Claire  gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying:

>> >> > Are you outraged for example that Heterosexual Catholic priests
>> >> > must be celibate?

>> >> Who, apart from those Catholic priests themselves, is affected by
>> >> that? Nobody.

>> > Those that could not live a celibate lifestyle

>> The _Catholic priests_ (or putative ones), y'mean?

> Anybody wanting to be a Catholic Priest.

Correct. Anybody - gay or straight, black or white, male or female.

Religion is a different matter - if you look at job ads for religiously-
orientated employers, they only require applicants for jobs to be 
sympathetic to the aims of the organisation, they can't actually 
discriminate.

>> > By setting any criteria you are always discriminating. That is life.
>> > As I said before, how do you decide how to vote? You discriminate on
>> > the basis of your own party political preferences.

>> That's very different.

> How so? All the parties are equal are they not? They all have a right to
> stand for election?

Yes, they do. Regardless of gender, race, religion, etc etc.

> You are telling me that I am imposing my views by having a right to 
> them but if that is the case you are imposing your views on a 
> significant section of the population if you vote for the party that 
> wins an election. A political party is one form of association, a 
> church is another. You can't respect plurality in political life but 
> not in religious life.

I can choose to vote for a particular candidate on whatever grounds I 
wish.

A political party cannot claim they refuse the votes of gay/black/
christian/female voters.

>> But the law must take precedence, no?

> No, JUSTICE must always take precedence even over law!

Really?

So if you _know_ that somebody committed a crime but can't prove it, it's 
OK to lie or fabricate evidence, so long as justice is done?

> The law protects my right to choose which church to attend, who we 
> choose as ministers, who I vote for at a General Election etc.

Yup. Provided other laws are not broken in doing so. A candidate can't 
bribe voters, for instance.

> Any change in the law that would breach of those rights would be 
> contrary to principles of natural justice and I would be within my 
> right to ignore such a law.

And you think that'd stand up in court, do you? It didn't work for those 
who thought the poll tax against "natural justice", for a start.
 
>> >> For the purposes of this discussion, the reasons WHY we have reached
>> >> sexual, racial, religious equality are irrelevant. TBH, they're
>> >> irrelevant anyway, apart from to historians.

>> > Well they are certainly not irrelevant to lawyers! I read law at
>> > university; it didn’t make me a legal expert but one thing it did do
>> > is give me a sense of where the law comes from, our values and
>> > traditions as a liberal society as well as a questioning mind about
>> > what the purposes of the law are. Anybody interested in civil rights
>> > should definitely read the ideas of our constitutional writers as
>> > well as those of the Enlightenment. Anybody wishing to dismiss the
>> > churches contribution to that should read about Calvin etc and see
>> > how religious ideas affected widespread positive changes in society.

>> "Comes from". "Affected". Past tense. History.

> Aside from the obvious fact that the new law is constantly being made
> (something you may have noticed if you follow current affairs?)

Correct. Are all new laws good laws? If they're bad laws, do you have the 
right to pick and choose which to obey?

> these ideas are important in another very fundamental way. Nothing 
> gives even the most repressive unjust regimes more credibility than the 
> notion of legal process.

Well, it depends on how you define "credibility". I don't think 
Zimbabwe's or Afghanistan's elections have given them much "credibility", 
no matter how hard the various spindoctors pretend.
 
> It is why Ann-Sung Su Chi was arrested and not dealt a much quicker 
> bullet to the head! Nazi Germany had laws, the Soviet Union had laws. A 
> good deal of wrongs done in those States were backed up by your 
> thinking; the law is the law.

So there's no difference between a dictatorship and a functioning 
representative democracy?

> You might trust the British establishment enough to believe without 
> question that it will always make just laws

Whilst I would certainly hope that the majority will be just, I'm enough 
of a realist to know that they may not be - but I know damn well that I 
can't just pick and choose which to follow without consequence.

> but I certainly won’t! “Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty”.

Yup.

> To understand and protect your rights you must understand how they came 
> about and the principles behind them. We have due process of law in 
> this country; if you ever had to defend your rights the first point of 
> call would be the courts

Correct.

> and if your Barrister does not know or care about his or her history, 
> be afraid, be very afraid!!! ;-)

I'd rather he knew his law, tbh.

>> >> Now all we need to do is to get shot of a couple of anachronistic
>> >> exceptions.

>> > Many see religion as an anachronism , but there are Christian people
>> > in this country and don’t think we’re going away any time soon! :-)

>> I don't much care if religion goes away or not - so long as it doesn't
>> try to tell others what to do.

> Like it or not the Bible tells followers what to do. If you  respect the
> right to religious belief then you also respect this.

Does the Bible give followers the right to tell others what to do?
Is everything in the Bible directly and literally applicable to modern 
life?
Amongst religious texts, does the Bible have a monopoly on that?
Amongst Christians, do protestants have a monopoly on their particular 
interpretation being "right"?

Let's remember that Protestantism is probably only the _third_-largest 
group of practicing religious adherents in the UK - after Catholicism & 
Islam. Yet it's the only flavour which has an automatic place in 
government... Do you think that's "justice"?

On 2 Nov, 13:00, Adrian  wrote:
> Claire  gurgled happily, sounding much like
> they were saying:
>
> >> > Two things here. In this case the problem was that it was a church
> >> > organisation and this rule did not exist when they first became
> >> > involved.
> >> Else, of course, they wouldn't become involved - because avoiding
> >> poofters
> > There's no need for slurs! I would never call a Gay person a "poofter".
>
> So it's OK to refuse to deal with them, so long as you don't use a mildly
> offensive term for them in the process.

You tell me, you make the politically correct rules! :-)

> >> Are you suggesting that the media have fundamentally misrepresented
> >> them?
>
> > By and large the media has been balanced and respectful of religious
> > sensitivities on this issue for the most part.
>
> We're not talking about being "balanced" and "respectful" of
> "sensitivities", but about reporting facts.

I’ve lost where you were going with this now?

> >> Fair enough. I presume there's a complaint been lodged with the Press
> >> Complaints Commission?
> > Its nothing to do with the press. What are you going on about?
>
> So you agree that the press reports of the cases in question are accurate> Several adoption agencies preferred to close than stop discriminating
> against gay people.

From what I saw yes.

>
> >> >> It's an abysmal analogy, though.
> >> > Not even remotely as abysmal as the Dr Shipman analogy or the Nick
> >> > Griffin analogy!!
> >> Would that be because you think it's wrong to kill (even a handful) of
> >> people or to be nasty to black people, but don't have a problem with
> >> discrimination against gays?
> > I don't think it is right to kill Gay people or be nasty to them.
>
> But you don't count refusing to deal with them professionally as "being
> nasty"?

Not in this context.

>
> >> > And that is the debate! Who is infringing who’s rights?
> >> Simple. The people who want to treat gay people differently (or,
> >> preferably, not at all) based SOLELY on the fact they're gay are
> >> infringing the rights of those gay people to be treated the same as
> >> anybody else.
> > That is one way to look at it. But hey Adrian not everybody agrees with
> > you, you surely see that don't you, other people are allowed to disagree
> > with you ay Adrian? ;-)
>
> They are, yes. And I've never said otherwise.
>
> Way I see it, there's an easy way to determine if some kind of
> discrimination is unfair. Reverse the groupings in the headline.
>
> Christian-run business refuses to serve gays.
> Gay-run business refuses to serve Christians.

But why would they do that???

>
> Would you have said both of those headlines were equally (un)acceptable?
> Or is one worse than the other?

This was a theological based issue. I do not see it any other way.

> >> I think they're just as important.
> >> Gay people who run businesses can't refuse to serve Christians, either> > So if they were selling tickets to the local Gay bar why would they have
> > Christian customers?
>
> You seem to be assuming that "gay" and "Christian" are somehow mutually
> exclusive.

A fair point I’ll grant you! I should remember the tiny minority I
suppose! ;-)

>
> >> >> would be told to play nicely with the other children.
> >> > We are playing nicely. We just want to be able to choose who we play
> >> > with!  :-)
> >> Mmm. You want to be able to shun the kid with the two dads, just
> >> because he's got two dads.
> > Nope, not his fault is it?
>
> But it's gay people's "fault" that they're gay?

No. It is Gay people’s CHOICE to be in a same sex-relationship and
adopt kids.

> >> Still, it's
> >> good to see that the concept of Pick & Mix
> > You are the one picking and mixing. You choose one isolated passage out
> > of context of the entire bible!!!
>
> Which, of course, you would _never_ do?

We’re taught to read scripture in context so that is what I try to do
as far as possible.

>
> > You do not know anything about Human Rights Law  and discribed the
> > constitution of the country etc as "history" and "irrelevant" That is
> > reckless!
>
> What "constitution"?

The unmodified constitution I spent a year and a half studying! ;-)

> Perhaps you'd be so kind as to point me to a link
> where I can read the constitution of this country?

<sigh> Here’s a starting point for you…,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_Kingdom

> What I described as "irrelevant history" was the road we took to get to
> that body of current law.

A statement that is just so unbelievably ignorant as to leave me
speechless!

>
> >> >> Or, of course, you could take your ball and go home in a sulk
> >> >> because the other children won't let you win.
> >> > We’re not going anywhere!
> >> You're going to HAVE to go away, live with it, or break the law.
> > Everybody has choices to make. Why be so threatening???
>
> Who's being threatening? They are the three choices in place. Pick one.
>
> Stop playing.
> Play equally.
> Break the law.

I do play equally and my employer recognises that. I would not apply
to do work that would put me in conflict between my professional
duties and my Christian conscience.


> >> Do you think that law should be removed?
> > I think it was ill-advised to make it apply to church organisations on
> > the issue of addoption.
>
> Because the preferences of the religious are more important than the
> rights of gay people?

Because religious freedoms were sacrificed for political correctness
when the law already gives Gay people the right to adopt children

> BTW, I did notice that you removed one of the questions I asked. A bit
> awkward, was it? We'll try again.
>
> Do you think that legislation to prevent discrimination on the basis of
> sexuality is less important than that to prevent discrimination on the
> basis of race, religion or gender? Simple yes or no.

No.

On 2 Nov, 13:39, Adrian  wrote:
> The gods have made us mad  gurgled happily,
> sounding much like they were saying:
>
>
>
> > You're doing awfully well, my dear - but, sadly, young Adrian is right.
>
> > These people hate Christ, and everything that pertains to Him.  They
> > love darkness because heir deeds are evil, and will pas whatever laws
> > are necessary to ensure that the Gospel light will not shine on their
> > filthiness.
>
> > It is the gravest mistake to imagine that Christian will be able to hide
> > 'in the thickets of the law'.  If those thickets hinder the agenda of
> > the ungodly, they will simply tear them up by the root.
>
> > Eventually, no matter how one twists and turns, a Christian will be
> > forced into a place where he/she must either compromise or suffer.
>
> > UK Christians have, until very recently, enjoyed a very privileged
> > existence when compared to their brothers and sisters in less tolerant
> > lands.
>
> > Now, that is changing - and you can be absolutely certain that the
> > measures being discussed here are but the start of an unprecedented time
> > of tribulation for all who own Christ.
>
> > 'Choose ye this day whom you will serve' is going to be the order of the
> > day - and an answer will be demanded from Christian by those who hate
> > them.
>
> > So, one might as well nail one's colours to the mast, and tell them
> > plainly that homosexuality is a grave sin, that God condemns it, and
> > that God will punish them for all eternity if they do not repent.
>
> > They are unlikely to repent, of course, and will be driven to ever
> > greater acts of hate and spite against those who dare criticise them -
> > but far better to endure whatever hurts they can inflict, than to deny
> > the Saviour.
>
> > This won't be an easy thing!  What happens, for example, if social
> > service departments decree that any condemnation of homosexuality is a
> > sure sign of mental illness - and proceed to remove children from
> > Christian couples because they insist upon adhering to God's word?
>
> > Think it won't happen? - think again!
>
> > When Jesus said, "Take up your cross and follow Me", He meant it - and
> > that cross might be almost unbearably heavy, and almost intolerably sad> > All that one can do is trust in Him, keep close to Him, and obey Him in
> > all things.
>
> > This darkness will not last much longer, Christ *will* return!, He
> > *will* take His people home, and He *will* wipe away all tears from the
> > eyes of those who suffered for His sake.
>
> > Don't be afraid of them - unless they repent they are dead while they
> > still walk!  They preen themselves and flaunt their wickedness, they
> > enact spiteful laws against the children of God - yet they vanish like
> > dead leaves, without Christ, and without hope!
>
> > The master whom they serve *is* powerful, no question about it!  - but
> > Christ has already defeated him at Calvary, and if we trust in Him, that
> > victory shall be ours also.
>
> > As the song says:
>
> > "I saw the way worn traveller, in garments tattered clad, While
> > travelling up the Mountain, it seemed that he was sad. His back was
> > laden heavy, his strength was almost gone, But he shouted as he
> > journeyed, "Deliverance will come!".
>
> > The summer sun was shining, the sweat was on his brow, His garments worn
> > and dusty, his step seemed very slow. But he kept pressing onward, for
> > he was wending home, Still shouting as he journeyed, "Deliverance will
> > come!".
>
> > I saw him in the evening, the sun was getting low, He had over topped
> > the mounting, and reached the vale below. He saw the golden city, his
> > everlasting home, And shouted out  "Hosanna!, Deliverance will come!"
>
> > While gazing on the city, just o'er the narrow flood, A band of holy
> > angels came from the throne of God, They bore him on their pinions safe
> > o'er the dashing foam, And joined him in his triumph, "Deliverance has
> > come!!"
>
> As I said earlier, Claire... do you feel you're marked by the company you
> keep?

He has admitted to trolling before. That aside I feel the hostile and
prejudice attitudes you have expressed fuel religious extremism as
many people, particularly amongst Evangelical Christians on the
political Right, feel under threat for their faith for some of the
reasons this poster cleverly parodies!

Adrian wrote:
> Claire  gurgled happily, sounding much like
> they were saying:
> 
>>>> This darkness will not last much longer, Christ *will* return!, He
>>>> *will* take His people home, and He *will* wipe away all tears from
>>>> the eyes of those who suffered for His sake.
>>>> Don't be afraid of them - unless they repent they are dead while they
>>>> still walk!  They preen themselves and flaunt their wickedness, they
>>>> enact spiteful laws against the children of God - yet they vanish
>>>> like dead leaves, without Christ, and without hope!
> 
>>> As I said earlier, Claire... do you feel you're marked by the company
>>> you keep?
> 
>> He has admitted to trolling before. That aside I feel the hostile and
>> prejudice attitudes you have expressed
> 
> Me? Not at all. I'm merely trying to get you to consider the priorities 
> to society in general of your religious preferences against other 
> people's basic human rights. It seems that we've just about done that, 
> and that - despite your protestations to the contrary - you're convinced 
> that your religious preference really IS more important to society in 
> general than other people's basic human rights are.
> 
>> fuel religious extremism as many people, particularly amongst 
>> Evangelical Christians on the political Right, feel under threat for 
>> their faith for some of the reasons this poster cleverly parodies!
> 
> "Cleverly parodies"? 
> <raises eyebrows>
> 
> He's serious... He really IS as mad as a box of frogs. Still, it's OK, 
> because "God told him". Apparently.
> 
> Perhaps you might like to have a little google over some other recent 
> threads, and discover some of the other things God told him...
> 
> Theology, eh?



Every now and again (and, sadly, with growing infrequency) one reads a 
reply that really *does* make one 'laugh out loud'! - and, what's more!, 
laugh for almost one whole minute!

This was one such instance - one of those rare gems that makes newsgroup 
participation worthwhile.

Thank you - and, please, don't ever think of leaving Usenet!

Claire wrote:

>>>> Mmm. You want to be able to shun the kid with the two dads, just
>>>> because he's got two dads.
>>> Nope, not his fault is it?
>> But it's gay people's "fault" that they're gay?
> 
> No. It is Gay people’s CHOICE to be in a same sex-relationship and
> adopt kids.

It is straight people's choice to do so too. The alternative - which 
you appear to prefer for the one group and not the other - is to force 
them to spend their lives alone.

I wonder what God would think?

-- 
rgds
LAurence
<><
...Santa's elves are just a bunch of subordinate Clauses.
---*TagZilla 0.059* http://tagzilla.mozdev.org

On 2 Nov, 22:53, Laurence Taylor  wrote:
> Claire wrote:
> >> Gay people who run businesses can't refuse to serve Christians, either.
>
> > So if they were selling tickets to the local Gay bar why would they
> > have Christian customers?
>
> Why wouldn't they? You'd be surprised how many gay people are
> Christian. Or indeed, how many Christians are gay.

Hmmm. Perhaps more than I think and less than you think as I susect we
move in different circles.I take your point though.

>
> --
> rgds
> LAurence
> <><
> ...On the Pentium everything is as easy as 1.12415, 2.1384884, 3.12417991
> ---*TagZilla 0.059*http://tagzilla.mozdev.org

On 4 Nov, 14:32, Adrian  wrote:
> Claire  gurgled happily, sounding much like
> they were saying:
>
> > No part of the new testament was written by Jesus, this fact is often
> > mentioned by atheists to undermine the claims it makes about the
> > divinity of Jesus and his resurrection.
>
> I can't see how it would undermine any such claim - if it had been, not
> only would it be somewhat sketchy about the Easter Uprising, but I fail
> to see why the Son of God wouldn't be allowed to use a (holy)ghostwriter.
>
> > Christ commanded us to be in the world but not of the world, and here
> > you are making worldly arguments against the Gospel!!
>
> Pardon?

An arguement made by atheists will not convince me!

>
> > This sort of thing is exactly why I personally could not have as my
> > minister or be a member of a church endorsing homosexuality – because I
> > look to ministers for spiritual guidance (not answers I should make
> > clear) and I need confidence that those in that position actually have
> > the same starting point of faith that I do.
>
> Ah. Gotcha. You want "guidance", but only so long as it doesn't conflict
> with your preconceptions.

Oh come now! You would not expect me to accept the word of a minister
without question would you? ;-) Other people influence us but at the
end of the day it is God who brings us to faith and we must work out
our faith for ourselves. (and if you’re about to point out again that
that is a very “Protestant” take on it, could I point out that
regarding the issue at question, both the Roman Catholic church and
the Orthodox churches are in agreement!)

> > Should have posted the other translation. The fact that a word can be
> > translated to mean “homosexual” does tell us something. You cannot
> > selectively misunderstand  the meaning of words.
>
> Of course you can't. Not when that meaning's been so carefully selected
> from several equally viable alternatives in the first place...

I don't see I have done that. Words from other languages do not always
have exact translations into English. It is best therefore to know all
possible translations to try to get a full understanding of the
meaning.

On 4 Nov, 14:49, Adrian  wrote:
> Claire  gurgled happily, sounding much like
> they were saying:
>
> > 1. in this case it seems very unclear what the Bible is saying and
> > some people are choosing what they understand by it because they do like
> > a particular message.
>
> Typo corrected. HTH

I don’t think that is a fair reversal of what I said there. To me it
seems clear what was being said. It is not a case of what I want to
believe – it is just the way it is.


>
> > 3. Jesus himself condemned the people of his day for using religious
> > rules and looking down on others in place of faith and repentance.
> > Whatever our understanding of the Bible we should not fall into the same
> > trap.
>
> Well, quite.

Glad we agree on that. Everything we do must be in the spirit of love.
After all we are told the two most important comands are to;
"love the Lord your God with all your soul, all your strength and all
your mind and love your neighbour as yourself"


>
> > 4. It is either the Bible or ourselves who are in error and given
> > that the Bible is the central basis for our faith in Christ, I would
> > tend to conclude that disagreements are the result of human error.
>
> Could that "error" be on the part of the humans who provided the various
> translations? Or, even, on the part of the humans who wrote it in the
> first place?

I don’t think the error was with the translators as it does not look
like there was any direct translation into English for the words used.
Likewise there was not a concept of somebody being “Gay” in the sense
of an identity so there is no word in the ancient Greek or Hebrew. So
was it the writers themselves? Well, I really think you get on shaky
ground going down that road because the Bible condemns homosexuality
at several points via several authors claiming insight from God and if
we are questioning something so overt, what else can we question about
the Gospels and why should we give it any weight or consideration at
all? And if we do not consider the Bible as authority for our
understanding then why are we Christians and not Hindus etc, who can
be very “spiritual”? So that only leaves the third group mentioned as
far as I can see.

"Adrian"  wrote in message 
news:7ldutmF3b1aanU3@mid.individual.net...
> God did have a little yawn and a stretch just after getting up one
> morning, think "Mmm. Wonder what I'll do today? I know!" and spend the
> next seven days knocking up Earth, mankind, animals etc?

Next six days.
On the seventh day he chilled, looked at what he wrought and thought 
'Niiiiiiiccccce

Andy

On 5 Nov, 07:48, "AndyW" 
wrote:
> "Adrian"  wrote in message
>
> news:7ldutmF3b1aanU3@mid.individual.net...
>
> > God did have a little yawn and a stretch just after getting up one
> > morning, think "Mmm. Wonder what I'll do today? I know!" and spend the
> > next seven days knocking up Earth, mankind, animals etc?
>
> Next six days.
> On the seventh day he chilled, looked at what he wrought and thought
> 'Niiiiiiiccccce

:-)