Pope: Catholics should ask gay people for forgiveness

[Proteus_MST]

A law, that was initiated by Hitler and remains on the books, contrary to freedom of association and religion.

Wrong
Homeschooling wasd already forbidden according to prussian laws from 1871.
All Hitler did was is adding criminal penalties for parents who prevented their children from visiting school

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100419004543AAL8vER

You are abolishing traditional marriage, by arguing that things that are not marriage between one man and one woman are the same thing. If I were to argue that a Frenchman were a German in all aspects of German law, wouldn't that effectively abolish all distinctions between Germans and French?

A frenchman can become a german in all aspects of the law ... that's what immigration laws are for. Actually one of my grand-grandmothers was french (and became german citizen), according to all I know

No one was going to fine a Catholic baker 125k for choosing not to supply a homosexual marriage. And yet, sure enough it did happen.

What is voluntary will become compulsory. That is how everything has gone down.

To go down into your level of conspiracy theories:
Catholics shouldn't be allowed to have schools in germany, because they will find ways to make it so, that voluntary visit of a catholic school will soon be a compulsory visit of a catholic school. Not soon thereafter followed by vatican control of catholic raised german chancellors and government

Are you arguing that honor killings are something regularly practiced by Christians?

I didn't ... I argued that domestic violence (beating of the wife by the husband, for example) is something that happens in (some) christian families ... and also attempts by the family to control daughters, even if they have become 18 (and therefore are adults in all aspects of the german laws)

You have a group of people that believes exactly that, in Sharia law - that Muslims have the only rights and that others who are not muslims are of a lower status. I don't see how that attitude is compatible with German law. Yes, I understand your concerns, but it was Hitler who banned homeschooling, because he believed it interfered with his indoctrination. He was right.

Actually, with regards to uttering (white or muslim or whatelse) supremacist statements, the USA are more free than germany, as in the USA you can publish even the most violent/racist texts without getting into conflict with the law ... whereas im germany there are certain limits, after which it becomes illegal.
Which is why german Neonazis like to host their sites on US servers, as there the amount of racist/supremacist crap they are allowed to publish is rather unlimited.

In America, they are free to teach the catechism inside of class. Are Germans less free?

As I said, we have religion lessons in german school ... catholic religion lessons for catholics.
I don't know what is taught in catholic religion lessons at german schools most of the time ... perhaps it is the Catechism.
What the pupils have to know at the end of each school year is set forth by the teaching plans of the ministry of education, so all pupils have the same standards of knowledge throughout germany ... but how this is archived (and how the individual lessons within a school subject are arranged) falls witin the responsibility of the teacher. Noone says that teachers aren't allowed to use the catechism in their school lessons.

What I also know for sure is, that the evangelical catechism was part of my confirmands lessons.
So I guess, the catholic catechism is part of catholic communion prep as well.

Basic bible knowledge! again, is not the same thing. I know what we teach and it goes well beyond 'basic bible knowledge'. We want our students to have a solid grounding, particularly in

Particularly in what?

You are 100 percent wrong here. Empiricism is the same now as it was in the 17th century. Same principles, same method.

Pasteur did not live in the middle ages.

Peer review has nothing to do with empiricism. All empiricism requires is that the experiment can be replicated by others performing the experiment by the same methodology

Repeatability hasn't changed, there is nothing barring Christians from adequately testing their empirical theories.

In knowledge, yes. But not in methodology. The same principles that apply to Pasteur apply today.

I didn't say anything about empiricism, which is only a subset of scientific methodology.
And peer reviews are another important factor in order to ascertain the quality of science ... as are modern statistical tests (like ANBOVA and the like) ... thanks to modern statistics we know, for example, that Gregor Mendel whitewashed the results he got from his genetic experiments with Pisum sativum ... as the probability is close to zero, to get as perfect crossbreeding results as he supposedly got

Have I cherrypicked, or directly addressed each of your points?

You are cherrypicking insofar as you select the passages within the bible that you take as verbal truthts and those where you think that they are to be meant less verbally (for example with regards to interpreting the flood as a local flood), or by saying the accounts in genesis are just some kind of vision and therefore cannot be exact.

No, quite simply, you believe you are right and God is wrong. There's nothing 'scientific' about that.

I believe that I am right and the texts in the bible are wrong ... although that is too simple ... more exactly:

I believe that the texts of the bible aren't inspired by a form of deity, but rather are an expression of the culture and cultural changes within the jewish tribes (for example the changes from polytheiosm to monotheism, which made later writers redact textx of earlier writers, to erase mentionings of other gods in the former pantheon ... and attribute all references to YHWH.

With other words I think that the bible is an interesting historical document that give insight into history ... and also contaoins wise and beautiful things (for example 1. Corinthians 13) ... but it shouldn't be taken as something authoritative that surpasses nowadays morals.

Just as the Baghavad ghita, the mayan book of dead, the Edda and many more

They would be better off not participating whatsoever. But again, Bismarck was very clever.

As said, they could just collect church taxes by themselves ... thereby limiting the influence of the german state in churches finances.

But I agree, Bismarck was clever, although AFAIK he didn't have anything to do with the introduction of the church taxes ... rather it was something that was already (before the unification of germany) implemented in single german states ... and later, after unification, was adopted by the german parliament to be part of the constitution.

And I am glad they are there as IMHO it prevented the growth of christian extremist parishes/sects as we know them of the USA ... but rather resulted in a harmonious living together of religious and not so religous people in germany.

[Dry]

This is complete bull****, Sharia doesn't prevail over western jurisprudence in any of the European countries. The 'Sharia Courts' that everyone (all the uneducated stupid ****s who didn't bother researching anything) has whined about for years, are actually just groups of religious experts who provide mediation to Muslims who want a religious answer to disputes. Couple of rather major points that the bigots always ignore..

1) They have absolutely no legal power, and cannot overrule any legal ruling or law.
2) Participation is completely voluntary for all parties.
3) If they delivered a solution that either party thought was unjust, they still have every right to go to a civil court for a legal ruling.
4) Orthodox Jews also have their own version of these mediation groups, but strangely very few people write scaremongering crap about how the Jews are trying to take over the country.

Maybe, just maybe it's because the full Sharia law does not restrict itself to mediation and solving disputes.
Wiki

The main kinds of religious law are Sharia in Islam, Halakha in Judaism, and canon law in some Christian groups. In some cases these are intended purely as individual moral guidance, whereas in other cases they are intended and may be used as the basis for a country's legal system. The latter was particularly common during the Middle Ages.
Aleppo Codex: 10th century Hebrew Bible with Masoretic pointing

The Halakha is followed by orthodox and conservative Jews in both ecclesiastical and civil relations. No country is fully governed by Halakha, but two Jewish people may decide, because of personal belief, to have a dispute heard by a Jewish court, and be bound by its rulings.

So, my understanding is the catholic religious law (canon law) restrict itself to religion, belief. Thank to the separation of church and state, non catholics do not have to worry about it.
The jewish Halakha restrict itself to mediation. And no country is fully governed by Halakha, I guess it means not even Israel.
Sharia law on the other hand, claim to rule every aspect of life.

Sharia law governs a number of Islamic countries, including Saudi Arabia and Iran, though most countries use Sharia law only as a supplement to national law. It can relate to all aspects of civil law, including property rights, contracts or public law.

In short, we have
- Canon law, by essence and tradition restricted to matters of faith, not a single country ruled by it.
- Halakha, by tradition restricted to mediation since 10th century, not a single country ruled by it.
- Sharia Law, artificially and recently restricted to mediation in the West, by essence and tradition meant to rule every aspect of society, fully implemented in 2 countries, supplement to national laws in many others.
and you are surprised why a some people are nervous about it?

[kentonio]

Maybe, just maybe it's because the full Sharia law does not restrict itself to mediation and solving disputes.
...
and you are surprised why a some people are nervous about it?

No I'm not surprised, I fully expect people to be asshats at pretty much every opportunity. Sharia mediation has existed for years with no problems and allows another culture to deal with its own issues without stepping outside the western legal framework. If someone ever seriously tries to make it supercede the law, then that's the time to cause a fuss, not just over some speculative bull**** that is largely tied up to a fear of those brown people who keep bombing stuff.

[Kidlicious]

And I am glad they are there as IMHO it prevented the growth of christian extremist parishes/sects as we know them of the USA ... but rather resulted in a harmonious living together of religious and not so religous people in germany.

When I read this this is what I take from it, you like diversity as long as it's not Christian diversity. You don't mind Christian churches, as long as they are acceptable to secularists. Also, you don't mind Muslim mosques, correct?

I'm glad we have many different churches to choose from. Which churches are you opposed to?

[Proteus_MST]

When I read this this is what I take from it, you like diversity as long as it's not Christian diversity. You don't mind Christian churches, as long as they are acceptable to secularists. Also, you don't mind Muslim mosques, correct?

I'm glad we have many different churches to choose from. Which churches are you opposed to?

Then you are wrong ...
I like diversity ... what I dislike is religious extremism, regardless of the religion in which it originates

I am a strong proponent of the separation of church and state (except the support for caritative works ... and the church taxes, which actually help churches).
Therefore I also dislike, when churches want to impose their rules on others ... the prime example would be the resistance against homosexual civil marriages ... but also the attempts at several schools in america, to enforce teaching of creationism instead (or next to) the theory of evolution.

Same goes, for example, for attempts at imposing the Shariah, vigilante justice, forcing women to wear a full body veil or picketing funerals of homosexuals (you can keep the WBC in the USA ... I don't want them here ).
Or, with other words, in my eyes religion is somethign that is everyones private affair and a harmonious living together as society in my eyes is more important than giving all religious sects totally unrestricted rights of public expression and any other rights they demand

[Kidlicious]

Then you are wrong ...
I like diversity ... what I dislike is religious extremism, regardless of the religion in which it originates

I am a strong proponent of the separation of church and state (except the support for caritative works ... and the church taxes, which actually help churches).
Therefore I also dislike, when churches want to impose their rules on others ... the prime example would be the resistance against homosexual civil marriages ... but also the attempts at several schools in america, to enforce teaching of creationism instead (or next to) the theory of evolution.

Same goes, for example, for attempts at imposing the Shariah, vigilante justice, forcing women to wear a full body veil or picketing funerals of homosexuals (you can keep the WBC in the USA ... I don't want them here ).
Or, with other words, in my eyes religion is somethign that is everyones private affair and a harmonious living together as society in my eyes is more important than giving all religious sects totally unrestricted rights of public expression and any other rights they demand

I don't think you can have diversity without extremism. What you have is the appearance of diversity. The WBC is a small church. It's got virtually no influence in this country. The only people they matter to is people like you and their own members, who are very few.

Not that it matters that they are small. Freedom of religion means the freedom to be a member of that church. If more Americans want to join that church why should I prohibit them? Isn't that like prohibiting gay marriage? You Germans are all about unity and against extremism, but in my opinion gay marriage and Islam are extreme, even if they let women go to school etc.

Also, why don't you want creationism taught along side evolution? Aren't you saying in this thread that children should be exposed to the ideas of other people?

[Ming]

Creationism has no place in science classes in school. It is simply one religions view. If Christians want to teach it in their private schools, that's another thing.
But in public schools... no. I don't see Christians saying that all religions creation myths need to be taught... just theirs.

[Proteus_MST]

I don't think you can have diversity without extremism. What you have is the appearance of diversity. The WBC is a small church. It's got virtually no influence in this country. The only people they matter to is people like you and their own members, who are very few.

Not that it matters that they are small. Freedom of religion means the freedom to be a member of that church. If more Americans want to join that church why should I prohibit them? Isn't that like prohibiting gay marriage? You Germans are all about unity and against extremism, but in my opinion gay marriage and Islam are extreme, even if they let women go to school etc.

But, you said something about freedom of religion ... if you are for unrestricted freedom of religion, you should also be pro freedom of islamist sects in the USA, even if their preachers preach about commiting terrorism and give positive views about joining IS

As for the WBC:
It is one other group to which they matter even more (and which you forgot to include):
The relatives of the people whose funerals they they picket. And those are confronted with those loonies during their hardest time (when they just lost their beloved son, daughter, sister etc. ).
Which is why I mentioned limits to "freedom of expression" of religious sects. The protection of the relatives of these deceased people is more important to me than the freedom of religious sects, to parade along funerals holding homophobic signs in their hands.

Also, why don't you want creationism taught along side evolution? Aren't you saying in this thread that children should be exposed to the ideas of other people?

That's easy:
Because Biology lessons (which is, where the ToE is taught) should be limited to scientific theories ... and shouldn't incorporate fairy tales from a religious book.
I am not opposed to teachers treating the creation myth during religion lessons, however

[Kidlicious]

Creationism has no place in science classes in school. It is simply one religions view. If Christians want to teach it in their private schools, that's another thing.
But in public schools... no. I don't see Christians saying that all religions creation myths need to be taught... just theirs.

Did you learn what communism is in school? What about Islam?

Do you have a valid reason why Creationism should not be taught instead of, "It's what people I don't like believe?"

[Ming]

Creationism has no place in a science class. If you want to teach it in a religious studies class... fine by me.

And yes, I learned all about Communism in history and political science classes... and all about Islam in my religious studies classes. I learned about these topics in the appropriate classes.

[Kidlicious]

"But, you said something about freedom of religion ... if you are for unrestricted freedom of religion, you should also be pro freedom of islamist sects in the USA, even if their preachers preach about commiting terrorism and give positive views about joining IS "

We already have had radical leftist and Muslim preachers. That's their right. Next...

"As for the WBC:
It is one other group to which they matter even more (and which you forgot to include):
The relatives of the people whose funerals they they picket. And those are confronted with those loonies during their hardest time (when they just lost their beloved son, daughter, sister etc. ).
Which is why I mentioned limits to "freedom of expression" of religious sects. The protection of the relatives of these deceased people is more important to me than the freedom of religious sects, to parade along funerals holding homophobic signs in their hands."

You sound like rah. So you don't support freedom of speech then either. What other rights are you opposed to just so that people don't have to be bothered with extremist view points?



"That's easy:
Because Biology lessons (which is, where the ToE is taught) should be limited to scientific theories ... and shouldn't incorporate fairy tales from a religious book.
I am not opposed to teachers treating the creation myth during religion lessons, however"

How is Creationism not based on biology?

[Kidlicious]

Creationism has no place in a science class. If you want to teach it in a religious studies class... fine by me.

And yes, I learned all about Communism in history and political science classes... and all about Islam in my religious studies classes. I learned about these topics in the appropriate classes.

I'm sure proteus doesn't want it taught at all. I don't insist it be taught in any specific class. Proteus doesn't want it taught period, because he's a conformist.

[Ben Kenobi]

And peer reviews are another important factor in order to ascertain the quality of science

Peer reviews are mostly incestuous. There's been articles where a computer generated paper that actually meant nothing passed 'peer review' because it had the right names on the paper. That's a problem. Of course, politics have always been that way, which is why Mendel was ignored for as long as he was, it wasn't where the 'science' was supposed to come from.

... as are modern statistical tests (like ANBOVA and the like) ... thanks to modern statistics we know, for example, that Gregor Mendel whitewashed the results he got from his genetic experiments with Pisum sativum ... as the probability is close to zero, to get as perfect crossbreeding results as he supposedly got

Funny you bring up Mendel. He still did good science in providing an explanation for heredity which was correct and served as the basis of the Great Synthesis of the 50s. Again, Christians have made incredible contributions to biological science, in that the most important half of the current synthesis was developed by Christians. No Mendelian inheritance, we'd still not understand how genes work.

[Kidlicious]

So Proteus, what is your position on academic freedom? I'm assuming that you are not in favor of theories being taught that aren't acceptable to you and the mainstream. Is that a fair assumption?

[Ben Kenobi]

All Hitler did was is adding criminal penalties for parents who prevented their children from visiting school

Which remain on the books today. If you're arguing that homeschooling leads to Nazism, why did Hitler ban it?

A frenchman can become a german in all aspects of the law ... that's what immigration laws are for. Actually one of my grand-grandmothers was french (and became german citizen), according to all I know

But the laws do not treat Frenchmen as Germans. That is my point. A distinction is made between Frenchmen and Germans. Removing that distinction would mean removing what it means to be a German.

I am arguing that any man can get married, to a woman. Just like a Frenchman can become a German.

Catholics shouldn't be allowed to have schools in germany, because they will find ways to make it so, that voluntary visit of a catholic school will soon be a compulsory visit of a catholic school. Not soon thereafter followed by vatican control of catholic raised german chancellors and government

That's pretty much what is believed and why you prevent homeschooling. Word for word. "If we homeschool we'll supply Nazis", despite the fact that Nazis banned homeschooling because it opposed their agenda.

I didn't ... I argued that domestic violence (beating of the wife by the husband, for example) is something that happens in (some) christian families ... and also attempts by the family to control daughters, even if they have become 18 (and therefore are adults in all aspects of the german laws)

Happens among atheists too. That you're singling out Christians is called special pleading.

Actually, with regards to uttering (white or muslim or whatelse) supremacist statements, the USA are more free than germany, as in the USA you can publish even the most violent/racist texts without getting into conflict with the law ... whereas im germany there are certain limits, after which it becomes illegal.

You have a strange definition of freedom.

Which is why german Neonazis like to host their sites on US servers, as there the amount of racist/supremacist crap they are allowed to publish is rather unlimited.

Censorship isn't freedom. Censoring beliefs that are wrong is less freedom, not more. The reason you think it's 'freedom' is because your ideas are favored.

What the pupils have to know at the end of each school year is set forth by the teaching plans of the ministry of education, so all pupils have the same standards of knowledge throughout germany ... but how this is archived (and how the individual lessons within a school subject are arranged) falls witin the responsibility of the teacher. Noone says that teachers aren't allowed to use the catechism in their school lessons.

I would have to check the curricula of the Abitur. That was changed in British Columbia (and has since been changed in Ontario and Quebec), fairly recently.

Actually, with regards to uttering (white or muslim or whatelse) supremacist statements, the USA are more free than germany, as in the USA you can publish even the most violent/racist texts without getting into conflict with the law ... whereas im germany there are certain limits, after which it becomes illegal.
Which is why german Neonazis like to host their sites on US servers, as there the amount of racist/supremacist crap they are allowed to publish is rather unlimited.

Are you suggesting that Germany bans publication of the Koran?

What I also know for sure is, that the evangelical catechism was part of my confirmands lessons.
So I guess, the catholic catechism is part of catholic communion prep as well.

Guessing from what I hear from Marx, I'd be surprised if it did, but I'd have to see the curriculum to be sure.

Particularly in what?

Sorry. Blah, in what the Church teaches and why, Catholic philosophy and how it ties into everything else. It's not well taught. Most people think one is divided from the other. Civics is not just secularism.

You are cherrypicking insofar as you select the passages within the bible that you take as verbal truthts and those where you think that they are to be meant less verbally (for example with regards to interpreting the flood as a local flood), or by saying the accounts in genesis are just some kind of vision and therefore cannot be exact.

The Creation account is Genesis isn't an exact account. It's at best, a gloss. As for the local flood, I don't see why that explanation is unreasonable. There is nothing to indicate that there is any knowledge of the world of Europe let alone the world of the Americas in the Bible.

I believe that the texts of the bible aren't inspired by a form of deity, but rather are an expression of the culture and cultural changes within the jewish tribes (for example the changes from polytheiosm to monotheism, which made later writers redact textx of earlier writers, to erase mentionings of other gods in the former pantheon ... and attribute all references to YHWH.

Then why do you hold that the Creation account is *exact* and that the Flood is a worldwide flood? If you believe it is a Jewish account that is constrained by what they knew, wouldn't both things be plausible.

As for alteration... how could you prove that the polytheistic accounts were removed? All the documentary evidence we possess says otherwise.

With other words I think that the bible is an interesting historical document that give insight into history ... and also contaoins wise and beautiful things (for example 1. Corinthians 13) ... but it shouldn't be taken as something authoritative that surpasses nowadays morals.

So then it's not about science at all. You believe that what is taught today is superior. Why do you believe that?

But I agree, Bismarck was clever, although AFAIK he didn't have anything to do with the introduction of the church taxes ... rather it was something that was already (before the unification of germany) implemented in single german states ... and later, after unification, was adopted by the german parliament to be part of the constitution.

And I am glad they are there as IMHO it prevented the growth of christian extremist parishes/sects as we know them of the USA ... but rather resulted in a harmonious living together of religious and not so religous people in germany.

It was part of the Kulturkampf and very much planned by Bismarck.