World Youth Day 08 (3 Viewers)

[Slidey]

Oh, cool. I figured it'd at least break even, and it did (the part of the cost paid by government was about $200 mil in total, yeah?).

 

[incentivation]

I worked at various points of the event from Tuesday to Sunday, and despite various traffic inconveniences, anything that promoted happiness, togetherness and harmony as WYD did, isn't necessarily a bad thing. The pilgrims were so friendly and although responsible for crowding streets etc, there was minimal animosity from the general public.

Whether it should be funded by the public purse, is another issue altogether.

What frustrates me though, and note that I am not a Catholic, is that the protesters (many of the homosexual variety), held signs which vilified those who believe and those who have faith. Why is it acceptable to berate those who have a religious belief, yet it is classed as discrimination to make derogatory comments about homosexual behaviour? It reeks of hypocrisy.

 

[Farfour]

I think I know why...

Because one is Biological and the other is not?

 

[CharlieB]

Oh, cool. I figured it'd at least break even, and it did (the part of the cost paid by government was about $200 mil in total, yeah?).

Total cost may have been around that figure, but the amount paid by the nsw govt. was $86 million.

 

[incentivation]

I think I know why...

Because one is Biological and the other is not?

That's your and their opinion.

Is it biological or psychological? Are they one and the same? Is the psychological a product of external factors? In which instances can that be disproven to support the biological debate?

 

[^CoSMic DoRiS^^]

I just don't get why PETA have to do all their protesting in the nude. Or what their cause has to do with WYD.

What did the signs say?

 

[incentivation]

1. Religious people berate homosexuals and encourage active discrimination against them.
2. Homosexuals and "fag enablers" then protest against this discrimination and berate the church.

Without act 1 by the religious people, there would be no act 2. It's not hypocrisy, its a totally justified retaliation to an outlandish, baseless, discriminatory policy.

However the difference I see is that the 'religious people' have not whined and complained that the comments are derogatory and have instead continued with their own business. What irritates me is that these 'protesters' will often go out of their way to complain they are being discriminated against, and in the same breath protest against policies undermining freedom of speech.

I care not for which opinion is right. What shit's me is that some viewpoints are deemed to be 'acceptable' and others not. I mean, anti-discrimination laws are the greatest impingement upon freedom of speech in any democracy. It irritates me that the same group of people can protest against discrimination and for freedom of speech in the same breath.

 

[CharlieB]

1. Religious people berate homosexuals and encourage active discrimination against them.
2. Homosexuals and "fag enablers" then protest against this discrimination and berate the church.

Without act 1 by the religious people, there would be no act 2. It's not hypocrisy, its a totally justified retaliation to an outlandish, baseless, discriminatory policy.

A better definition of hypocrisy would be preaching about moral values, yet molesting young boys.

What annoys me is that religious fundies (who are often not catholic) misinterpret the they way in which the bible deals with homosexuality. The NoToPope coalition's protest was just a cheap shot, laying all the blame on the catholic church, unaware of the church's position on discrimination.

The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition

The church does not actively encourage discrimination towards homosexuals.

 

[Will Shakespear]

However the difference I see is that the 'religious people' have not whined and complained that the comments are derogatory and have instead continued with their own business. What irritates me is that these 'protesters' will often go out of their way to complain they are being discriminated against, and in the same breath protest against policies undermining freedom of speech.

I care not for which opinion is right. What shit's me is that some viewpoints are deemed to be 'acceptable' and others not. I mean, anti-discrimination laws are the greatest impingement upon freedom of speech in any democracy. It irritates me that the same group of people can protest against discrimination and for freedom of speech in the same breath.

i notice you conveniently ignored the bit about molesting young boys

how to do it, arrhh

By the way, the Mardi Gras brings more $$$ to Sydney every single year than WYD did.

On the basis of this, Homosexuals should be tax exempt and anyone annoys them should be fined

 

[incentivation]

Here's the difference champ:

Homosexuals are have been persecuted by absurd intrusive laws. It was only in the 1980's that homosexuality was legalised in every state in Australia, and only in the 2000's that the homosexual age of consent was made consistent with the general age.

Even today, homosexuals do not have the right to marry or adopt. The church does not let them become preists and will not allow openly gay people to recieve communion.

By contrast, religious groups actually recieve special benefits from the government such as funding, tax exampt status and the provision of events like WYD at the public's expense.

So generally speaking, when homos protest against the church, they are protesting against the church advocating an interference with their right to live their own lives as they choose.

The church, when speaking out, is attacking the rights of another. This is the fundamental difference. Few homos are saying people should be prevented from enjoying religious freedom. They are simply protesting the church telling them how they should live their lives, and in many cases being instrumental in preserving discriminatory laws.

Again, missed the point. I never denied discrimination on the part of the church. I see discrimination as a natural consequence of the right to free speech and freedom of belief. What get's me though, is that some of these left wing 'professional protesters' will protest against discriminatory in house policies of the church, or slurs against homosexual people, yet will also protest against laws which prohibit the true workings of free speech.

You can't have it both ways. Either we allow a society whereby freedom of expression, belief, speech and thought are permitted or we regulate it all.

 

[lala2]

^^That's what irks me--the mindless protesting of "some" (or maybe a majority or all but I don't want to generalise) professional protestors. They'll say oh we just want to exercise our right to free speech but it's people like those that just make you want to regulate free speech instead (or alternatively just shut them up big time). I just wonder if they have anything better to do with their time...

 

[wuddie]

suddenly this thread isn't about the wyd any more, it is about churches the religions.

 

[Slidey]

suddenly this thread isn't about the wyd any more, it is about churches the religions.

Um, that's fascinating mate.

 

[KFunk]

Again, missed the point. I never denied discrimination on the part of the church. I see discrimination as a natural consequence of the right to free speech and freedom of belief. What get's me though, is that some of these left wing 'professional protesters' will protest against discriminatory in house policies of the church, or slurs against homosexual people, yet will also protest against laws which prohibit the true workings of free speech.

You can't have it both ways. Either we allow a society whereby freedom of expression, belief, speech and thought are permitted or we regulate it all.

That's an overly simplistic view. It's akin to saying that we either have to permit all sex or we need to regulate all sexual acts, case by case. There are many (obvious, I should add,) options in between, so I am unsure why you have decided to push a false dichotomy here.

Does your typical progressive liberal want to advocate free speech? Yes, most likely. Do they claim free speech to be an ethical trump card which overrides all other possible moral imperatives? I very much doubt it. To assume otherwise, as you would need to in order for your proposed dichotomy to stand as reasonable, is to try to push a fairly grotesque strawman argument.

The obvious style of clause one might use is demonstrated as follows: Freedom of speech should be permitted in so far as it does not interfere with some further set (X) of rights/imperatives.

 

[emytaylor164]

do you guys think that is fair f or the church to discriminate against homosexuals though, or any christian group for that mattter. Bear in mind that homosexuality is actually against christian moral beliefs, i think that it is fair that they will not have homosexuals as priests. I would be worried if a church had a priest/minister/pastor/elder that was a homosexual, it is a sin, remember.

 

[^CoSMic DoRiS^^]

do you guys think that is fair f or the church to discriminate against homosexuals though, or any christian group for that mattter. Bear in mind that homosexuality is actually against christian moral beliefs, i think that it is fair that they will not have homosexuals as priests. I would be worried if a church had a priest/minister/pastor/elder that was a homosexual, it is a sin, remember.

Just because something is against your moral beliefs does not mean it's fair or right for you to actively discriminate against them, because you're not necessarily right.

If the christian church doesn't want to ordain homosexuals as priests, then that's fine by me, it's not my business or my decision...but if a christian church or group is going to actively pursue homosexuals and discriminate against them by, say, not letting them into the church or doing any of that fred phelps bullshit, that's not ok. Not to say they don't have the right to do it, freedom of speech and all, but it's not fair imo.

 

[Will Shakespear]

i think if you can't provide any reasoning for your moral beliefs ("the bible says it") doesn't count we should safely ignore them like we'd ignore a child spouting random nonsense lol

 

[Iron]

Yeah, so, anyway, WYD was sublime