The Press and discriminatory story writing.

[LongHaul 10]

Dan,

     I find the books totally out of line.  Yes I've seen one.   Unless you are going to get all the way into the subject telling primary grade children what is and is not morally correct behavior is not the responsibility of any school district. I understand the concept of diversity and hope that this world embraces it more than it does now but not with a "See Dick Run" approach. Should we include books and class time for separatists and white or black power or doesn't "diversity" include everyone that has a different attitude. How about those that side with the fundamentalist group do they get equal time to tell their side? I see this type of approach to be indoctrination not education. THOROUGHLY explain all the sides and let the child decide for themselves what they think is acceptable. Would you also support the teaching that the political views and positions of who ever is in power are the proper views? No opposing views can be taught? Primary school children don't understand nor are they curious about the gay issues UNLESS they are directly exposed to them in their daily life as your children are. The explanations need to come from parents not government.

LongHaul

[Eamonn 61]

"But the central question I asked and I wandered from ( I admit) is the reconciliation between respecting one religion's belief that homosexuality is wrong and another's that it's OK."

If I understand the question??

I'm a practicing Roman Catholic.

I try very hard not to be a "Cafeteria Catholic".

While what follows might seem two faced?

It works for me.

The Church has deemed some things as sins.

I don't do them things. This is my choice.

Still God gave us all free will and free choice.

What others do is up to them.

Before Her Who Must Be Obeyed and I tied the knot, she thought we should live together.

I see this as being wrong. Still I know a lot of people who do and have, in fact members of my family have. So while its not for me, I don't think I have the right to sit as judge and jury and look down on people who do.

To this end I'm pro choice when it comes to abortion.

When we were expecting OJ, we had a real scare. One sonogram taken at our local hospital showed that something was out of whack. The hospital called and told us on Friday morning that we had to travel to Pittsburgh for a more advanced sonogram. It was the longest weekend of my life!!

All sorts of thoughts passed through my head, most of them had me fearing the worst.

When we arrived at the Pittsburgh Hospital, they explained that they might have to do a Amniocentesis test and had us sit through Genetic Counseling.

Which really did scare the beejeebers out of me.(Us)

The idea that my baby might have Down syndrome,cystic fibrosis or spina bifida, just didn't bear thinking of and what were we going to do?

Abortion was an option.

But we had decided that our baby was a gift from God (We had been married for over five years and I had hoped to have four kids!!) and no matter what we were going to keep the baby. As it turned out the only thing the matter was he was coming in June and not September.

This was a real test of my faith.

I can however see that some people might not make the same choice that we did and I can understand why.

I understand that two people of the same sex can have deep feelings for each other and want to spend their lives together.

I was hoping that the Pope who followed Pope John Paul II was going be more liberal and have to admit to being disappointed in Pope Benedict XVI.

Ea.

 

 

[evmori 11]

The Church has deemed some things as sins.

 

For me, it's what God has deemed as sin. The church sometimes adds stuff. And God has deemed homosexuality to be a sin.

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10

[DanKroh 11]

"Would you also support the teaching that the political views and positions of who ever is in power are the proper views? No opposing views can be taught? Primary school children don't understand nor are they curious about the gay issues UNLESS they are directly exposed to them in their daily life as your children are. The explanations need to come from parents not government."

 

Actually, LongHaul, I never said that I supported the use of the books in a public classroom, I just said that they were "age-appropriate" tools for teaching diversity and tolerance. I happen to think that they are great tools for any *parent* who wants to broach the subject with their children and are unsure of how to do it. I recommend them to a lot of clients who are trying to find ways to bolster the self esteem of their children about having a non-traditional family (same-sex parents).

 

I don't believe it should be up to the government to dictate whether or not parents are allowed to instill intolerant views in their children. Eventually those children will grow into adults and decide for themselves. And then they get to spend lots of time with me and my colleagues sorting out the anger they feel toward those parents....

 

[packsaddle 753]

One more try.

Perhaps the answer to the question of reconciliation can be answered historically. Can anyone identify examples where sharply-opposed religious beliefs have been reconciled? So far the silence has been very revealing.

 

Ed knows that homosexuality is a sin in God's view.

Another person knows homosexuality is NOT a sin in God's view.

Reconcile THAT!

Unless I've missed something, such reconciliation never really occurs and, looking back on history, conflict resolution eventually involves violence or death.

[Eamonn 61]

Over the years I have spent a lot of time taking dogs for walks.

To date there hasn't been any burning bushes and the delivery of "Word of God" in my case is something I have relied upon my religion to take care of.

As we know from history some religious leaders (I include a number of Popes.) have at times gone over the top with how they interpret the word.

It wasn't that long ago that nothing was open on a Sunday.

I remember well sitting through a sermon where a parish priest was telling the congregation that going to the store on Sunday was not keeping the Sabbath and how they shouldn't support store that were open. Now the youth group from that very same church has car washes outside the local supermarket which is open 24 hours a day 7 days a week.

I don't think God said that he'd changed his mind?

Ea.

[Lisabob 13]

Well ok, here's my historical example of reconciliation. The 100 years war ended with a compromise of sorts. Rather than rulers fighting each other and rampaging all across Europe to determine once and for all which version of Christianity was "right," they agreed that each ruler would get to choose for his or her own country and they'd quit killing each other (as much) over this issue. Results: arguably, the growth of the nation-state, perhaps some of the Enlightenment era philosophy that forms a basis for western political systems still today, and relative stability and peace for most people, unless you happened to be in the religious minority within your own country in which case all bets were off.

 

Not that I think that's a great example, mind you - sort of a "live and let live" attitude brought about by exhaustion as much as anything else. But we've got to work with what we have, right?

 

 

[LongHaul 10]

No, Ea I don't believe God has ever changed his/her mind. IMO that's a good thing because if he/she ever does we will never know we just won't be here anymore.

LongHaul

[OldGreyEagle 5]

My first thought was that of the dispute between the Bu!kais and Kla!klalas but that may be an oversimplification. Let me see, Ed sees homosexuality as a sin, TJ sees it as who he is and if I am tolerant of other peoples views, then I accept Ed as having his opinion and TJ as having his, but that is the crux.

 

Let is say that Ed favors capital punishment (only saying) and TJ is opposed, how is a compromise worked out? Can I respect both opinions?

 

Lets say Bob prefers a democractic republic and Paul favors a Monarchy, can the two peacefully exist in the same society?

 

When the Consitution was assembled, it took many years and many many many compromises. States with large populations and those will much less argued over representation and so we ended up with a bicameral legislative branch, states have congressman whose number are based on population and senators, two to a state. The series of checks and balances was said to be ingenious at the time and its worthiness has stood the test of time. But where are we now?

 

In the most tolerant society (leastwise I have been told we are) in the world, there are words that cannot be spoken and would "All in the Family" and "Maude" be allowed on TV if they were produced today and would "History of the World. Part 1" or "Blazing Saddles" be shown at the multiplex?

 

As we say we are marching towards a more tolerant society, I feel more constrained in expression than ever...

[packsaddle 753]

Lisabob, heh, heh, don't you think that the name of your example, "the 100 years war", sort of automatically disqualifies it as a reconciliation? I mean, the two sides really decided that they weren't sure, after killing each other as hard as they could, which side would be left standing. They were sort of resigned to admitting they just couldn't be sure of completing the genocide (is that the wrong term?) more effectively than the other side.

I suppose I should have added, "without trying to kill off the other side." but I sort of didn't consider that as part of any true reconciliation really...I guess I thought that would have been understood without saying. Am I wrong?

 

Edited part: OGE, I think I was focused on 'religious' views, not political ones. I admit that a person's faith may be reflected in their view of such issues as capital punishment (a bit more trouble with the democracy/monarchy thing), but the question is with regard to the fundamental religous idea at the base, and not the political or social outcome that is expressed in legislation or in a legal process.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

...says one of the people who has edited some of my posts in this forum. I don't really have much sympathy for your "feelings" of not being able to say what you like when you actively censor others, OGE.

[OldGreyEagle 5]

patently emotional response now edited

(This message has been edited by OldGreyEagle)

[Trevorum 24]

Well, I don't think ANY of you are going to like this, but MY opinion on this subject is

 

(This message has been edited by OldGreyEagle)

 

(This message has been edited by Merlyn_LeRoy)

 

(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

 

(This message has been edited by Lisabob)

 

(This message has been edited by evmori)

 

(This message has been edited by Eamonn)

 

 

[evmori 11]

Ed knows that homosexuality is a sin in God's view.

Another person knows homosexuality is NOT a sin in God's view.

Reconcile THAT!

 

Easy! The Bible!

[GernBlansten 10]

Ed,

some of us don't believe the Bible is the word of God.