PC madness G-d is banned

[Muslimwoman]

I understand what you are saying snoopy and I agree with you but I think common sense has to come into it somewhere. How can G-d possibly be too religious, too religious for what? Of course some people believe and some do not but should we hide in the cupboard with a torch and our scriptures so as not to offend anyone that does not believe? I believe our children should have a sound religious knowledge, not just their parents chosen faith, this is the path to interfaith understanding and tolerance but to remove G-d from education will reduce knowledge and therefore dialogue and tolerance. Imho it is a backward step.

Another example that I found unbelievable is that a woman in america is suing a Christian dating website because they do not cater for women seeking women. At what point in time did we decide that a business must cater for everyone, even if this is against their moral or religious beliefs. I have yet to see anyone suing a gay dating website because they don't cater for hetrosexuals and I feel quite sure the members of the homosexual site would not want this, they go to these sites because it caters for their chosen lifestyle. It just seems that minority groups often demand to be catered for in everything mainstream but also want to remain an isolated group when it suits them. As TE says in the UK during the 80's we went through a period where being white, hetrosexual and in a loving marriage was almost something to be ashamed of. Yes the pendulum swings but for the life of me I don't understand why some people insist on pushing the pendulum so far.

[pattimax]

Perhaps people do these things because (a. they can, (b. they do not know themselves, and (c. they are encouraged by others.

It is so simple to have things blown out of proportion by commercial media and once it is pointed out how ridiculous it is the pendulum starts to edge the other way.

Being distracted while you are in control of a very powerful weapon is not ridiculous. Breathing smoke you don't wish to breathe is not ridiculous, not insulting people is not ridiculous.

Wanting an organization to go against what it believes is ridiculous.

[Impqueen]

Originally Posted by pattimax

Wanting an organization to go against what it believes is ridiculous.

Recently there was a big furore about gay adoption over here. The government said that all adoption agencies have to consider gay couples as potential adoptive parents. But some adoption agencies are run by the Catholic church. Personally I think gay couples should be allowed to adopt. But I also think that Catholics should be allowed to do what they believe is right. After all there are lots of adoption agencies that aren't Catholic, so no gay couple should have any trouble... I felt it was an example of the secular government treating belief as a minor inconvenience, something that could be legislated out of existence. And of course everyone who thought the Catholics should be given an opt out clause was portrayed as homophobic.

[pattimax]

I think treating belief as a minor inconvenience is affected by a pendelum swing. It is truly amazing how much power public opinion has. It doesn't always work in your favor, but sometimes it does.

[Muslimwoman]

Originally Posted by Impqueen

Recently there was a big furore about gay adoption over here. The government said that all adoption agencies have to consider gay couples as potential adoptive parents. But some adoption agencies are run by the Catholic church. Personally I think gay couples should be allowed to adopt. But I also think that Catholics should be allowed to do what they believe is right. After all there are lots of adoption agencies that aren't Catholic, so no gay couple should have any trouble... I felt it was an example of the secular government treating belief as a minor inconvenience, something that could be legislated out of existence. And of course everyone who thought the Catholics should be given an opt out clause was portrayed as homophobic.

What happens to a child born into a faith that does not accept homosexuality but is placed with an adoption agency that does not have the same views? Surely this supports the principle of human rights for gay couples but goes against the principle of human rights for the child, to be brought up in the faith they were born to? What was decided in the end, can the Catholic adoption agencies refuse homosexual couples? Wow it's a bit of a minefield this one.

[wil]

Originally Posted by Muslimwoman

What happens to a child born into a faith that does not accept homosexuality but is placed with an adoption agency that does not have the same views? Surely this supports the principle of human rights for gay couples but goes against the principle of human rights for the child, to be brought up in the faith they were born to? What was decided in the end, can the Catholic adoption agencies refuse homosexual couples? Wow it's a bit of a minefield this one.

Seems to me that adoption agencies funded by religious organizations should have their guidelines within the guidelines of the state...or else they'll be getting out of the business and we need them...

right to be raised in your religion when you are given up for adoption?? wow.

do we also have a right to be raised by members of our own race? or nationality?

tangled web we weave....when a child is given up for adoption to me that means no relative or friend or church member is willing to help out....the adoptive parents...those providing the love and support will now have control over these issues...after they are approved by the state of course.

[Snoopy]

Originally Posted by Muslimwoman

What was decided in the end, can the Catholic adoption agencies refuse homosexual couples? Wow it's a bit of a minefield this one.

BBC NEWS | Politics | No exemption from gay rights law

s.

[Muslimwoman]

Sorry decided not to share that thought.

[Muslimwoman]

Originally Posted by Snoopy

BBC NEWS | Politics | No exemption from gay rights law

s.

Thank you Snoopy. Forgive my ignorance but surely in order not to discriminate against one group of society they are in fact discriminating against another (ie against their religious beliefs)?

[wil]

Adoption agencies had warned they would close rather than place children with gay couples, saying that went against their beliefs.

I suspected so...

Originally Posted by wil

Seems to me that adoption agencies funded by religious organizations should have their guidelines within the guidelines of the state...or else they'll be getting out of the business and we need them...

[Snoopy]

Originally Posted by wil

Seems to me that adoption agencies funded by religious organizations should have their guidelines within the guidelines of the state...or else they'll be getting out of the business and we need them...

Obviously politics and religion are mixed up in this issue. If I recall correctly, it was an empty threat by the Catholic agencies as the secular agencies could take up the slack (so to speak) if the Catholic ones did close.

s.

[Snoopy]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

And I kind of disagree with you Snoopy. A word is only a word and it is its intent in use that matters.

I kind of agree with your disagreement! Intent, location and time are all important in word usage. I thought I’d use what I thought was a universally offensive term (here in 2007) as an example of what I was going to say, but I find that in the US it apparently is not so. Learn something new every day! (despite my best efforts).

"The Connotation in the United Kingdom
· A sufferer of spasticity. This usage is generally believed to have been popularized from its use in the name of The Spastics Society, a charity for people with cerebral palsy. As a result of the next listed usage, this usage has become offensive to many.
· A politically incorrect term of abuse for an ungainly or physically inept person, as in "You're such a spastic" (also colloquially abbreviated to "spa", "spaz", "spag", "spack", "spacko" and "spacker"), derived from a popular misconception that those with any physical disability resulting in spasticity would necessarily also have a mental or developmental disability.
In the mid-1980s, some people attempted to "reclaim" the term. This is the meaning in the Ian Dury and the Blockheads song: Spasticus Autisticus, and it is also used in the Ben Elton book Gridlock. There is also a movie called "I'm Spasticus" (a wordplay on "I'm Spartacus")
The Spastics Society is now named SCOPE, leading to the colloquial use of the expression Scoper or Scopers or Scopey to be used in place of sense three. A widely held belief is that what is now Scope, was in effect forced to change its name because of the BBC Children's television show Blue Peter. The show in the early eighties featured a "spastic" named Joey Deacon. The term "You Joey" became a popular vulgarism with children at that time, along with "you spaz". Consequently, the terms spastic and all above associates evolved developed derogatory connotations.
editThe Connotation in America
In American slang, the term "spaz" is generally inoffensive, most Americans considering it casual slang for clumsiness, sometimes associated from overexcitement, excessive energy, or hyperactivity. It was especially common in Valley Girl or preppy pop culture trends of the 1980s which emulated the affectations of affulent urban youth of Southern California. Though at the time, the term "spaz" could be considered an insult in the same light as "nerd" or "geek", it has evolved with those words through the advent of the technology culture to represent a self-effacing expression of technical aptitude or affinity, e.g. "I am such a spaz when it comes to new electronics."

Spastic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

s.

[Snoopy]

Originally Posted by pattimax

Wanting an organization to go against what it believes is ridiculous.

KKK? BNP?

s.

[Snoopy]

Originally Posted by Muslimwoman

I understand what you are saying snoopy and I agree with you but I think common sense has to come into it somewhere.

"Common sense" to one person is clearly not "common sense" to another person! And how "common" is common sense? And if it is commonly occurring does it mean that it is good?

s.

[pattimax]

Originally Posted by Snoopy

KKK? BNP?

s.

Okay... I guess that opinion doesn't apply to fear organizations.
(gasp! Is that pc?)