tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7534539169157708222.post1722487902681063199..comments2024-03-26T12:19:52.801-04:00Comments on Tea at Trianon: The Anti-Christian Bias in Englandelena maria vidalhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17129629173535139807noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7534539169157708222.post-24198646878781888782012-06-04T13:24:42.781-04:002012-06-04T13:24:42.781-04:00Astrid on my Philologica blog, this article in Fre...<a href="http://filolohika.blogspot.fr/2012/06/astrid.html" rel="nofollow">Astrid</a> on my Philologica blog, this article in French and prolonged so as to include even a reference to The Night's Dark Shade.Hans Georg Lundahlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7534539169157708222.post-64157529234548111802011-03-06T15:37:53.565-05:002011-03-06T15:37:53.565-05:00I can assume the author, in The Brussels Journal, ...I can assume the author, in The Brussels Journal, which is quoted here and not written by our blog author, who is herself a practising Catholic, is implying that since Thomas Aquinas is venerated as a saint only in the Roman Catholic Church, some individuals might assume that his teachings and philosophy is only applicable to those Christians in communion with Rome. However, the writer believes that this would be to overlook the alleged universal applicability of Aquinas's teachings on a Christian's role in regards secular obedience. Hence he says "although a Catholic," not to denote that his Catholicism makes him suspect, but to highlight that his Catholicism does not make him irrelevant to non-Catholic Christians.Gareth Russellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09102113677858015813noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7534539169157708222.post-12930374151948747912011-03-05T20:20:32.278-05:002011-03-05T20:20:32.278-05:00What do you mean "though a Catholic" in ...What do you mean "though a Catholic" in regards to Aquinas?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7534539169157708222.post-38460651492624389942011-03-05T18:10:07.518-05:002011-03-05T18:10:07.518-05:00Thank you for the clarification, Gateth!Thank you for the clarification, Gateth!elena maria vidalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06821312108528134571noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7534539169157708222.post-83928238067119139322011-03-05T17:55:04.171-05:002011-03-05T17:55:04.171-05:00In fairness - and I don't agree with the ban -...In fairness - and I don't agree with the ban - I think it is their particular denomination which has caused problems. There is a legal precedent in Northern Ireland where fostering has been denied to couples belonging to various Protestant denominations, which shall remain nameless, because of their extremely aggressive attitudes towards other Christian communities - obviously, Catholicism but also "fallen" Protestant denominations, like non-subscribing Presbyterianism and Methodism. They too decried it as 'discrimination,' but it might be worth remembering what impact it would have had on Northern Irish society if children were allowed to be reared by such a virulently sectarian environment and that was considered acceptable because it's the teachings of a church which still reveres to the Vatican as "the whore of Babylon." <br /><br />The denomination Mr and Mrs Johns belong to does not teach that homosexuality is sinful - which is the standard position of at least three-quarters of the Christian congregations in the modern West (if not more) - but that it is something that should be punished, in this life. Which is very different case to the way certain alarmist newspapers are trying to spin it. It also teaches that non-evangelical and non-fundamentalist forms of Christianity are denied Salvation and it was active in protesting state funding for the recent visit to the United Kingdom by the Pontiff. Their denomination is not mainstream; it's "fundamentalist," not conservative. It's not like even a particular zealous form of Baptism; it preaches an extremely virulent form of Creationism and "born-again" eschatology. Which is why the judge was so clear on the fact that this was not a blanket ban on religious individuals fostering, since 70% of the United Kingdom is still registered as a religious affiliation, 85%+ in areas like Northern Ireland and north Scotland. This is an unusual and individual case and I don't think it's the harbingers of something more extreme. It's also particularly important that, at some point, the British legal system establish stricter parameters on what children are exposed to, considering the rise in racially-based politics in the north of England and the fact that if something like this wasn't established as legal precedent, there would literally be no way they could deny sending foster children to racist families. Unfortunately, I think it's kind of the laws job, in the end, to be unfair to everyone. Although I should clarify that I don't know the couple personally and, for all I know, they could be every bit as lovely as the gesture to foster undoubtedly implies.Gareth Russellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09102113677858015813noreply@blogger.com