Log in

View Full Version : Catholic Church to intentionally break UK



Cheung Mo
29th January 2007, 17:56
http://news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=145842007


Church: we'll make gay rights martyrs
EDDIE BARNES AND BRIAN BRADY

THE Catholic Church is to go to war over new legislation on rights for homosexuals, vowing to create "gay rights martyrs" if the laws are passed.

In a change of tactics, Church officials now say they will not close down adoption agencies as a result of new laws forcing them to deal with applications from gay couples.

Instead, they will deliberately break the law in order to bring a case to court. The Church believes it could then challenge a guilty verdict through Article 9 of the Human Rights Act, which upholds the freedom of religious expression.

The challenge considerably increases the temperature in a row that last week left the Cabinet divided and prompted warnings from Church leaders that the issue would prompt them to campaign against Labour in May's Scottish elections. Scotland has two Catholic adoption agencies, which place about 200 children and offer aftercare to 2,000 more.

Previously, Church leaders have said that the agencies would be forced to close, however, a spokesman for the Church told Scotland on Sunday: "We will not shut down the agencies. We will carry on working until someone takes us to court for breaking the law." He added: "There would then be a case where one of our agencies would be found guilty of breaking the law and would be put out of business."

He went on: "We believe there is an opportunity for a judicial review on the grounds that compelling people to act against their religious beliefs contravenes Article 9 of the ECHR."

The plan follows a similar challenge brought against the government in Northern Ireland, where the act has already been introduced. Brought by the Christian Institute, the bid will go ahead in March, in an attempt to topple the regulations in the Province.

The Church is now also warning of other examples where its members may find themselves breaking the new legislation. Once passed, the Equality Act, will ban any discrimination in the provision of services on grounds of sexuality.

The spokesman added: "We will see priests prosecuted for saying they are not renting the hall for a same-sex celebration." He went on: "What about the Christian bookshop which refuses to stock gay literature? They will all be breaking the law."

MSPs took the step of allowing gay adoption barely a month ago, when they passed the Adoption Act. That legislation contained a compromise for church leaders allowing Catholic adoption agencies to pass gay couples on to other agencies, rather than being compelled to take them on. Ministers in London are now updating the Sexual Orientation (Provision of Goods and Services) Regulations, which would apply throughout the UK, and are desperately trying to broker their own compromise with the Church.

One option being examined is a regulation in the bill that would mirror the deal made with clerics in Scotland.

Westminster officials last night insisted that Prime Minister Tony Blair and communities minister Ruth Kelly - the two Cabinet supporters of a Catholic 'exemption' - had not fully capitulated over the gay-adoption issue and were maintaining efforts to seek a "workable compromise". Home Secretary John Reid floated the possibility of following Scotland's lead in pacifying the Catholic Church and the gay community - although he insisted the thrust of the equal-opportunities legislation should not be diverted.

"If there's a transitional period - or in Scotland they've suggested other ways of handling this - then by all means do it," Reid said. "But it mustn't overrule the fundamental principle."

A spokesman for Kelly's department said she was investigating all possible alternatives, including the "Scottish solution". He added: "There is a will to produce the most acceptable regulations possible."

bloody_capitalist_sham
29th January 2007, 18:06
I would love it if it goes to court and the catholics lose.

That might meana roll back on religious expression and protection.

chimx
29th January 2007, 19:20
Gay marriage is an interesting theological debate. Contrary to popular thought, it isn't a byproduct of the commonly quoted anti-gay passages in the bible, such as Leviticus 18:20(ish), but rather a reference to Genesis and the idea that marriage is meant as a specific institution for a male and female relationship. It is my understanding that there is a belief that the companionship of a man and woman is related to the love of god, or some bullshit like that.

The problem is that people refuse to see civil marriage as being distinct from religious marriage. Numerous theologians don't have a problem with gay couples, adoption, etc., but just want to make sure it is called something other than the institution they have for heterosexual couples. My problem with this is it sounds suspiciously like a "separate but equal" solution. But so long as civil rights remained equal, religious inconsistency's seem irrelevant in the end I suppose.

But still, adoption is a civil matter, and ultimately the church will loose this one.

Hate Is Art
29th January 2007, 20:04
Papist Child Molesters? You fucking what. Surely that is discrimination?

chimx
29th January 2007, 20:48
Oh yeah, I just noticed that title. That is extremely inappropriate, both to religious folk and victims of child molestation.

Comrade_Scott
29th January 2007, 21:06
mmm i love how religion tries to paint itself as a great thing and then this happens...way to show youre true colours :rolleyes:

Fawkes
29th January 2007, 21:37
Gay marriage is an interesting theological debate. Contrary to popular thought, it isn't a byproduct of the commonly quoted anti-gay passages in the bible, such as Leviticus 18:20(ish), but rather a reference to Genesis and the idea that marriage is meant as a specific institution for a male and female relationship. It is my understanding that there is a belief that the companionship of a man and woman is related to the love of god, or some bullshit like that.
Yeah, but the Bible also makes a specific reference to slavery, and not a condemning reference, and I don't hear to many Christians fighting to re-instate slavery.

Edit: I used "condone" where I meant to use "condemn".

Jazzratt
29th January 2007, 21:47
I'm not going to leap up and say "oh noes someone said something insulting about priests! Oh noes - paedophillia is offensive!" but I would say that the title of this thread is misleading, I thought it would be about more paedophillia charges being brought against catholic priests.

As it is it's another irellevance about marriage.

Hate Is Art
29th January 2007, 21:56
Especially as the thread has nothing to do with Papist's Molesting Children, it also says that all Papist's are child molester's. If the title was 'Black Child Molestor's' or 'Gay Child Molestor's' You would probably have been given a ban as you are implicating all Catholics are child molesters.

So yeah explain what the fuck this thread title means?

Fawkes
29th January 2007, 21:59
Oh God, did someone just insult religion??? You'd never expect that on a Socialist forum.

Hate Is Art
29th January 2007, 22:09
No it's not an insult, it's 'discrimination' I'm not sticking up for Catholics or Religion at all. I just think a statement like 'Papist Child Molesters' used as a synonym for Catholics is incredibly naive and stupid. Especially as it has nothing to do with the thread's content.

As I said before, If I called all Homo Sexual's Child Molestors, I would be banned. So what the fuck is this? It easy enough to dismantle the logic of religious beliefs, especially those as ridiculous as the Catholic Churches, there is no need to call them Child Molestors. It's a prejudiced stereotype.

Fawkes
29th January 2007, 22:14
Or a joke.......

Hate Is Art
29th January 2007, 22:44
Is Lazy Niggers a joke?

Fawkes
29th January 2007, 22:47
Racist jokes and religious jokes are totally different. I never even said I approved of the papist molestor thing, I'm just saying that it doesn't really matter.

Hate Is Art
29th January 2007, 22:51
How are they different? And I'm saying it does matter.

Fawkes
29th January 2007, 22:59
You don't choose your "race", you do choose your religion though. It's really not that big of a deal and I really don't feel like having a huge debate over it.

Hate Is Art
30th January 2007, 00:06
So by choosing to be a Catholic you automatically become a child molestor? It isn't a big deal, but it is a ridiculous statement..

Fawkes
30th January 2007, 00:07
I never said that, I'm just saying making fun of someone's religious beliefs (which I do not condone) is not at all the same as making fun of someone's "race".

chimx
30th January 2007, 00:15
Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 09:37 pm

Gay marriage is an interesting theological debate. Contrary to popular thought, it isn't a byproduct of the commonly quoted anti-gay passages in the bible, such as Leviticus 18:20(ish), but rather a reference to Genesis and the idea that marriage is meant as a specific institution for a male and female relationship. It is my understanding that there is a belief that the companionship of a man and woman is related to the love of god, or some bullshit like that.
Yeah, but the Bible also makes a specific reference to slavery, and not a condoning reference, and I don't hear to many Christians fighting to re-instate slavery.
I'm just saying, marriage, according to theists, is a specific institution with a specific definition.

Hate Is Art
30th January 2007, 00:19
I never said that, I'm just saying making fun of someone's religious beliefs (which I do not condone) is not at all the same as making fun of someone's "race".

It's still not on though.

Jazzratt
30th January 2007, 01:17
Originally posted by Digital [email protected] 30, 2007 12:06 am
So by choosing to be a Catholic you automatically become a child molestor? It isn't a big deal, but it is a ridiculous statement..
Humour is made up, for the most part, of ridiculous statements - hilarity in absurdity and all that.

I don't know much about the bible - when I read fantasy fiction I prefer something more realistic, but I will say that catholics needen't condone gay marriage - after all it's their jamfuck cult; they have all kinds of idiot rules. If you want to get married and the other person happens to be of the opposite sex it may be best to avoid homophobic churches and choose either a church with a more liberal bent or better yet don't get married in a fucking church.

chimx
30th January 2007, 05:10
You are living in a fantasy fiction if you think atheists are anything other than an extreme minority.

Fawkes
30th January 2007, 20:23
Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 12:10 am
You are living in a fantasy fiction if you think atheists are anything other than an extreme minority.
Who is that directed toward?

Invader Zim
30th January 2007, 21:10
Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 11:59 pm
You don't choose your "race", you do choose your religion though. It's really not that big of a deal and I really don't feel like having a huge debate over it.
Utter bullshit, the vast majority of people are born into their religion. They are indoctonated from birth as are their entire communities. Very few people actively choose such beliefs. The growth, in the west of, athiesm is a the product of centuries of social development and progress - people didn't just wake up one day and think 'I know! I'm going to give up years of belief for shits and giggles'. And as for avoiding a large debate, a good stratagy, because you will lose because you are wrong.

Fawkes
31st January 2007, 20:40
Regardless of whether you are born into a religion or not, you can change it at will. I never even said that I condone the title of this thread, I just said that it really isn't that big of a deal.

Black Dagger
1st February 2007, 05:05
I'll change the topic title if someone gives me a good alternative.

Hiero
1st February 2007, 12:49
Originally posted by black [email protected] 01, 2007 04:05 pm
I'll change the topic title if someone gives me a good alternative.
Is it too hard to change "Papist child molestors" to "Catholic Church"?

Black Dagger
1st February 2007, 15:38
Originally posted by Hiero+February 01, 2007 10:49 pm--> (Hiero @ February 01, 2007 10:49 pm)
black [email protected] 01, 2007 04:05 pm
I'll change the topic title if someone gives me a good alternative.
Is it too hard to change "Papist child molestors" to "Catholic Church"? [/b]
Done.

Cheung Mo
9th February 2007, 15:24
So let me get this straight?

My topic title gets changes while the Vatican gets off without having to apologise for backing Francisco Franco, Fulgencio Batista, Benito Mussolini, the Ustase, Maurice Duplessis, the right-wing pro-Washingthon rat bastards who have kept the Filipino people impoverished and oppressed (i.e. pretty much everyone who has run that country after its "independence"), the Duvaliers, and other tyrants of the authoritarian and totalitarian right?

Hate Is Art
9th February 2007, 19:43
What the fuck does that to do with anything? Black Rose, could you pleas ban the Catholic church please? Maybe give them a warning point.

No one is saying that the Catholic Church aren't a bunch of weird reactionarys, OK. Just this forum is called discrimination and it's a bit rich, to call the Catholic Church 'Papist Child Molestor's' then isn't it.

The Grey Blur
9th February 2007, 19:50
If it's in reference to the Church - fine.

If you mean any Catholic is a child molestor, even as joke, you're a twat.