The Pope

[anothersaintinsouthsea]

Thing is RobskII, even someone like Richard Dawkins says that he is only 99.9% sure there is no God. Atheism literally means the absence of belief in a deity. So agnostics are still atheist but are probably just a bit more willing to be persuaded otherwise.

 

On a slightly different note there seems to be a misconception that Nazis were atheists, and indeed some even try to make out that the crimes they committed were in the name of atheism. While Hitler's religious views are in many ways confused he was specifically against state atheism.

Edited 17 September, 2010 by anothersaintinsouthsea

[Joensuu]

Saintjay, I'm with you. Although actually, I can't really say I'm athiest, because I can't claim to know for sure there isn't a god. But I'm on that side of agnosticism. To me, an empiricist, there's a whole lot more proof of no god than the other way around, and that's what swings my main view. There are so many religions that it looks like a social or evolutionary artefact to me.. and frankly, rather than saying 'well one must be right', I think it just suggests that none are right.

 

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.

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

What a rediculous response, the second half of your sentance is just irrelevant to anything I've said. You mention a billion catholics - I'm not talking about a billion catholics, I'm talking about Catholic priests. Stop trying to make out that I'm attacking all catholics. Of course there will be bad apples in any organisation but we're talking about systematic covering up of child rape over many decades, throught the organisation - and Ratzinger was part of it.

 

How many Catholic Priests are there then? You are just joining the smear campaign. Try and think out of the box mate.

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

Trouble is, scientifically speaking, diseases evolve along with everything else. So while you can look at the prime cause for Aids spreading to be sexual encounters its only a matter of time before another deadly virus hits the human race via another method. Bird flu has been the closest so far but I doubt that is blamed on gay birds.

 

Religions seem very quick to jump on the wagon against anything that appears to be wrong in their story book, and that goes for all religions. They all have some kind of book that they follow and they all interperet them differenetly. Some more extreme than others but all of them seem pretty potty to me.

 

The basics of being a better person is fine with me but I dont need a story book to tell me not to sleep around un protected. Or to tell me how the world was made or how an invisible man will help me if i pray.

 

but the Scriptures have been the same for thousands of years! They have not been re written.

 

You are right that we will end up all getting some new virus. In today's global village it will spread in months. There will probably be just a few Erskimos and Rain Forest Indians left.

[Joensuu]

but the Scriptures have been the same for thousands of years! They have not been re written.

 

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:

 

Be fruitful and increase in number[/Quote] (NB, nothing about contraception).

 

Judah said to Onan, "Lie with your brother's wife and fulfill your duty to her as a brother-in-law to produce offspring for your brother."But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so whenever he lay with his brother's wife, he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from producing offspring for his brother.What he did was wicked in the LORD's sight.[/Quote]

 

Which err, again is unequivocal... err, so one man not wanting to get his sister in law pregnent who beats off instead is proof that we shouldn't use condoms... Isn't it good to see that thousands are dieing each year based on such substantial 'evidence'.

 

 

 

Alternatively, I could read other parts of the scriptures which can be interpreted to mean the polar opposite... Note that no children are mentioned in the following fulfillment of marital duties:

 

The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. The wife’s body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband’s body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. [/Quote]

 

So as you can see, there's no reason to need to have the scripture's re-written, just get some scholar to re-interpret them instead...

[saintjay77]

but the Scriptures have been the same for thousands of years! They have not been re written.

 

You are right that we will end up all getting some new virus. In today's global village it will spread in months. There will probably be just a few Erskimos and Rain Forest Indians left.

 

Thats the thing though,

 

Someone, not a god or spititual being or anything like that but Someone wrote these Scriptures thousands of years ago. Not millions of years ago when the earth was formed, Religion is something that was born by people who didnt understand how things happened. Red Indians did rain dances to make it rain, Human Sacrifices took place to appease gods, Scientology..... nuff said. Many of the practices that have gone on over the years from many different religions have later been shown to be not worth a pinch of salt. So following the rules layed on on some scriptures that someone made thousands of years ago does not make religions any more real or worth believing.

 

If I make a book in the same way of a bible but quote nothing but Lyrics from Scooter tracks, bury it in rocks somewhere up on the moors with an accompaning letter stating how it was found that Scooter was a god and his message was Move Your Ass! Then in 10,000 years time someone finds it and starts up the Scooter religion based on this ancient artifact they have just found, spreading the word of twisted KLF lyrics about the justified and the ancient and Dave on a Train with a Fish they do not know the price of and it all sounds pretty silly.

 

I wonder what the people were thinking when they wrote these Scriptures?

[anothersaintinsouthsea]

How many Catholic Priests are there then? You are just joining the smear campaign. Try and think out of the box mate.

 

What's your point? Why does it matter how many priests there are? I'm guessing there are hundreds of thousands around the world, the vast majority of which are good honest people. So what? I take issue with the fact that the Catholic Church covered up many, many instances of child rape and protected those priests from justice.

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

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:

 

(NB, nothing about contraception).

 

 

 

Which err, again is unequivocal... err, so one man not wanting to get his sister in law pregnent who beats off instead is proof that we shouldn't use condoms... Isn't it good to see that thousands are dieing each year based on such substantial 'evidence'.

 

 

 

Alternatively, I could read other parts of the scriptures which can be interpreted to mean the polar opposite... Note that no children are mentioned in the following fulfillment of marital duties:

 

 

 

So as you can see, there's no reason to need to have the scripture's re-written, just get some scholar to re-interpret them instead...

 

Look Joe I have not read the bible since School; there are lots of different interpretations but the Catholic Church represents a mainstream one. The argument of the thread was that we should not pay for the Pope to come to this country. I contested this argument based on the fact that he is the spiritual leader of 6m Brits and a billion people and in a multi faith society we should show him some respect. Being a Catholic is a lifestyle choice just like being Gay or ****ging around is; in my opinion the smear campaign and uproar directed at the visit is out of proportion and would not have been deemed acceptable if it had been aimed at Gay Pride or a Rabbi leader had visited. I think people should respect other people's lifestyle choices and it works both ways. As a Nation we should welcome spiritual leaders of the big faiths.

[anothersaintinsouthsea]

Look Joe I have not read the bible since School; there are lots of different interpretations but the Catholic Church represents a mainstream one. The argument of the thread was that we should not pay for the Pope to come to this country. I contested this argument based on the fact that he is the spiritual leader of 6m Brits and a billion people and in a multi faith society we should show him some respect. Being a Catholic is a lifestyle choice just like being Gay or ****ging around is; in my opinion the smear campaign and uproar directed at the visit is out of proportion and would not have been deemed acceptable if it had been aimed at Gay Pride or a Rabbi leader had visited. I think people should respect other people's lifestyle choices and it works both ways. As a Nation we should welcome spiritual leaders of the big faiths.

 

You think being Gay is a lifestyle choice? lolololol

[saintjay77]

Look Joe I have not read the bible since School; there are lots of different interpretations but the Catholic Church represents a mainstream one. The argument of the thread was that we should not pay for the Pope to come to this country. I contested this argument based on the fact that he is the spiritual leader of 6m Brits and a billion people and in a multi faith society we should show him some respect. Being a Catholic is a lifestyle choice just like being Gay or ****ging around is; in my opinion the smear campaign and uproar directed at the visit is out of proportion and would not have been deemed acceptable if it had been aimed at Gay Pride or a Rabbi leader had visited. I think people should respect other people's lifestyle choices and it works both ways. As a Nation we should welcome spiritual leaders of the big faiths.

 

yeah back on topic a little,

 

The idea of him coming here as the head of a church is not what I am against. I dont agree with the cover up that his church (he is the leader of so should take the responsability of whether he knew or not) has done regarding what has been mentioned on this thread. But you say 6 million brits follow this lifestyle. Thats about 10% of the brittish population. Its believed the Homosexual population in Britton is around 6%. I dont believe the Gay comunity has an out and out leader that would require £12 million spent on a visit but your point on Gay Pride will do. Who pays for the Gay Pride carnival's or parades? If its all just a lifestyle choice how come we the tax payer, including those who are not followers are expected to pay for his visit? Should a gay pride festival also be paid for out of the public purse?

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

You think being Gay is a lifestyle choice? lolololol

 

Sorry your point is?

[Special K]

So we should sceintifically believe in an invisible manthat turned up 65 million years after the world was created claiming that it was all his idea, thank him for aids, cancer, peodo's, rapists and murderers cause somehow they are part of his plan too. Then accept that he protected the worst kind of human beings to protect his religion and invisible man above protecting the innocent gods children that stood in the way. And then on top of that we should be happy that so much of our tax money has been spanked on a visit that only invisible man supporting people want?

 

Like I said before, if the catholic church want him to visit then the catholic church can sell some of there gold to pay for his visit. I couldn't give a monkeys if he doesn't visit and in fact, with the economy the way it is I would rather the £12 or so million be spent on cancer research or child sex crime prevention.

 

No, as i said, people should be more tolerant of others who have a faith. A great deal of good has been done and continues to be done by ordinary people who have a faith (as well as those who don't) and wish to live their life in accordance with their beliefs. I know some who have a strong faith but cannot reconcile Creationism against scientific knowledge and who struggle to adopt this into their belief's. It makes for an interesting discussion!

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

yeah back on topic a little,

 

The idea of him coming here as the head of a church is not what I am against. I dont agree with the cover up that his church (he is the leader of so should take the responsability of whether he knew or not) has done regarding what has been mentioned on this thread. But you say 6 million brits follow this lifestyle. Thats about 10% of the brittish population. Its believed the Homosexual population in Britton is around 6%. I dont believe the Gay comunity has an out and out leader that would require £12 million spent on a visit but your point on Gay Pride will do. Who pays for the Gay Pride carnival's or parades? If its all just a lifestyle choice how come we the tax payer, including those who are not followers are expected to pay for his visit? Should a gay pride festival also be paid for out of the public purse?

 

Sounds like a family fortunes survey to me! Have you ever been asked? The Pope is a figurehead for 1 billion people; he is the person that represents them on the world stage. Do you not think if there was a gay leader who represented their community around the world he would not be afforded a State visit here.

[saintjay77]

No, as i said, people should be more tolerant of others who have a faith. A great deal of good has been done and continues to be done by ordinary people who have a faith (as well as those who don't) and wish to live their life in accordance with their beliefs. I know some who have a strong faith but cannot reconcile Creationism against scientific knowledge and who struggle to adopt this into their belief's. It makes for an interesting discussion!

 

I agree and I hope I dont offend anyone when I ramble. I think its an interesting debate and I find some of the aguments for religion just plain confusing. I can see a great deal of good that is done by religious people and like you say there are many non religious people that do as much good at other times. If religion was just about doing the right thing and making yourself a better person while helping others around you then the world would be a much nicer place.

 

The world is not always a nice place though and sometimes we have to look hard to find something good. To blindly follow the words in a book as if they have been sent from above seems like madness to me though and then some of the extreme things to come out of some peoples interpertations of those words just makes me think maybe things would sometimes be better without as much religion.

[Sheaf Saint]

Sorry your point is?

 

I think he's referring to the fact that gay people do not consciously 'choose' to be gay, despite what you may think.

[Robsk II]

Apologies on my use of atheism. I've just always found it a fairly easy way to describe a sort of active belief in nothing, but that isn't strictly accurate, I realise.

 

Being gay is not a lifestyle choice; I've known people who have come out despite clearly not really wanting to, but finally accepting it is just what they were, for whatever reason.

 

I respect the right of the Pope to come to this country, but actually, I agree that it should not be paid for out of the taxpayers pocket, given that most of us are not catholic and have no interest in him coming here - major figure or not. The amount of expense is undue. I would feel the same about any other head of state (tiny, tiny state in his case) where I had serious doubts about the policies made or upheld by them; namely those mentioned so far, primarily - stance on contraception, militant and unreasonable stance on abortion, willful cover-ups of crimes within the church. The head of 'the church of scientology', or Reverend Moon, would get short shrift in this country, certainly not an all expenses paid by the masses jolly - yet they have reasonably large followings (of course nothing on the same scale..).. and they wouldn't get a state visit, even though they are registered as 'proper' religions.

[Joensuu]

Look Joe I have not read the bible since School; there are lots of different interpretations but the Catholic Church represents a mainstream one. The argument of the thread was that we should not pay for the Pope to come to this country. I contested this argument based on the fact that he is the spiritual leader of 6m Brits and a billion people and in a multi faith society we should show him some respect.

 

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).

 

Being a Catholic is a lifestyle choice just like being Gay or ****ging around is; .

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...

in my opinion the smear campaign and uproar directed at the visit is out of proportion and would not have been deemed acceptable if it had been aimed at Gay Pride or a Rabbi leader had visited. I think people should respect other people's lifestyle choices and it works both ways.

 

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.

 

As a Nation we should welcome spiritual leaders of the big faiths.

 

(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.

Edited 17 September, 2010 by Joensuu

[saintjay77]

Sounds like a family fortunes survey to me! Have you ever been asked? The Pope is a figurehead for 1 billion people; he is the person that represents them on the world stage. Do you not think if there was a gay leader who represented their community around the world he would not be afforded a State visit here.

 

No I dont think there would. The church is so tied in with so many countries it would be seen as an insult to god or something and start off a holy war!

 

1 Billion people world wide is around 10% which is around the same figure that is estimated for the world homosexual comunity. Just because they have that many people on there side do you think they need a leader now?

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

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.

 

It boils down to the fact that I believe that somebody representing a Billion people's Faith should vbe afforded the same status as the leader of another country. I am not a Catholic but I am delighted for my fellow Catholic citizens can have their moment and am happy to pay the 22p for him to come over. Looks like we will not agree.

 

What I find distasteful is people on here who are not able to distinguish between being accused and being guilty and the tedious moralism spouted by some posters.

Edited 17 September, 2010 by Sergei Gotsmanov

[Gemmel]

Pope mobile hyjacked in Scotland

 

[Joensuu]

It boils down to the fact that I believe that somebody representing a Billion people's Faith should vbe afforded the same status as the leader of another country. I am not a Catholic but I am delighted for my fellow Catholic citizens can have their moment and am happy to pay the 22p for him to come over. Looks like we will not agree.

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"

 

What I find distasteful is people on here who are not able to distinguish between being accused and being guilty

 

Is that aimed at me? Where have I confused 'accused' and 'guilty'?

 

and the tedious moralism spouted by some posters.

... now I know that bit is aimed at me. No offence taken.

[Saint George]

here's a view from an outsider.....http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/pope-benedict-britain-controversy/2010/09/15/id/370432?s=al&promo_code=AC09-1

 

Seems more and more peeps are getting a better idea of modern Britain

 

"The country Joseph Ratzinger will get to know this week has changed unrecognizably since then, and for the worse, to become little but an uncouth, boorish, and sex-obsessed Rude Britannia."

 

Just about sums it up

[Joensuu]

here's a view from an outsider.....http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/pope-benedict-britain-controversy/2010/09/15/id/370432?s=al&promo_code=AC09-1

 

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.

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

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.

 

its amazing how anything that does not fit is 'inaccurate and heavily biased'!

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

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.

 

Joe you are very sensitive.

[Joensuu]

its amazing how anything that does not fit is 'inaccurate and heavily biased'!

 

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:

 

The protests have ranged from the mean-spirited and the tasteless to the vehemently ideological. [/Quote]

Of course the protest have ranged from 'mean-spirited' to 'tasteless'. However, the vast majority of the dissent revolves around use of Government money, and around the Pope's less than savoury track record. This is an attempt to discredit the objecters from the off, by lumping them in with the oddballs and cranks, when their concerns are just and legitimate.

More seriously, a controversy arose in April after the leak of a joke memo that a junior Foreign Office official had written suggesting that the Pope should bless a gay marriage and open an abortion clinic as part of his official program.

The government offered an apology to the Holy See, but the prank betrayed the sort of ignorant contempt that passes for cleverness in the corridors of power in Britain.[/Quote]

Again, rather than face up to the complaints, lets more simply associate the protests with a joke email. That way you get to discredit the protests without actually having to answer any questions. Of course, the joke email, wouldn't have been considered a 'joke' had the Pope represented a less extreme organisation.

The society’s protests against Islam, by contrast, seem limited to campaigning against the ritual slaughter of animals.[/Quote]

What about the National Secular Society's anti-Sharia Law rant back in Februrary? Their Campaign for Women's rights in Islamic countries? How about their report that the majority of muslims in arab countries want non-believers to be forced to observe Ramadan?

I could go on, I think I've shown that the article is plain wrong on this point.

 

Worst of all have been the antics of those who say they want to put the Pope behind bars. Professor Richard Dawkins of Oxford University, the evolutionary scientist and militant atheist whose book “The God Delusion” sold millions, has stated that he would try to stage a citizen’s arrest of the Pope.

Together with human rights lawyer Geoffrey Robertson QC, Dawkins claims the Pope bears guilt for the child abuse scandal. A week before the papal visit, Robertson published a book arguing that Benedict should be prosecuted for crimes against humanity and explaining why he believes the Pope cannot claim sovereign immunity.[/Quote]

Why is that 'worst of all'? It's a legitimate point. If I were rumoured to have protected child abusers from prosecution, I'd answer my critics and clear my name. Why hasn't the Pope done this?

And on Monday, just days before the Pope’s plane was to touch down in Edinburgh, gay rights campaigner Peter Tatchell was given an hour on prime-time television to attack the Pope, the visit, and Catholicism generally in the most simplistic and virulent terms.[/Quote]

What were those 'simplistic terms'? Mind you what better way is there to dismiss a whole argument, than to say it 'simplistic', without giving a reason. For anyone interested Tatchell is actually balanced, and sensible in his arguments, see:

http://hurryupharry.org/2010/08/13/on-the-popes-state-visit-to-britain/ or http://www.camdennewjournal.com/news/2010/sep/peter-tatchell-why-i-will-protest-pope%E2%80%99s-%E2%80%98harsh-intolerant-views%E2%80%99

British Catholics [...] now think their opponents are perhaps at least partly right.[/Quote]

Well I wonder why that might be?

Britain has become one of the most virulently anti-Christian countries in the world.[/Quote]

Source?

One might not expect militant atheists to understand the notion of transcendence or divinity,[/Quote]

Why? Many atheists have considered these notions, weighed them up and evaluated them rationaly. I would argue that most atheists have more of a grip on transendence and divinity, than many of those who consider themselves religious.

Also, why 'militant'? Does Dawkins brandish a side arm? Or is it just that his line of argument is logical and compelling?

but Britain’s widespread hostility to the largest religion in the world does not square with its trashy indulgence of all other movements, however marginal or inchoate, that choose to label themselves “spiritual.”

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.

Britain has traveled further down the road of political correctness than even traditionally permissive European societies like those of the Netherlands or Scandinavia. At a time when the basic social conservatism of some of those countries is manifesting itself in various protest movements, especially against Muslim immigration, British politics and society is now well to the left of the already very left-wing Western European average.

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.

Soon after David Cameron was elected to power, the new “Conservative” prime minister hosted a garden party at 10 Downing Street for the nation’s most prominent homosexuals. This kind of demonstrative support for gays is something not even the progressive Dutch have ever done, and certainly not something a right-wing politician would normally deem necessary.

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?

Edited 17 September, 2010 by Joensuu

[Joensuu]

Joe you are very sensitive.

 

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

[for_heaven's_Saint]

I have to go a different route to work cos of the pope, whoever he is.

[Saintandy666]

I am allowed to object to his views(his views on contraception are dangerous), as I stated in my original post. I am also allowed to object to his actions, which I have already explained and I think everyone would agree with me when I say that covering up child rapists and paedophiles is wrong. Some of the stuff he comes out with is just unhelpful also like the comment about atheism being on the same level as fascism. Me objecting to what he stands for is not bigoted, it's freedom of speech.

 

I don't object to him being coming here, but it should not be a state visit.

 

Also, being gay isn't a lifestyle choice. It is something that you always know. I know this for a fact as I have gay friends.

[dune]

Just watching him on TV and I can't quite put my finger on who he reminds me of, i'm thinking Mumra of Thunderbirds, or maybe John Inman.

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

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:

 

 

"around the Pope's less than savoury track record" I am sorry but you are confusing being accused with being guilty again

 

 

"the joke email" a pretty offensive joke to those devout Catholics - would this have been tolerated if it had been aimed at other communitys and coming from a Government office. Did any head role? It would have done in other circumstances

 

If I were rumoured to have protected child abusers from prosecution, I'd answer my critics and clear my name. Why hasn't the Pope done this? - I expect he feels that he answers to God and not rumour mongers

 

For anyone interested Tatchell is actually balanced - umm - he advocates lowering the age of consent to 14 years boys. I expect there are a few Priests that might be with him on that

 

 

Source? Issues like the woman sacked by BA for waering the cross. Yet other religions allowed to show their faith

 

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', - If you are a druid then you will probably be treated with more respect than a Christian

 

What? I know, lets throw in PC - exactly the point; before it was the Church that dictated what people should think now it is the forces of Political correctness who are the first to cry for tolerance and then fail to reciprocate it.

 

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. Interms of economic policy not in terms of social attitudes.

 

Homosexual rights are not the preserve of the left wing! I agree with you there

 

Oh, and why is nothing referenced at all? - Its not a piece of Course work

 

In conclusion - your reply is heavily biased and continues to subtley smear the Pope.

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

I am allowed to object to his views(his views on contraception are dangerous), as I stated in my original post. I am also allowed to object to his actions, which I have already explained and I think everyone would agree with me when I say that covering up child rapists and paedophiles is wrong. Some of the stuff he comes out with is just unhelpful also like the comment about atheism being on the same level as fascism. Me objecting to what he stands for is not bigoted, it's freedom of speech.

 

I don't object to him being coming here, but it should not be a state visit.

 

Also, being gay isn't a lifestyle choice. It is something that you always know. I know this for a fact as I have gay friends.

 

You still have not answered my question; have another go Andy;

 

Would Aids be so widespread if we all followed the Catholic Churches guidance on sex before marriage and staying faithful during marriage? Would there be such a demand for abortions if people were a little bit more selective on their partners?

 

 

Being actively gay is a lifestyle decision. Just like choosing not to have sex before marriage.

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

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

 

We are agreed on that!

[badgerx16]

All I can think of is the bit in Have I Got News For You when, just after his appointment, Paul Merton described him as having the 'eyes of a killer'.

 

I also had a chuckle at the commentator on the telly this morning describing him as a 'Pope for the 21st century' - he's 83 FFS, he won't see much more of it !

[Saintandy666]

You still have not answered my question; have another go Andy;

 

Would Aids be so widespread if we all followed the Catholic Churches guidance on sex before marriage and staying faithful during marriage? Would there be such a demand for abortions if people were a little bit more selective on their partners?

 

 

Being actively gay is a lifestyle decision. Just like choosing not to have sex before marriage.

 

 

Would aids be so widespread if teh catholic church supported contraception?

 

So hold on... gay people should choose to suppress their sexuality? Is that what you are implying...

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

Would aids be so widespread if teh catholic church supported contraception?

 

So hold on... gay people should choose to suppress their sexuality? Is that what you are implying...

 

That is not a yes or no answer. Can you have another go.

 

If they make a lifestyle decision then yes it is up to them. Lots of people do it its called celibacy.

[Saintandy666]

That is not a yes or no answer. Can you have another go.

 

If they make a lifestyle decision then yes it is up to them. Lots of people do it its called celibacy.

 

You think that gay people shouldn't all be celibate by choice?

[Joensuu]

"around the Pope's less than savoury track record" I am sorry but you are confusing being accused with being guilty again

 

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.

 

"the joke email" a pretty offensive joke to those devout Catholics - would this have been tolerated if it had been aimed at other communitys and coming from a Government office. Did any head role? It would have done in other circumstances

 

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?

 

If I were rumoured to have protected child abusers from prosecution, I'd answer my critics and clear my name. Why hasn't the Pope done this? - I expect he feels that he answers to God and not rumour mongers

 

Right, the old divine get out of jail card. Why not clear his name and be done with the rumours?

 

For anyone interested Tatchell is actually balanced - umm - he advocates lowering the age of consent to 14 years boys. I expect there are a few Priests that might be with him on that

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.

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

You think that gay people shouldn't all be celibate by choice?

 

Please answer my question!

 

No its up to them but it is still a lifestyle decision just as it is sleeping around. That is freedom of choice.

 

Have you ever been asked to be a 'ask a friend' on who wants to be a millionaire Andy?

[Saintandy666]

Please answer my question!

 

No its up to them but it is still a lifestyle decision just as it is sleeping around. That is freedom of choice.

 

Have you ever been asked to be a 'ask a friend' on who wants to be a millionaire Andy?

 

It is not a lifestyle decision!!!!! Everyone is going to have sex, if you want to have it with men you should be allowed to.

 

Obviously if no one had sex, there would be no STD's, but then we would all die out. A much more sensible solution is condoms which the catholic church preaches against causing thousands to develop aids every year.

[Joensuu]

Source? Issues like the woman sacked by BA for waering the cross. Yet other religions allowed to show their faith

 

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?

 

If you are a druid then you will probably be treated with more respect than a Christian

Socially maybe. On a job application, I doubt it. Care to back up this claim?

 

What? I know, lets throw in PC - exactly the point; before it was the Church that dictated what people should think now it is the forces of Political correctness who are the first to cry for tolerance and then fail to reciprocate it.

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

The phrase "political correctness" was born as a coded cover for all who still want to say Paki, spastic or queer, all those who still want to pick on anyone not like them, playground bullies who never grew up. The politically correct society is the civilised society, however much some may squirm at the more inelegant official circumlocutions designed to avoid offence. Inelegance is better than bile.[/Quote]

 

Basically, PC might have 'gone too far' in some instances, but it basically represents the same thing as the old phase 'common decency'.

 

In terms of economic policy not in terms of social attitudes.

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?

 

Oh, and why is nothing referenced at all? - Its not a piece of Course work.

Exactly, it's a narrow-minded, unsubstantiated rant by a right of centre, broadly authoritarian 'journalist' who has a reputation for similar sensationalist articles.

 

 

In conclusion - your reply is heavily biased and continues to subtley smear the Pope.

And that is your incorrect opinion.

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

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.

 

------ Then that is why you are not a Catholic. If you do not believe then why is this an issue for you?

 

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?

 

--------- You understate how important people's faith is to them. I think this is the problem and why people have been so insensitive.

 

Right, the old divine get out of jail card. Why not clear his name and be done with the rumours?

 

---------- Well in fairness Joe if you believe then you do really answer to only your God!

 

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?

 

--------- Because they are children!!!!

[Saintandy666]

Oh my days!

'If you believe, you do really answer to only your god?'

 

You serious....? So basically letting paedophiles and child rapists off is fine if they believe in God...

[Dr Who?]

Why should the general public (the taxpayers) pay for his visit?

 

Let the Catholic Church pay for the visit.

 

I resent having to pay for this mans visit.

 

Just think of the amount of quizes they would have to have, and it would put the new roof fund way behind!!

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

It is not a lifestyle decision!!!!! Everyone is going to have sex, if you want to have it with men you should be allowed to.

 

Obviously if no one had sex, there would be no STD's, but then we would all die out. A much more sensible solution is condoms which the catholic church preaches against causing thousands to develop aids every year.

 

'everyone is going to have sex' - No Andy, as I explained earlier some people do not. 'If you want it with men then you should be allowed to' and has anybody said they should not (unless it contradicts their religion)?

 

I might allow you to have another stab at my question; it seems you may have misread it! Go on Andy have another read and then try again this time reading the bit about 'before marriage'.

[Dr Who?]

You still have not answered my question; have another go Andy;

 

Would Aids be so widespread if we all followed the Catholic Churches guidance on sex before marriage and staying faithful during marriage? Would there be such a demand for abortions if people were a little bit more selective on their partners?

 

 

Being actively gay is a lifestyle decision. Just like choosing not to have sex before marriage.

 

I think the Pope is on the Saintsweb..... now that is the pope for the 21st century!!

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

Oh my days!

 

 

You serious....? So basically letting paedophiles and child rapists off is fine if they believe in God...[/quote

 

Sadly I cannot write slowly but please read carefully - if you believe in God and live by his teachings then you do not need to defend yourself because in your heart you answer to God only. It is him that will judge you and nobody else matters. People went to their deaths like this Andy.

[Deano6]

In the Gotsmanov vs Joensuu debate Joensuu is presenting far the stronger argument, from what I've read. He's also much better at using the quote function!

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

In the Gotsmanov vs Joensuu debate Joensuu is presenting far the stronger argument, from what I've read. He's also much better at using the quote function!

 

Well I have not mastered that yet.

[saintjay77]

You still have not answered my question; have another go Andy;

 

Would Aids be so widespread if we all followed the Catholic Churches guidance on sex before marriage and staying faithful during marriage? Would there be such a demand for abortions if people were a little bit more selective on their partners?

 

 

Being actively gay is a lifestyle decision. Just like choosing not to have sex before marriage.

 

I don't mind answering these,

 

If we followed the catholic rules of sex before marriage then no aids would not be as wide spread. But aids is not only spread by sex. I did a summer volunteering in Torquay for an awareness thing years ago called sea sand and safer sex. Part of it meant I met 2 people who were HIV positive. 1 who only had 1 sexual partner who was her husband, caught it from her husband as he had been with one woman before his wife who passed it onto him. The other person had a drugs problem and caught it from a dirty needle. Sex is a common cause for transmition but as with all virus', they will find a way to move on. In Africa many men have many wives as part of there traditions and through un-protected sex, aids is passed on frequently. Should we get the world to bin there religions and traditions as catholism is the bestest?

 

Being selective of partners would not lower the rate of abortions. I am married and have enough kids so don't need any more, I have turbo charged nob yogurt and my wife cant go on the pill. Without condoms or reflexes of a cat on rocket fuel the abortion rate in Torbay would prob go up by 10%. people are going to have sex and if they were more responsible they would 1st think a bit more carefully before they go ahead and do it and 2nd they would make sure they have contraception.

 

I don't think condoms are the only answer but to denounce them is very irrisponsible IMO.