Joensuu

Agreed. The Queen has her trips financed by the countries who receive her (with varying positive/negative opinions presented by the peoples of those countries to the decision to fund her visit). The Pope's association with the Hitler youth was indeed forced, and he was seemingly reluctant to join. And yes, I seem to recall he had a friend with Down Syndrome (or similar) who was 'removed' by the Nazis. I hate when his membership of the Hitler Youth is used, unfairly, as an argument against him. However, I still object to the government inviting the Pope, and chosing to finance his visit. I object further to the fact that he chose to mark his visit with a speach which slandered my beliefs.

I've tried to be as respectful as possible. It can get very frustrating trying to politely use cold rational logic to counter faith and beliefs, but I think I've managed to maintain my decorum. I have, however, had my own beliefs slandered by the visiting Vatican dignitary. I have also had some of my own taxes used to pay for the privallage of being slandered. But you are quite right hypo, without reading the thread it would have been difficult to know that.

What do either Schneiderlin or Hammond offer? Neither are attacking. Neither make runs into the box. Neither are good at long shots. Neither seem to flourish at set pieces. Neither are defensive. Neither take control of the centre. Neither put in enough tackles. Both do frequently disappear, forcing Lambert and Lee to move back into midfield. Both also have brilliant sideways passes. Both are better than Pulis and Wotton.

Sergei, i think you should look into the actual facts of this case. It was a ban on jewellery, not on religion. The lady involved was allowed to continue wearing her necklace, so long as it was tucked in. Two seperate UK courts have now found in favour of BA. Nobody is restricting her religious rights. It is not PC gone mad, it's the right wing press sensationalising. Anyhow, as I've already said, this is one lady. One flawed example. I already asked for you to back up your claims with more evidence, but for a second time instead of doing so, you have returned to this single example. Could you provide something more substantial to back up your claims? Check out my response above. Simply put, the Dalai Lama represents an oppressed country; the Pope heads one of the worlds most powerful organisations. Of course if you want me to assess them purely on religion, and not on substance or politics, then both make unsubstantiated claims for unproven deities. One is definative in their claims; the other is largely tolerant and accepting. As much as I object to all religion, Buddism is far more liberal in it's worldview than Catholicism. Only one of these two religions is directly responsible for thousands of deaths worldwide each year. Does this help to explain why there is a difference in treatment by the liberal press and community? Most atheists (and IMO the Guardian), don't believe in religion. When they look at the Pope and the Dalai Lama they don't see two religious leaders, instead they see two political figures. The Guardian treats each of them on their politics, you know, on the affect of their words and actions, not on their belief in flying teapots. Suggesting the Pope and the Dalai Lama should be compared neutrally simply because they are both clerics is like suggesting that the careers of Hitler and Mozart should receive an even press on the basis of their shared nationality.

And neither is the Pope. However, there is a fundamental difference between the two: the Pope heads a lucrative international operation. He is one of the most powerful people on the planet but as I've shown in previous posts, he has what can be concervatively described as having a questionable track record, which he doesn't see himself as answerable to. Wheras the Dalai Lama is the exciled head of state of an country invaded in the 50s, which is currently bring ethnically repopulated. One is powerful the other a victim. One makes statements which often incite and anger; the other seems to make statements encoraging peace and reconciliation. There is no aggressive smear campaign, each are merely being judged on their merits.

Right. So you're arguing that being Catholic makes a person above the law?

So you're justifying the use of £12 million of taxpayers money because up to 10% of the population might spent extra money on plastic Vatican flags and M&S sarnies? I assume similar proportional government expenditures are planned for all other major beliefs? You know, just to keep things fair... Hmmm, wonder what we humanists should spend the c. £18 million on, that we are no doubt now due?

I hope Andy doesn't mind me responding to this... Yes we are well aware that Catholic teachings are against abusing children, and in favour of neighbourly love. Thankfully this part of the scripture has been interpreted in a positive way. (I'm sure if I looked hard enough I could find passages which could be used to suggest the opposite). But no, I'm not suprised by this. What I don't understand is why anyone can be answerable only to a deity. So, to abuse Bertrand Russell's analogy, if I were to worship an invisible indetectable flying teapot, orbiting the earth, and if i were the sole representative of the sacred teapot on earth, why should I be subject to the laws of man? Why should I need to answer questions to anyone but the holy teapot? I mean, imagine if there was a serious allegation made against me, I should be immune to prosecution, and answerable to no earthly authority. Can you see why it isn't acceptable for the Pope to use the 'answerable only to God' get out of jail card? I wonder what might happen if I were in the papers (accused of any charge that might be levied against me), and I publically said to the journalists that I can't answer their questions as I'm answerable only to the sacred teapot? Do you think it would hold up in court?

Can you give an example of this cherry picking? As a guardian reader myself, albeit one who doesn't own a villa in Tuscany, I'd like to know where common decency (sorry 'PC') is 'virolently anti tolerant' of any group person or thing. The only people who offend someone with common decency are the bullies who demonstrate intolerance themselves. So can you give me an example of any thing/group/person that has been irrationally 'cherry picked' for intolerance by the 'guardian elite'?

One of the basics of acting with common decency (sorry being 'PC') is that you don't bias any group over another. No groups have anything that they to need to 'fit' into. I'm proud to belong to a country which asks questions, and doesn't accept anything just because we're supposed to. I wonder if questions are raised behind closed doors in countries the pope visits which are less tolerant and publically questioning as our own is. Long may the questions continue.

So, you're arguing that one woman, on one flight is evidence to prove the 'Britain has become one of the most virulently anti-Christian countries in the world'... Do I need to point out that you might need a bit more evidence than that? Socially maybe. On a job application, I doubt it. Care to back up this claim? Much as I usually can't stand her, Toynbee sums this up well here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/apr/28/toynbee-equality-bill-welfare Economic terms are the only way you can measure left/right. Socially you an have liberals and authoritarians on both the left and right wings. Not all tories are racist you know, and not all labour followers are tree-huggers. Anyhow, even overlooking that, what evidence do you have for use being more liberal than elsewhere in Europe? And even if this evidence exists, why would it be a bad thing? Exactly, it's a narrow-minded, unsubstantiated rant by a right of centre, broadly authoritarian 'journalist' who has a reputation for similar sensationalist articles. And that is your incorrect opinion.

No. I am stating that some aspects of the Pope's speaches have been and continue to be contraversial. I am personally offended by the recent atheism was to blame for the Nazi's statement. That's outrageous, certainly 'unsavory', and it would have been unacceptable had I said the same thing about Catholics. If find his views on birth control unsavory. I find his views on homosexuality unsavory. I find his views on Turkey unsavory. I find his silence over issues such as this unsavory. I am in no way confusing guilt with accusation. It's obviously not the sort of thing you want leaked from any resposible office. However, the butt of the joke was that the Pope objects to homosexuality and abortion. Is it not more offensive being the target of sexism, than being joked about you are the perpitrator of sexism? Right, the old divine get out of jail card. Why not clear his name and be done with the rumours? And girls too. Plenty of other countries have done the same: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_Europe So why the problem? Out of time. I'll complete the response later.

I'm not taking anything personally. I just want to dismiss intolerance wherever I see it.

Sergei. I hope you appreciate the effort below. It is incredibly difficult to disect an article which is so illogical and doesn't actually address the issue. But just for you: Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is arguing that: Britain is a wrong'un, its trashy and some people in Britain consider themselves to be 'spiritual', and some people living in Britain are atheist, and, well I guess we're left to join the dots ourselves, err. What? I know, lets throw in PC for good measure, without any rational logic, but heck, people hate it, so if only a skillful journalist could tie it to atheism, nevermind that they are unrelated eh... Oh, and we are all far to the left of Scandinavia. Really? On what basis? In which reality? An Britain is to the left of the European average? That's simply nonsense. By any rational measure we are far to the right of the European average. Sorry, but you seem to be confusing the economic right-left chasm with the liberal-authoritarian divide. Homosexual rights are not the preserve of the left wing! And anyway what has this got to do with the Pope's visit? Oh, I see, you've run out of sensible argument, so now you are just listing everything you hate, to try and see if any of the mud sticks. So, what's the summary? The article largely strings together unassociated events and petty quibbles. At no point does it consider the actual arguments involved. It is beautifully crafted to create the image of consistent arguement, but fails to assess the actual merits of the case. Does it consider whether government money should be used? No. Does it consider the Pope's track record? No. This article is a perfect example of the gutter press in action, it's hard to argue against it becuase it doesn't actually say anything, it just strings together a furious list of unassociated things people often don't like. Oh, and why is nothing referenced at all? In conclusion, this article is 'inaccurate and heavily biased'. Perhaps next time my summary of findings will sufice?

Hmm, an article designed to get the blood flowing eh, from that neutral source, John Laughland. It's a good stab at a rant, but innacurate, heavily biased, and with poor use of sources. D+ for effort.

I agree, we don't agree. I don't object to him coming here, I just object to us paying. I was neutral to his presence until he used his visit to slander my beliefs. "Roll up, roll up, all the fun of the fayre, for just 22p this man 'ere will slap you in the face for the amusement of that group over there" Is that aimed at me? Where have I confused 'accused' and 'guilty'? ... now I know that bit is aimed at me. No offence taken.

Where would you draw the line then? If 6 million (10%) is enough to sanction government funding, would you support government funding for a State visit for a leading Muslim cleric (representing c. 3% of our population)? What about for a religion with just 100 followers in the UK? How about if this religious leader who is followed by 10% of the UK population, when he arrives, makes a speach which attacks the beliefs of 15% of the UK population (as Ratzinger just did when he slandered atheists). Is this 10% of the population more worthy of state funding than the 15% who were offended? My line in the sand is very simple. No state funding for religion. It's a nice simple, unconfusing rule, and offends nobody (or everybody equally). I'm not sure many people in the gay community would agree... sexuality is determined before birth; you have choice in the matter of religion, but anyhow... I'd raise an eyebrow if anyone had a State visit funded by the UK taxpayer, just because of their sexuality. I think I would be more gobsmacked than annoyed though. Any rabbi or other cleric granted a State visit funded by the UK taxpayer should have the same proportion of 'uproar' (NB, not 'smear') directed at them as the Pope has received. (Why? What is the basis of their claims? Where is the evidence for their beliefs?) Anyway, IMO as a nation we should welcome every spiritual leader, but pay for none of them - let them finance themselves. However, if when they are here, they use the opportunity to slander the beliefs of others, then they should be subject to “Incitement to Religious Hatred” clause of the "Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006" , just as you or I would.

Come on Sergei, the scriptures are so varied that they can be made to back up or disprove almost anything, they don't need to be re-written, just re-interpreted. Find me the scripture that says "thou shall't not use a condom"... or even "thou shall't not attempt to enjoy intercourse without having a baby as the result of your night's work"... In fact, the entire 'evidence' from the scriptures for contraception comes from only a few passages:

Robsk, I think you'll find all athiests have the same opinion. Take Dawkins, he declares himself to be 'agnostic (defacto atheist)'. This is because he is describing himself as being willing to accept the existance of a deity if any evidence is ever discovered which suggests that there might be one. A true agnostic does not share this worldview, they are sitting on the fence, and judge the whole 'existance of a deity' thing as being about 50% likely... i.e. as there is not evidence one way or the other they conclude that they literally 'don't know'. In reality, an 'agnostic (defacto atheist)' is an atheist, just a more technically accurate atheist. In other words, all sensible atheists share your opinion that they don't know for sure, but in the overwhelming absense of any evidence whatsoever are pretty certain. In essence, there is as much evidence for the existance of any deity as there is for any imaginary friend/being/spirit anyone cares to dream up. If you share that opinion, then you are an atheist, and not an agnostic.

So we have to fund the Pope's jolly jaunt, and now when he gets to our country he has the nerve to slander my chosen 'religion' (aka cold rational evidence-based science), how very dare he? Does that give me the right to slander his chosen religion? You know, 'an eye for an eye' etc...

Would "an online poll of Saints fans with over 500 responses found that 78% of fans..." be okay wording (i.e. no mention of Saints Web), or would you prefer "an online poll of Saints fans, conducted on the Saints Web site, found that 78% of fans..."? The latter doesn't suggest that you are announcing or stating anything, but does give you free advertising...

I'm unhappy with TescoExxonCorp, they didn't tell me the full reason why their last CEO resigned. As such I'm going to boycott them until they tell me exactly what happened in the board meeting. Until they do so I'm going to come on a website full of followers of TescoExxonCorp, and discreetly inform them all of my decision to boycott, which is not in any way an attempt by me to rally support, or encourage others, err.. honest guv. Nope, I'm merely shouting 'look at me' loudly, with absolutely no intention of hoping to encourage others. Of course, I could have kept my boycott quiet, but that simply wouldn't have had the same desired effect, which is, err, um... what was my intention again? Perhaps I shouldn't have started the thread?

If you believe in jinxes, superstition, spirituality or invisible deities without evidence, I reserve the right to think you are a bit barmy.

If (when) Pardew cashes in and gets a ghostwriter to turf out an autobiography you might get some idea of what happend, albeit a sanitised Pardew-friendly version of events. Cortese is too professional to provide you with an explanation. Anyone who leaks anything will no doubt be sued. The local press won't want to take the risk; the national rags won't waste the time on this league. DP, you could well be boycotting for 20 years. Had you conducted your boycott offline I might have overlooked it if you broke you self-imposed boycott without achieving your objective. As you have tried to encourage others to jump on this ridiculous crusade, I think you should be branded a hypocrite if you spend any further money on Saints without getting your "satisfactory explaination". As a fellow ex-DP resident, I wish you had a different username.

You could certainly make a strong case for the Nazi party being closer to Socialism than New Labour....