I agree with nuttyjoe

Joe and Tristan,

Thanks.

I've always thought that Islam was a wonderful religion, just one that is highly misunderstood in the West. Like many other things, when religion is corrupted, it can become a very ugly thing.

I'm positive there are aspects of Islam that make it an awesome religion. But their "ambassadors" need help on the presentation. LOL

You are most welcome, sir. Actually, I was talking with some friends recently and this very subject came up about the Catholics. I responded in much the same manner then. Just because there are some priests who have some serious sexual issues is no reason to think all Catholics are that way. It just isn't true. Although, I will admit that I am thinking that with the amounts of these cases, it may be time for Catholics to start re-thinking the requirements and rules of its church leaders. Would letting their priests marry be such a bad thing after all?

As I understand it, there have been times in history during which Catholic priests were allowed to marry. Indeed, I think some Popes in ages past were married and had families.

I was raised Catholic and think that it, too, is a beautiful religion that has been badly represented by corrupt elements on one hand, and unfairly maligned by cynics on the other.

I do think they are off-base in their current requirements for celibacy among the clergy. Some see voluntary celibacy as a spiritual gift.. and I agree. For some monks and nuns, that might be a personal choice that could lead to profound spiritual growth.

For example, my father -- who is still Catholic -- has long said that if his wife died before he does, he would probably join a monastary and spend the rest of his life in celibacy.

But I don't think mandatory celibacy is a good idea. Even so, since I'm no longer a Catholic, it's not really my place to say anything beyond observation. Were I still in the Church, I think it is something I would be openly critical of.

mytmouse57 wrote:Moses' brother Aaron was the first Priest appointed by god. He was married. He had two sons: Nadab and Abihu, both killed by God.


-

Well, if you think about it, everybody is killed by God. Seeing how life in this plane of existance is pretty much a universally terminal condition.

Anyway, yes, the appointment of Aaron, a married man, as God's first "priest" is an indication that it's A-okay for clergy to marry.

I seem to remember reading something years ago that the Catholic church did not want to be financially responsible for the heirs of priests(ie give up land) so the prohibition was put in place.

I don't know for sure, but does that sound familiar to anyone?

I don't know about that; but as far as not wanting to be finacially liability; just how much has the Catholic church spent to settle all of these "sex scandals" in the last twenty years? Does this mean that Catholics would rather spend money defending sexual deviant (and illegal) behavior? I sure hope not. I agree with Mouse. Mandatory celibacy as a requirement seems to be forget that religion aside, a man is a man first, and Catholic second. And every man (and woman) has sexual desire. No religion will ever change this.

If we were simply "passengers" in the legal system, your analogy would have more of a point.

But we aren't just "passengers".
We are the people who tell the judges what the laws are in the first place. We are the collective "bosses" of the judges.

I can't think of the proper analogy, but the issue isn't "how to fly the plane" as much as it is the pilot making a routine decision that is completely up to his discretion.
And then the "collective bosses" give him explicit guidance on how to enact this decision which was previously simply left up to his discretion.

What is the impact? The plane isn't going to crash. We aren't going to the wrong airport.
It's simply a choice that the judge/pilot is allowed to make all on his own, and he's being given further guidance on it.


Quite frankly, I see this violated left and right.
Three strikes rule?
How about our society legislating hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines for downloading music? Or the jail sentences for drug posession, as compared to other crimes?

Society works its value system into sentencing every day, weighing one crime against another and assigning different sentencing guidelines.


I really don't think you addressed the argument in your response. Not at all.

When everybody was a kid and a fight broke out in the school-yard, both kids would often get punished. It basically boiled down to the "don't care who started it" philosophy.
Which doesn't make sense if one child picked the fight with the other, who wasn't doing anything.

And to me, that's what we have here, except it's the kid that had the fight picked with him that's getting expelled.
We've got the anti-gay people who are, by analogy, "picking a fight" which is disrupting morale, but it's the gay kids who are getting expelled…

Where's the personal responsibility?
I thought the military was about "discipline"?

If we shifted the analogy to "black" or "Jewish", the issue would be clear. We wouldn't tolerate that crap.
But when it comes to anti-gay prejudice, the people who can't do their job and disrupt morale because of their prejudice get a free pass.


There have been a variety of articles on this too.
Like kicking out numerous Arabic translators at a time when we are going to war where we NEED them.
The cost to recruitment numbers. The cost in actual $$$. The cost in reducing soldiers for the war effort.

But then we have to wonder if we can overlook the "problems" that exist with these gay soldiers IN A TIME OF WAR, when we would NEED moral to be good for the fight…
Then what the heck is the excuse in peace-time?
Wouldn't we want our military running at optimal performance during a war?