babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » current events   » international news and politics   » Head Sikh condemns gay marriage and Canada for considering it

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Head Sikh condemns gay marriage and Canada for considering it
Hephaestion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4795

posted 18 January 2005 11:12 AM      Profile for Hephaestion   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Sikh religion attacks gay marriage, turns away Canadian PM

quote:
Yet another world religion has come out strongly for homophobia. The high clerics of the Sikh faith have now urged members to oppose gay marriage everywhere. After the announcement came down, Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin cancelled much of the Indian itinerary of his current trip to Asia. Speculation is that he didn’t want to cause local mass protests against Canada’s gay marriage policies. Martin had previously planned to visit the site most holy to the Sikhs, the Golden Temple at Amritsar. Martin’s staffers deny his change of plans had anything to do with the Sikh announcement.

courtesy of queerday.com

Link to The Toronto Star


From: goodbye... :-( | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 18 January 2005 01:00 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Bugger the Sikhs and bugger the Roman Catholics. Canada's government should pay no attention to such religious dinosaurs.

PM the PM seems to be showing some rare backbone in standing up to the "cool thing to do". Anybody notice he didn't ban the Tamil Tigers like the US and UK did? Betcha he'll show some more backbone and tell this Big Cheese Sikh the fastest way to go to hell.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
ceti
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7851

posted 18 January 2005 02:23 PM      Profile for ceti     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Leaving aside anti-Sikh language, obviously most conservative religious authorities are coming out against gay marriages including those from Christian, Islamic, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh, and even Baha'i traditions.

I think the real divide lies between secular liberalism and a resurgent religious conservativism that is spreading to all corners of the world. The divide is the same in most countries, and depending on the balance of social forces, countries are moving at different speeds towards sexual liberation.

The following quote from Joel Kovel's article in commondreams.org provides some clues to this phenomena which is not isolated to the US alone -- India and the Middle East, two very sexually repressed regions of the world, are experiencing the same trends.

quote:
The nation which has gone the furthest in realizing the potentials of accumulation also maximizes the role of sexuality in accumulation, and in so doing becomes the nation with the most flourishing counter-sexualities. These seep upward from the ground of everyday life to nourish the Jimmy Swaggarts, Pat Robertsons and, most consequentially, the Karl Roves of this world, where they await a George W Bush, the born-again, "rough beast" President slouching toward Armageddon.

From: various musings before the revolution | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 18 January 2005 03:38 PM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I think this was covered on another thread, but the most opposition within the churches (to same sex marriage) is coming from the older segments of the religious spectrum. I think this is all going to change in time, albeit slowly. I've seen major changes in the church in the past 30 years (ordination of women, new liturgy, same sex blessings in some denominations) that were likely unthinkable even a hundred years ago. Still have a long way to go towards full equality for all, and sometimes against great obstacles (antiquated, knuckle-dragging neanderthal attitudes from the past take time to change).
From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718

posted 18 January 2005 03:42 PM      Profile for Reality. Bites.        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Depends on the church you're talking about. In the same period the Catholic church has regressed, not progressed, and the evangelical churches are the only ones to show actual growth.
From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 18 January 2005 04:28 PM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by RealityBites:
Depends on the church you're talking about. In the same period the Catholic church has regressed, not progressed, and the evangelical churches are the only ones to show actual growth.

I'd have to see the statistics. I know the Anglican Church has stabilized after a long period of decline. I read somewhere the RCC in Quebec is still in decline. Probably the evangelical churches are growing, and if they are, fine. They're obviously offering something that the formerly-mailine churches are not. Actually, it may be in time the evangelical churches that become the new mainline churches. Which is sad, in a way, because IMO they lack the liturgy that connects us to the continuing catholic tradition of almost 2000 years. I guess that doesn't mean much to growing numbers of people.


From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
brebis noire
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7136

posted 18 January 2005 04:41 PM      Profile for brebis noire     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Quebec is one place where the evangelical movement just has not caught on, and IMO is therefore a significant bastion of progressive ideas and dissidence in North America (and we can get away with so much, because who can understand what we're really saying! )

US and ROC evangelicals have been targeting Quebec as a "hidden mission field" since the 1980s, and cite the statistic that only 0.5 of Quebecers are evangelical, putting it at the same level as post-Christian European countries, where evangelicalism/fundamentalism is marginal at best.


From: Quebec | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
NDP Newbie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5089

posted 18 January 2005 06:19 PM      Profile for NDP Newbie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
What an idiot. The same secularism that justifies same-sex marriage defends the religious freedom of Sikhs, who are a tiny minority in every single country in which they live.
From: Cornwall, ON | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 18 January 2005 08:25 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ceti:
Leaving aside anti-Sikh language, obviously most conservative religious authorities are coming out against gay marriages including those from Christian, Islamic, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh, and even Baha'i traditions.

I find it rather starkly amusing that you have a double standard with regard to whose ox can get gored when it comes to bashing religious Big Cheeses who think their wastes don't stink.

Since I have to draw pictures for you, it works like this:

The Roman Catholics have a Big Cheese who has been steadfastly, dogmatically opposed to same-sex marriage for who knows how long.

Apparently, the Sikh Big Cheese has the same problem with same-sex marriage.

Therefore, both can go to hell.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
ceti
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7851

posted 19 January 2005 10:54 AM      Profile for ceti     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
DrConway wrote:
quote:
Bugger the Sikhs and bugger the Roman Catholics.

I think you should be more cautious with your writing. You weren't commenting on the "Big Cheeses" who are legimate targets of criticism in their role as political and spiritual leaders, but on all people of these faiths, which is frankly outright bigotry.


From: various musings before the revolution | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Rufus Polson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3308

posted 19 January 2005 01:12 PM      Profile for Rufus Polson     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I'm somewhat surprised at the Sikh dude. I guess I shouldn't be--what religion has any consistency in practice with their theoretical core beliefs? But I thought one of the major themes of Sikhism was a certain egalitarianism (well, at least by the standards of India). The whole point of the everyone-sitting-on-the-floor thing which they had a squabble about here in BC a few years ago is that everyone's supposed to be on the same level. No castes, no status.

Everyone except gays, apparently. Sheesh.


From: Caithnard College | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Hephaestion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4795

posted 19 January 2005 02:21 PM      Profile for Hephaestion   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ceti:
I think you should be more cautious with your writing. You weren't commenting on the "Big Cheeses" who are legimate targets of criticism in their role as political and spiritual leaders, but on all people of these faiths, which is frankly outright bigotry.

So where is the outcry for fairness and tolerance by the rank and file Sikhs? Or Catholics? Y'know, the *ahem* "moderate" majority?

Silence = complicity

Sorry, but I'm with Doc.


From: goodbye... :-( | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Critical Mass
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6350

posted 19 January 2005 03:32 PM      Profile for Critical Mass        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Last time I walked past a Catholic Church on a Sunday, it was fairly empty. Maybe the hopeful thing is that rank and file Catholics are just deserting the flock. I read a little while ago that Canadian Catholics wear condoms and get randy just as often as other folk.

Hopefully, Sikh temples, mosques, synagogues, ashrams, churches and pagan places of worship will allquickly empty after their members wake up and join the world of free thinking and secular reason. We can keep the buildings for Sunday classes and concerts.


From: King & Bay (downtown Toronto) - I am King of the World!!! | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718

posted 19 January 2005 03:58 PM      Profile for Reality. Bites.        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Critical Mass:
Last time I walked past a Catholic Church on a Sunday, it was fairly empty.

Really? Last time I walked past a church this happened:

Ever since I've tried to avoid walking past churches.


From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
Critical Mass
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6350

posted 19 January 2005 04:20 PM      Profile for Critical Mass        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Argh! He's a witch. Burn him!
From: King & Bay (downtown Toronto) - I am King of the World!!! | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 19 January 2005 04:52 PM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Critical Mass:
Argh! He's a witch. Burn him!


From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 19 January 2005 04:53 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Is that what we call a flame?
From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Vansterdam Kid
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5474

posted 19 January 2005 08:05 PM      Profile for Vansterdam Kid   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Hephaestion:

So where is the outcry for fairness and tolerance by the rank and file Sikhs? Or Catholics? Y'know, the *ahem* "moderate" majority?

Silence = complicity

Sorry, but I'm with Doc.


It's the presumtion that this equals everyone's opinion in the religion in question. It may be a majority of them (probably is), I wouldn't be suprised at least a majority including those who aren't saying anything. But presuming that it is everyone is what I have a problem with and what I assume ceti has a problem with.


From: bleh.... | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Woodsy
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7939

posted 19 January 2005 08:06 PM      Profile for Woodsy   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I'm amazed at the number of gay, lesbian and transgendered Catholics who "go somewhere else" and then expect the church to change. The real change WHICH WILL COME will come FROM WITHIN the church. Time to get back in, become active, be heard and don't back down.
If you think I'm in error...just check the history of the church. SEE all of the MAJOR mistakes they made (this current gay stance included) and see how they've changed over the centuries. Let's just hope they haven't shoved one foot so far down their throat and the other so far up their behind to be able to distract them.
AND, dear Holy Father...kneeling and kissing the earth in atonement for past transgressons just doesn't cut it. Real penitence calls for CHANGE! NOW!
If in doubt, just ask yourself what Jesus would have done and how He would have done it...surely not by the methods the church has used to date! Remember: REPENT AND BE SAVED!

From: St. Joseph, MO | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
madman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4436

posted 19 January 2005 08:23 PM      Profile for madman        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
RealityBites
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718

posted 19 January 2005 03:58 PM

"Really? Last time I walked past a church this happened:

Ever since I've tried to avoid walking past churches. "


So are you implying that the burned church had something to do wiht your presence?


From: Republic of western Canada | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718

posted 19 January 2005 08:26 PM      Profile for Reality. Bites.        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Still an idiot, I see.
From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718

posted 19 January 2005 08:31 PM      Profile for Reality. Bites.        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Woodsy:
I'm amazed at the number of gay, lesbian and transgendered Catholics who "go somewhere else" and then expect the church to change.

You mean like the elderly Catholic couple in New York who came to Canada to get married and were thrown out of their church choir after 32 years?

http://www.nynews.com/newsroom/101503/a0115gaychoir.html

Yes, what cowards they were to "abandon" the Church. The Church is not a democracy, it is a dictatorship. It is intrinsically evil and disordered.

Boy those queers! Almost as bad as the Jews who didn't try to reform the Nazis from within.


From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
Amy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2210

posted 19 January 2005 08:31 PM      Profile for Amy   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
I'm amazed at the number of gay, lesbian and transgendered Catholics who "go somewhere else" and then expect the church to change. The real change WHICH WILL COME will come FROM WITHIN the church. Time to get back in, become active, be heard and don't back down.
If you think I'm in error...just check the history of the church. SEE all of the MAJOR mistakes they made (this current gay stance included) and see how they've changed over the centuries. Let's just hope they haven't shoved one foot so far down their throat and the other so far up their behind to be able to distract them.
AND, dear Holy Father...kneeling and kissing the earth in atonement for past transgressons just doesn't cut it. Real penitence calls for CHANGE! NOW!
If in doubt, just ask yourself what Jesus would have done and how He would have done it...surely not by the methods the church has used to date! Remember: REPENT AND BE SAVED

Sometimes, though, people don't see enough worth salvaging for their efforts toward change in an organization to be worth it. Or... working for change in an organization where you are part of the minority that it goes out of its way to oppress takes too much energy and causes emotional turbulence. Or... i could go on for a really long time, but the point is that it's not as easy as that for everybody.

[ 19 January 2005: Message edited by: Amy ]


From: the whole town erupts and/ bursts into flame | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Caribookidca
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7921

posted 19 January 2005 08:36 PM      Profile for Caribookidca   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Woodsy:
I'm amazed at the number of gay, lesbian and transgendered Catholics who "go somewhere else" and then expect the church to change. The real change WHICH WILL COME will come FROM WITHIN the church. Time to get back in, become active, be heard and don't back down.

I am aware of may LGBTQ Catholics that have tried to do this. At some point they come to a point where they say "this is useless" and by staying I am contributing to the madness.

Those that have stayed, thanks and I hope you succeed, those that have left I hope you find a home you are happy in. Neither is wrong in my mind. I simply understand what it is liked to be in a home that does not want you.

With one of the Church's biggest pointed hats calling for the use of the notwithstanding clause to be used, I expect not just lgbtq people will leave the church, but others will as well.

Again, good luck to those fighting for change inside, I for one however would not want to enter into the fray that will likely take a couple of hundred years to change.

Salut

Rick


From: Kelowna BC, Canada | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
madman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4436

posted 19 January 2005 08:54 PM      Profile for madman        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
So Newbie;

What were you implying with this:

RealityBites
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718

posted 19 January 2005 03:58 PM


"Really? Last time I walked past a church this happened:

Ever since I've tried to avoid walking past churches."

Oh sorry.

What were you implying with that statement Reality
Bites?


From: Republic of western Canada | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718

posted 19 January 2005 08:55 PM      Profile for Reality. Bites.        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Still an idiot, I see.
From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
madman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4436

posted 19 January 2005 09:00 PM      Profile for madman        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
RB

Would it be possible that you do not empathise with the people who would use this building as a place of worship?

I bet you wish they would all burn don't you?


From: Republic of western Canada | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 19 January 2005 09:02 PM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Caribookidca:
I am aware of may LGBTQ Catholics that have tried to do this.

Isn't there a gay RCC group called "Dignity" and a gay Anglican group called "Integrity"? I think both groups span right across North America.


From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718

posted 19 January 2005 09:02 PM      Profile for Reality. Bites.        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by madman:
RB

Would it be possible that you do not empathise with the people who would use this building as a place of worship?

I bet you wish they would all burn don't you?


Still an idiot, I see.


From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
madman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4436

posted 19 January 2005 09:10 PM      Profile for madman        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
So RB, Newbie or whoever:

You have nothing but insults. Actually the same insult 3 times in a row.

Let me put this in a different way. Do you advocate the burning of places of worship?


From: Republic of western Canada | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged
ShyViolet
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6611

posted 19 January 2005 09:38 PM      Profile for ShyViolet     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
no, i don't think he does. i believe he was making a joke. people do that from time to time....
From: ~Love is like pi: natural, irrational, and very important~ | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718

posted 19 January 2005 10:13 PM      Profile for Reality. Bites.        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by madman:

Let me put this in a different way. Do you advocate the burning of places of worship?

Still an idiot, I see.


From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 19 January 2005 10:23 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Do you advocate the burning of places of worship?

Do you advocate against the burning of places of worship? If so, what if it is Satan's House of Worship and Pancakes? Would you think it okay to burn that house of worship? And if not, would it be okay if Satan's House of Worship and Pancakes was next door to the church you worship at?

[ 19 January 2005: Message edited by: WingNut ]


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 19 January 2005 11:52 PM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
[QUOTE]Originally posted by WingNut:
Do you advocate against the burning of places of worship? If so, what if it is Satan's House of Worship and Pancakes?
====================
A few years back driving from Florida to Washington, we stopped at an IHOP for breakfast. It might have been in Savannah (Ga) or Daytona Beach, but it was awful. International House of Pancakes??? It's a square building, big bosomed waitresses (like in that Seinfeld episode) and
pancakes and waffles. What in the world makes an IHOP _International_? (I could get started on the fact that _everything_ on the menu amounted to a Big Breakfast).

From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
madman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4436

posted 20 January 2005 04:20 AM      Profile for madman        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
ok WINGFUCK;

Do you advocate the burning of a church?

Oh, by the way I will not be responding immediately because some of us have to work.

Hope you sleep like shit Newbie and Wingnut.


From: Republic of western Canada | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 20 January 2005 07:50 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Madman, that is not a very friendly sentiment. Not that RB was being all that friendly either, of course.

Can't you guys see that other people were having reasonable conversations around you?


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Papal Bull
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7050

posted 20 January 2005 08:37 AM      Profile for Papal Bull   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
It took 500 years of strife and blood shed for the Catholic Church to budge. Really, I think the best way to change it is to wait for the current bishops and cardinals to just die (5-15 years) and actively speak out against what the papacy is doing. Unfortunately there isn't a moderate majority in the religions, at least not a majority I've seen. There is a large section of moderates, a lot of them are Catholic (which, I don't give a shit, aren't intrinsically evil), unfortunately most of them aren't open about their faith. So, you don't hear lots about it. You just hear about the shitty cardinals and our crappy pope.

Although I'm getting really tired of seeing good men who are priests being called "child fucker" and other absolutely horrible language. I can't stand that.


From: Vatican's best darned ranch | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718

posted 20 January 2005 08:49 AM      Profile for Reality. Bites.        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by skdadl:
Madman, that is not a very friendly sentiment. Not that RB was being all that friendly either, of course.

Madman is a bigot. I have no reason to be friendly to anyone who seeks to deprive me of my rights.


From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718

posted 20 January 2005 08:53 AM      Profile for Reality. Bites.        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Papal_Bull:
You just hear about the shitty cardinals and our crappy pope.

Although I'm getting really tired of seeing good men who are priests being called "child fucker" and other absolutely horrible language. I can't stand that.


Tough shit.

They are NOT the victims. They are part of an organization that IS objectively evil and disordered, that rapes children, covers it up, and attacks people whose only desire is to be left alone by that bigoted assholel in Rome and his henchmen.

I'm not going to lose any sleep over men who are actively perpetuating evil when their victims fight back.

The Church is getting only a small portion of what they gave out. And THEY have the power to stop this any time they want.


From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 20 January 2005 12:50 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Papal_Bull:
Although I'm getting really tired of seeing good men who are priests being called "child fucker" and other absolutely horrible language. I can't stand that.

(huge sarcasm) Maybe so many of them shouldn't get caught doing it. (/huge sarcasm)

Less sarcastically, maybe the RCC should start throwing out and defrocking the priests that got busted doing this, instead of financially supporting them and letting them stay on as priests.

Until this happens the tar brush can and will cross a lot of priests who would never dream of doing such horrible things to children.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
madman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4436

posted 20 January 2005 02:28 PM      Profile for madman        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
RealityBites
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718

posted 20 January 2005 08:49 AM

quote riginally posted by skdadl:
Madman, that is not a very friendly sentiment. Not that RB was being all that friendly either, of course.

Madman is a bigot. I have no reason to be friendly to anyone who seeks to deprive me of my rights.

Go to Hell Newbie.

[ 20 January 2005: Message edited by: madman ]


From: Republic of western Canada | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged
Barcode
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7952

posted 20 January 2005 09:11 PM      Profile for Barcode        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by DrConway:
Bugger the Sikhs and bugger the Roman Catholics. Canada's government should pay no attention to such religious dinosaurs.

PM the PM seems to be showing some rare backbone in standing up to the "cool thing to do". Anybody notice he didn't ban the Tamil Tigers like the US and UK did? Betcha he'll show some more backbone and tell this Big Cheese Sikh the fastest way to go to hell.


The Tamil Tigers are a militant group that has
killed thousands of people. Why would the UK,
USA, or any other civilized country for that matter, want to have anything to do with them?
I guess you would approve the Irish Republican
Army and other groups as well, since they have
similar aims. If you want Martin to meet with a group that engages in mass murders and actively recruits children for their cause, be my guest.

Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam


From: Saskatoon | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 21 January 2005 02:05 AM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Slavish sycophancy is not my idea of how a Canadian Prime Minister should conduct him/herself on the world stage.
From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Hephaestion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4795

posted 21 January 2005 08:06 AM      Profile for Hephaestion   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by DrConway:
Less sarcastically, maybe the RCC should start throwing out and defrocking the priests that got busted doing this, instead of financially supporting them and letting them stay on as priests.

Not only that, but defrocking priests, bishops, cardinals and others who protected these priests, like that scumbag, Bernard Law. Instead, he is promoted to an influential position at the Vatican!!

How could you call an institution that would protect child rapists and then reward their protectors anything *but* "intrinsically disordered" and "objectively evil" (to turn back a couple of Cardinal Ratface's own phrases on him?)

RB mentioned a couple who was thrown our of their choir for being gay. Well, awhile back I read of a few child abuse survivors and their parents who showed up at Barnard Law's church one Sunday to picket, protesting their treatment at the hands of the church heirarchy. They were physically attacked by members of the congregation!!

How the fuck is someone **supposed** to take that?!

In terms of the thread title, I read (in other thread) that the organization that purports to speak for Canadian sikhs is publicly criticizing the top sikh's bullshit. Good on them!! I wish the Canadian Catholic Church had the same degree of morality.

I hereby withdraw my support for the "bugger the sikhs" portion of Doc's statement above.

And as far as "madman" goes... did you really need further proof, RB?! That's kinda "gilding the lily", isn't it?


From: goodbye... :-( | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718

posted 21 January 2005 08:28 AM      Profile for Reality. Bites.        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Hephaestion:
And as far as "madman" goes... did you really need further proof, RB?! That's kinda "gilding the lily", isn't it?

I didn't need any proof. I didn't engage the humourless bigoted tool in conversation, he attempted to engage me. My response was to let him know I had read his moronic question, but wasn't going to answer it.


From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
Papal Bull
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7050

posted 22 January 2005 12:16 AM      Profile for Papal Bull   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Criticism should lay on the Church. But to attack good men is still wrong. No matter how you put it, it is still a bigoted attack on them.
From: Vatican's best darned ranch | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Hephaestion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4795

posted 22 January 2005 01:49 AM      Profile for Hephaestion   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Papal_Bull:
Criticism should lay on the Church. But to attack good men is still wrong. No matter how you put it, it is still a bigoted attack on them.

PB, if they were "good men" (and one assumes, "good women", too), they would be doing everything they could to have the child-molesting priests defrocked and charged, along with those in the church who have protected and shielded these scumbags for so long. They would point to this virulent and hateful homophobia being sponsored by the church and condemn it for what is obviously is: an attempt to distract the public from pedophile priests and the church's criminal cover-up of it. This applies from members of the congregation and lay readers all the way up to the top.

And if they cannot effect change (ie: if the Catholic Church is *too* fundamentally corrupt and mired in its own hypocrisy to be salvaged) they should LEAVE THE EFFING CHURCH!!!

That's what a "good man" would do, rather than continuing to turn a blind eye to the vile behaviour of their own church. That's what a "good man" would do, rather than allow the hypocrisy to continue of slandering the gay community as child molesters while protecting the very real child molesters within the church's own ranks.

I say again, silence = complicity.

So who are these "good men", PB? I suspect if they were truly good men they would have been declared apostate and either have been excommunicated or left the church by now.

I'm supposed to feel badly for those who have either actively spread hatred, lies and filth about me, those I love, and the gay community in general, or stood by and said nothing while others did?

Bigoted my ass. If they are actively fighting the Vatican from within the church (which apparently a "sliver group" is doing), or if they are leaving the church in disgust, my comments are not targetted at them. But the institution of "The Church" is made up of many, many individuals, PB, and I'm not willing to wait 500 more years for those individuals to discover a conscience and reform their criminal institution. Particularly when the hate they are spreading so often ends up in the death or ruined lives of members of my community.

I will call it how I see it, PB, but I refute any attempt to accuse me of "bigotry" for calling the organization and any members who are allowing "business as usual" to continue exactly what they are. Criminals, hypocrites, liars and apologists.

And I'd say the same about ANY institution or people that acted that way. "Religion" is not a free pass to commit heinous acts in my book, nor to be complicit in their commission.

Silence = complicity.


From: goodbye... :-( | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Papal Bull
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7050

posted 22 January 2005 02:14 AM      Profile for Papal Bull   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
better solved via PM

[ 22 January 2005: Message edited by: Papal_Bull ]


From: Vatican's best darned ranch | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
ceti
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7851

posted 22 January 2005 02:40 PM      Profile for ceti     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Well not only is some of the discussion on the list outright bigoted, but also immature.

Look, there are 23 million Sikhs in the world, many of which live in Canada. Not all think the same way, which is what some of the careless talk on this listserv are assuming. Sikhs in particularly have had to a face a lot of discrimination in Canada and overcome long odds, so to bring back this spectre is doubly troubling.

As for Roman Catholics, there over a billion in this world, and not all of them follow exactly what the pope or their hierarchy says. In fact this assumption is an old form of protestant bigotry which used to be prevalent in North America where the French, Irish and other so-called "papist" were routinely discriminated against.

I am not a follower of either tradition, so perhaps I don't understand the depth of antipathy towards these religions share by former adherents and the like. But it is important in this debate to not make more enemies for really stupid and bigoted reasons.


From: various musings before the revolution | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Hephaestion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4795

posted 22 January 2005 05:31 PM      Profile for Hephaestion   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Granted, ceti... As I said in another thread, I have many times defended both Catholics and Sikhs against bigoted comments regarding their religion, their skin colour, their culture or clothing. I have no time for bigots of any stripe.

I have also (above) noted that Sikhs who publicly criticize this head Sikh's bigotry (as this Canadian umbrella group has done) have my respect. And I pointed out that Catholics who are actively opposing these 12th century attitudes of the Vatican's are no problem to me. (Believe it or not, as an Irish-Canadian who was raised in the protestant tradition — although I have since repudiated any religious ties — one of my best friends is a [lapsed] Irish Catholic.)

My problem is people who, while they may not be "active" bigots per se, through their silence and inaction, allow the bigots in their faith to villify, condemn and spew lies and hatred toward people in MY community. I reiterate, silence = complicity. If you don't work to right the wrongs, then you are at least partly culpable.

What's that old line from Edmund Burke? "All that is necessary for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing."

As I said to PB above, "good men"... HUH!!!

If they aren't part of the solution, they're part of the problem, and they can go f***k themselves. I've had it with my community being everyone's favorite whipping boy. If you want to call me a "bigot" because of that, feel free, but it's a label I simply don't acknowledge.


From: goodbye... :-( | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
swallow
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2659

posted 23 January 2005 06:33 PM      Profile for swallow     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Sheesh, anyone have anything to say about the Sikh decree, or is it just same old, same old?

I'd love to know about the Canadian Sikh group that has spoken out, if anyone knows anything about it. High time the religious left had its voice heard.

It's ironic, isn't it, that a community whose rights to wear whatever they want on their heads was defended by the Charter of Rights, now has to deal with its high poobahs attacking the Charter?


From: fast-tracked for excommunication | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
madman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4436

posted 25 January 2005 04:09 AM      Profile for madman        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I would like to know if the Moderators of Babble
advocate the burning of Christian churchs, much like RB, the individual banned as Newbie?

From: Republic of western Canada | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged
Scott Piatkowski
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1299

posted 25 January 2005 04:13 AM      Profile for Scott Piatkowski   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
madman, I wouldn't get too smug about other people's bannings. Your own day will come soon enough, I'm sure.

[ 25 January 2005: Message edited by: Scott Piatkowski ]


From: Kitchener-Waterloo | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718

posted 25 January 2005 08:43 AM      Profile for Reality. Bites.        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Still an idiot, I see.

Since you're too monumentally stupid to get it madman, you pustulent git, I wasn't advocating the burning of churches (My opinion is still up in the air when it comes to advocating burning you -- fossil fuels polute).

I was making a JOKE, you monumental waste of your father's gizz. And the joke, you fatuous twit, was at MY expense, you asshole. The joke, you short-bus rider, was that churches burst into flames when I walk by them because I'm supposedly a witch or a demon or something.

Now it's not that much of a joke, I admit, but everyone else seemed to get it, and from their reaction, even a humourless asshole like you would have been able to TELL it's a joke they couldn't understand if they had even one functioning brain cell.

But you don't have even that, you bigoted piece of shit, do you?

For that matter, my reply of "Still an idiot, I see" would have given someone with one half-dead brain cell a clue that they were on the wrong track, but you couldn't find a clue in a clue store in Clue City on the planet Clutopia.

So have you got it yet, you aptly-named madman? I don't advocate the burning of churches. I do think the planet would be WAY better off without you infesting it, but I don't advocate burning you either.

I would, however, be more than happy to counsel you on efficient suicide methods.


From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
Scott Piatkowski
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1299

posted 25 January 2005 12:09 PM      Profile for Scott Piatkowski   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
One of the weekly papers for which I write, The Woolwich Observer, features a laughably right wing curmudgeon who writes under the pseudonym Uncle Bob. Normally, I try to justify his presence in an otherwise excellent paper (it's won buckets of awards) with free speech arguments, but I really think he crossed the boundaries of acceptability this week. The column should have been headed, When racism meets homophobia meets geographical ignorance (the province of Punjab is far removed from the parts of India that were affected by the tsunami).

PDF link (scroll to page 6)

quote:
Same-sex thing gets more embarrassin’

It don’t get more embarrassin’ than havin’ some folks in lesser parts of the world tellin’ Canadians what’s what – even worse if they got it right when the fella who’s supposed to be in charge here don’t.

They don’t got much over in them unfortunate spots where that wave came in, but they know full well there ain’t no place for gays gettin’ married – it don’t take no proper democracy and real economy to figure that much out. It’s bad enough Paul Martin is over there wastin’ my money on a wintertime junket, but to go takin’ a
lecture on homosexuals from the likes of them people is bringin’ shame on the decent folk back here at home.

All right-thinkin’ people know there ain’t no cause for them same-sex types to get hitched, let alone for any government that represents the good folk of this country to go supportin’ it.

You know damn well that there ain’t a chance we’d be goin’ through this nonsense if Stephen Harper had won like he ought to last summer.


If anyone feels so moved, they can write a letter to the editor by clicking here.

FYI, when Uncle Bob disagrees with me (the "young leftist from Toronto"), he simply says so in his column (i.e. "I see where this communist fellow two pages over is arguing..."). This is much more mature, I hope.

[ 25 January 2005: Message edited by: Scott Piatkowski ]


From: Kitchener-Waterloo | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 25 January 2005 12:15 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Is there any chance — any? — that this "Uncle Bob" is a fictitious character, the way Auntie, well, has a day job?

Trying to read that "writing" is like pushing a shopping cart up a sand dune. I wonder how many frisbees this guy has on his roof?


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Scott Piatkowski
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1299

posted 25 January 2005 12:23 PM      Profile for Scott Piatkowski   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:
Is there any chance — any? — that this "Uncle Bob" is a fictitious character, the way Auntie, well, has a day job?

Believe me, I've thought of that possibility. The editorial slant of the paper is probably best described as "left-liberal" -- and they've carried my column since 1995 (shortly after they began publication) -- which did open them to criticism of being biased. But, I ultimately concluded that the parody would be too hard to sustain over the three years that they've featured the column.

[ 25 January 2005: Message edited by: Scott Piatkowski ]


From: Kitchener-Waterloo | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 25 January 2005 12:38 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I don't know, Scott, that article sounds like a left-wing parody of an idiot right-winger if you ask me. I mean, the mention of "the communist fella two pages over" and "young leftist from Toronto" is gold. If the guy really IS a right-winger, then all the better - it's an unintentional self-parody in that case!
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 25 January 2005 01:51 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
On the other hand, if Michelle is right and he's a lefty masquerading as a semi-literate right-wing reactionary curmudgeon and probably getting away with it? Freakin' brilliant.

Wouldn't that be awesome talk radio too? A "regular guy" host, the usual topics, but every now and again, something like "Well, we haven't considered using nuclear weapons against the homosexuals, and I think it's too early to rule that out.". With a nice, dry delivery of course. And then the callers! Oh, the callers! Once some absurd gets mixed in with the real, there's no telling what could happen. And now that I'm channelling PA, I'll stop.


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Agent 204
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4668

posted 25 January 2005 02:01 PM      Profile for Agent 204   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I always wondered that about Ed Anger.
From: home of the Guess Who | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718

posted 25 January 2005 02:48 PM      Profile for Reality. Bites.        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The whole publication is a put on.

Think we should break the news to Dubya that:

there's a better than 1-in-10 chance that your wife or girlfriend was once a man!


http://www.weeklyworldnews.com/features/sex/61253

quote:
Asked if the research results have had a personal impact on him, Schultz responds candidly.

"I informed my wife, Greta, that I found it highly suspicious that she takes a strong interest in sports and tends to wear slacks rather than skirts. When I demanded proof of her birth gender, she said, 'how about this, idiot?' and threw a used tampon in my face.

"I would suggest other men voice any doubts they may have a bit more cautiously than I did."



From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
Papal Bull
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7050

posted 25 January 2005 03:39 PM      Profile for Papal Bull   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mike Keenan:
I always wondered that about Ed Anger.

...I get it...A joke!


From: Vatican's best darned ranch | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Hephaestion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4795

posted 25 January 2005 08:12 PM      Profile for Hephaestion   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
... and you're several steps (and a few loads of bricks) ahead of dumb-ass "madman" there too, PB...
From: goodbye... :-( | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
madman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4436

posted 27 January 2005 02:05 AM      Profile for madman        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Scott Piatkowski
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1299

posted 25 January 2005 04:13 AM madman, I wouldn't get too smug about other people's bannings. Your own day will come soon enough, I'm sure.

[ 25 January 2005: Message edited by: Scott Piatkowski ]

Scott:

I am aware that if I cross the line I will be immediately banned. Therefore I do not cross it.

So why are you sure that I will be banned?
Is a variance of opinion a reason to ban?
Is standing up to individuals constantly
bashing a church that I may attend an offence?

I am sure that you would agree that many of RB's
posts have been, over the line, with his hateful comments about the Catholic Church. You see, I thought that it was against Babble policy to bash a particular religious organization. RB's comments
about churchs igniting in flame after he walked
by, would make one wonder if he advocates the burning of churchs.

I think that if I posted in the same tone, that RB
and the earlier Newbie, did, I would have been banned a long time ago and probably not be welcomed back.


From: Republic of western Canada | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged
Scott Piatkowski
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1299

posted 27 January 2005 02:07 AM      Profile for Scott Piatkowski   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
You weren't welcome in the first place.
From: Kitchener-Waterloo | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
madman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4436

posted 27 January 2005 02:12 AM      Profile for madman        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Scott:

Why not?


From: Republic of western Canada | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged
Anchoress
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4650

posted 27 January 2005 02:17 AM      Profile for Anchoress     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by madman:
RB's comments
about churchs igniting in flame after he walked
by, would make one wonder if he advocates the burning of churchs.

Yeah, that 'one' is YOU. You are the ONLY PERSON WHO DIDN'T GET THE JOKE. I am notoriously humourless, but even I got it. Didn't you read RB explaining himself just 10 posts up?


From: Vancouver babblers' meetup July 9 @ Cafe Deux Soleil! | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
madman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4436

posted 27 January 2005 02:27 AM      Profile for madman        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Than why did he not say that immediately when called?

Further, have you read any of his other posts when the RCC comes up?

Why should I have to put up with his shit?

[ 27 January 2005: Message edited by: madman ]


From: Republic of western Canada | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged
Scott Piatkowski
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1299

posted 27 January 2005 03:11 AM      Profile for Scott Piatkowski   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by madman:
Scott: Why not?

For an answer Try reading this.

As for RB's joke, your misreading of it was so patently ridiculous that it didn't really call for a response.


From: Kitchener-Waterloo | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718

posted 27 January 2005 08:46 AM      Profile for Reality. Bites.        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by madman:
Than why did he not say that immediately when called?

Further, have you read any of his other posts when the RCC comes up?

Why should I have to put up with his shit?


If you feel one of my posts has crossed the line, take it up with Audra, not me. I don't owe you any explanations and have no intention of giving you any. I apologize for replying to you by calling you an idiot. It's clear to me now that you are incapable of reading between the lines and can only understand direct statements. So I am telling you directly:

I have no desire to engage in any kind of dialogue with you on any subject. Now that you are aware of this, please cease and desist from attempting to engage me in dialogue.

No one here is forced to engage in conversation with anyone else, and I choose not to with you, a point I thought I made clear when you PMed me months ago. You have the right to dislike my posts. You have the right to complain about them to Audra if you like. That is where your rights in relation to me begin and end.

[ 27 January 2005: Message edited by: RealityBites ]


From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca