Why do many take "don't judge" to mean that we should start judging "conservative" orthodox Catholics?

[LogosSokratikos]

Your profile indicates you are from Central America. You may not know therefore that the hate crime law was passed and signed by Obama on the basis of a false narrative of a case, the killing of Matthew Shepard – he was not murdered for being gay. Not that it is permissible to kill anyone, gay or straight, black or white, etc. You might not know about the Safe Schools program under the U.S. Department of Education, also put in place by the same president, with the appointment of Kevin Jennings. Not that there is anything wrong with appointing an openly homosexual man to a public office, but this man inserted pro-homosexual curriculum and literature in public grade schools. In short, the program ostensibly to protect gay youth from bullies served as the entry for indoctrination of children to normalize homosexuality.

FYI, I am staunchly against violence against gays (I have a close family relative who is gay). I am for the legal protection of gays as far as employment opportunities are concerned, their advancement in the workplace and in business, and that they not be discriminated in obtaining housing loans or renting a place to live. They should remain free to carry on with the adult sexual partner(s) of their choice. I am against the re-criminalization of sodomy.

However, I am strongly against the legalization of same sex marriage and adoption of children by same sex couples, based on Natural Law, what is consistent with the common and social good, and the teaching of the Catholic Church. Does the last point make me a party to discrimination of gays, worse, a bigot or homophobe, in your view?

Your honest answer, please.
,

My honest answer is that you know about national events the same way I do: through the same news I read, so there is no difference in information. The gay rights movement is more than 30 years older than Matt Shepard. I disagree with you that it was a false allegation: it ended up in a sentence (and I will not discuss any further since that would derail the thread).

And about your Natural Law defense, which is as natural as orthodontic braces and acetaminophen (it has nothing to do with actual biology, it’s the product of ignorant medieval guessing)… it’s your perfect right to think so and it;s the perfect right of every religious organization to decide it’s rituals and who to allow or not in their organization.

On the other hand, I don’t believe religious organizations should impose their internal bylaws on people who don’t belong to their organization. I don’t think gays should be discriminated against as much as I don’t think Jews should discriminate non-Jews for working on the sabbath, or Muslims to discriminate Catholics for praying towards images. They are in their perfect right to prohibit their own from doing these things but for people who don’t want to participate in the activities of the sect, should be respected in their decision.

 

[Brendan_64]

One would think the story character who stopped the stoning of the adulteress would not mind defending the weak from bullies.

But let’s not forget that he also told her to go and sin no more, thereby acknowledging her sin and making it clear that he regarded her action as sinful. The very act of saying that ceratin actions are sinful, is regarded by todays ‘tolerant’ folk as being an act of intolerance and bullying.

 

[LogosSokratikos]

But let’s not forget that he also told her to go and sin no more, thereby acknowledging her sin and making it clear that he regarded her action as sinful.

Ok, so you’re saying stoning is right for repeat offenders? Fascinating.

“Wait, stoners! Don’t drop your stones! Keep 'em there! If she even looks at a guy, bury her in rocks! Allah akbar!”. Sorry, I didn’t read that part. Maybe it’s because I don’t have the Douay-Rheims translation?

 

[Catolico65]

But let’s not forget that he also told her to go and sin no more, thereby acknowledging her sin and making it clear that he regarded her action as sinful. The very act of saying that ceratin actions are sinful, is regarded by todays ‘tolerant’ folk as being an act of intolerance and bullying.

Well said Brendan64.

 

[Catolico65]

Ok, so you’re saying stoning is right for repeat offenders? Fascinating.

“Wait, stoners! Don’t drop your stones! Keep 'em there! If she even looks at a guy, bury her in rocks! Allah akbar!”. Sorry, I didn’t read that part. Maybe it’s because I don’t have the Douay-Rheims translation?

Brendan never said that.

I am starting to wonder if atheists are capable of having a discussion without making baseless claims in an attempt to make a point.

 

[Brendan_64]

Ok, so you’re saying stoning is right for repeat offenders? Fascinating.

“Wait, stoners! Don’t drop your stones! Keep 'em there! If she even looks at a guy, bury her in rocks! Allah akbar!”. Sorry, I didn’t read that part. Maybe it’s because I don’t have the Douay-Rheims translation?

No I am not, saying that at all, no more than Jesus said it. But Jesus did command her to “Go and sin no more”…

It is perfectly reasonable, and not an act of intolerance, to acknowledge that certain actions are indeed sinful. This is what Jesus did. It is also perfectly reasonable to tell people that they ought to stop such sinful actions. That is what Jesus did. As for what happens to repeat offenders, they will be judged on their actions in the end, and rewarded or indeed punished accordingly.

 

[ishii]

If Ishi’s definition is correct the there’s a fair few of us within the Church, that’s for sure.

Although I wonder if he includes those of us ‘left-wingers’ who aren’t liberal? There is as much difference between socialism and liberalism as there is between liberalism and conservatism. And how then do libertarians fit into things? They’re pretty liberal on many things, does that make them ‘left-wing’.

The terms ‘left-wing’ and ‘right-wing’ are meaningless terms for classifying political viewpoints.

It should be mentioned that when I say “under every liberal is a fascist waiting to come out” I am referring to the actions of left/liberals in the US (where I live) who routinely show their intolerance and sometimes outright hostility to non-leftist/liberal viewpoints from being heard. This is seen on college campuses (again, US) where conservative speakers are shouted down by leftists. In the northwest (again, the US) the brilliant Dinesh D’Souza was invited to speak at a high school (which happens to be Bill Gates’ alma mater). When liberal staff and parents found out that he was coming to speak, they succeeded in cancelling his engagement. What did Dinesh D’Souza do wrong? He was a conservative! Another example: when NPR commentator Juan Williams commented that when he sees a muslim on a jet he “gets nervous” he was fired. Diverse opinions are generally not tolerated among the left/liberals. (again, I am speaking of in the US). I should probably clarify that leftists tend to be more strident and noisy in their politics, Liberals, a bit more subtle. So you could say, liberals are “leftists lite.” Again, I am speaking about how things are in the US where I reside. In the US, free speech (particularly political speech) is a right protected in our constitution - so you can certainly understand our concern when we see the left intolerant of different views.

Did I mention that I am speaking chiefly of politics in the US? Whatever the meaning liberal has in the UK, or conservative, leftist, etc. is not much of a concern to me.

Ishii

 

[Brendan_64]

Did I mention that I am speaking chiefly of politics in the US? Whatever the meaning liberal has in the UK, or conservative, leftist, etc. is not much of a concern to me.
Ishii

I can understand that, but when it comes to our Church we are a universal Church, we are all one family. We ought not to think in terms of national boundaries when it comes to our faith. Our brother in another part of the world is as much our brother as the man who lives next door to us. When talking about the views of people within our Church, we are talking globally, not locally. We do not each belong to the Catholic Church of the USA, the Catholic Church of the UK, the Catholic Church of Uganda etc.

 

[ishii]

I can understand that, but when it comes to our Church we are a universal Church, we are all one family. We ought not to think in terms of national boundaries when it comes to our faith. Our brother in another part of the world is as much our brother as the man who lives next door to us. When talking about the views of people within our Church, we are talking globally, not locally. We do not each belong to the Catholic Church of the USA, the Catholic Church of the UK, the Catholic Church of Uganda etc.

On that we can agree, Brendan 64.

Ishii

 

[InSearchofGrace]

My honest answer is that you know about national events the same way I do: through the same news I read, so there is no difference in information. The gay rights movement is more than 30 years older than Matt Shepard. I disagree with you that it was a false allegation: it ended up in a sentence (and I will not discuss any further since that would derail the thread).

And about your Natural Law defense, which is as natural as orthodontic braces and acetaminophen (it has nothing to do with actual biology, it’s the product of ignorant medieval guessing)… it’s your perfect right to think so and it;s the perfect right of every religious organization to decide it’s rituals and who to allow or not in their organization.

On the other hand, I don’t believe religious organizations should impose their internal bylaws on people who don’t belong to their organization. I don’t think gays should be discriminated against as much as I don’t think Jews should discriminate non-Jews for working on the sabbath, or Muslims to discriminate Catholics for praying towards images. They are in their perfect right to prohibit their own from doing these things but for people who don’t want to participate in the activities of the sect, should be respected in their decision.

I don’t wish to derail the thread either, but I will quickly say we do not read the same information if you have not read The Book of Matt by award winning and gay investigative journalist Stephen Jimenez. Gay rights activists use drama to advance their cause even when it’s fabricated. In an effort to counter hatred of gays, the story of Matthew Sheperd that was used to punish gay haters was a lie. You have no reaction to the promotion of homosexuality in schools, the indoctrination of the young under the cover of prevention of bullying of gay kids in school. A good school program ideally addresses bullying of any student, e.g., the fat, the nerd, the gay kid, or anyone who may not be attractive enough that gets picked on, that gets left out, or does not get invited to sit at a table in the school cafeteria.

Secondly, are you saying Natural Law theory is the product of ignorant medieval guessing? I suggest you expand your reading, like the exposition of Thomas Aquinas on the subject.

Thirdly, your reply to my question on your discrimination index was non-responsive. I was not talking about religious rules of a sect being imposed on members who do not belong to the sect. Btw, the Catholic Church is pre-denominational and is not a sect.

I asked specifically if you would consider a person with my positions as listed as unjustly discriminating against gays : against violence towards gays, discrimination of same in employment and housing, any restriction in association, number and choice of adult sexual partners, re-criminalization of sodomy; but against indoctrination of youth on homosexual practices in schools, same sex marriage and adoption of kids by same sex partners, and restriction on speech on stated positions.

Will the above qualify as bigotry or homophobia to you?
,

 

[LogosSokratikos]

Brendan never said that.

I am starting to wonder if atheists are capable of having a discussion without making baseless claims in an attempt to make a point.

It is not a claim. It’s called a literary trope.

Oh dear, the internet… -sigh-

 

[LogosSokratikos]

No I am not, saying that at all, no more than Jesus said it. But Jesus did command her to “Go and sin no more”…

It is perfectly reasonable, and not an act of intolerance, to acknowledge that certain actions are indeed sinful. This is what Jesus did. It is also perfectly reasonable to tell people that they ought to stop such sinful actions. That is what Jesus did. As for what happens to repeat offenders, they will be judged on their actions in the end, and rewarded or indeed punished accordingly.

Punished by whom? The stoners? Someone else? Please clarify.

 

[livingwordunity]

The discussion on this thread in the first few pages on (in)tolerance reminded me of this quote by Bishop Fulton J. Sheen:

“America, it is said, is suffering from intolerance — it is not. It is suffering from tolerance. Tolerance of right and wrong, truth and error, virtue and evil, Christ and chaos. Our country is not nearly so overrun with the bigoted as it is overrun with the broadminded.”
,

 

[LogosSokratikos]

I don’t wish to derail the thread either, but

… but you did. Temperance isn’t your strong side, it appears. It is mine. I will refer to this off-topic no more. InSearchofGrace, kindly search for the grace and find restraint. You may open another thread for debating Shepard’s case if you cannot.

are you saying Natural Law theory is the product of ignorant medieval guessing? I suggest you expand your reading, like the exposition of Thomas Aquinas on the subject.

Yes, Aquinas’ biology lab was legendary… XD

Thirdly, your reply to my question on your discrimination index was non-responsive.

Discrimination index? That’s a new one. It would be profitable to clarify what you mean.

I was not talking about religious rules of a sect being imposed on members who do not belong to the sect.

“…] Instead what I meant was __________”. Pls be so kind and fill in the blank.

Btw, the Catholic Church is pre-denominational and is not a sect.

You’re forgetting the little thing where the Roman Catholic Church decided to split from Orthodoxy with the filiumque, and from then on with a series of other charming novel dogmas. And after that all the king’s horses and all the kings men couldn’t put Churchy together again. Ever splintering to this very day, to become the world’s most split religion in recorded history. ‘Sectus’ means split in sermo latina.

Whatever… have it your way. Historians, the Eastern Orthodox and I simply digress with your POV. Speaking of which, this is another digression I will not further pursue, no matter how fascinating in all honesty it is.

I asked specifically if you would consider a person with my positions as listed as unjustly discriminating against gays : against violence towards gays, discrimination of same in employment and housing, any restriction in association, number and choice of adult sexual partners, re-criminalization of sodomy; but against indoctrination of youth on homosexual practices in schools, same sex marriage and adoption of kids by same sex partners, and restriction on speech on stated positions.

Schools are indoctrinating kids on gay sex? Good luck with that… indoctrination on heterosexism (plus the violence) has worked nil in changing sexual orientations into heterosexuality. Anyway…

About “consider[ing] a person with my positions as listed as unjustly discriminating against gays”, I would consider anyone discriminating against any individual or group a very sad and uncharitable (caritas) state of affairs. If it is for religious reasons or not, doesn’t make it better or worse. As I said before, religious organizations have the right to decide who can join or not. Quite frankly I am personally in favor of the Roman Catholic or any other Church to segregate these and anyone else from their ranks–they are alienating people from their midst and I find that quite agreeable. What I don’t believe they have the right to, is to impose their segregation upon people outside their congregation. Just as Muslims don’t have the right to bully you for venerating images or for eating pork or whatnot, so you don’t have the right to bully others.

*** Tell me --and this is the gist of the matter in the original post of this thread–, do you think if Muslims bullied Catholics for venerating images, would it be a mystery if society “judged” them as bullies? Would you find it odd if society frowns upon them? ***

 

[livingwordunity]

You’re forgetting the little thing where the Roman Catholic Church decided to split from Orthodoxy

Catholics still believe in orthodoxy. Did you know that as early as 107AD Saint Ignatius of Antioch called the Church “the Catholic Church”, taking for granted that everyone already knew what he was talking about? This means it was likely that it was already a commonly accepted name for the Church. But, there was no church called “the Orthodox Church” until after the 1054AD Great Schism. And did you know that there was no sitting Pope when the Great Schism happened? The Pope was dead when it happened, and a new Pope had not been chosen yet. So, did it really happen? And did you know that there was a Catholic-Orthodox Joint declaration of 1965 that lifted the mutual ‘excommunications’ dating from 1054?

 

[LogosSokratikos]

Catholics still believe in orthodoxy.

I will not pursue that fascinating but off-topic subject.

BTW, thank you. I’ts very interesting to discuss things with such a knowledgeable person. It’s not verbal rugby, it’s the chance to explore stimulating subjects and reason them out which makes online discussions so great.

 

[livingwordunity]

I will not pursue that fascinating but off-topic subject.

BTW, thank you. I’ts very interesting to discuss things with such a knowledgeable person. It’s not verbal rugby, it’s the chance to explore stimulating subjects and reason them out which makes online discussions so great.

You’re welcome. I got a lot of my knowledge on the faith from Catholic Answers and from EWTN. I’m still learning, and I’m not even in the same league with someone like Dr. Scott Hahn. Learning about the Catholic faith is like exploring outer space since there is always more to discover.

 

[LogosSokratikos]

I find Catholic resources on the net superb.

 

[livingwordunity]

I find Catholic resources on the net superb.

I like how you call this ‘verbal rugby’. May God bless you.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

… but you did. Temperance isn’t your strong side, it appears. It is mine. …

So you think temperance is your strong side? I think sarcastic reasoning is. LógosSarkastikós would have been more descriptive than the ruse of a handle you picked. You seem overly fond of “I will not pursue that fascinating but off-topic subject” as a reply.

Your disdain for Catholicism is dripping, btw. But many former Catholics who come on board here are that way, evasive of serious engagement, looking to find entertainment in ridicule of Catholic views.

Good day, sir.
,