Posts by Tess Rooney

Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First

  • Up Front: Are We There Yet?,

    Judges who practice conscientious objection?

    Actually I have no problem with that. Suppose a judge was against the death penalty, should she/he be forced into sentencing someone to death? I say they shouldn't.

    Since May 2009 • 267 posts Report

  • Up Front: Are We There Yet?,

    I suspect what you really want is to force religions that disagree with you into being merely private affairs. To push those who don't agree into an unobtrusive silence.

    Only those willing to abort may become doctors. Clergy must marry anyone, adoption agencies must adopt to same sex couples. What this means is people with a certain beliefs are unable to participate. Which really is what you want.

    Realistically I'm not going to change any of your minds by participating here. But on a political note people of faith won't be silenced or shoved into a corner so as to not annoy you. And really the greatest threat to your beliefs won't come from shrinking polite Christianity, but from a disgruntled Islam.

    Since May 2009 • 267 posts Report

  • Up Front: Are We There Yet?,

    Danielle, fair enough. You are perfectly free to think so.

    No one is asking you to agree with me or to force you to do something against your conscience.

    Since May 2009 • 267 posts Report

  • Up Front: Are We There Yet?,

    Religion does not give you a right to kill people by neglect.

    I'm not familiar with the JW thing about blood transfusions, so I dono't want to take the analogy any further with that, because I don't have the understanding about it.

    However, I think all individuals should be able to act according to their own conscience. Things like performing abortion, euthanasia and proscribing contraception can't be forced onto people. It's wrong.

    Provided people have a choice as to who they go to, and they are informed as to what will or will not be available, I see no reason to force medical professionals into such things.

    Since May 2009 • 267 posts Report

  • Up Front: Are We There Yet?,

    if God thinks two loving parents of the same sex is 'spiritually harmful', then God is kind of a... total asshole.

    For Catholicism, biological parenthood is very important. Biologically, you can not have two parents of the same sex. The Church is saying that the natural distinction is important. In fact it calls it the Theology of the Body.

    All children have a biological mother and father. The Church thinks that what is best for children is that they be raised by their own parents in a loving, life long commitment. And if the children are abandoned, then their adoptive parents should mimic that as much as possible.

    Since May 2009 • 267 posts Report

  • Up Front: Are We There Yet?,

    The people who ran the Magdalen laundries believed they were doing what was best for those girls and their children, didn't they?

    I don't think they did. I think some of the violence that those institutions purpetrated was because the people knew what they were doing was essentially evil. I think that heightened their violence.

    I think those women were the scapegoat of a culture of shame and punishment. And I don't think it was a Catholic thing per se, since seriously there is nothing in Scripture or Church teaching to justify such actions. It's as though they rewrote the Bible to make Jesus say, "Yeah, go on stone the adulterous whore! That'll teach her."

    Since May 2009 • 267 posts Report

  • Up Front: Are We There Yet?,

    And these two examples are like gay people having equal civil rights... how?

    Adopting isn't a civil right though. Neither is having a church marry you. I do think that couple protection is a civil right, and as I have said, I have no problem with that.

    Since May 2009 • 267 posts Report

  • Up Front: Are We There Yet?,

    What about the First Celtic Rastafarian Kirk of Hamilton, for example?

    Look if the First Celtic Rastafarian Kirk of Hamilton can get together people and make their church work, then who am I to argue. It worked for Scientology, so really anything is possible. The point is if you have a dedicated group who really want to be a faith community, you're going to get tax breaks. The bummer is that atheism doesn't really lend itself to that kind of organisation.

    When it comes to this issue, we can agree to disagree, but I doubt the law will be changed in any near future because most people are fine with it.

    Since May 2009 • 267 posts Report

  • Up Front: Are We There Yet?,

    Which is fine, but don't expect anyone to take you seriously.

    Well, the same goes for atheism you know :)

    Since May 2009 • 267 posts Report

  • Up Front: Are We There Yet?,

    (And again, people donating blood is not providing a good or service, and you know it isn't. Stop with the canards already)

    No, I meant actually performing blood transfusions, not donating blood.

    Since May 2009 • 267 posts Report

Last ←Newer Page 1 20 21 22 23 24 27 Older→ First