Win a copy of Five Lines of Code this week in the OO, Patterns, UML and Refactoring forum!
  • Post Reply Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
  • New Topic
programming forums Java Mobile Certification Databases Caching Books Engineering Micro Controllers OS Languages Paradigms IDEs Build Tools Frameworks Application Servers Open Source This Site Careers Other all forums
this forum made possible by our volunteer staff, including ...
Marshals:
  • Campbell Ritchie
  • Bear Bibeault
  • Ron McLeod
  • Jeanne Boyarsky
  • Paul Clapham
Sheriffs:
  • Tim Cooke
  • Liutauras Vilda
  • Junilu Lacar
Saloon Keepers:
  • Tim Moores
  • Stephan van Hulst
  • Tim Holloway
  • fred rosenberger
  • salvin francis
Bartenders:
  • Piet Souris
  • Frits Walraven
  • Carey Brown

Is this wrong or is it allright?

 
Ugly Redneck
Posts: 1006
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Georgia School to have a segregated prom
 
slicker
Posts: 1108
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
(from the mentioned article) ...relatives in Philadelphia and New Jersey laugh when they read about Taylor County's prom.
Coming from New York City it is not hard to believe that the Yankees are laughing. I managed to roll my eyes a couple of times too. I'm seriously wondering if the folks in this town walk around barefoot...
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 3451
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Sriraj Rajaram:
Georgia School to have a segregated prom


I thought rednecks would apprciate these kids initiative
All joking aside, this is bullshit. What is absolutely incredible to me is the deafening silence from the school, the community and the state. Why did all of them sit quietly by and let it happen? Granted, these (forgive me Sriraj) rednecks have the right to have a private party and invite anyone they choose, but what the hell does it tell you when the white community is willing to sit around and do nothing while a travesty like this takes place. I'm very discouraged about this sort of thing. I really thought we Americans were beyond this and it was just a matter of time before death took the last of the southern biggots, but we may have another generation willing to take their place.
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1865
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by John Dunn:
(from the mentioned article) ...relatives in Philadelphia and New Jersey laugh when they read about Taylor County's prom.


Of course, those of us in California are getting a good laugh too. Here's another funny line from the article.


Until then, parents and students organized separate proms for whites and blacks after school officials stopped sponsoring dances, in part because they wanted to avoid problems arising from interracial dating.


At my daughter's preschool a very large percentage of the children are multiracial including my daughter. I suppose a few of us didn't get the memo on the "problems arising from interracial dating." The kids at my daughter's school don't pay any attention to race and the parents don't either although I have noticed that the multiracial kids tend to be the cutest. Has anyone else noticed that?
Last month I took my daughter to an Easter party at the home of a friend of a friend. Most of the kids were Asian but most of the parents that came along were white. I think the only family at the party that was not multiracial was a Russian family.
In Santa Clara County at the southern end of the San Francisco Bay there is no longer any ethnic majority. Instead, every ethnic group has become a minority. If there were an attempt to have a segregated dance for any school in Santa Clara, then they would have to have a hundred.
 
Paul McKenna
Ugly Redneck
Posts: 1006
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
But then Michael will you please explain to me the sorry state of Black population in America. I mean the blacks prop up Gangsta Rappers as the icon for their population and it is then of little wonder to me why they are looked down upon. I wholely understand that these people live in abysmal conditions and that life there is pathetic but is that any reason to make that the motto of your existence?
Furthermore whenever I come across some of these African Americans with hair that resemble curly fries I wonder "What the hell was this person thinking when they made their hair like that?" maybe its some of my prejudice kicking in since I come from a society where appearance is given significant importance but it only seems logical to me that if you want to be accepted in society there are some norms that you have to adhere to. I dont understand it when African Americans claim "Its a Black thang!!" (it is thang and not thing)
Frankly if African Americans want to be considered and accepted in American society I believe it is high time they stopped behaving like Africans and started behaving like Americans. Correct me if I'm wrong!
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 5390
1
Spring Java
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Sriraj Rajaram:
Frankly if African Americans want to be considered and accepted in American society I believe it is high time they stopped behaving like Africans and started behaving like Americans. Correct me if I'm wrong!


I think US is known more for black hip-hop public than whites.
AW I cant believe this, this is happening in US and that is also 21st centuary.
Dont know whether should I laugh or cry. I always looked US as ideal society[with some minus]
 
Paul McKenna
Ugly Redneck
Posts: 1006
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
And I guess you wouldnt hesitate to state that India is known better for its Islamic Emperors rather than the Hindus and their tolerance
 
Michael Morris
Ranch Hand
Posts: 3451
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
But then Michael will you please explain to me the sorry state of Black population in America. I mean the blacks prop up Gangsta Rappers as the icon for their population and it is then of little wonder to me why they are looked down upon. I wholely understand that these people live in abysmal conditions and that life there is pathetic but is that any reason to make that the motto of your existence?
I don't believe that the Gangsta Rappers are a true representation of the Black population in America. And for the most part, Blacks do not live in abysmal conditions. They certainly don't in this little corner of the US. Granted, on average, Blacks do not earn as much as Whites, but I don't see them starving, going naked or being homeless. Having said that, they do have many issues that are standing in their way of the American ideal. The greatest of which is their disdain of education, considering it a "Whitey thing." More than any other ethnic group in the US they vote monolithically: 90% democrat. That tells me that they are not thinking on their own, but are blindly following the dictates of Black leaders who have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo.
Furthermore whenever I come across some of these African Americans with hair that resemble curly fries I wonder "What the hell was this person thinking when they made their hair like that?" maybe its some of my prejudice kicking in since I come from a society where appearance is given significant importance but it only seems logical to me that if you want to be accepted in society there are some norms that you have to adhere to. I dont understand it when African Americans claim "Its a Black thang!!" (it is thang and not thing)

I don't think that is prejudice, because I feel the same way about appearance. I sense the same aversion to a White youth with grotesque tatoos and piercings. I am co-owner of a small business here in the piney woods and if either type applied for a job with us, I assure you they would not get any consideration. We care how we are perceived in our community and do not want people like that to be our representatives.
Frankly if African Americans want to be considered and accepted in American society I believe it is high time they stopped behaving like Africans and started behaving like Americans. Correct me if I'm wrong!
I don't know that I would have stated it so bluntly, but in principle, I agree with you and I restate that I believe many, if not most already have. I can only draw on my own experience, but I coached little league baseball and football for nearly 20 years and many of these youths were Black. They and their families were exactly what you would want in a neighbor: respectful, helpful and hard working. Of course there were exceptions, but few. Most of them are now either in college or grown and to this day they still call me Coach Morris and treat me with great respect and appreciation. Few have taken on the appearance of the Gangsta Rappers. Having seen the way their grandparents were treated in the 50s and 60s, I for one do not want to go back as these bigots in Georgia are trying to do.
 
R K Singh
Ranch Hand
Posts: 5390
1
Spring Java
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Sriraj Rajaram:
And I guess you wouldnt hesitate to state that India is known better for its Islamic Emperors rather than the Hindus and their tolerance


I always say thanks to Muslim emperors because of which today Hindi[Urdu mix] is so sweet
 
Paul McKenna
Ugly Redneck
Posts: 1006
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Michael Morris:
More than any other ethnic group in the US they vote monolithically: 90% democrat. That tells me that they are not thinking on their own, but are blindly following the dictates of Black leaders who have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo.


I have wondered over the same fact earlier and have researched why the African American population is so heavily democratic. The reason I believe is because of the following:
1. People think that it was only the republican party that faught for freeing the black slaves during the civil war but that is actually incorrect. The republicans would never have won the war if Lincoln didnt win the support of the Northern Democrats.
2. During the early part of the 20th century the Democrats demonstrated remarkable support for the black population. For example FDR and Eleanor were pretty vocal in their support for African American rights. Truman (I admire him because of this) risked his reelection by adopting a civil rights platform. Infact an incident that I read about Truman stands out clearly in my mind. When he announced at the Democratic convention about the adoption of a Civil rights platform Strom Thurmond and 20 other democrats (cant remember the exact number) walked out stating they wont support equality for blacks. A reporter asked Strom Thurmond why he was so upset because Truman was saying the same thing that FDR did, Strom's reply was "Truman means it!!". And where did Strom and his colleagues end up a few years later? The republican party.
3. The republican party still plays host to (in my opinion) criminal senators such as Jesse Helms of North Carolina. Jesse has been seen on TV nationwide (CNN) on the Larry King show responding to a caller who said "Thank you for keeping these nigg@#$ down", Jesse responded by saying "Thank You I think".
4. Rick Santorum.. any more talk about him necessary???
5. There is only one black republican and he too is expected to retire next term. The republican party will then be an all white all male all christian party.
6. Democrats have been extremely wily and clever in playing their class warfare games. This is an ugly side of the Democrats but given the above facts regarding the republican party I guess the blacks choose Democrats.
Add more if I missed any.
 
Michael Morris
Ranch Hand
Posts: 3451
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Before we condemn the Republican party outright, let's remember a couple of things. First, that all of the politicians you mentioned by name were previously Democrats and I venture to say would still be, had the Democratic party continued to embrace their history of bigotry. Second, and this is very important, without the imprimatur of the Republicans, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 would never have been passed. The Democrats would have dealt LBJ (really JFK) a crushing defeat without the right side of the aisle.
Now, let's analyze what the Democats have done for Blacks since LBJ. They created a welfare system that encouraged Black women to have children and not have husbands leading to the demise of the traditional Black family. The system also discouraged employment and self-sufficiency creating a cynical dependency on the Democratic party: the providers of the food stamps and welfare checks. So, Sriraj, the next time you see an African American with hair that resembles curly fries, consider that it may be because he never had a father to help keep him on the straight and narrow.
 
Michael Morris
Ranch Hand
Posts: 3451
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
MM: First, that all of the politicians you mentioned by name were previously Democrats
I forgot that you mentioned Santorum, I know very little about him, except that he's a jerk.
[ May 19, 2003: Message edited by: Michael Morris ]
 
Sheriff
Posts: 6450
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Sriraj Rajaram:
3. The republican party still plays host to (in my opinion) criminal senators such as Jesse Helms of North Carolina.


This isn't only a Republican phenomenon. I find it hard to escape notice that the deeply racist Al Sharpton is running for President as a Democrat. And let's not forget to mention former Democratic Presidential hopeful, the Reverend Jesse "Hymietown" Jackson.
 
mister krabs
Posts: 13974
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Sriraj Rajaram:
3. The republican party still plays host to (in my opinion) criminal senators such as Jesse Helms of North Carolina.

Just wondering, what crimes has Jesse Helms committed?
 
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Posts: 13974
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Sriraj Rajaram:
4. Rick Santorum.. any more talk about him necessary???


Could you explain to me what horrible thing Rick Santorum did?
 
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Posts: 13974
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Sriraj Rajaram:
5. There is only one black republican and he too is expected to retire next term. The republican party will then be an all white all male all christian party.

Just looking at the Senate... there is a Native American Republican senator (Ben Campbell from Colorado). There are women (Susan Collins from Maine, Elizabeth Dole from North Carolina, Kay Hutchinson from Texas, Lisa Murkowski from Alaska, Olympia Snow from Maine). I don't know if all Republican senators are Christians.
I also know that Republicans have run black candidates for Congress and lost.
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1479
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Jason Menard:

This isn't only a Republican phenomenon. I find it hard to escape notice that the deeply racist Al Sharpton is running for President as a Democrat. And let's not forget to mention former Democratic Presidential hopeful, the Reverend Jesse "Hymietown" Jackson.


Wasn't the Democrat Byrd the House leader at some point? He was a member of the KKK. Yet there is, and never was, no outcry over this because he is a Democrat. Making racist accusations against Republicans is pure hypocrisy. There are just as many, if not more, racists in the Democratic party. How many high ranking Republicans in office today have been members of the KKK?
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1871
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Use the words Democratic, Republican, Communism and you will see the next post from Herb Solocomb
 
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Posts: 13974
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by herb slocomb:

Wasn't the Democrat Byrd the House leader at some point? He was a member of the KKK.

An article about the senio senator from West Virginia:
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/michelle/malkin030801.asp
 
Michael Morris
Ranch Hand
Posts: 3451
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
An article about the senio senator from West Virginia:
That's an interesting article. I knew some of that about Byrd, but certainly did not realize the apparent depth of his bigotry. I've often characterized growing up in the segregated South as being an alcoholic, you'll never be completely cured of the bigotry that was thrust upon you, but you can choose to stay dry as it were. You have to wonder though if the illustrious Senator of WV has ever completed his 12 step program.
 
Paul McKenna
Ugly Redneck
Posts: 1006
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
OK! Lets back up!! Before this Democratic lynching party gets out of control lets get a few things straight.
1. My post was intended to point out why Blacks overwhelmingly support Democrats and not Republicans. Who said anything about the Democrats being better than the Republicans.
2. In all the replies I have noticed the classical Republican comeback. "We are bad, well you are bad too.." Not one post detailed why the Blacks should support Republicans. Instead the posts were aimed at showing that the Republican party is the lesser of two evils.
3. Regarding Senator Robert Byrd, I was going to bring him up as a reply to Michaels post but looks like you guys have already analyzed his history.
Here are my questions:
1. Michael, if you claim that the Democrats have led to the ultimate destruction of the Black family why is it then that the Republicans dont emphasize this? Why dont they publicize this? After all there has to be something terrible that the Republicans did to them that the Blacks simply refuse to listen to any Republican.
2. I didnt know that Jesse Helms was formerly a Democrat and even if he was, given his record what in the world was the Republican party thinking of when they let him in? Seems to me like while the Democrats dish out their garbage the Republicans pick up their fodder.
3. Thomas, regarding Rick Santorum, I suppose you are unaware of the fact that Rick led a group of anti-gay protestors to picket outside an African American gay funeral. To make it worse this gay was originally shot to death by some lunatic who hated gays. I can understand that Rick doesnt like Gays, but the least he could do is let this person have a decent funeral.
4. For every racist you can think of in the Democratic party I can think of an equivalent in the Republican party.
Robert Bryd - Trent Lott (who incidentally was the senate majority leader)
Al Sharpton - Pat Buchanan (who also tried to run for president on the republican platform)
Jesse Jackson - David Duke
Coming back to the original topic of why Blacks choose Democrats I also strongly feel that it has to do with the Republican party adopting "Southern Strategy" in the mid 60s. That alienated a lot of African Americans.
OK! Finally before you people accuse me of defending African Americans blindly let me point out some of my personal views.
1. I dislike the NAACP, I believe that it should be abolished and any member of any race trying to setup something similar in the future needs to be sentenced.
2. I dislike Affirmative Action. I was a victim of a similar system in India. I strictly believe in meritocracy
3. I wouldnt be unhappy if all these Gangsta Rappers were sent to some concentration camp. They are spoiling the image of decent hardworking African Americans as Michael pointed out.
But I do believe that African Americans have been done great injustice over the illustrious history of USA. These are a group of people who gave their lives alongside White americans to preserve the union yet they were lynched and burned at the stake if they did anything as innocent as smile at a white woman. But thats a different story all together and I wont spoil this post with that.
[ May 19, 2003: Message edited by: Sriraj Rajaram ]
 
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Posts: 13974
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Sriraj Rajaram:
3. Thomas, regarding Rick Santorum, I suppose you are unaware of the fact that Rick led a group of anti-gay protestors to picket outside an African American gay funeral. To make it worse this gay was originally shot to death by some lunatic who hated gays. I can understand that Rick doesnt like Gays, but the least he could do is let this person have a decent funeral.


I have not heard of this and I couldn't find anything about it on the net. Have a link where I can read about this? Do you have the name of this gay African-American?
You might also note that Rick has said that he does not hate gays. As a member of the Roman Catholic Church he supports the position of his Church which is that homosexual sex is a sin. Are you saying that the RC Church hates gays?
[ May 20, 2003: Message edited by: Thomas Paul ]
 
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Posts: 13974
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
I'm not sure where you come from, but you can not be denied admission to a political party in this country so there is no way to keep Jesse Helms from becoming a Republican. But I would like to know what you think were all the awful "criminal" things he did that should keep him out of the party.
David Duke has been repudiated by the Republican Party on many occasions. In fact, in 1990 when Duke beat the party's choice for nominee for governor of Louisiana, the state Republican party openly endorsed the Democrat (who won). As Republican National Committee Chairman Jim Nicholson declared: "There is no room in the party of Lincoln for a Klansman like David Duke."
So where are the Democratic condemnations of Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson?
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 18944
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Redneck attire Legal - According to Supreme court!
A victory for us rednecks at last!!!
 
Paul McKenna
Ugly Redneck
Posts: 1006
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
I'm not sure where you come from, but you can not be denied admission to a political party in this country so there is no way to keep Jesse Helms from becoming a Republican. But I would like to know what you think were all the awful "criminal" things he did that should keep him out of the party.
David Duke has been repudiated by the Republican Party on many occasions. In fact, in 1990 when Duke beat the party's choice for nominee for governor of Louisiana, the state Republican party openly endorsed the Democrat (who won). As Republican National Committee Chairman Jim Nicholson declared: "There is no room in the party of Lincoln for a Klansman like David Duke."
So where are the Democratic condemnations of Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson?


Thomas,
I'm not very well aware of the political nomination process in US but I thought all nominations were done with the consent of the party. Hence if David Duke got a nomination as a Republican then wouldnt it mean that he won the popular support of many republicans in Louisiana to contest as a Republican. Or am I wrong and anybody can field themselves as a Republican or a Democrat and the choice is left to the people. I think my former assumption is correct. Please explain!
Secondly, on the Gay picketing affair I will clarify two points.
1. The name of the gay is Matthew Shepard of Wyoming. I thought he was an African American but it seems I'm wrong.
2. I read somewhere a long time ago that Rick Santorum approved of the picketing performed by the Westboro Baptist Council at his funeral but I'm unable to find that link. Anyway search the internet for "Rick Santorum Gay funeral" and you'll find lots of links regarding this. I'm still searching for that exact link but if you find it please post it.
With that clarification being made onto the next part. I never ever implied anywhere in my post that the RCC(Roman Catholic Church) is wrong on its stance on Gay right etc. I said Rick Santorum is wrong. So for instance if I, Sriraj, support Gay rights it doesnt mean all Indians or all Hindus support Gay rights. I as an Individual am making that statement. For Rick Santorum i believe he is a leader, and being one he is held accountable much more seriously for his remarks. He should be more careful with his statements since they may influence / affect several people.
There is an excellent article on why Rick Santorum is wrong on his Gay rights views. The article explains why Rick shouldnt confuse sin with crime. For example, the church at one point in time believed the Sun revolved around the earth and anyone who disputed that was crucified.
Search for "Catholic Church Galileo" on google for details regarding this affair.
The former article is at The Other Reason why Rick Santorum is Wrong
 
Paul McKenna
Ugly Redneck
Posts: 1006
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:

You might also note that Rick has said that he does not hate gays.
[ May 20, 2003: Message edited by: Thomas Paul ]


Yea right! Rick said "I dont hate gays! I hate gay acts!"
Please explain the difference. So does Rick mean that he has the right to invade the privacy of those who claim to be gays and ensure that they do not commit acts of homosexuality?
 
Jason Menard
Sheriff
Posts: 6450
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Sriraj Rajaram:
I'm not very well aware of the political nomination process in US but I thought all nominations were done with the consent of the party. Hence if David Duke got a nomination as a Republican then wouldnt it mean that he won the popular support of many republicans in Louisiana to contest as a Republican. Or am I wrong and anybody can field themselves as a Republican or a Democrat and the choice is left to the people. I think my former assumption is correct. Please explain!


David Duke never received any nomination by the Republican party. Anybody can choose to run for President for the most part as whatever political affiliation they wish. However the only ones to actually receive party nominations are the winners of their particular parties primary elections, at least in the case of Democrats and Republicans.
Regarding David Duke, as Thomas stated, he was repudiated by Republicans across the country. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpeton are different stories. Each has received broad support within the Democrat party.
 
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Posts: 13974
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
I'm not very well aware of the political nomination process in US but I thought all nominations were done with the consent of the party. Hence if David Duke got a nomination as a Republican then wouldnt it mean that he won the popular support of many republicans in Louisiana to contest as a Republican. Or am I wrong and anybody can field themselves as a Republican or a Democrat and the choice is left to the people.
All nominations are done by a primary which is an election of all members of the Republican party. It is true that Duke won the primary (although the vote was split among several candidates and Duke did not get a mjority) but the party remounced him and threw its support behind the democrat.
2. I read somewhere a long time ago that Rick Santorum approved of the picketing performed by the Westboro Baptist Council at his funeral but I'm unable to find that link.
Becuase it doesn't exist. You are mistaken.
With that clarification being made onto the next part. I never ever implied anywhere in my post that the RCC(Roman Catholic Church) is wrong on its stance on Gay right etc. I said Rick Santorum is wrong.
But Rick Santorum is a Roman Catholic and has expressed exactly the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church. So if Santorum is an anti-gay bigot then the RC Church is an anti-gay bigot. Is that what you are claiming?
The article explains why Rick shouldnt confuse sin with crime. For example, the church at one point in time believed the Sun revolved around the earth and anyone who disputed that was crucified.
Two things... Santorum does not confuse sin with crime. He never said that gays should be arrested and imprisoned for being gay. And you are also wrong on the second point. The Catholic Church did not crucify anyone. And they certainly did not crucify anyone for for saying the Earth revolved around the Sun. Not even Galileo was punished for that. He was punished for disobeying and mocking his sovreign leader (who happened to be the Pope).
 
Paul McKenna
Ugly Redneck
Posts: 1006
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
But Rick Santorum is a Roman Catholic and has expressed exactly the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church. So if Santorum is an anti-gay bigot then the RC Church is an anti-gay bigot. Is that what you are claiming?


OK, lets have it your way. So if in the 1500s (or whenever) the RCC held that the Sun revolved around the Earth and I as a Roman Catholic disputed that does it make me any less of a Christian? Or if I preached the church's teachings exactly and said that anyone who stated othewise is wrong does it make the church/me right?
Its a two way street and the church and its teachings can be wrong sometimes. Rick and people like him need to understand that RCC is an institution of faith not science. Hence the teachings of church can be wrong sometimes. You may wish to ask what is the connection between family values and science or better put, arent family values more directly connected to faith rather than science and hence the RCC's teachings will be correct in this regard. Yes! You are correct to an extent but then many atheists (people without faith) and people of other faith (who accept homosexuality in society) also lead an excellent family life. What i'm trying to say is that the RCC model of family life isnt the only way.. there are alternatives and if someone should wish to adopt them it doesnt mean they are wrong.
Will Granpa Michael Morris (also a Catholic) please weigh in on this discussion.
 
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Posts: 13974
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Sriraj Rajaram:
Its a two way street and the church and its teachings can be wrong sometimes. Rick and people like him need to understand that RCC is an institution of faith not science.

If you can explain to me how Santorum's statement which dealt with the sinfulness of homosexuality can be determined by science to be incorrect I will admit you are correct.
Santorum said nothing that is scientifically verifiable. He said that homosexual sex is sinful. What does that have to do with science?
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 290
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Rick and people like him need to understand that RCC is an institution of faith not science.


Are you trying to say that science is never wrong?
 
Paul McKenna
Ugly Redneck
Posts: 1006
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Joseph Russell:

Are you trying to say that science is never wrong?


I said its a two way street. Both can be wrong but the difference being that RCC wasnt founded on scientific principles. Hence judgements made by RCC may or maynot be scientifically correct and thus should not be used to dispute scientific thought until proven factually otherwise.
 
Paul McKenna
Ugly Redneck
Posts: 1006
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
If you can explain to me how Santorum's statement which dealt with the sinfulness of homosexuality can be determined by science to be incorrect I will admit you are correct.
Santorum said nothing that is scientifically verifiable. He said that homosexual sex is sinful. What does that have to do with science?


Fair question but I have already answered this in my post. If you can prove to me what is so sinful about homosexuality I will admit that you are right. The fact is that no one or no establishment can prove any act to be a sin. The Pope was very vocal on his opposition to the War on Iraq but the actions of America was not in accordance. So where were these people who otherwise uphold the RCC principles???
A few centuries ago the RCC was vocal on its position about the universe etc. but people moved otherwise and the RCC finally changed its position. Similarly today the debate is about homosexuality.. the debate will rage on for several years and I dont think I'll see the end of it in my lifetime but I do know that the RCC will change its position on this sometime.
 
Michael Morris
Ranch Hand
Posts: 3451
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Will Granpa Michael Morris (also a Catholic) please weigh in on this discussion.
Thanks for pulling me into this. :roll:
So if in the 1500s (or whenever) the RCC held that the Sun revolved around the Earth and I as a Roman Catholic disputed that does it make me any less of a Christian? Or if I preached the church's teachings exactly and said that anyone who stated othewise is wrong does it make the church/me right?
The Roman Catholic Church (by the way that moniker was attached to my faith by Henry VIII and his Anglican Church, before it was simply known as the universal or catholic church) was the victim of absoulte power and the corruption that inevitably results from such power for many centuries. The church teachings on Divine right of rule gave monarchs their thrones so they eagerly accepted it. The church is an institution of Religion, not of Science as you say. But you may be interested to know that not everyone in the Church hierarchy supported the quieting and imprisonment of Galileo. St. Robert Bellarmine did not, although it was he who delivered the order to silence him as part of his official duty. Was the church right in this matter? Certainly not. Was the inquisition right? No. Was the political maneuvering right which led to the breaking away of the Orhtodox church (which is the main event that led to the spread of Islam across Asia)? The point here is that the Church had moved away from its mission and had become the world's greatest power. The Church now recognizes those facts. Here is my belief on Church teachings, if the teaching deals with morality issues that are plausable and have some legal foundation (from a canon law perspective that is) then as a Catholic I am required to believe it. Before the Vatican II council, that was a black and white issue. Pre-Vatican II if the Church taught it, you believed it or else. Now there are shades of gray in the mix.
TP: Santorum said nothing that is scientifically verifiable. He said that homosexual sex is sinful. What does that have to do with science?
Sigh. Now to the core issue. I agree with Thomas. This is a moral issue and with an absolute foundation in canon law. The old testament (sorry don't feel like looking up chapter and verse but it's in the Mosaic Law) says that homosexuality is an abomination. In Genesis, the five cities on the plains of Moab, including the infamous Sodom and Gomorra, were destroyed by God for unnatural sexual acts. St. Paul states that no effeminate shall enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Now that brings up the question: Do I believe that all homosexuals are damned? Absolutely not, for one major reason, Judgement is between the Creator and the created. What the person sincerly believes is the manner in which he will be judged. But they must have a sincere belief that the acts they commit are not seriously wrong or they in effect condemn themselves because they are willing to do what they know is morally wrong.
... but then many atheists (people without faith) and people of other faith (who accept homosexuality in society) also lead an excellent family life. What i'm trying to say is that the RCC model of family life isnt the only way.. there are alternatives and if someone should wish to adopt them it doesnt mean they are wrong.
I would take no issue with that statment. I belive all people are born with a sense of right and wrong and anyone who chooses to cultivate the good in his life can raise their families in an exemplary fashion.
One thing I do want to make clear is that I have no right to tell anyone how to live so long as they are not directly nor indirectly harming anyone else. If two gay guys or gals want to to live together and do whatever in the privacy of their own bedroom that's their business. I think that is where Santorum crossed the line. These bedroom laws have no place in a free society. I think his argument that banning such laws would also nullify incest laws, etc. is bogus. The reason is that the state has an interest in such matters because of public health issues.
 
    Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
  • New Topic