|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Aug 26, 2019 16:49:04 GMT
Religions should always judge their people based on their own without regard to secular law. That have zero power in civil/criminal law cases. If a church wants to never recognize divorce and second marriages within the church itself, that’s fine. But no church has a say in how divorce and remarriage is handle by the state. Agreed except for where it impacts them. If a law is made that contradicts their teaching there should be no expectation of that law being followed. That’s not the same thing as not expecting repercussions from disobeying an oppressive law. |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Aug 26, 2019 16:55:56 GMT
Agreed except for where it impacts them. If a law is made that contradicts their teaching there should be no expectation of that law being followed. That’s not the same thing as not expecting repercussions from disobeying an oppressive law. I couldn’t care less how the Vatican rules on this, so long as the asshole is in a Australian prison. Agreed |
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Aug 26, 2019 17:33:17 GMT
If a law is made that contradicts their teaching there should be no expectation of that law being followed. This logic reminds me of that Imam (seen on another thread here lately) who was telling the faithful that reading the Qu'ran and Islamic scholars revealing that the sun rotates the earth makes it necessarily true LOL
|
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Aug 26, 2019 17:46:30 GMT
If a law is made that contradicts their teaching there should be no expectation of that law being followed. This logic reminds me of that Imam (seen on another thread here lately) who was telling the faithful that reading the Qu'ran and Islamic scholars revealing that the sun rotates the earth makes it necessarily true LOL How so? |
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Aug 26, 2019 18:35:42 GMT
This logic reminds me of that Imam (seen on another thread here lately) who was telling the faithful that reading the Qu'ran and Islamic scholars revealing that the sun rotates the earth makes it necessarily true LOL How so? "And yet it moves" or "Albeit it does move" (Italian: E pur si muove or Eppur si muove [epˈpur si ˈmwɔːve]) is a phrase attributed to the Italian mathematician, physicist and philosopher Galileo Galilei (1564–1642) in 1633 after being forced to recant his claims that the Earth moves around the Sun, rather than the converse. In this context, the implication of the phrase is: despite his recantation, the Church's proclamations to the contrary, or any other conviction or doctrine of men, the Earth does, in fact, move (around the Sun, and not vice versa). That is just as the world orbits the sun whether the church would have it or not, paedophilia is a punishable crime which exists within the clergy, whether it is recognised and members investigated by the church or not.
|
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Aug 26, 2019 19:24:22 GMT
"And yet it moves" or "Albeit it does move" (Italian: E pur si muove or Eppur si muove [epˈpur si ˈmwɔːve]) is a phrase attributed to the Italian mathematician, physicist and philosopher Galileo Galilei (1564–1642) in 1633 after being forced to recant his claims that the Earth moves around the Sun, rather than the converse. In this context, the implication of the phrase is: despite his recantation, the Church's proclamations to the contrary, or any other conviction or doctrine of men, the Earth does, in fact, move (around the Sun, and not vice versa). That is just as the world orbits the sun whether the church would have it or not, paedophilia is a punishable crime which exists within the clergy, whether it is recognised and members investigated by the church or not. well the example is the opposite of what’s discussed. No one was even suggesting the priest should be let off the hook or th church’s view supersede secular law-, only that is perfectly fine for there to be a religious trial on top of the secular one. Secular law just shouldn’t dictate religious law. The example I gave goz is a secular authority would not actually be able to stop belief even if they banned the practice of it nor should they attempt to. |
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Aug 26, 2019 19:34:12 GMT
"And yet it moves" or "Albeit it does move" (Italian: E pur si muove or Eppur si muove [epˈpur si ˈmwɔːve]) is a phrase attributed to the Italian mathematician, physicist and philosopher Galileo Galilei (1564–1642) in 1633 after being forced to recant his claims that the Earth moves around the Sun, rather than the converse. In this context, the implication of the phrase is: despite his recantation, the Church's proclamations to the contrary, or any other conviction or doctrine of men, the Earth does, in fact, move (around the Sun, and not vice versa). That is just as the world orbits the sun whether the church would have it or not, paedophilia is a punishable crime which exists within the clergy, whether it is recognised and members investigated by the church or not. well the example is the opposite of what’s discussed. No one was even suggesting the priest should be let off the hook or th church’s view supersede secular law-, only that is perfectly fine for there to be a religious trial on top of the secular one. Secular law just shouldn’t dictate religious law. The example I gave goz is a secular authority would not actually be able to stop belief even if they banned the practice of it nor should they attempt to. You said "If a law is made that contradicts their teaching there should be no expectation of that law being followed.". The church for a long time had the opinion that predatory priests should be moved from parish to parish and not to report incidents to the authorities (or that the crimes were really nothing to take issue with in the first place). One might expect that the church gives a lead on such clear aspects of morality, else what is it for? 'Not being able to stop' child abuse practices and a belief that they are not really an issue is distinct from inculcated religious belief more generally, as I am sure you really know. So your reply confuses the issue for reasons only known to theophiliacs.
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on Aug 26, 2019 21:27:27 GMT
Agreed except for where it impacts them. If a law is made that contradicts their teaching there should be no expectation of that law being followed. That’s not the same thing as not expecting repercussions from disobeying an oppressive law. I couldn’t care less how the Vatican rules on this, so long as the asshole is in a Australian prison. He has just announced that he is appealing to our 'High Court' the highest authority in our system of justice. Presumably the Catholic hypocrites and/or the Vatican is funding this endeavour. Having failed in the Appeals Court where the case is reviewed on the evidence with a majority vote against him (2 to 1) from the three justices ( he is using the one dissenting vote to proceed to the High Court) It is different in the High Court where the evidence is not further reviewed and the only hope of an appeal being successful is if there was a flaw in the legal process, such as to cause a miscarriage of justice. His chances are slim in this regard.
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on Aug 26, 2019 21:30:14 GMT
That have zero power in civil/criminal law cases. If a church wants to never recognize divorce and second marriages within the church itself, that’s fine. But no church has a say in how divorce and remarriage is handle by the state. Agreed except for where it impacts them. If a law is made that contradicts their teaching there should be no expectation of that law being followed. That’s not the same thing as not expecting repercussions from disobeying an oppressive law. You mean like the American cake bakers and marriage licence refusals? You can see how that went! LOL It is time that theists realised that in ALL matters, secular law overrides religious law. That does not mean that a religion cannot have its own law, hoever the expectation of them overriding secular law should be dismissed.
|
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Aug 26, 2019 22:02:11 GMT
well the example is the opposite of what’s discussed. No one was even suggesting the priest should be let off the hook or th church’s view supersede secular law-, only that is perfectly fine for there to be a religious trial on top of the secular one. Secular law just shouldn’t dictate religious law. The example I gave goz is a secular authority would not actually be able to stop belief even if they banned the practice of it nor should they attempt to. You said "If a law is made that contradicts their teaching there should be no expectation of that law being followed.". The church for a long time had the opinion that predatory priests should be moved from parish to parish and not to report incidents to the authorities (or that the crimes were really nothing to take issue with in the first place). One might expect that the church gives a lead on such clear aspects of morality, else what is it for? 'Not being able to stop' child abuse practices and a belief that they are not really an issue is distinct from inculcated religious belief more generally, as I am sure you really know. So your reply confuses the issue for reasons only known to theophiliacs. They do not have a history of being against pedophilia. hiwever you keep making me repeat what I’ve already said. Hmmm... how can I dumb this down.... 1. Religious law has no bearing on secular law. I have said this numerous times across numerous threads. 2. If someone commits a secular crime they will be in secular prison 3. A religious rule can be judged within that religion without any regard to a secular law existing. If the Catholic Church wants to excommunicate someone for gay sex then so be it. 4. If a secular law is imposed that goes against the religious belief there should never be an expectation that belief is abandoned simply because of secular law. Gay marriage being legal in no way means any church is required to change their views regarding gay marriage. 5. If they do break a law that contradicts their religious view they would stick to their beliefs (protecting kiddy diddling priest was not a doctrinal issue anyway) and face the repercussions. I don’t care about what the church used to have. It has no bearing in anything I’ve said or anything I wish to be true. |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Aug 26, 2019 22:15:50 GMT
well the example is the opposite of what’s discussed. No one was even suggesting the priest should be let off the hook or th church’s view supersede secular law-, only that is perfectly fine for there to be a religious trial on top of the secular one. Secular law just shouldn’t dictate religious law. The example I gave goz is a secular authority would not actually be able to stop belief even if they banned the practice of it nor should they attempt to. Secular law just shouldn’t dictate religious law. So its okay then for a woman to wear full face covering burka even for a driver’s license photo? if the law dictates a picture ID is needed to drive then it should be honored and the devout person should get used to Uber. I would definitely fight for a woman’s right to wear a burka in general because that is a part of their religious identity although I have no issue with a court defending the religious freedom since no harm is caused by the request. I think people keep missing the point of what I’m saying. Very few religions in the free world have the power to avoid the law. They will just face the repercussions of not following the law. The worst case scenario is a ban on the religion. This will not stop the devout from practicing their religion even if it leads to prison or death. |
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Aug 26, 2019 23:22:04 GMT
They [the church] do not have a history of being against pedophilia. [SIC] That seems a little harsh but it is the impression a cynic might easily get by recent cases and revealed events. LOL When I discuss this particular point here, be sure and raise your view again again. Yes; but the point is when religious organisations think that secular laws (against child abuse for instance) can be gainsaid, either by action or thought. 'We know better'. Since all can see what that has led to - the point, really. Anything odd or reprehensible can certainly be 'judged without any regard'. But is this good practice? As I say above, in some high profile examples it leads ultimately to a huge loss of faith in the churches (as has happened in Ireland for instance) as well as for many churchgoers a personal crisis of faith. It would be better, and more responsible, if churches 'paid regard' to the wide society they exist in - or they will lose their moral authority and grow increasingly irrelevant, as the CofE did when agonising over female clergy.. And does not scripture expect the faithful to obey lawful authority? I don't think it meant just the religious sort. See also below and my comment on religious terrorists who do indeed often operate without regard to secular law - but is that what we want? To which the observation is the same, that just because a church says something is right or wrong, even when backed up with scripture and sermons, that does not necessarily mean they are right, but just convinced they are - whether in asserting homosexuals should be stoned to death or that the sun rotates the earth. Which was my original point - not that churches can be told what to think. For as one quickly discovers, the devoutly-challenged just won't be told... Which, together with what you have said above seems to justify, or permit, violent fundamentalism - something which is based on religious views, rather, doesn't it? For many the 'repercussions' mean martydom and an afterlife with virgins and fresh fruit. Or in the past, the smell of burning witches hard to wash out of clothes. I ask again: is that something we can rest easy about? And does fervent religious conviction make the worst of religion 'right'? The church 'used to have' Jesus, pottering around the middle east. Perhaps there are some things in the past church you care about after all? +++++++++++ Ultimately here, whether deliberately or not, you are confusing the right of the religious to believe what they want (which I will always solidly support, as long as it does not impinge on the right and freedoms of others) with the fact of their fervently-held convictions supposedly making their assertions necessarily moral, or true. I hope that helps.
|
|
