Comments on: Christian woman may sue after police investigate ‘gay hate crime’ letter

By: Sister friendly

Sister friendly — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 20:23:38 +0000

I hope, Harry that you don’t intend to start a forum in order to attack a member of this community. That won’t win you very many friends. You are going about this entirely the wrong way.

By: Rose

Rose — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 20:05:07 +0000

There is no issue here. I just don’t intend to be made a scapegoat for a world religion by somebody who decided to come onto this thread and be abusive to me. I object to being called a hypocrite,repeatedly, but i am not going to waste my time and energy explaining my motives to somebody who had no business asking these impertinent questions in the first place.

By: douglas in canada

douglas in canada — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 17:46:19 +0000

Sorry to interrupt the warmth of these arguments, but here is the trouble I see, and perhaps it will get us back to the original discussion, too. Labels, like “Catholic,” have different meanings for different people. There are people who are Catholic because they were born into a Catholic family and just follow the rituals, but not necessarily the religious or political [yes, political] beliefs that go with that. Another wonderful example: How many non-Christians celebrate Christmas? This is a Christian festival, not a secular one, at its heart. So, perhaps some people find spiritual nurture in the day-to-day practices of a particular religion, but don’t associate with the political aspects of that faithgroup’s administration. I know, at some point, we have to decide how much we can tolerate, and how far we will go, but at some point, there IS a gray area that is difficult to describe or define. The real problem is the use of a single word, such as “Catholic” to describe the many and varied experiences of a widely ranging collection of individuals who, in reality, should each have a more specific word to describe their faith connection.

The woman in the story, to get back to it, has taken a political stand based on her understanding of her faith. For those of us outside her tradition, we are utterly confused by the disconnect between their claim of “loving their neighbor” and “hating fags.”

There is more to say, but I need time to let those thoughts develop. For the time being, I just wanted to put out this beginning idea, and look forward someone else clarifying it further.

By: harry

harry — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 16:20:45 +0000

What has interested me about this response (from not all that many people) is the bile and insults thrown at me for making a relatively restrained attack on what I still see as gay catholic hypocrisy (to the extent that I wonder if there is some other issue here of which as an occasional visitor to this site I am unaware).

I repeat but will not repeat again – the charge of hypocrisy to anyone who participates in the catholic cult (or indeed any other cult with the same principles) is a perfectly legitimate one to make and Rose and others would be well advised to consider a rational response rather than taking personal offence.

now I agree that this has gone on long enough. I might de-personalise it by taking it to a forum in my pink news, or whatever it’s called.

By: JohnK

JohnK — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 15:23:18 +0000

Harry Wrote

“Actually I am afraid some things are as near to black and white as make no difference.”

We understand that you view this in black and white terms, thats your choice.

We think there are “Grey areas”

By: Sister friendly

Sister friendly — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 12:50:07 +0000

Enough is enough. Obviously you are somebody who likes to have the last word. So carry on. But nobody else is interested in debating with you since all you wish to do is insult an individual who has done nothing to you and who has the respect of many here on this community, even those who do not agree with her views.

By: harry

harry — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 12:39:20 +0000

@Iris: I wholly agree with you that the Catholic church not the only enemy of the gay community in this country. it is however one of the more effective ones. It is Rose’s actions (her implicit endorsement of the anti-gay agenda by participating in the catholic community) not her personal beliefs (whether she believes that bits of bread become the body and blood of Christ are no particular concern of mine) that I maintain are legitimate subjects of debate. But she has a right, which she has chosen to exercise, of not participating in that debate.

By: harry

harry — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 12:29:36 +0000

She has a perfect right not to engage – but most of us are prepared intellectually to engage with those who express views contrary to our own (if you think my initial post was “hostile” I can only recommend growing a thicker skin). I certainly would be.

As to Christ’s remarks about turning the other cheek, I shall limit myself to saying that I disagree with them both morally and philosophically.

By: Sister friendly

Sister friendly — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 12:29:22 +0000

He’s not interested in this story. he just wants to attack somebody who openly and honestly explained their position already.

By: Iris

Iris — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 12:27:49 +0000

harry – it’s unfair to randomly ask someone to justify their beliefs. Also, the woman in question in this story is NOT a Catholic – which just goes to show that bigotry can exist in all religions. I’d say it’s more the people than the religion. (And, no, I’m neither a Catholic or a particular fan of the Pope).

By: Sister friendly

Sister friendly — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 12:23:24 +0000

It is exactly the point. If a person declines to engage with a hostile attacker, they have the right. Jesus called it ‘turning the other cheek’, funnily enough. What gives you the right to interrogate somebody about their personal choices?

By: harry

harry — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 12:15:22 +0000

That is not the point. The individual (whom I do not know and as I said may very well be a very nice person) has chosen publicly, by active participation in its “community” (her word), to endorse the teachings of this church, which is hugely hostile to gay people generally and plays an active role in diminishing the civil rights of gay people. It seems to me that there is a legitimate interest in asking her whether there is a touch of hypocrisy in her actions. It was she who declined to engage.

By: Sister friendly

Sister friendly — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 12:09:44 +0000

but then of course the catholic church doesn’t indulge in rational debate.

Address your questions to the catholic church, not to a private individual who you have decided to have a go at for no apparent reason. You are the hostile one, coming in here and attacking somebody with no justification at all.

By: harry

harry — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 12:04:42 +0000

Actually I am afraid some things are as near to black and white as make no difference. And one of them is “gay Catholicism”. It is most revealing (to me at any rate) that the immediate response from Rose to an initial non-hostile posting was a “how dare you judge me” / “none of your business” type response rather than addressing the perfectly reasonable issue that was raised (and has been raised frequently before). And the fact that she won;t answer my question on the Pope shows she is unwilling to engage in rational debate.

but then of course the catholic church doesn’t indulge in rational debate.

By: JohnK

JohnK — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 20:20:05 +0000

Harry, the world is not black and white . . . there are grey areas. Some people do leave the church, but some also decide to stay and fight from inside.

I really think this demands our respect, not condemnation.

By: Rose

Rose — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 15:08:14 +0000

The topic of this bulletin board is ‘Christian woman may sue after police investigate ‘gay hate crime’ letter’. If you have something to say about that subject, do so. But I am not at home to personal attacks from a complete stranger who has decided to single me out for abuse. I have nothing else to say on this matter in this place.

By: Harry

Harry — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 14:59:17 +0000

What exactly is dishonest about what I have said? If you put points on an internet BB you should be preferred to justify them rationally. It is noticeable that you are simply saying “I am what I am” and not justifying your beliefs (laughable as many find them) with the slightest semblance of rationality. A straightforward question for you: when the Pope arrives for his visit to this country, what will you be doing, endorsing his evil bigotry with your presence or joining the demonstrations??

By: Rose

Rose — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 13:26:37 +0000

Oh, well, its a good job that honest friends on either side aren’t as narrow as you. I don’t even know who you are and you’re making judgements based on a couple of points made on an internet news comment page. I don’t have to justify myself to you or anyone. if you want hypocrisy, go and see Iris Robinson.

By: Harry

Harry — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 10:51:06 +0000

Rose, I was actually criticising your endorsing specifically Catholic, not Christian beliefs. I hope that one day you see how homophobic the Catholic church is and how you are acting against the fundamental interests of gay people by participating in its rituals.

Or to put it another way, your hypocrisy deserves the ire of both “sides”.

By: Rose

Rose — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 10:08:25 +0000

I don’t think this is the time or place for an attack on MY personal beliefs and I don’t need to justify myself to anyone, neither so-called Christians who criticise me for being gay or gay people who critise me for being Christian.

My Creed….

I Am What I Am – and what I am needs no excuses.