Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit!
You're currently viewing Catholic CyberForum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our online cyberparish, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.
Join our community!
Messages posted to this board must be polite and free of abuse, personal attacks, blasphemy, racism, threats, harrassment, and crude or sexually-explicit language.
If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Stone Wall Awards; ACCUSATIONS OF BIGOTRY
Topic Started: Friday, 2. November 2012, 09:35 (905 Views)
Rose of York
Member Avatar
Administrator
Eileenanne
Friday, 2. November 2012, 19:55
My first thought was that the Church should ignore this "award". Then I read the statement from the Catholic Church in Scotland:

Quote:
 
Stonewall's decision to award their "Bigot of the year" award to Cardinal O'Brien reveals the depth of their intolerance and their willingness to attack and demean those who don't share their views.
Stonewall and others have promoted terms like 'bigot' and 'homophobe' relentlessly, in order to intimidate and vilify anyone who dares oppose
their agenda. It is an agenda which the wider public does not endorse and which their excessive language has undermined.

Numerous public bodies give sizeable financial donations to Stonewall including the Scottish Government, these intolerant and intimidatory
tactics should mean that this funding is now questioned and examined as a matter of urgency.


I now think that needed to be said.

Eileenanne
http://www.thetablet.co.uk/latest-news/4735
Quote:
 
Anger at cardinal’s ‘Bigot’ award
2 November 2012

The Catholic Church in Scotland has said that Stonewall's decision to name Cardinal Keith O'Brien "Bigot of the Year" reveals the depth of the gay rights group's intolerance for those who disagree with it.

Peter Kearney, the director of the Scottish Catholic Media Office, said the wider public does not endorse such name-calling which he claimed was designed "to attack and demean those who don't share their views".

Mr Kearney called on Stonewall sponsors, including the Scottish Government, to withdraw support from future awards. Earlier this week Barclays and Coutts banks said they would discontinue their funding amid concerns about the "bigot" category.

The cardinal was nominated for the award over remarks he made comparing gay marriage to slavery and child abuse.


Cardinal O'Brien asked for what he got. Whatever the religious beliefs of any person, Catholic or otherwise, there is no justification for speaking such nonsense. A man and woman, two men or two women contemplating a life long mutual commitment are hardly enslaving each other, they do it voluntarily. There is no reason to think that two men or two women living in a homosexual relationship are more likely than any other person, to have an inclination to abuse children. Practically every report I have read of infanticide names the father as the person found guilty of murder. Others name the mother. That does not lead to a call for a ban marriage of man to woman.
Keep the Faith!

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Penfold
Member Avatar

Rose of York
Saturday, 3. November 2012, 01:51


Cardinal O'Brien asked for what he got. Whatever the religious beliefs of any person, Catholic or otherwise, there is no justification for speaking such nonsense. A man and woman, two men or two women contemplating a life long mutual commitment are hardly enslaving each other, they do it voluntarily
Rose. what Cardinal O'Brien is referring to is not the enslavement of the couple concerned but the apparent enslavement of society to the will of a minority group, namely the Stonewall group whose campaigns make it appear to be a crime to oppose their views or stand up for the rights of the majority and most importantly the Christian Values that Cardinal O'Brien is sworn to uphold. He is about the only leading church figure who has had the courage to do so in recent times and far from mocking and deriding him, "Cardinal O'Brien asked for what he got." or quoting his remarks out of the context in which they were placed.
Stonewall, as their name suggests are an intransigent militant group who do more harm to the cause of "Gay Rights" than good, in my opinion for they force issues to the point where they try, and in some cases have succeeded, to force people not only to tolerate their open immoral activities but demand that they be accepted by society as a whole and anyone who does not accept them is labeled as a Bigot.
I have an equal objection to those who force immodest and immoral content into films and TV programmes and say, "Well you can always use the off button" the problem is that some evenings that leaves nothing on the set to be watched.
The rights of a person to freely practice their sexual practices should not be automatically assumed or granted by society, we still have a set of laws based upon Christian teachings and there is also a minority of people in this country of other world faiths such as Islam, Hindu, Jewish and others who also have a prohibition on certain sexual practises.
Society has relaxed its laws to allow for the toleration of such behaviour, in private, and it is rightly no longer a crime simply to have a homosexual disposition or to engage in a relationship in private, but then I would also point out that public displays of affection between hetrosexuals is also subject to decency laws.
What the Cardinal and I believe all Christians should be saying is enough is enough, it is one thing to tolerate Homosexuality but it is another for them to force legislation that will require a redefinition of marriage. The Cardinal has had the honesty to say that in a democratic society that legislation should be subject to a democratic referendum and the will of the majority allowed to speak, Stonewall do not want the will of the majority to speak and would rather accuse people who oppose them of being bigots and force the Scottish Parliament to legislate on the basis of a false premise, ie the liberal agenda should assume that the rights of the minority should be protected at the expense of the views of the majority. A daring move by the cardinal but one which is being denied by the Scottish Parliament who believe that conscience should not determine constitutional affairs, in other words any opposition to a change in the law that is born of a person's conscience is undemocratic bigotry but anyone who wants the law changed is exercising their free democratic right, unhindered by religious scruples of conscience.
In brief, Stonewall have succeeded in neutralizing peoples conscience and religious beliefs as a reason for voting on a matter of legislation. Tolerance of others conduct is not the same as acceptance and I and the Cardinal will support and encourage a tolerant society but will continue to oppose one that demands acceptance of the unacceptable. Gay marriage would require an acceptance of a change in definition of marriage. Once the definition of marriage is changed it becomes easier for those who wish "Gay Marriages" to force clergy to conduct their weddings, because the clergy of the established churches, Anglican in England and Presbyterian, in Scotland to conduct their wedding because the law requires members of the established religions to marry couples who come to them and are domiciled in their parish. Safe guards may be placed today that say that they will not force a clergyman to do so but these safe guards are not worth the paper they are written on if the very definition of marriage can be changed by the whim of parliament or the notion of a magistrate who might consider the ministers opposition to be bigoted. The law should not be changed and the deffinition of marriage should remain as being a union between a man and a woman.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Penfold
Member Avatar

The Scottish Government should not be funding any political campaign be it "Stonewall" or "Let every one have a whisky nightcap" that they are funding "Stonewall" is a disgrace and abuse of taxpayers money.

Legislation regarding incest, the age of consent (pertinent in cases of child abuse) and the abolition of slavery have all been brought onto the statute books as a result of religious scruples and beliefs. If as the Stonewall lobbyists wish conscience and religious scruples are to have no part in determining constitutional matters then what is to safeguard society if people seek to change the age of consent and lower it to, ah but then wait a moment Stonewall do want to lower the age of consent for gay relationships and have enjoyed exploiting the vulnerable...
Rose and others if you fail to support the Cardinal and are succered in by liberal language of "Tolerance" you are ignoring the facts, Stonewall do not want tolerance they demand acceptance and there is a difference. Surrender a principal on the grounds of "Tolerance" and you give away any rights and freedom you may have to oppose behaviour that you do not accept. Allow a legal change in definition of marriage and their will be no safeguard to protect us from being forced to allow "Gay Weddings" in churches. It is already happening that "Gay" anglican ministers are moving into parishes with their Gay Partners and the parishioners are being forced to accept the, even if we try and fool ourselves that our laziness is actually "Tolerance."
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
OsullivanB

Penfold
 
Stonewall, as their name suggests are an intransigent militant group
I disagree. However, I am not sure that this is a useful debate to have on a Catholic forum I will content myself here with correcting any misunderstanding about the name of the organisation. The name is not and was not adopted to be descriptive of its aims or methods. It was taken from the Stonewall Inn in New York, where a celebrated act of rebellion in 1969 by gay men against the brutality of the police was a notable step forward in the self-awareness and confidence-building of gay people (perhaps particularly gay men).
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation." Herbert Spencer
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Penfold
Member Avatar

OsullivanB
Saturday, 3. November 2012, 09:04
Penfold
 
Stonewall, as their name suggests are an intransigent militant group
I disagree. However, I am not sure that this is a useful debate to have on a Catholic forum I will content myself here with correcting any misunderstanding about the name of the organisation. The name is not and was not adopted to be descriptive of its aims or methods. It was taken from the Stonewall Inn in New York, where a celebrated act of rebellion in 1969 by gay men against the brutality of the police was a notable step forward in the self-awareness and confidence-building of gay people (perhaps particularly gay men).
OSB, I was aware of the origins of the name of the group. The fact is however that the name is illustrative of their purpose and activity, they are intransigent and in choosing the name I think they knew full well that it matched their aims and method.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
OsullivanB

Penfold
 
The Scottish Government should not be funding any political campaign be it "Stonewall" or "Let every one have a whisky nightcap" that they are funding "Stonewall" is a disgrace and abuse of taxpayers money.
The Scottish Government does no such thing, unless I have been sorely misled. Have you evidence for this assertion?

I don't think you really know much about Stonewall. This is not the place to enlighten you.
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation." Herbert Spencer
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
OsullivanB

Penfold
 
they are intransigent
Is there something wrong about being intransigent? Isn't it a characteristic of those who believe that they know the truth? Is it a characteristic of the Church? Should it be? Much food for thought in that word, seemingly intended to be disapproving but on examination neutral.
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation." Herbert Spencer
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Penfold
Member Avatar

OsullivanB
Saturday, 3. November 2012, 09:10
Penfold
 
The Scottish Government should not be funding any political campaign be it "Stonewall" or "Let every one have a whisky nightcap" that they are funding "Stonewall" is a disgrace and abuse of taxpayers money.
The Scottish Government does no such thing, unless I have been sorely misled. Have you evidence for this assertion?

I don't think you really know much about Stonewall. This is not the place to enlighten you.
I refer you to the earlier post by Rose in which she quoted the article from the Tablet.

I also refer you to the following articles in which the Scottish government rules out cutting funding to "Stonewall"

http://scottishchristian.com/storm-over-stonewalls-cardinal-keith-obrien-bigot-award/


And here is the proof of the level of Funding by the Scottish Government for the amount funded.

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/People/Equality/SexualOrientation/FOI

Stonewall directly received £100,000 last year alone, total amount over the past 10 years £1,381,906.96

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
OsullivanB

Thank you for that. I am truly surprised. I would need convincing that it was appropriate for Stonewall to receive any public funding. However, I would also need persuading that the fact that the organisation had been offensive to a Catholic prelate was relevant to the question.
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation." Herbert Spencer
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Penfold
Member Avatar

OsullivanB
Saturday, 3. November 2012, 09:10
Penfold
 
The Scottish Government should not be funding any political campaign be it "Stonewall" or "Let every one have a whisky nightcap" that they are funding "Stonewall" is a disgrace and abuse of taxpayers money.
The Scottish Government does no such thing, unless I have been sorely misled. Have you evidence for this assertion?

I don't think you really know much about Stonewall. This is not the place to enlighten you.
OSB you disappoint me. What I know of Stonewall may not be as extensive as your knowledge but I know enough that they have insulted a fine man, in the form of Cardinal O'Brien and in their campaign they have focuses, as you are now, on the argument ad hominem.

I very much doubt you could "Enlighten" me further since you have effectively already written me off, along with the cardinal, as being a bigot, well you are right on one point, this is not the forum for this debate.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
OsullivanB

I don't care for anyone putting words into my mouth or attributing to me opinions that I neither hold nor express. For the record, I by no means consider you or Cardinal O'Brien to be bigots. I do think His Eminence has done his cause a grave disservice by the extravagance of language he has used. I think he has confused getting people's attention with getting their agreement. He undoubtedly succeeded in the first, but probably at the expense of the second.

"Bigot" seems to me to be no more than an abusive word for someone who holds rock-solid views with which the speaker disagrees. It does not assist with reasoned debate of the kind that I have often enjoyed with you. I had no intention of advancing an ad hominem argument. I identified an information deficit which you have confirmed. The observation which is the footnote to all my posts is relevant here.

I think the "bigot award" is conceptually a big error. Catholics are hardly in a position to condemn a whole organisation for a mistake made in zeal.

I do not by any means agree with or approve of everything Stonewall does and has done. But it spoke for me when few others did. And it was the only organisation that did so.
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation." Herbert Spencer
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
OsullivanB

Penfold
 
Stonewall do not want tolerance they demand acceptance.
Me too. I think Jesus accepts me. The (His) Church, at best, tolerates me.
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation." Herbert Spencer
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
OsullivanB

Penfold
 
Rose. what Cardinal O'Brien is referring to is not the enslavement of the couple concerned but the apparent enslavement of society to the will of a minority group
. I don't think either interpretation is correct. It might help to look at the text of Cardinal O'Brien's article. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/9121424/We-cannot-afford-to-indulge-this-madness.html
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation." Herbert Spencer
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rose of York
Member Avatar
Administrator
Penfold
Saturday, 3. November 2012, 09:03
Rose and others if you fail to support the Cardinal and are succered in by liberal language of "Tolerance" you are ignoring the facts, Stonewall do not want tolerance they demand acceptance and there is a difference. Surrender a principal on the grounds of "Tolerance" and you give away any rights and freedom you may have to oppose behaviour that you do not accept. Allow a legal change in definition of marriage and their will be no safeguard to protect us from being forced to allow "Gay Weddings" in churches.
I do not support a redefinition of marriage, and I do not anticipate the State forcing priests to administer the Sacrament of Matrimony to same sex couples. I have never suggested that I am tolerant of sexual activity outside marriage, between man and woman, man and man or woman and woman.
Quote:
 
It is already happening that "Gay" anglican ministers are moving into parishes with their Gay Partners and the parishioners are being forced to accept the, even if we try and fool ourselves that our laziness is actually "Tolerance."
Church of England bishops who allow that have not been forced, by the State. They tolerate it, just as some of them have in their dioceses divorced "remarried" vicars despite that being against the teachings of the Church of England.
Keep the Faith!

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Penfold
Member Avatar

OsullivanB
Saturday, 3. November 2012, 10:28
Penfold
 
Stonewall do not want tolerance they demand acceptance.
Me too. I think Jesus accepts me. The (His) Church, at best, tolerates me.
I can not, and Jesus did not accept homosexuality. Acceptance of a person is not the same as accepting what they are, Jesus loves us even though we are sinners but He does not love or accept our sins.

Homosexual behaviour is a sin.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · General Catholic Discussion · Next Topic »
Add Reply