When it was convenient for the church to claim it was so, of course!
Leave it to the catholic church to lead the charge in support of protecting bigotry from necessary criticism and legal sanction. We can’t have that. Bigots and the bigotry that defines their unjustified views must be protected, you see, and what better shield to use than claiming any criticism is an attack against human rights? Note that human rights are for all, whereas bigotry is to favour some over others. Hypocrisy has always had a long-standing and plush home in the rc church.
GENEVA (Reuters) – People who criticise gay sexual relations for religious or moral reasons are increasingly being attacked and vilified for their views, a Vatican diplomat told the United Nations Human Rights Council on Tuesday.
Archbishop Silvano Tomasi said the Roman Catholic Church deeply believed that human sexuality was a gift reserved for married heterosexual couples. But those who express these views are faced with “a disturbing trend,” he said.
“People are being attacked for taking positions that do not support sexual behaviour between people of the same sex,” he told the current session of the Human Rights Council.
“When they express their moral beliefs or beliefs about human nature … they are stigmatised, and worse — they are vilified, and prosecuted.
“These attacks are violations of fundamental human rights and cannot be justified under any circumstances,” Tomasi said.
Well, I am shocked – simply shocked – that bigotry is being stigmatized. This is an outrage!
Obviously we must protect bigotry from being vilified when expressed and prosecuted when it is enacted because it a fundamental human right… if you believe it is. If we don’t offer special protection for bigots, imagine the consequence: pretty soon those who are against gender equality may have to show good reasons why they hold the bigoted views they do. How unfair is that? And racists? Imagine the chaos if those dead set against racial equality were to be criticized for trying to codify their bigotry into law. Why, there would be no end to the call for justifications for maintaining these bigoted beliefs and that would undermine the comfort such bigoted beliefs bring to those who hold them to be true.
tildeb
Questionable Motives 
Oh look: another ongoing problem of immorality and gross sexual predation within the rc church that has been dealt with by pretending the problem was simply a ‘few bad apples’ and maintaining silence or blaming the victims as an official policy. But Priests for Life and other deluded catholics continue to believe in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary that their theology grants them a god-soaked higher moral platform!
Comment by tildeb — March 27, 2011 @ 1:16 pm |
correlation is not causation, you are fond of saying to me. we agree on this issue hands down. how can that be?!
i work against this issue too, in my own community and faith tradition. simple exegesis shows exactly what the bible says about homosexuality: absolutely nothing.
Comment by zero1ghost — March 28, 2011 @ 4:10 pm |
I tend to agree with the post – the church needs to learn that this is a human rights issue and that gender is really not on the table for questions about uncertainty.
I always go back to why someone would want to choose to be gay with all the problems associated with it concerning acceptance? None of that makes sense so I have to assume this is part of their biological makeup and not about ‘choice’.
So rightfully so the church needs to be criticized for taking a stand that can be seen as halting human rights and freedoms for gay people.
Comment by SocietyVs — March 30, 2011 @ 12:49 pm |
And even if it is a choice – what gives the church a right to pass judgement?
Bi-sexual people can choose between the sexes – i.e they have no sexual preference, biological desire isn’t even a consideration beyond the consideration of the other individual to which they are attracted.
Comment by misunderstoodranter — March 30, 2011 @ 4:07 pm |
“And even if it is a choice – what gives the church a right to pass judgement?” (MUR)
If it’s a choice, like smoking a cigarette, then I can see them having fuel for their tank to rant against it as a ‘sin’ (in their opinions).
Comment by SocietyVs — April 1, 2011 @ 10:45 am |
Why?
Comment by misunderstoodranter — April 2, 2011 @ 2:27 am |
“Why?” (MUR)
I think if something is a ‘choice’ its open to various criticisms and should be.
Comment by SocietyVs — April 6, 2011 @ 12:46 pm |
Yes but the choice we are talking about here is ones sexual preference – which is highly private, and highly personal.
What is there to criticise people for having sex with people of the same sex with? Why is it anyone else’s business what my sexual preference is?
Comment by misunderstoodranter — April 6, 2011 @ 3:55 pm |
Wow! You could care less about people making choices about abortion but bigotry…God forbid! What has happened to you?
Do you hear yourself and the thoughts you are putting out there?
Where does all of this hatred stem from?
They are not condoning bigotry in this article. They are saying….as you ALWAYS say….that people are entitled to their own opinions – freedom of speech, etc…so who cares if people speak out against it? That is their OPINION. The church is not saying it’s ok…..they are saying people should not be attacked for it. Just as you ALWAYS SAY!!!!
Comment by 4amzgkids — April 6, 2011 @ 4:21 pm |
You’re right, but only kind of. Of course nobody should face legal action for expressing their views, but they are saying more than that. It’s ironic, really—they are saying, “we can criticize homosexuals, but don’t criticize us for for doing it!” We are all bigots for being anti-bigot.
Comment by theGuy — April 7, 2011 @ 10:37 am |
Freedom of speech does not mean people are entitled to have their opinions protected from harsh criticism. I’m not calling for people who support bigotry to burned at the stake. I’m not as immoral as the church rich in such brutal history when they had authority. But I am pointing out the hypocrisy necessary to call on human rights – which is based on equality – to be used as an argument to protect bigoted opinions from legitimate criticism!
If you wish to express your opinion about women who exercise their choice to have an abortion, I’m not calling for you to be burned at the stake either. I’m pointing out that you don’t have that right in principle to control the choices of others by actively supporting punitive laws unless you yourself are willing to give up the same right!
Comment by tildeb — April 7, 2011 @ 1:11 pm |
4AK – READ SOMETHING: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/29/uganda-death-sentence-gay-sex
Comment by misunderstoodranter — April 7, 2011 @ 1:46 am |
“What is there to criticise people for having sex with people of the same sex with? Why is it anyone else’s business what my sexual preference is?” (MUR)
2 points:
(1) Your sexual preference (and mine) are nobody’s business (agreed)
(2) When we make them public business I think they should be open to opinion and critique
Comment by SocietyVs — April 8, 2011 @ 5:37 pm |
“When we make them public business I think they should be open to opinion and critique.”
And the same is true of religion – it is my right to be critical of it, to disrespect it in the public arena.
Comment by misunderstoodranter — April 9, 2011 @ 2:07 am |