Yeah. It's true that everyone's different with their own different experiences. But Sabrina seemed completely oblivious to how being in a gay or trans relationship, (with Muslim/ religious parents) could possibly be a problem.

IF Sabrina had an easy go of it; I'd like to hear that story. She just seemed indifferent. It was as if her parents were atheists and members of PFLAG. She didn't know what the fuck Chemda was talking about. That's fine. But at least acknowledge that GAY/MUSLIM is terribly interesting, holds great weight, and is NOT the norm.

"I thought the Pope liked gay people..." Uh huh.

This guest seemed incredibly oblivious. To everything. She tried real hard to be funny, but not enough to feel apart of anything. The show especially.

This thread is starting to turn me around. I can see how she shouldn't be giving advice about being in a queer relationship and dealing with Muslim family members, and that podcasting might just not be for her, given that she's a half-Pakistani married lesbian with a standup act about dealing with Muslim family members and her own podcast.

You're welcome.

Forget it Scotticus. It's WSEtown.

Did someone tell you you're not allowed to like her? I sure hope you at least listen to her podcast and buy whatever shit she has out with you going to bat for her this much.

I was going to vote YES
 

... but I thought Keith would go mad. Buckle up now for the reason why ....

The Pope would almost certainly support equal legal rights for everyone, and although homosexuality is explicitly a sin in Christianity, it is not up to man to judge each other, and then to use that judgement to deny others of their legal rights.

Many followers of Christianity try to justify their prejudice by quoting scripture, but conveniently ignore John 8:7 "let him who is without sin cast the first stone". A more thorough interpretation of John 8 is that you cannot selectively apply judgement and punishment according to your personal beliefs or prejudices - (in the story, only the woman was being punished for adultery and the legal process had not been followed (Deuteronomy 22:22)). In the same way, selective application of the scriptures (and of other holy texts in other religions) as justification for bigotry is one of the reasons why people are becoming so polarized in their views of religion. As Christians we should "always look to God’s glory and never cause unnecessary division or harm". (Matthew 18:15)

I believe that The Pope, being a little more enlightened, would more likely support gays' legal rights equality and "reach out with the gospel and the love of Christ, always remembering that we, too, are sinners in need of the Saviour" (Romans 3:23). Indeed we have seen many signs that this Pope has called for greater inclusion. Pope Francis’ recently said, “A gay person who is seeking God, who is of good will — well, who am I to judge him?”

Marriage in Christianity is a bond between a man and a woman. That cannot change. Homosexuality is a sin in Christianity, but so is adultery, jealousy etc., and homosexuality did not even get into Moses's Top Ten. ALL sins can be forgiven. Jesus had only one commandment "Love one another". He did not make it conditional.

But despite the position of the Church on Homosexuality, I believe the Pope WOULD support equal legal rights for everybody, irrespective of whether they are "sinners", because we are all sinners in one way or another. If society has special benefits for people who have entered into a LEGAL union, those benefits should be applied equally according to the law (again referring to the lesson of John 8/Deuteronomy 22:22). If only people could better understand that modern laws should not be based on ancient religious writings then we could remove this legal inequality from society.

PS. In the story relating to the Priest, he was fired from the Catholic University, not the Church in what Archbishop Meyers claims was a routine transfer of a priest under his charge. Seton Hall is the oldest Diocean University Campus in USA, so it obviously received financial support from various Christian churches.

A move to form a Gay and lesbian group in 1993 and 2003 was stopped by Administrators, including the Chairman of the Board, Archbishop Newark J Meyers. You might recognise him as the man at the centre of a scandal over his $1/2 mio renovation to his personal retirement house and last year's sex abuse scandal, protecting priest who were fondling boys ARTICLE . How does that scripture go again? "let him who is without sin cast the first stone".

Interestingly Seton Hall have recently transferred Derrick Gordon, an openly gay college basketball star to their team. In the end it's all about the money.

This is the end of today's sermon.

lol as if anyone is going to read that wall of bullshit ^^^

Stay uninformed then ... probably better that way.

The question isn't what's going in the Pope's head. It's whether he is currently supporting gay rights, and that's demonstrably untrue.

True.

But that's like saying "Does he support Black rights?"

I believe his position is that he advocates equal rights. If we want everyone to be treated equally, why do we specifically insist on Gay Rights? - Apart from the fact that they are obviously NOT equal at the moment.

Pope Francis Backs Slovakia's Referendum Against Same-Sex Marriage, Adoption Rights

He's actively arguing against gay rights, just to be clear.

I agree. I find that when I'm informed, the quality of my posts suffers.

oh boy

Is "oh boy" the new "my bad?"

When I say (or more often just think) "oh boy" it usually means: I think you said/acted/are stupid but I really don't think its worth arguing because I can't be bothered dealing with your stupidity because it will lead to nothing useful anyway

Rather than unsuccessfully trying to pretend religion and modern knowledge,(aka human rights/ woman rights/etc) can coexist; why not just be honest?

All religions are a primitive and outdated way of thinking. Anything to the contrary is a desperate attempt to hold on to a fairy tale. Let it go man. The whole idea of a Pope is ridiculous to begin with.

I thought Sabrina was a great guest! Hometown bias maybe.

Yup. I never liked "my bad". Grammatically incorrect and somehow awkward for someone of my age/ethnicity.

Religions should play no part in law-making, but the right of religious freedom should continue to be one of the basic human rights. Religions have a very powerful role in community building and as a basis for morality. You cannot deny the good that that they do, just as I cannot deny the incredible damage that they also can promote.

Christianity has been around for around a hundred generations, what gives this generation the right to call time on it, and the role that the Pope plays as the "ancestor" of the Church's first apostle? The growth of radicalism may be seen to mirror the growth of atheism to combat those with moral anarchy. Not saying that these are my views, necessarily.

what gives the next one or the next one? tradition for tradition's sake isn't enough for us as much anymore. we're looking at life and the universe and finding religion less and less credible and valid with our new set of circumstance and information. that's ok. it will die someday. all things do.

We will never know all the answers.

Look at South America and parts of South-East Asia, Christianity seems pretty healthy there. Consider the growth of Islam - religion is getting stronger in certain parts of the world, maybe because it's human nature to feel like we "belong" to a common tribe. Our modern intellect and knowledge can factually discount religion, but what replaces it for the human need to belong?

there's too much to know. Search is the energy of the gears on which we move. Journey; not Destination.

Belonging is a good ole chunk of the Maslow's Hierarchy, you're spot on. there's been no better time in history to create intentional communities. like this one. we're a social species. we'll find reasons to hang out and even more ways to have the conversations about what it is to be human and how best to cope with the awareness of our mortality.

Writing annoying bullshit but ending with 'Not saying that these are my views, necessarily.' just means that now I'm not supposed to argue with you about these points?

So DO you agree that atheism is moral anarchy as they are missing the right basis for morality or don't you?

Disagree.

I will say this though. It sounds like you are interested in religions/ history. You should check out Dan Carlin's Hardcore History podcast. Episode #48 Prophets of Doom.

It's all about how German priest Martin Luther decides to go against Catholic Church and translate the Bible. This is a huge power shift from Church to people. It has horrifying consequences.

Check it out. Guarantee you'll like it.

How mature.

nah. he's right. churches are social. in places like where i live they are a central hub of who your neighbors and people are; you build your value system around the same mythos. Mattman is textbook correct.

In no way is religion primitive or outdated. It's doing wonders for the global community. I read that somewhere. Some textbook.

what are you talking about?

There are tons of Afghans, Pakistani, and the like who disagree with their church/ mosques. But due to any form of dissent with the church being punishable with death they are kept quiet. So I ask you. Is that real community? Sounds more like a hostage crisis.

Just because religion and churches were a strong part of societies (whether it be in the deserts of the Middle East or the backwoods of Georgia) does not mean that they are relevant now. I'd argue the Internet is far better at connecting people and fostering community. Katg is a great example of this.

I disagree with Mattman. Religion does not dictate morality. It no longer brings people together. It is divisive. Primitive. Outdated. Thanks.

religion is still a strong part of many societies. like, that's just an observable fact.

i'd argue that the internet isn't necessarily a /better/ way to connect. KATG is unique in that it includes and fosters the high amounts of IRLing that it does. /chat parties are great. they are no substitute for sitting around a table.

religion /does/ dictate morality. that's one of its functions. like minded people rally around like ideas. again, just observable fact. it is a method of ideas that has spectacularly brought and kept people together since the dawn of time. i agree that it's outdated, but give it its due. it was marvelously effective.

Ever sit through a church service? Did ya feel connected?! Lol :)

You made solid points. It's important to know where religion came from. It's function in the past. I'd argue it's even more important to acknowledge and accept where it's going.

many. i still go sometimes. the families that comprise the church where my letter still resides have been there for coming on 6 generations. we have genetic memories of each other. i don't think what they call the Spirit Moving is outwardly divine, though; i've felt the same electricity at particularly well psyched up concerts. it's real, the collective focused energy of a mass of beings all at once in the same mindset. we just disagree whence it came.

No I don't, but do I think that many religious teachers will look at how "the west" views religion and use that as an excuse for defending their position in extremist ways. Just look at the Charlie Hebdo attack, or the Fatwa on Salman Rushdie, years ago - most people will think these acts are ridiculous and totally inappropriate reaction to satire or analysis of the Islamic faith, but the Islamic world firmly believes that there are some things that are unacceptable and crossing the line brings retribution.

The "all religion is dumb" line will not only annoy those who like going to church, or temple, or mosque and love the feeling of belonging, but it will also give ammunition to these extremists to rally a more aggressive line of evangelism. It also contributes to the view that atheists lack moral fiber and therefore are lesser people - there is a wide-felt belief that all non-Muslims are inferior simply because they are non-Muslims. I have lived in Muslim countries for more than 10 years, and even as a western expat I was a second-class citizen because of my "ignorant religious ways".

I chose to join the Catholic church and I enjoy it. I am opposed to some of the teachings and I prefer to be guided by my own moral compass. I would tell people whom I think would benefit from membership to the church of how I think they would see a difference in their lives, but I would never force my beliefs down anyone's throat, neither do I think religion and laws should be aligned. The spread of Sharia'a law as a replacement for international common law, for example is a real step back in time and in many ways goes against the progress of mankind to a fairer society.

I'd argue Catholicism is to gays what Sharia law is to females. Maybe not as extreme, but they both creates lesser rights and second-class citizen status.

You are right in a way. But Catholics are trending to recognise that "love one another" is paramount, irrespective of gender preference, whereas Sharia'a is still stuck in Medeival thinking.

I would love to see my religion continue on its route to "love one another, unconditionally". It is my personal outlook and one I think resounds with non-believers alike. Sharia'a is the imposition of an ancient value system totally divorced from popular thinking.

To be relevent in 2015 Catholicism has to recognise that homosexual relationships are no less loving and moral as male/female. This Pope is the best chance we have to put this recognise this dynamic.

From the "I chose" comment I'm gonna assume that you weren't baptized as a baby but rather as an adult looked around all kinds of religions and picked Catholicism.
I would honestly be interested in how you approached that choice. Did you compare teaching among religions or maybe at least among the different types of Christianity if you are dead-set on that already? Did you have friends in that church and you wanted the social aspect? Was the church building close by your house/there were no other religious groups available in your town?
I really have a hard time wrapping my mind around you specifically picking something that you know you disagree with some of the teachings.

For my background, I was baptised protestant and as my family isn't very religious so I just ignored it for a while but formally left the church in my mid twenties. It took me that long because protestantism (at least in the form we have here not the crazy baptist sects that you have in Amercia) is much more liberal and reasonable. If I was baptized catholic I would have left in my teens already.

Born protestant, non-practicing family. Did a lot of self-reflection when I got divorced and became single-parent. I never thought I "needed" church, because I was so smart and knew everything (I thought)! In my mind the church was for people who needed a crutch to lean on. Being religious was sign of weakness, I thought.

Then I met someone for whom I had more respect as a person than anyone else I had ever met. She was a convert to Catholicism, but certainly not a weak person. I guess what I saw was what the church meant to her and how her view of the world and relationships was strengthened. It's really difficult to put into words, but it was something I could see and feel. For me, joining the church gave me a degree of humility, which I kinda needed. I did not become a bible basher, although I did study for my confirmation - being older and having experienced life, I could appreciate learning more than most born-to-it Catholics. I joined for me, but my close friend was surprised, and happy. We got married about a year later, in Church.

Oh, and I am English, living in South East Asia for the last 30-plus years, Lanfear.