Wednesday, January 31, 2007
Orange backs the Catholic church…
Implausible? Not really. Both are socially conservative religious organisations with very similar outlooks on a range of social issues… Not least in their response to Equality legislation as it is to be applied to adoption agencies.
Ian Wilson, the Grand Master of the Grand Orange Lodge of Scotland, last night told The Scotsman that leaders of the Catholic Church had a right to be heard on such moral issues in politics.
He spoke after Cormac Murphy O’Connor said: “ If people weren’t able to act according to their conscience for the sake of the common good in our country, it would be a lack of freedom for religious conviction”
Mr Wilson said: “There has to be more tolerance of the views of people of faith, and that includes the Cardinal. Broadly speaking, the Lodge would take an orthodox, traditional Christian view of this - we see the family as a man and a woman.”
Orange lodges have sometimes been associated with sectarian tension, but Mr Wilson insisted that his order sympathised with the Catholic hierarchy.
Mick Fealty @ 04:42 PM
This is not surprising at all.
Apparently, bitter enemies often have much in common. Hitler & Stalin for example or me and my other half......
Posted by on Jan 31, 2007 @ 05:03 PMNeo-con Facsists come in all colours, founded on the same Nazi priciples though, disguised as so called Christian moral values.
Atilla the Blank would not join the Catholic Church or the Orange Order, they are too Right Wing.
Posted by on Jan 31, 2007 @ 05:06 PMThey’re both socially conservative religious and political organisations - and here we could expect one to support the DUP and the other SF on social issues.
Posted by on Jan 31, 2007 @ 05:20 PMand here we could expect one to support the DUP and the other SF on social issues
Except the Shinners, whatever their other faults, are quite sound on gay rights. This will have a direct bearing on my lower preferences this year.
Posted by on Jan 31, 2007 @ 06:07 PMAdvice to the catholic church:
When the Orange Order defend your moral view, it’s time to go back to the drawing board.
Posted by on Jan 31, 2007 @ 06:21 PMI think the cardinal is right to raise the issue of a freedom for religious conviction.
Politicians are not the best placed people in society to make moral judgments and history shows this. Some things are simply wrong. They are wrong not because the democratic majority agrees they are wrong but because they are intrinsically wrong. The German people mandated Adolf Hitler in 1933 but few would argue that justified the atrocities of WWII. A growing culture of “Relativism” and “secularism” is to blame and the cardinal is right to speak out.
Posted by on Jan 31, 2007 @ 06:59 PMA growing culture of “Relativism” and “secularism” is to blame and the cardinal is right to speak out.
Blame for what?
So, Creationism over Darwinism for School-children would be your preference?
Posted by on Jan 31, 2007 @ 07:09 PMArt Hostage, Blame for what?
Did you read the title of this thread?
The cardinal has voiced concerns at legislation passed by a government that would prevent people being able to act according to their conscience for the sake of the common good in our country. A culture of “Relativism” and “secularism” is resulting in a lack of freedom for religious conviction.
Nowadays, anything goes doesn’t it?
Posted by on Jan 31, 2007 @ 07:38 PMThe Cardinal and the Orange Order hold the Christian view that while homosexual practice is legally and socially acceptable to a minority of people it continues to be immoral and perverse in the view of Christians-as indeed they would regard heterosexual activity outside marriage.
Why should homosexuals insist on their so called human right to the disadvantage of Catholic adoption agencies? People should be free to offer their service within their own guidelines when it is a matter of religious conscience.I await the perverse outcry from the mortally wounded souls who want to undermine Christianity by their immoral behaviour and practice.
T.RuthPosted by on Jan 31, 2007 @ 07:48 PMAs for those who still believe in Darwinism-the notion that we are descended from beasts.You cannot be serious.
If we are natural creatures we could imagine only those things which exist in the natural universe. where then did mankind get the concept of God.We can’t even invent another colour for the rainbow.
If there was a big bang and it is all just chaos how would we know it was chaotic? We are the creatures of a supernatural God and each of us will meet Him in person to give an account of ourselves to Him.
T.RuthPosted by on Jan 31, 2007 @ 07:56 PMSo, the “No Blacks” “No Muslims” “No Jews “ Signs can go up at the bed and breakfast house like they did in the 1950’s.
Mr and Mrs Racist who run the guest house won’t welcome these groups out of religious conscience.
What rights and exemptions should young radical Muslims get to protect their religious conscience?
The Law is the Law is the Law in Democracies.
If a law is bad then the law is changed or abolished.
Exemptions send out a mixed message and undermine democracy.
Neo-Con Christians would be better served lobbying for a law change rather than an exemption.
Then the public would see the real deal of 21st century neo-con fundermentalist Christianity for what is really represents, Fascist dictatorship, One World Govt beating to a puritanical agenda.
Posted by on Jan 31, 2007 @ 08:16 PMI think a subtle distinction is overlooked here. Should those charging for a good or service who happen to be Christian be treated differently than those who offer a service for free out of sense of religous conviction. Thus it’s tough for the religous B&B;owner (who I suspect never asked for marriage certs for hetero couples to prevent sinning)on the grounds that he is a businessman being paid. The adoption agencies on the other hand would not exist but for religous belief and offer their services for free - they should therefore be given more consideration. (not to mention the fact that the taxpayer now has to pick up the tab if they’re closed)
Discuss
Posted by on Jan 31, 2007 @ 08:31 PMWho would ever have thought that these dreadful “Relativists, secularists, Darwinians &c;” could have achieved the ecuminism that 500 years of church history never did!
Posted by on Jan 31, 2007 @ 08:48 PMArt Hostage, are you intentionally trying to misread what is essentially a very straightforward point? Many would argue that it is precisely the “anything goes”, “nobody can tell me what to do” attitude in our modern society that gives rise to “the “No Blacks” “No Muslims” “No Jews “ Signs”
After all, the Relativist will tell you that you should believe what you want to believe, you are right to do so and nobody has any right to tell you that you are wrong.
Posted by on Jan 31, 2007 @ 09:34 PMT.Ruth - perhaps you ought to consider the irony of using a computer and the IT infrastructure to communicate on this blog - the inventions of rational science - don’t recall them cited in the tablets or bible etc.
“we can’t invent anohter colour for the rainbow” - you poor ignorant fool go get an basic (scientific) education - there is unfortunately a lot of critical independent though required that perhaps you and your ilk who congregate in wee gospel halls or large catherdrals might have trouble with.
At the nub of the issue in the whole equality debate in the narrow minded conservative fools who take what they are told by their religious hierarchy and consign themsleves to intellectual & emotional torpor.
Pity them for they know not what they do.....
Posted by on Jan 31, 2007 @ 09:38 PMWhat exactly has adoption got to do with any church? Inst any churches reason to exist the indoctrination of their members that their version of god is the correct version?
I fail to see any real purpose of a churches involvement in adoption other than a recruitment drive, IE making sure that all the little orphans are brought up to believe in their version of god.
Homosexuals by their choice of which gender they choose to have sex with have consciously excluded themselves from procreation. Heterosexual couples unable to conceive because of some biological problem did not make the same conscious choice and should remain at the head of the queue well ahead of those couples who want an alternative lifestyle but dont wish to accept the childless consequences of doing so.
Posted by on Jan 31, 2007 @ 09:56 PMPosted by T.Ruth on Jan 31, 2007 @ 07:56 PM
T. Ruth,
Its going to be a bitch when you find out that our life after death is going to be the exact same as our life was before we were born. Try to think back.
Posted by on Jan 31, 2007 @ 10:00 PM- we see the family as a man and a woman—and 2.4 junior orangemen.
Posted by on Jan 31, 2007 @ 10:05 PMMcGrath: Homosexuals by their choice of which gender they choose to have sex with have consciously excluded themselves from procreation. Heterosexual couples unable to conceive because of some biological problem did not make the same conscious choice and should remain at the head of the queue well ahead of those couples who want an alternative lifestyle but dont wish to accept the childless consequences of doing so.
Lots of heterosexual people made choices that left them childless - marrying too late or not at all. Marrying in good time, but not procreating soon enough. Catching an STD that leaves one partner infertile. Knowingly marrying an infertile partner. So far as I know, the Church isn’t going to discriminate against all of these choices - only one. And I don’t believe that homosexuals choose their partners in order *not* to procreate. It is just an unintended consequence of a personal characteristic. So is being discriminated against, of course.
Posted by on Jan 31, 2007 @ 10:54 PMSeems to me that this discussion, while it shows great concern about the rights of those wishing to adopt a child, is totally silent and unconcerned about the rights of the parent(s) surrendering the child for adoption.
Do not the birth parent(s) have the right to specify some of the values the adoptive parents should hold? Can not the birth parents specify that the child must be raised in a given religious tradition? Or that the child not be given to homosexual couples or single parents? Seems to me that these rights are just as valid and worthy of observance as those of the single parent or homosexual couple.
If that be so, then it would seem that agencies that are committed to allowing only heterosexual couples with given religious beliefs to adopt any of the children the agency offers for adoption are providing a legitimate and legal service.
If there were only a single agency offerring adoption services, then, it seems to me that they must consider all prospective parent(s), single or married, homo or hetero sexual. or whtever. BUT, even such an agency would still be bound by the parent(s)’ wishes.
There are more than just the rights of those who wish to adopt that must, it seems to me, be considred here.
Posted by on Feb 01, 2007 @ 12:02 AMPosted by Reader on Jan 31, 2007 @ 10:54 PM
Establishing a priority list isnt discrimination.
Under the current system, younger couples get higher priority than older couples. Infertile couples get priority over fertile couples.
Posted by on Feb 01, 2007 @ 12:15 AMIt think the point of the original post is, that under a devolved assembly, the majority of political parties would reject this proposed adoption discrimination legislation. Not sure if the NI assembly would have the power to reject it, or to write its own (similar situation to water charges, school closures, language laws etc). Its another instance of the wider UKs liberal views being imposed on conservative Northern Ireland.
Posted by on Feb 01, 2007 @ 12:21 AMPost 22 was me, not sure what happened the signature!
McGrath
Posted by on Feb 01, 2007 @ 12:27 AMGlad to see the OO making sense and defending peoples rights instead of trampling them.
The Church, like any other body has the right to discriminate.
The law is wrong to say that you must give children to homosexuals for adoption.
It would also be wrong to say you can’t give children to homosexuals for adoption.
Live and let live - the socialist world is imposing its standards on the rest of us. Freedom of conscience is being denied.
Posted by on Feb 01, 2007 @ 02:14 AM“Except the Shinners, whatever their other faults, are quite sound on gay rights. This will have a direct bearing on my lower preferences this year.
Posted by Sammy Morse on Jan 31, 2007 @ 06:07 PM”
er… isn’t this what’s wrong with persons with particular “ishoo” politics. At the risk of invoking Godwin, just because Ernst Rohm was a homosexual wouldn’t justify overlooking the excesses of his brownshirted chums.
It’s the morality, stupid.Theoretical Unionism isn’t objectively morally superior to theoretical republicanism, but Unionist politicians-dull, stupid and reactionary as most of them are- are morally superior to the current representatives
of republicanism because they were/are involved in criminal behaviour on an organised and dedicated scale. Just because someone ticks your ishoo box you can’t ignore all that.on the point of the thread, there are of course many points of common interest between the Orange Order and the Roman Catholic church, as socially conservative bodies for both of whom secularism is now a bigger threat than the other. If the Orange slogan “civil and religious liberty for all” is belatedly being properly applied to RCs then that can only be a good thing. Hopefully the mutual suspicion will reduce as common interests emrge
Posted by on Feb 01, 2007 @ 08:14 AM
