|
Post by hibernicus on Nov 4, 2008 1:38:17 GMT
I doubt if Ireland has become more or less Catholic because of her. She's a mixed bag - a good pro-life record but very liberal theologically, a lot of fuzzy talk about spirituality. She was wrong to take Church of Ireland communion; that's a sign of shared faith and the differences between the two churches cannot and should not be wished away like that.
|
|
|
Post by Harris on Nov 7, 2008 9:41:54 GMT
Her role is that of a statesperson. She represents Ireland around the world.
I don’t believe her Catholicism is really a major factor in that.
Her personal faith will have little effect on other states people and diplomats she has dealings with in her role as an Irish representative.
Like all good politicians she would be wise to keep her politics and religion separate. It can only complicate matters especially when dealing with diplomats who represent countries with different faiths than her own.
If they all brought their faiths to the negotiating table, things would get quite messey when different people start claiming that such and such a thing goes against their gods will.
|
|
|
Post by Hemingway on Nov 10, 2008 16:46:30 GMT
Dear Harris, Her personal faith will have tremendous impact on all of Ireland as she practices her faith in all honesty. She will be an example of goodness to everyone in the world as she applies the truth of Christ. You dont seriously believe that do you? How many people in Ireland do you reckon the presidents faith has had a "tremendous impact" on? Seriously. Think about it..........
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Nov 11, 2008 18:39:24 GMT
Last week the IRISH TIMES reported her as engaging in a denunciation of "homophobia" which she compared to racism and anti-Catholic discrimination in Norther Irleand. I would have no problems with this if she confined this to violence against homosexuals, to verbal abuse and to the sort of quasi-Calvinism found in organs like NEW OXFORD REVIEW which seems to believe that homosexual rientation is tantamount to damnation, but the context in which she said it implied that any criticism at all of homosexual acts should be suppressed. This is one of the biggests problem areas I see ahead. Secularists are taking the view that any assertion of Christian sexual morality on such areas as homosexual acts or the necessity for confining sex to marriage is tantamount to violence against those who do not conform to such teaching and should therefore be suppressed by public opinion (and, I suspect, in the near future by law) in the same way that racist utterances are rightly suppressed. PS Before anyone asks, I have sinned many times in my heart (thinking about women). I feel guilty about this, I believe it is right that I should feel guilty about it and try not to do it again, and if anyone thinks this makes me a poor brainwashed victim of Rome they can mind their own business.
|
|
|
Post by Inedifix II on Nov 12, 2008 1:39:01 GMT
This is one of the biggests problem areas I see ahead. Secularists are taking the view that any assertion of Christian sexual morality on such areas as homosexual acts or the necessity for confining sex to marriage is tantamount to violence against those who do not conform to such teaching and should therefore be suppressed by public opinion (and, I suspect, in the near future by law) in the same way that racist utterances are rightly suppressed. I accept where you're coming from Hibernicus, but I don't actually think anyone believes that the Catholic Church's position on homosexuality is tantamount to violence; only that it is prejudicial. As for the 'secular' position on homosexuality, I don't think there is one. In fact, the secular world contains many people who are themselves inherently homophobic, based not on doctrine, but gut reaction. So I don't really think this is about the Church vs Secularisation. It's more about religious and/or cultural conservatism v.s religious and/or cultural modernisation. Those advocating for the rights of homosexuals to practice and fully experience their sexuality include (but not exclusively): Christian homosexuals (of all denominations), Christian modernists, Christian and Secular Human Rights activists/supporters, Christian and Secular libertarians. Those against homosexuals practicing and fully experiencing their sexuality include (but not exclusively): Traditionalist Christians, Non-traditionalist Christian homophobics, Secular homophobics, and Christians and secular conservatives. In other words, while I fully understand that your stance on this issue stems from the established Catholic Church position, not personal prejudice; my stance on it stems from my political and social liberalism, not my secularism. Secularism itself, doesn't have anything to say about homosexuality; but libertarianism, modernity and the human rights based approach to law and legislation do. I
|
|
|
Post by hazelireland on Nov 12, 2008 8:40:59 GMT
Secularism itself, doesn't have anything to say about homosexuality It has nothing specific to say on the subject, except the same thing it has to say on all subjects.... that if you want to pass laws banning the practise or removing rights from people who practise it.... then your reasons for doing so need to be based in the real world with facts and arguments that are amenable to people of all faiths and no faith at all. On the subject of homosexuality I have personally not been shown any good reasons to speak against it, let alone to ban it completely. Those who I have spoken to who are against it either: 1) Evoke gods will 2) Points to scripture 3) Just personally do not like homosexuals and feel this is enough to ban it.
|
|
|
Post by hazelireland on Nov 12, 2008 8:55:18 GMT
Last week the IRISH TIMES reported her as engaging in a denunciation of "homophobia" ....... but the context in which she said it implied that any criticism at all of homosexual acts should be suppressed. I too can see where you are coming from with the above and partly agree. However I too can see where you are slightly in error with it. You did not quote her exact words but your description of them suggests you might have taken them up wrong. Put simply I cannot see how you make the equation between denouncing "homophobia" and denouncing "any criticism at all". To connect the two is a gross non-squitar in my mind, so rather than argue in circles lets correct the error and meet in the middle. I would see "homophobia" here as meaning denouncing homosexuality purely based on subjective feelings. If you do not understand gays, you are personally disgusted by the practise, your religion tells you they are an abomination... or whatever.... this is all well and good, but this is your personal feelings and no more. This is not to say that the practise should not be discussed. Maybe the practise is damaging, dangerous and socially destructive. If it is then we need to find evidence for this and bring it to light and base our laws upon this! In other words our laws need to be based on informed opinion not gut reactions. So no, speaking against homophobia is not the same as saying we should not speak against homosexuals at all. It is merely saying that we should find real world reasons for what is wrong with the practise. Personal disgust or bigotry or anything else should be kept out of it. An example, I am disgusted to my core in restaurants by people who chew with their mouth open, making big sloppy noises and so on. Every fibre of my being is against their practise. I would personally go to lengths to ensure I do not share a table with such a person. This is my right. However I would not move to try and outlaw it or attack them for it. It is none of my business. However if I could show that the practise is dangerous in some way, or damaging, then I could hold this up and say "We need a law to protect us from this as a society". I would have found a real world reason to show that it is destructive or dangerous or damaging and now we can make moved to outlaw it. Do you see the difference? My personal disgust versus fact based arguments? So I think you are wrong in your equation of homophobia and suppression of discussion against the practise. If it were to be shown that someone was trying to suppress any and all discussion against the practise then I would be by your side in an instant condemning it. However I see no reason to think that this is what the president was saying. Nor have I been shown any real world reasons why there is anything wrong with homosexual practise or homosexual civil union, or adoption by homosexual parents. However you might actually produce the real words she stated rather than summarising them and referring to their “context” in passing without establishing what the context was, as maybe I am wrong in what I am saying. I am just going on what you said here as it is all I have available to me at present. It is dangerous to paraphrase a quote and a context as it could lead peoples replies, like mine, to have no reflection on what was actually said.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Nov 26, 2008 15:30:48 GMT
My understanding of President McAleese's comments is that she takes the view that any disapproval of homosexual acts is equivalent to racism - that there can be no rational grounds for disapproving of it. However I am relying on memory and do not have her exact words to hand. You talk about it in terms of legal prohibitions on homosexual acts; the thing is that her views appear to amount to advocating legal penalties on those who make the sort fo statements which you regard as subjective (e.g. in Canada and Sweden Evangelical Protestants have recently been subjected to heavy fines for publishing letters in newspapers or preaching sermons declaring that homosexual acts are contrary to Biblical morality.) I am aware that there are secularists who disapprove of homosexuality just as there are religious believers of various kinds who advocate it.
|
|
|
Post by hazelireland on Nov 27, 2008 8:38:53 GMT
Thanks, but as I said without quoting her exact words I cannot comment on your understanding of them or the accuracy of same. As I said it seems a little wrong and I am reluctant to comment on what she may have said when all I have to go on is what you have said.
|
|
|
Post by hazelireland on Dec 1, 2008 8:28:03 GMT
Thanks gabriel,
Hibernicus from reading this my above post seems to be correct. There is a clear distinction here between denouncing "homophobia" and denouncing "any criticism at all" as you seemed to say before.
I too would be against anyone denouncing "any criticism at all". Everything we do should be monitored, criticised and discussed. No subject is above discussion and should never be.
However the quote here seems to be denouncing "homophibia" and "bullying" and I am 100% in support of that stance.
|
|
|
Post by hazelireland on Dec 3, 2008 9:44:17 GMT
In order for we to judge one another honestly, we both must be crucified. Riiiiiiiiiiight..... you first. I will be _right_ behind you.
|
|
|
Post by Harris on Dec 3, 2008 11:02:28 GMT
In order for we to judge one another honestly, we both must be crucified. I presume you mean metaphorically?
|
|
|
Post by Harris on Dec 5, 2008 10:44:23 GMT
I presume you mean metaphorically? Harris, Have no fear, you cannot be crucified for Christ in vain. Believe and you shall live. So do you mean "crucified" in some kind of metaphorical sense or what?
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Dec 5, 2008 14:59:10 GMT
I suspect he means it in the same sense that St. Paul speaks of "becoming dead to sin" and "putting on a new life"; not physically but spiritually. By the way, Gabriel, you should differentiate between judging acts and judging the person who commits those acts. A may commit heinous sins and yet through repentance (including reparation where possible) be raised higher than B who never committed such heinous sins but never repented those sins he did commit. Is this what you mean by "crucified"?
|
|
|
Post by guillaume on Dec 6, 2008 12:30:12 GMT
So do you mean "crucified" in some kind of metaphorical sense or what? Harris, No, I do not mean metaphorical, I mean physical crucifixion. This is the only means to attain just judgment of any person. Well, you should go to the Philippines then ! To be physically crucified - as Jesus did - is more than unlikely nowadays ! Saint Peter - by the way - considered not worthy to be crucified like his Divine Master - and got crucified upside down.
|
|