homosexuality.
I'm certainly not intending to be obtuse, Steve. No one is disputing that homosexuals can't procreate, but the sentence I originally highlighted, reading it back is worded so it could be taken that homosexuality would die out as they can't procreate, (implying it is hereditary) but clearly that is not what you meant.
Steve Toy
04-02-2010, 11:03
If homosexuality were to die out due to the fact that gays could not procreate it would have already happened or, more to the point, homosexuality would never have existed.
Therefore I fail to see how you could have possibly inferred that homosexuality would die out.
The only possible inference was that gays could not multiply in number and that nothing that the Pope either says or does can possibly do anything to alter anyone's sexuality or the proportion of gays to heterosexuals.
Even genocide programmes would fail to eliminate homosexuality in the way that given races can be rendered extinct.
I'm fast reaching the conclusion that the current Pope really is a Nazi though.
hifinutt
05-02-2010, 21:26
i thought this was an intersting post on this topic of the equality act
THE EQUALITY ACT:
Totalitarian Britain just around the corner!
Imagine a Britain where public displays of the Union Jack and the crosses of St. George, St. Andrew, St. David, St. Patrick and St. Pirran of Cornwall are illegal because militant Muslims say they find them 'offensive'.
Imagine a Britain where Christian churches are sued by Muslim cranks who say they feel intimidated by signs carrying Biblical quotes.
Imagine a Britain where Cub and Scout groups are forced to hire militant homosexuals who believe in abolishing the age of consent.
Imagine a Britain where even to publish extracts from the Koran as a warning as to the real nature of Islam is banned on account of breaching the human rights of Muslims by ‘offending’ them.
This kind of Britain will soon be a reality!
You are imagining a Britain that is just months away! For all these things and many other shocking attacks on our freedom, traditions, common decency and Christianity will become shocking reality when the Equality Bill becomes law.
The Bill, which passed through the House of Commons with virtually no opposition from the increasingly absurdly named Conservative Party, is now being pushed through the House of Lords as quickly as possible. Labour ministers are desperate to get the Bill on the Statute Book before the general election, and the signs are that they will succeed.
This revolting, fundamentally un-British and totalitarian legislation, will force companies to discriminate against white males in terms of recruitment and promotion, for fear of ruinous compensation claims by ethnic minority racists and feminists – or indeed by any ‘minority’ member who finds a 'No Win, No Fee' legal parasite to help them to someone else’s money by squealing about ‘discrimination’.
Far more powerful symbolically, and in its long-term danger, the law could be used by radical Muslims to ban criticism of Islam – or even the mere public display of the crucifix – on the grounds that such things constitute ‘harassment’. And since the flags of every part of the British Family of Nations (with the exception of the Isle of Man) are made up of Christian crosses, even they could be banned, or at least gradually phased out by people worried about possible prosecution.
The absurdly named 'Equality' Bill will make Britain the most unequal society in the Western world...
When the idea of an Equality Law was first mooted, many left-wing Christians in particular believed that it was only aimed at the British National Party and at overtly patriotic individuals and ideas.
Now they are beginning to realise how wrong they were, and how they should have remembered and updated the words of Pastor Niemuller: “First they came for the Nationalists, and I did not speak out, because I was not a Nationalist. Then they came for the patriots, and I did not speak out, because I was not a patriot, And so on until then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak out for me”.
The truth is that, right from the very start, the disguised social Marxist bigots at the heart of the New Labour Project had Christianity and traditionalist and identitarian views of society in their sights. They loathe us because our of our stubborn (Britishness) resistance right on the front line of freedom, identity and political incorrectness makes it very difficult for them to move on to softer but bigger targets.
Opposition is growing across the board..
Now, they know that the Conservative official opposition and likely next government is firmly in the soft and slimy hands of a committed liberal internationalist. So, just as with their EU integration project, their Climate Change tax scam, their gerrymandering immigration tsunami and so many other aspects of their rolling anti-British coup, they are throwing caution to the wind. The most destructive revolutionary regime in political history is pulling out all the stops to maximise its impact before the voters hurl it into the dustbin of history.
At long last though, there are signs of resistance from the people. Catholic and Anglican bishops have pressed the Government to table amendments to ensure that the provisions of the Act – which could see Church assets seized and clergy imprisoned for ‘crimes’ such as refusing to employ someone whose lifestyle is contrary to Christian teaching – should not apply to them.
Steve Toy
05-02-2010, 22:20
I agree a Nulab inspired Equality Bill will take things to the other extreme. We will see reverse discrimination at all levels. However I agree that whilst homosexuality should never be actively promoted, it should never be the basis for discriminiation either.
Spectral Morn
05-02-2010, 23:10
i thought this was an intersting post on this topic of the equality act
THE EQUALITY ACT:
Totalitarian Britain just around the corner!
Imagine a Britain where public displays of the Union Jack and the crosses of St. George, St. Andrew, St. David, St. Patrick and St. Pirran of Cornwall are illegal because militant Muslims say they find them 'offensive'.
Imagine a Britain where Christian churches are sued by Muslim cranks who say they feel intimidated by signs carrying Biblical quotes.
Imagine a Britain where Cub and Scout groups are forced to hire militant homosexuals who believe in abolishing the age of consent.
Imagine a Britain where even to publish extracts from the Koran as a warning as to the real nature of Islam is banned on account of breaching the human rights of Muslims by ‘offending’ them.
This kind of Britain will soon be a reality!
You are imagining a Britain that is just months away! For all these things and many other shocking attacks on our freedom, traditions, common decency and Christianity will become shocking reality when the Equality Bill becomes law.
The Bill, which passed through the House of Commons with virtually no opposition from the increasingly absurdly named Conservative Party, is now being pushed through the House of Lords as quickly as possible. Labour ministers are desperate to get the Bill on the Statute Book before the general election, and the signs are that they will succeed.
This revolting, fundamentally un-British and totalitarian legislation, will force companies to discriminate against white males in terms of recruitment and promotion, for fear of ruinous compensation claims by ethnic minority racists and feminists – or indeed by any ‘minority’ member who finds a 'No Win, No Fee' legal parasite to help them to someone else’s money by squealing about ‘discrimination’.
Far more powerful symbolically, and in its long-term danger, the law could be used by radical Muslims to ban criticism of Islam – or even the mere public display of the crucifix – on the grounds that such things constitute ‘harassment’. And since the flags of every part of the British Family of Nations (with the exception of the Isle of Man) are made up of Christian crosses, even they could be banned, or at least gradually phased out by people worried about possible prosecution.
The absurdly named 'Equality' Bill will make Britain the most unequal society in the Western world...
When the idea of an Equality Law was first mooted, many left-wing Christians in particular believed that it was only aimed at the British National Party and at overtly patriotic individuals and ideas.
Now they are beginning to realise how wrong they were, and how they should have remembered and updated the words of Pastor Niemuller: “First they came for the Nationalists, and I did not speak out, because I was not a Nationalist. Then they came for the patriots, and I did not speak out, because I was not a patriot, And so on until then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak out for me”.
The truth is that, right from the very start, the disguised social Marxist bigots at the heart of the New Labour Project had Christianity and traditionalist and identitarian views of society in their sights. They loathe us because our of our stubborn (Britishness) resistance right on the front line of freedom, identity and political incorrectness makes it very difficult for them to move on to softer but bigger targets.
Opposition is growing across the board..
Now, they know that the Conservative official opposition and likely next government is firmly in the soft and slimy hands of a committed liberal internationalist. So, just as with their EU integration project, their Climate Change tax scam, their gerrymandering immigration tsunami and so many other aspects of their rolling anti-British coup, they are throwing caution to the wind. The most destructive revolutionary regime in political history is pulling out all the stops to maximise its impact before the voters hurl it into the dustbin of history.
At long last though, there are signs of resistance from the people. Catholic and Anglican bishops have pressed the Government to table amendments to ensure that the provisions of the Act – which could see Church assets seized and clergy imprisoned for ‘crimes’ such as refusing to employ someone whose lifestyle is contrary to Christian teaching – should not apply to them.
Excellent Post imho.
I agree totally with what you have said. The sponsors/mentors of New Labour
are fundamentalist communists. The family unit, marriage, Christianity all under attack. Divide and conquer.
The population have been turned into sheep...easy to control, with no opinions, no interest bar Soaps, Celebs and getting drunk.
The population have been turned into sheep...easy to control, with no opinions, no interest bar Soaps, Celebs and getting drunk.
However this is not just confined to the UK, but is World wide. ...Bit by bit. How long will it be before Christians are treated the same as Jews were in Nazi Germany?
D S D L:(
The Grand Wazoo
06-02-2010, 00:13
For pity's sake, lighten up a bit guys!
Where did this unattributed essay come from?
Spectral Morn
06-02-2010, 00:17
For pity's sake, lighten up a bit guys!
Where did this unattributed essay come from?
Chris
Have an in depth look at the topic, and then come back and tell me that there is not truth in what Phil posted.
Regards D S D L
The Grand Wazoo
06-02-2010, 00:30
Neil,
I've been following the thread with interest from the start.
The majority of what Phil posted is speculation. There is very little 'truth' for me to see.
And more to the point it appears to be quoting something & there is no reference.
I think we're sailing a little close to the wind here.
Spectral Morn
06-02-2010, 00:56
Neil,
I've been following the thread with interest from the start.
The majority of what Phil posted is speculation. There is very little 'truth' for me to see.
And more to the point it appears to be quoting something & there is no reference.
I think we're sailing a little close to the wind here.
Hi Chris
Sorry, step outside the forum and have a look at whats happening to Christians though out the UK. I would start with the Christian Lawyers Association. They are in the thick of defending the human rights of persecuted Christians in the UK, and seek to insure the discrimination this act will meet out upon all Christians, does not happen. This issue is a growing one, and this law if passed will make it very difficult, even to have the conversation we are having now. Freedom of speech and Religious conscience is in danger with this act.
Edit I was trying to find a link to their website, but I can't find it...maybe Phil can.
Regards D S D L
Where did this unattributed essay come from?
BNP propaganda, it would appear, from this very similar post on MSN? (Though the BNP reference isn't included in Phil's version)
http://boards.msn.com/UKNewsboards/thread.aspx?ThreadID=1580236
The Grand Wazoo
06-02-2010, 07:32
Yes Alex, that's exactly where I feared it might come from.
And when I took a look around I found this..............
http://bnp.org.uk/author/chairman/
http://bnp.org.uk/tag/nick-griffin/
Nick Griffin's blog. I feel guilty that to find it, I had to even visit his website - God forbid he might think he's created another racist thug by recording another hit on his website.
Well found Chris, (wonder why Google didn't come up with his blog when I searched? :scratch:)
I guess no wonder then, that Nick Griffin is worried about the act, which of course would mean that blacks, gays, and whoever would be legally entitled to join the BNP... actually, that would be quite funny...
What worries me is that many "normal" people think BNP stands for things like this, (protecting "Britishness") instead of the racist thugs that (IMO) they are - I've even heard my Mother-in-law say she is going to vote BNP
The Grand Wazoo
06-02-2010, 08:03
A little while back I said this thread was bad news.
Now it has BNP propaganda copied to it. If I found it by searching Google for a phrase from it, then other people looking to learn about the BNP may end up here. Do Steve & Marco want that association I wonder?
By the way, Alex I copied the phrase most unlikely to be used (the one about the Scouts) - put it in inverted commas & it came back with only 4 or 5 hits.
Beechwoods
06-02-2010, 08:33
Neil,
I've been following the thread with interest from the start.
The majority of what Phil posted is speculation. There is very little 'truth' for me to see.
And more to the point it appears to be quoting something & there is no reference.
I think we're sailing a little close to the wind here.
I agree. And it comes as no surprise that what may have ended up as an unattributed viral piece originated with the BNP.
I'd just ask everyone to replace the word 'Muslim' with the word 'Jew' and come to their own conclusions. Fascist propaganda has only changed its point of focus in the last 20 years, but it's still fascist propaganda.
So you get a bit more of an idea where it was coming from, here's the text of the original poem by Pastor Martin Niemöller (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came...)
First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak out for me.
The Grand Wazoo
06-02-2010, 08:40
Nick,
I'd urge you & the other management guys to take it off AoS. Everywhere that sort of crap appears is only helping to spread their message.
Please don't led AoS feed the ugly monster.
How long will it be before Christians are treated the same as Jews were in Nazi Germany?
D S D L:(
What was that other group the Nazis weren't so keen on? Homosexuals, I believe.
Gentlemen, we appear to have reached the position predicted by Godwin's Law....
The Grand Wazoo
06-02-2010, 10:36
I thought we'd reached that state a long while ago.
We are going to beat it, even !!! :)
We are going to beat it, even !!! :)
Prior to 1997 and the election of the worst government composed of the most appallingly twisted individuals this country has ever seen, racism and intolerance in the UK was slowly dying out, the National Front were a memory, and no-one had ever even heard of the BNP.
Save your anger and indignation for the people who created the monster, folks. It wasn't an accident. Look up the 'Frankfurt School'.
Steve Toy
06-02-2010, 12:16
Do Steve & Marco want that association I wonder?
No. My views on homosexuality above are clearly at odds with those of Hifinutt and the BNP.
This is not a racist or homophobic site. :(
Beechwoods
06-02-2010, 12:24
Godwins's Law says something along the lines 'that overuse of Nazi and Hitler comparisons should be avoided, because it robs the valid comparisons of their impact.' But what we have here is a verbatim posting from BNP propaganda. The leader of the BNP is a onetime published holocaust revisionist, who once stated at his trial for inciting racial hatred:
"I am well aware that the orthodox opinion is that six million Jews were gassed and cremated and turned into lampshades. Orthodox opinion also once held that the world is flat." (Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/a-right-menace-nick-griffin-1689784.html))
I'd say that the 'comparisons' with fascism are well founded, and necessary, so fall outside the concept of 'Goldwin's Law'.
I'd say that the 'comparisons' with fascism are well founded, and necessary, so fall outside the concept of 'Goldwin's Law'.
Agreed. BNP are a National Socialist party very similar to the Nazi party in many respects. If they had a brain cell between them they would be dangerous. I think we can all sleep soundly, though:)
What concerns me more are the suggestions by a couple of posters that any mention of the BNP or any related subject should be 'banned'. Please explain how agreeing not to discuss a sensitive problem/issue or worse still making it illegal to discuss that problem/issue will somehow make it go away.
Interesting that the same sort people who complained about the Thatcher government banning Shin Fein from being broadcast are the first to demand that the BNP are given the same treatment. Or is that because the former were a bunch of cuddly Irishmen 'fighting for freedom'? If I posted on here praising the acheivments of Militant Tendancy in Liverpool in the '80s would that be okay because they are a Trotskyite and not Fascist group? Please explain...
Steve Toy
06-02-2010, 13:44
I think it better to expose the BNP and its propaganda for what it truly is rather than try to sweep it under the carpet. Indeed the BBC were right to invite Nick Griffin to Question Time last year in order to allow him to make a fool of himself.
The Off-Topic section exists for the purpose of discussing all things NOT related to hi-fi. As such it is appropriate to discuss anything there including religion and politics, should members have the desire to do so. Nobody is forced to contribute to such threads or even read them if they prefer not to.
This is a hi-fi forum but it is also a community of people with interests and views outside of hi-fi.
I don't think the objection was to mentioning the BNP as such; it was to quoting their propaganda without attribution.
I don't think the objection was to mentioning the BNP as such; it was to quoting their propaganda without attribution.
Fair enough.
To return to your OP, Joe, I have to say I disagree. The RC Church is a club, the Pope is the head of that club. Like all clubs it has rules its members are expected to abide by. If you don't like the rules of the club, don't join. 'Other clubs are also available'. It is not, IMHO, either desirable or efficacious of the Government to interfere in such matters.
Incidentally, I was brought up strict Catholic, attended a Jesuit Grammer School for 7 years but have not been 'actively' Catholic in over 20 years so no axe to grind.;)
Ha! I went to a Catholic grammar school too, but it was run by the Irish poxy Christian Brothers. Haven't been actively Catholic for about 35 years, mainly as a result of being 'taught' by the Brothers!
So would you say it was OK for a club to refuse to admit/employ black people?
Ha! I went to a Catholic grammar school too, but it was run by the Irish poxy Christian Brothers. Haven't been actively Catholic for about 35 years, mainly as a result of being 'taught' by the Brothers!
So would you say it was OK for a club to refuse to admit/employ black people?
I personally don't think it would be okay. I would not personally be a member of such a club; however I do not think it is the business of the State to dictate to a private club who it has to accept as its members. Nor would I subscribe to the idea that racism and homophobia are indistinguishable - we cannot just flip between the two as though they are the same moral question as they are not.
You cannot eliminate racial prejudice by legislating against it because it is a psychological disorder and not a rational point of view. The same effect can be observed in the attempt to end heroin addiction by making heroin illegal.
Passing more laws, banning things, forcing subjective morality on people with the threat of prison - this is not the way to solve anything.
Nor would I subscribe to the idea that racism and homophobia are indistinguishable - we cannot just flip between the two as though they are the same moral question as they are not.
Really? Surely both are hatred towards a person because of a trait that is innate; a homosexual person has no more say in his or her sexual orientation than anyone has over the colour of their skin.
AE Houseman's poem says it well:
Oh who is that young sinner with the handcuffs on his wrists?
And what has he been after that they groan and shake their fists?
And wherefore is he wearing such a conscience-stricken air?
Oh they're taking him to prison for the colour of his hair.
'Tis a shame to human nature, such a head of hair as his;
In the good old time 'twas hanging for the colour that it is;
Though hanging isn't bad enough and flaying would be fair
For the nameless and abominable colour of his hair.
Oh a deal of pains he's taken and a pretty price he's paid
To hide his poll or dye it of a mentionable shade;
But they've pulled the beggar's hat off for the world to see and stare,
And they're haling him to justice for the colour of his hair.
Now 'tis oakum for his fingers and the treadmill for his feet
And the quarry-gang on Portland in the cold and in the heat,
And between his spells of labour in the time he has to spare
He can curse the God that made him for the colour of his hair.
Really? Surely both are hatred towards a person because of a trait that is innate; a homosexual person has no more say in his or her sexual orientation than anyone has over the colour of their skin.
AE Houseman's poem says it well:
Oh who is that young sinner with the handcuffs on his wrists?
And what has he been after that they groan and shake their fists?
And wherefore is he wearing such a conscience-stricken air?
Oh they're taking him to prison for the colour of his hair.
'Tis a shame to human nature, such a head of hair as his;
In the good old time 'twas hanging for the colour that it is;
Though hanging isn't bad enough and flaying would be fair
For the nameless and abominable colour of his hair.
Oh a deal of pains he's taken and a pretty price he's paid
To hide his poll or dye it of a mentionable shade;
But they've pulled the beggar's hat off for the world to see and stare,
And they're haling him to justice for the colour of his hair.
Now 'tis oakum for his fingers and the treadmill for his feet
And the quarry-gang on Portland in the cold and in the heat,
And between his spells of labour in the time he has to spare
He can curse the God that made him for the colour of his hair.
Joe - I'm familiar with Houseman :)
There are rational reasons to dislike an individual person and there are irrational ones. To dislike a man solely for his physical appearance is a priori irrational. To dislike him becasue of his habits, his dress sense, his culture, the sort of music he likes, how he behaves in public, how he behaves in private is rational.
Now to dislike a man for these reasons may be intolerant, it may be petty, it may be counter-productive. Nevertheless, preventing by legislation our ability to choose who we like and dislike is to commence a slide down a long, steep and very slippery slope. Every time I see the words 'hate crime' I think of Orwell's '1984' because from there it is only one short step to 'thought crime'...
Likewise 'Political Correctness' is one short step away from 'Newspeak'.
How does that quote from '1984' go?
'Just think - in a couple of years it will be impossible for us to even have this conversation'
AFAIK (and no, i haven't read the Bill right through) nothing in the proposed legislation is forcing anyone to 'like' anyone; it's saying that you must not refuse to employ them on the grounds of gender, disability, religious beliefs, age, or sexual orientation.
AFAIK (and no, i haven't read the Bill right through) nothing in the proposed legislation is forcing anyone to 'like' anyone; it's saying that you must not refuse to employ them on the grounds of gender, disability, religious beliefs, age, or sexual orientation.
There is already legislation in place that does exactly that. So there must be more to it, no?
Maybe it's closing existing loopholes & removing exemptions? It's all about admitting people to employment or education as far as I can see from reading a summary of the draft Bill:
http://www.equalities.gov.uk/pdf/NEWGEO_FairerFuture_may09_acc.pdf
Okay- good link.
Point 10 in 'What The Equality Bill Will Do' is:
'Banning Discrimination in Private Members Clubs'
Why would anyone want to join a club in which the members discriminated against them and had to be forced by law not to? What am I missing here?
The Chief Rabbi comments on the Pope's concerns about the freedoms we enjoy in the UK.
As always Jonathan Sacks writes thoughtfully:
There are times when human rights become human wrongs. This happens when rights become more than a defence of human dignity, which is their proper sphere, and become instead a political ideology, relentlessly trampling down everything in their path. This is happening increasingly in Britain, and it is why the Pope’s protest against the Equality Bill, whether we agree with it or not, should be taken seriously.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article7012685.ece
At what point does a liberal majority's desire to promote its views run to tyranny?
The Chief Rabbi comments on the Pope's concerns about the freedoms we enjoy in the UK.
As always Jonathan Sacks writes thoughtfully:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article7012685.ece
At what point does a liberal majority's desire to promote its views run to tyranny?
That is a good piece. I'd argue that this is Bill is more about advancing the Trotskyite agenda one step further than it is about the tyranny of the 'Liberal Majority'. There is nothing 'liberal' or 'libertarian' about this legislation or this Government - John Stuart Mills would be spinning in his grave!
There is nothing 'liberal' or 'libertarian' about this legislation or this Government - John Stuart Mills would be spinning in his grave!
You may well be right.
Okay- good link.
Point 10 in 'What The Equality Bill Will Do' is:
'Banning Discrimination in Private Members Clubs'
Why would anyone want to join a club in which the members discriminated against them and had to be forced by law not to? What am I missing here?
The example it gives is of a private golf club with both male and female members; the Bill would make it illegal to apply one set of rules to female members that were less advantageous than those applying to men; eg if women could only play on a Tuesday but men could play at any time. It doesn't ban clubs that are, for example, for Catholics only.
Spectral Morn
06-02-2010, 18:15
Phil
Can you please provide a link (or confirm etc) to where the quote came from ? Similarity to BNP material does not mean it is BNP. It may be that they (the BNP) have taken on board (and are using) genuine concerns from the Christian Community about the Bill to their own ends.
The content of Phils post does indeed represent the concerns and fears, and in some cases what has happened, and is happening to Christians in the UK today/now...fact.
Regards D S D L
Rare Bird
06-02-2010, 19:24
Religion & Money are the key to every war/trouble within the world, Money we can't do without, Religion we can, but people can't seem to get through life without it :mental: You know so obviously the world will always be a shit hole to live in...One day tho chaps it will all be over.
...One day tho chaps it will all be over.
"Whoopee we're all goin' to die"
Country Joe and the Fish
Beechwoods
06-02-2010, 19:38
Phil
Can you please provide a link (or confirm etc) to where the quote came from ? Similarity to BNP material does not mean it is BNP. It may be that they (the BNP) have taken on board (and are using) genuine concerns from the Christian Community about the Bill to their own ends.
Neil - compare the earlier post with this and decide for yourself.
http://bnp.org.uk/author/chairman/
Someone has evidently 'tweaked' the wording (swapping 'atheist' for Muslim at one point) for instance, but the similarity is not coincidental.
hifinutt
06-02-2010, 19:39
yes neil i believe the article was from here , i don`t support this site just quoted from it
http://4freedoms.ning.com/group/EDL/forum/topics/the-equality-act?xg_source=activity
hifinutt
06-02-2010, 19:41
incidentally my wifes students who are all asians, somalis, iraqi`s etc are all so petrified of the bnp and being thrown out of britain .. of course some have experienced this in uganda and risen from the ashes .
Spectral Morn
07-02-2010, 16:36
yes neil i believe the article was from here , i don`t support this site just quoted from it
http://4freedoms.ning.com/group/EDL/forum/topics/the-equality-act?xg_source=activity
Then why quote it?
Sorry Phil, but if you don't support a group and their attitudes then why give it any publicity. I am disappointed.
You could have expressed the concerns of the Christian community in your own words, why use BNP/EDL propaganda. It disgusts me that they are latching onto concerns from Christians, in order, to what ? appeal to Christians. God help us if we need their kind of help.
Regards D S D L
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2026 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.