LGBTQ+ Rights and Religion

Exactly, it's just out to get you.

edited 18th Feb '13 7:18:14 PM by Silasw

Try watching it again with those things in mind and see what you see. I'm sorry for not giving context the first time around.

Wise ass!

Shima, I rewatched it like you said. And I see, a smug bitch who needed to get told what was up. And I see a guy who....I'd like to think....resembles what I'd be like if I were the President (and had the charisma and gravitas of Martin Sheen, of course).

The reminder here is that perverting religion hurts not just the targets of the perversion, but the religious who oppose those perversions as well.

When I was first shown that clip I took it as an attack on blind unceasing faith. Watching it out of context though Martin Sheen seems to make the president a little too hostile since her right wing pundit radio show is only mentioned once in the dialogue and is easy to miss. He can seem to be attacking her just for her faith and out of context it almost seems like he is only going off on her because she failed at etiquette.

Martin Sheen is a great at his craft though. Even if you can think he is playing an unreasonable character it is a pleasure to watch.

edited 18th Feb '13 7:31:08 PM by Wildcard

Cardinal Peter Turkson, the man likely to become the next Pope and first black Pope, has said that there will be no clerical abuse crisis in Africa because "homosexuality is not countenanced in our societies."

How charming of him. I needn't mention that the APA has found no link between homosexuality and child abuse. Well, that's my vote lost...oh wait.

The more things change, the more things stay the same.

edited 19th Feb '13 4:08:19 AM by Achaemenid

Well, shit. I actually had some-what high hopes for improvement. Honestly don't know why, but I did. Also, love this part:

Good to know it's not discrimination as long as it's part of a tradition. I'm real glad this is the mindset we're gonna have for the next few years. Do the other candidates have the same views?

edited 19th Feb '13 4:19:57 AM by Lascoden

More or less. There is an Austrian who might be less conservative, but OJ Simpson will be elected Pope before he is.

edited 19th Feb '13 4:20:39 AM by Achaemenid

I think Richard Dawkins should be the next Pope.

Really? Really.

There may not be any clerical abuse scandals yet that we have heard of, but there were a good half-dozen boarding schools for missionary kids that only recently released apologies for the abuse (of more kinds than just sexual) that went on in them thirty-odd years ago. One simply doesn't hear about them.

Really. I think that my Church's reasons not to have women priests are quite unsubstantial; but that does not bother me as much as it does the fact that there is simply no way for women to reach positions of high responsibility in the hierarchy of the Catholic Church (yes, the heads of convents and female religious organizations often have a great degree of authority with respect to the internal affairs of their organization, but that's a different matter).

For example, there is historical precedent for laypeople becoming cardinals without being first ordained: in the early 1900s an administrative rule (not an article of faith, just a rule of the Code of Canon Law) was made according to which cardinals have to be priests, but before that this was not the case; and there is nothing terribly contentious in the idea that non-priests might be allowed to become cardinals again in the future.

So, is there any sane reason at all why — even assuming, for the sake of discussion, that for some reason I don't quite get women cannot be ordained — women should not be allowed to become Cardinals and have other official roles of high responsibility in the Church hierarchy?

edited 19th Feb '13 4:53:08 AM by Carciofus

I can't wait to see Wanda Sykes go off on his ass if Turkson should become pope.

On another hand, said CNN article does correctly note "The Catholic Church is growing fastest in Africa and Asia". How long do you think that trend will last?

Sounds like first rate Pope material to me. "When in doubt, blame the sodomites."

The foreseeable future if they keep alienating the entire fucking rest of the world in the process to try and keep hold of the more conservative momentum there. Our main competition in Africa is even more extreme evangelical missions from the southern US.

edited 19th Feb '13 7:20:50 AM by Pykrete

I can see not agreeing with a matriarchal church, but really, I don't get why you guys get indignant because the Catholics are doing what the Catholics have done since they've been Catholics.

You can always count on Catholics and Protestants to put aside their differences when it comes to their common enemy, teh gays.

I mean let's face it. It's not as though Christianity has ever been friends with the outcasts, the rejected, the oppressed or the hated.

edited 19th Feb '13 7:30:24 AM by Lawyerdude

1. Being an asshole for a long time isn't really better than being an asshole for a shorter period of time. Arguably, it's worse.

2. You mean patriarchal. Matriarchal would be if only women were in charge.

edited 19th Feb '13 7:35:59 AM by Morgikit

Well, in my case, at least, the reason is that I am a Catholic. I don't often complain about sexist attitudes within, I dunno, Hinduism or Mormonism. For starters, I don't really know much about these traditions, but more importantly they are not really my business: I may wish that they took further steps towards gender equality, but I am not — I cannot be — part of the internal debate of these traditions.

edited 19th Feb '13 7:38:16 AM by Carciofus

@Morg - Can't really argue with that point.

My question is, is you guys' beef with the Catholic Church because they are patriarchal, or because they're patriarchal and seemingly homophobic??

If Cardinal Turkson hadn't said anything about gays, would any of you care about women not being able to advance?

Honest question, no antagonism intended.

Yeah honestly. I would be upset if they said anyone who could reasonably advance continued to be left because of something unchangable like their sex or their attraction to one gender, (lets not start a fight here. You can disagree with this but I don't think they should have to change for the religion even if it was changable).

Basically I dislike that the church is keeping with tradition in both of those things.

edited 19th Feb '13 7:56:33 AM by Wildcard

Can't speak for anyone but me obviously, but yes. Seemingly homophobic, seemingly sexist, seemingly against birth control, seemingly turning a blind eye to criminal acts committed by members of their own hierarchy, and seemingly willing to cry persecution when they're caught and compare criticism of them to the Holocaust. I think that about covers it.

I'm actually supremely glad with this choice- if a more moderet Pope had been selected, the result would have been a greater chance at the preservation of the Catholic Church's power in political and world affairs.

It seems like this guy is planning on carrying on the same agenda as the previous one- holding firm in beliefs that have proved alienating to the youth and modern thinking individuals- aka the only ones that will matter forty years down the line. As long as the Roman Catholic Church (and by extension of it's leadership, the Protestant denominations that fall in line with it's agenda) keeps stamping it's foot and screaming "I'm right! I'm right! Listen to me!" it's just going to continue to fade into obscurity.

I can't speak for the others, but I would have taken issue with his sexism regardless of his stance on homosexuality.

edited 19th Feb '13 7:58:56 AM by LMage

Well, I think that clears that up.

Let's keep in mind that this is pure speculation: that guy has not been made Pope yet, and there is no telling what he would or would not do if he became Pope.

But really, it is exceedingly unlikely that the next Pope will reverse the current stances on homosexuality, female priesthood and so on. Especially as long as Benedict XVI is alive: that sounds like an excellent recipe for a schism — not necessarily because Benedict would reclaim his title back, but because conservatives everywhere would jump at the opportunity to deny that the new Pope is a true one.