If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Anglicans to halt gay ordinations
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
It seems it's one step forwards, two steps back for the Anglicans.
Is there really a place in the modern world for such archaic and backwards institutions?
I used to get angry about all the nonsense purported by organised religions in the name of God, but nowadays i think I've become largely desensitised to their doctrines of hate; I find organised religion very hard to take seriously.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7013552.stm
People's thoughts?
Is there really a place in the modern world for such archaic and backwards institutions?
I used to get angry about all the nonsense purported by organised religions in the name of God, but nowadays i think I've become largely desensitised to their doctrines of hate; I find organised religion very hard to take seriously.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7013552.stm
People's thoughts?
0
Comments
My thoughts? It's kinda like asking me whether a black man should be allowed in the BNP. Tbh, I couldn't give a shit what a bunch of racists want to do with their bullshit organisation. And I couldn't care less whether an ancient homophobic organisation wants to let gay people into their little club. In the words of Bill Hicks in reference to women preists, "Great, now there's preists of both sexes I don't listen to."
On a positive note, I suppose moves like this show everyone how much they try to sugarcoat it, the basic message of the Anglican church is one of exclusion, oppression, damnation and downright hatred unless you fit into their shortsighted guidelines of what's acceptable. I'd rather they stick to their guns rather than cause a few people to think that they're a reasonable organisation because they let the gays in.
So instead of becoming more progressive and open-minded, they give way to the fundamentalists and the radicals. Way to fucking go. :no:
Is there really any use at all for such organisations? Whatever good they do is overshadowed by the nastiness and hatred that fill so many of their members.
Oh heavens no! God forbid there should exist anywhere in this tolerant, progressive, open-minded world, institutions that propound views which you don't agree with.
I think the decision was correct. It doesn't make any sense, to me anyway, for the U.S. Church to have gone so starkly against the teachings they supposedly believe and profess. If they really believed what they were doing was correct, they would have gone ahead and split up from the others. As it stands it looks like they came to their senses.
More like they were bullied by the fundies- as it has been the case for the last five fucking millennia.
What's your argument? It's their fruity little club and they're welcome to hold whichever odious views they wish?
There are plenty of people's views i disagree with, but respect. I can even accept people who hold repugnant view, like the Anglicans, as long as they keep themselves to themselves. Unfortunately, the Anglicans aren't an insular organisation, and hence, need keeping an eye on.
It looks like church had a brief encounter with independent and non-bigoted thought. One which the heads of the organisation were quick to stamp out. Still, when you claim to know the mind of God, gays in your church are the least of your worries.
not really - he seems to be pointing out the lack of tolerance towards religous views practiced by those who claim they are tolerant and progressive.
Though since only a few months back we managed to argue about ten pages on this without getting to any conclusion I'm going to bow out of this one for a bit and get some popcorn...
People have to earn respect for their views. It's how every rational human being operates. Nobody respects every opinion put in front of them, just because it's someone elses opinion.
Nobody is suggesting the homophobes don't have the right to believe gays are evil scum etc etc. They have a right to believe that.
If only they had the decency to return the courtesy and let gay people get ordained and/or get the blessing from the Church, even if they thought they are evil scum etc etc.
There really is only one set of intolerant fuckwits involved here.
It's not worth getting drawn into a fallacious debate about tolerance. It really is the weakest of arguments. As an anti-theist, a case for comparison might be drawn when i start banning religious folk from working in my offices across the country, not before.
Presumably, using the CoE as a benchmark, it's perfectly legit for me discriminate openly about who i appoint in my company these days?
How were they bullied?
You may not respect it but you tolerate its existence.
lol in case they do what?
It has nothing to do with 'decency' and there's no 'if only' about it, they have every right to believe what they want. The COE does tolerate gays. Use your common-sense, it is illogical and contradictory to have a gay person, as a leader and teacher, of a religion that says homosexuality is wrong. Why is that hard to understand?
According to that religion just about everything is wrong. Having impure thoughts is wrong. Being jealous or envious is wrong. Wishing ill on others, even if for just a moment, is wrong.
The bottom line is that EVERYBODY who has ever lived and who will ever live has done wrong according to the religion in question. Therefore nobody at all should be able to get blessed by the Church, or indeed be a Church official.
The persecution (for that is exactly what it is) of homosexuals by just about every major religion on the planet is nothing more than a hypocritical, disgusting, nauseating homophobia and hatred masquerading as 'religious beliefs'. It is bad enough that such hideous mentality is allowed (and that, incidentally, is the very definition of tolerance). But the hate mongers and fundamentalists should not be allowed to further discriminate and persecute others.
Of course I do. I also respect their right to hold whatever opinion they want on any issue, provided they don't impose it on the rest of us.
My issue with the church (and this is probably for another discussion another time) comes from their place as unelected leaders in the House of Lords, the tax breaks they gain purely on the basis of, well nothing, and them wanting to impose their odious beliefs to other ventures, which do effect everyone, such as our schools (this particular one is more of an issue with the Catholic church imo though). No-one else would get away with it (try and ban people of a particular religion from your restaurant and see how far you get), but somehow they do for the sole purpose that their beliefs are "relgious". But yeah, within their own little club, they can do what they want as far as I'm concerned.
I find it very confusing that any gay person would want to become a member of such a club though. You don't see black people queuing up to join the ku klux klan, do you?
What do you mean masquerading as religious beliefs? They're the very definition of religious beliefs - beliefs without justification.
That those in charge of the religions in question still chose to concentrate on the vitriol and hatred instead tells you everything you want to know about the bastards.
At the same time, you have to respect that people are entitled to their own beliefs and that churches embody a doctrine. Priests are supposed to be moral pillars within the church and a 'practicing homosexual' priest (so far as I know the Bible is against 'sodomy', not the orientation itself) des not abide by their rules. It is like a recreational drug user being the head of police in a state where the drugs they use are illegal.
I don't want to sound like I'm condoning homophobia at all... But if you commit to a religion so profoundly as to want to be a priest, then you have to go by the rules... Just like some people are fasting right now and like some abstain from sex.
Homophobia is not unique to religion (not that I'm saying that was your claim). As I've said before, the most biggoted people I have met in the past have been atheists, who used other excuses for their blatant misogyny, racism or hatred of sexual and gender minorities. I don't believe it is religion, it is just ignorance and the people who take advantage of the ignorant to suit their own insecurities and prejudice.
See that's the difference between being homophobic/sexist/racist for religious reasons compared to others. It takes religion for someone to be a fully educated person aware of the facts, maybe even with a vast amount of experience of these "different" people, yet still oppress them and speak out against their actions. There are many case where you can't blame ignorance for religious hatred because you'll often find some of the most highly educated people in the world peddling bullshit in the name of religion (the 9/11 bombers, for example). You won't find the same thing about regular racism, homophobia, sexism etc (btw, I mean educated in these specific issues, not education level in general). They are almost exclusively down to ignorance. And of course plenty of people have a combination of the two.
But are you claiming that the people in the high levels of the various religions are ignorant of homosexuality, and all of the arguments that would lead any rational-thinking human being to reject homophobia? They've probably argued it more times than you've had a shower. Of course religion isn't the only form of irrational thinking that would have this effect, but it is the most prominent, and the one that people are most keen for everyone else to adopt.
-Having beliefs isn't good?
-I think it's better to have ideas. You can change an idea. Changing a belief is trickier. Life should malleable and progressive; working from idea to idea permits that. Beliefs anchor you to certain points and limit growth; new ideas can't generate. Life becomes stagnant.
From Dogma.
Your religious beliefs are your own choice, regardless of education, upbringing ect. If the sources are there to be exploited then people will exploit them.
People of all backgrounds will always oppress sexual and gender minorities. Whether religion exists or not, there will always be ideologies abused to hurt people.
And there are a lot of university educated people who are bigots. There is no 'regular' racism or homophobia, just biggotry, upbringing and people looking for excuses all the time. It is cultural and very few people question outside their own culture.
I think the religion and homophobia debate in many ways is complex.
The problem is that people are still following spiritual paths and are still being (I believe) exploited by institutions and that homosexuality has, until very recently given our history not been talked about. Unless you left school 2003 or later, you will have not been educated about homosexuality as Maggie Thatcher brought in the law that schools could not promote homosexual behaviour as normal, else they could get their funds cut. Even if you graduate from Oxbridge with a PHD in microbiology, if you haven't been exposed to an environment and culture which respects LGBT people then you're far more likely to be homophobic.
I believe that religion and politics are heavily intertwined. Even if the Pope tomorrow read an article that proved homosexuality to be natural, whether he believed it or not it's likely that if he pardoned LGBT people he would retain the same support and power.
I was referring to education and experience in relation to homosexuality in particular, not education levels in general. In fact, I think you'll find that I explicitly mentioned this so you wouldn't be able to make this argument. You even quoted the section where I said it.
I think you're right, that it is a matter of social education. However, I think that human beings have selective hearing. I mean I experienced as much racism working in bars down south in somewhere culturally diverse as where I am as I did back home in Wales, in a very white working man's town. I found it a different kind of racism, you know?