The Pope

[saintjay77]

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.

 

To be fair, I don't think aids deaths are caused by the catholic church preaching condoms shouldn't be used.

If that was the case then the catholic church would die out while everyone else played safe.

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

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.

 

Not all AIDS but most Aids and as AIDS multiplies and multiplies then AIDS would not be such an issue. The Catholic Church advocates one wife.

 

Most abortions come from one night stands or inappropriate relationships. The Catholic Church advocates waiting until you have found the right partner.

Edited 17 September, 2010 by Sergei Gotsmanov

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

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

 

 

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

 

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.

 

 

 

PC offers common decency to groups that fit.

 

Look at how other Nations have greeted Papal visits to understand respect for other people's cultures.

Edited 17 September, 2010 by Sergei Gotsmanov

[saintjay77]

Not all AIDS but most Aids and as AIDS multiplies and multiplies then AIDS would not be such an issue. The Catholic Church advocates one wife.

 

Most abortions come from one night stands or inappropriate relationships. The Catholic Church advocates waiting until you have found the right partner.

 

So the catholic church is the bestest and should be followed above all other religions?

 

Aids is current but years ago it was measles and mumps and before that flu was a killer. Churches back then said it was the work of the devil and it was sinful people that were taken.

 

Sounds ridicules now but back then it was taken seriously.

 

To ban condoms now seems just as ridicules to me. There will never be 1 religion yet there will always be the argument of who has the best religion and wars will be born again so while we have religion we will always have problems.

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

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

 

 

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

 

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.

 

So the catholic church is the bestest and should be followed above all other religions?

 

Aids is current but years ago it was measles and mumps and before that flu was a killer. Churches back then said it was the work of the devil and it was sinful people that were taken.

 

Sounds ridicules now but back then it was taken seriously.

 

To ban condoms now seems just as ridicules to me. There will never be 1 religion yet there will always be the argument of who has the best religion and wars will be born again so while we have religion we will always have problems.

 

No but I think you understand why they think how they do.

[Joensuu]

PC offers common decency to groups that fit.

 

Look at how other Nations have greeted Papal visits to understand respect for other people's cultures.

 

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.

[Saintandy666]

If everyone used contraception, we'd be fine.

 

You really are a nutter with all this 'you only have to answer to god', are you really saying paedophiles should be kept on the streets because god is the only true judge...

[aintforever]

I don't get why people are religious at all, it's so obviously just a load of stories made up at a time when man was developing an understanding and conscience.

 

Having said that, believing in a god or whatever is fair enough, but worhsipping some old, ex-nazi peado is just bonkers.

Edited 17 September, 2010 by aintforever

[Weston Super Saint]

After meeting with Susan Boyle and Michelle McManus today, the Pope declared that he isn't at all surprised that his priests are ****ging young boys

[La BoIS Saint]

Lol at the intolerence arguments. Why should anyone tolerate someone who basically believes in fairies at the bottom of the garden? Well maybe tolerate in the same way one tolerates a bumbling idiot.

[saintjay77]

why must we be respectful when it comes to religion? he's the leader of a cult, it just happens to be a very large powerful cult. it's gone on for far too long and i long for the day when it's finally behind us and the human race can move forward. sadly it wont be in my lifetime. as long as there's fear, alienation, poverty, and to a large extent, the expanding population with no resources for people, many will turn to religion.

 

i just imagine how ridiculous it'll look in hundreds, or thousands of years when historians look back and see how much time on earth people wasted with wars and arguments over mythical beings and ancient texts written by other humans to control people.

 

not much really ****es me off, but religion really does. yes, some people find comfort in it, but a false comfort. they thank god, blame god, fear god, wait for heaven or hell. why not take responsibility for life and make the most of it while you're alive, because it won't last long, so don't spend it following ancient cults.

 

as for the pope, whether he's a paedophile or not, maybe that's not his fault because god made him that way.

 

 

Agree with most of that. I said a while back of making a new bible type thing with teachings of scooter. The german techno mental lyrics chap, do it all script looking and bury it in rocks on the moors and hope it gets found in a few thousand years after an ice age or somit. Would love to be around hearing people sing the hymm "How much is the Fish" or "Move your Ass" how bout a a short prayer? "Diggidy Diggidy Diggidy po, I just want to let you know, shalak. Amen" sounds bonkers now but back when the scripts were made or preachers stood on rocks to tell people stories of gods and parting sea's they may have sounded just as bonkers.

 

The pope being a peado is off though. There is no proof or anything to suggest he is. He just leads and organisation that is known to have covered up child abuse to save it's name. I don't think there is any real proof that the pope knew this was being covered up let alone happening. Ultimatly he is the top man so it's his responsibility none the less.

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

If everyone used contraception, we'd be fine.

 

You really are a nutter with all this 'you only have to answer to god', are you really saying paedophiles should be kept on the streets because god is the only true judge...

 

No Andy I am not a nutter. I am trying explain to you why the Pope feels that he answers to God and no-one else. This is why he has not rushed out to defend his actions. It may surprise you that the Catholic teachings tell you to love your neighbour and not to tamper with his children!

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

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.

 

My point is that the Guardian reading elite like Toynbee (when she is not in her Tuscan Villa) cherry pick what to be tolerant of and are virolently anti tolerant when they disagree.

 

I am going to agree to disagree Joe.

[Joensuu]

My point is that the Guardian reading elite like Toynbee (when she is not in her Tuscan Villa) cherry pick what to be tolerant of and are virolently anti tolerant when they disagree.

 

I am going to agree to disagree Joe.

 

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'?

[Joensuu]

No Andy I am not a nutter. I am trying explain to you why the Pope feels that he answers to God and no-one else. This is why he has not rushed out to defend his actions. It may surprise you that the Catholic teachings tell you to love your neighbour and not to tamper with his children!

 

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?

[Junction 9]

Regradless of your personal opinions of him and Catholicism, you have to say the visit is justified based on the amount of people who seemed to have turned out to see him. I've no idea how many are practising Catholics or how many are there for the novelty factor, but they are there.

I would imagine in any circumstance where tens of thousands decend on a city there would be an upturn in revune for all sorts of busnisses. This would negate the security costs to some extent I would have thought.

[Joensuu]

Regradless of your personal opinions of him and Catholicism, you have to say the visit is justified based on the amount of people who seemed to have turned out to see him. I've no idea how many are practising Catholics or how many are there for the novelty factor, but they are there.

I would imagine in any circumstance where tens of thousands decend on a city there would be an upturn in revune for all sorts of busnisses. This would negate the security costs to some extent I would have thought.

 

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?

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

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?

 

Joe that is a ludicrous answer. If I was a devout Catholic and believed that I served God first and foremost, as I assume that the Pope does, then I really would not feel that I had to answer to you or anyone else. The court is irrelevant and that is why around the world many Christians have gone to prison for their faith because they answer to God not Guardian readers.

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

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'?

 

Was it common decency that hounded that poor BA worker out for wearing a crucifix? The forces of Political Correctness are the real humourless Bullies who are obseessed with judging people and interfering in their lives.

 

I suspected that you may be a Guardian Reader Joe! Well the Dalai Lama has similar views to the Pope on a culture of life and traditional family values yet does not get the same treatment.

[saintjay77]

Was it common decency that hounded that poor BA worker out for wearing a crucifix? The forces of Political Correctness are the real humourless Bullies who are obseessed with judging people and interfering in their lives.

 

I suspected that you may be a Guardian Reader Joe! Well the Dalai Lama has similar views to the Pope on a culture of life and traditional family values yet does not get the same treatment.

 

Would we spunk £12 Million of tax payers money while cutting school funding, NHS and national security while increasing taxes to sort out the national debt on a visit from the Dalai Lama?

[Joensuu]

Joe that is a ludicrous answer. If I was a devout Catholic and believed that I served God first and foremost, as I assume that the Pope does, then I really would not feel that I had to answer to you or anyone else. The court is irrelevant and that is why around the world many Christians have gone to prison for their faith because they answer to God not Guardian readers.

 

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

[saintjay77]

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

 

I think he is saying that should a true catholic break the rules that us mear mortals have to abide by then normal rules would apply but the true catholic would not think that the law is how he or she would ultimately be judged. Being judged in this mortal life is nothing and only the all mighty teapot in the sky can truely judge them when there time on this earth is over. At which point they have a chance to confess all there sins and ask for forgivness so when they are gone then the teapot wont judge them and let them join as cups and saucers in the sky.

 

What happens to us while we are alive is nothing compared to what the almighty teapot can do to us when we are gone.

[SFC1906]

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?

 

 

I don't know Serg, why don't you ask the people who live in Aids ravaged Africa, where most of them are Catholic so surely follow the Catholic Churches guidance in this regard?

 

Or would it just provide another spectacular example of religious hypocrysy? I.e 'We'll follow the bit of guidance from the church about not wearing condoms, but we'll just ignore the bit about not ****ging around'. These 'believers' are therefore helping Aids in it's relentless destruction of their continent's population, where in some parts up to 80% of the population is HIV positive, including a massive amount of innocent children who have not chosen to do any of the above, but will still die a painful, young death because of the choices made by their parents based on their religious beliefs.

 

God's OK with that is he?

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

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

 

The original question was why did the Pope not defend himself against all of the rumours that he was involved in the cover up. I pointed out that he probably feels that he has to answer to God not an aggressive smear campaign. The law is the law.

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

Would we spunk £12 Million of tax payers money while cutting school funding, NHS and national security while increasing taxes to sort out the national debt on a visit from the Dalai Lama?

 

No the Dalai Lama is not victim to an aggressive smear campaign.

[Verbal]

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

 

No, just beneath contempt, like all religionists.

[Weston Super Saint]

Joe that is a ludicrous answer. If I was a devout Catholic and believed that I served God first and foremost, as I assume that the Pope does, then I really would not feel that I had to answer to you or anyone else. The court is irrelevant and that is why around the world many Christians have gone to prison for their faith because they answer to God not Guardian readers.

 

So, basically you're arguing that laws and principles of the Human race have evolved at the same time as the race has, but religion hasn't bothered to 'get with the times'.

 

Let's organise ourselves a merry little stoning all in the name of religion of course

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

So, basically you're arguing that laws and principles of the Human race have evolved at the same time as the race has, but religion hasn't bothered to 'get with the times'.

 

Let's organise ourselves a merry little stoning all in the name of religion of course

 

Somebody asked why the Pope had not answered his critics. I said that he probably believes that he answers to God and not people he does not respect - what do you think!

[Dog]

To be honest, he is the best Pope ever, with him being a former Nazi & that German dialect of his. But he's still a dirty ****!

[saintjay77]

No the Dalai Lama is not victim to an aggressive smear campaign.

 

It's not exactly a smear campaign is it?

 

It's reaction to the pope's comments that are offensive to many many people, it's reaction to priests who are supposed to be trustworthy people in high held positions by there following committing what is counted as the worst of crimes to innocent children and it's also the reaction to the accusation that the church that the pope leads was aware of the child rape and abuse and has been covering it up for however long. If these accusations were against any person or organisation other than a religious one then there would be a huge uproar if the gov offered to pay 12 pence towards there visit.

 

Most people can't act the way the church does and get away with it. There are more now ready to stand up against the church than there would have been a few hundred years ago as less and less people believe in the almighty teapot.

[anothersaintinsouthsea]

Sometimes you just can't make your mind over whether some posters take a fiendish joy from playing a trolling devil's advocate, or simply stupid.

 

When it comes to religion you just cannot argue or debate with "people of faith". There is absolutely no point in trying to employ reason, logic, and facts because their belief system is just completely devoid of all three. What makes it worse is that they are so used to their religious beliefs being unchallenged that now that criticism and challenge is much more prominent they cry foul and moan about "militant atheism" - certainly the current "aggressive atheism" is much more preferable to the aggresive religious violence of Northern Ireland, Israel/Palestinian, Kashmir etc etc.

 

I echo the view of an earlier poster - in thousands of years our decendents will be incredulous that so many educated people could cling on to such rubbish.

[Joensuu]

No the Dalai Lama is not victim to an aggressive smear campaign.

 

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.

[Joensuu]

Was it common decency that hounded that poor BA worker out for wearing a crucifix? The forces of Political Correctness are the real humourless Bullies who are obseessed with judging people and interfering in their lives.

 

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?

 

I suspected that you may be a Guardian Reader Joe! Well the Dalai Lama has similar views to the Pope on a culture of life and traditional family values yet does not get the same treatment.

 

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.

[Sheaf Saint]

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.

 

Not quite... Buddhism is not a theistic religion. The Buddha himself was a man and made no claim to be anything else. Buddhism only teaches a particular way of life centered around the rejection of materialism and the search for enlightenment. Whereas Catholicism demands that you believe some cosmic Jewish zombie can make you live forever if you symbolically eat of his flesh and telepathically tell him that you accept him as your master so that he can remove and evil spirit that is present in mankind because some rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat fruit from a magic tree.

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

Sadly I have not the time to reply in depth to some comments but I would conclude that the level of bile spoken about the World's largest religion illustrates how intolerant to other people's faith people are. The original question asked whether the Pope should have a State visit. I suggested that because he is the Spiritual leader of a billion people he should be afforded that right. If the tax payer picks up the tab for the Notting Hill Carnival then we should for a Papal visit. The crowds I think have justified it. I noted the small demonstration against the visit attracted just a few thousand people.

 

I am not a Catholic but get irked when people rightly scream out for tolerance and then fail to respect other peoples.

[Special K]

why must we be respectful when it comes to religion? he's the leader of a cult, it just happens to be a very large powerful cult. it's gone on for far too long and i long for the day when it's finally behind us and the human race can move forward. sadly it wont be in my lifetime. as long as there's fear, alienation, poverty, and to a large extent, the expanding population with no resources for people, many will turn to religion.

 

i just imagine how ridiculous it'll look in hundreds, or thousands of years when historians look back and see how much time on earth people wasted with wars and arguments over mythical beings and ancient texts written by other humans to control people.

 

not much really ****es me off, but religion really does. yes, some people find comfort in it, but a false comfort. they thank god, blame god, fear god, wait for heaven or hell. why not take responsibility for life and make the most of it while you're alive, because it won't last long, so don't spend it following ancient cults.

 

as for the pope, whether he's a paedophile or not, maybe that's not his fault because god made him that way.

 

Exactly. It might not have worked fully in 1930's Germany, but i'm sure some lessons have been learned since to make it more successful next time FFS!

Edited 19 September, 2010 by Special K

[Trader]

Not quite... Buddhism is not a theistic religion. The Buddha himself was a man and made no claim to be anything else. Buddhism only teaches a particular way of life centered around the rejection of materialism and the search for enlightenment. Whereas Catholicism demands that you believe some cosmic Jewish zombie can make you live forever if you symbolically eat of his flesh and telepathically tell him that you accept him as your master so that he can remove and evil spirit that is present in mankind because some rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat fruit from a magic tree.

 

Excellent made me lol.

 

On a lighter note I liked the Pope's nightie on day 1.

[ecuk268]

Sadly I have not the time to reply in depth to some comments but I would conclude that the level of bile spoken about the World's largest religion illustrates how intolerant to other people's faith people are. The original question asked whether the Pope should have a State visit. I suggested that because he is the Spiritual leader of a billion people he should be afforded that right. If the tax payer picks up the tab for the Notting Hill Carnival then we should for a Papal visit. The crowds I think have justified it. I noted the small demonstration against the visit attracted just a few thousand people.

 

I am not a Catholic but get irked when people rightly scream out for tolerance and then fail to respect other peoples.

 

He has a state visit because he's a head of state. It is customary for the host country to pay, although the religious events are being paid for by the church. When the Queen goes on state visits to other countries, the host country pays.

 

The Pope was in the Hitler Youth because it was compulsory although, apparently, he rarely attended meetings. His handicapped cousin was killed by the Nazis as part of their eugenics programme.

[saintjay77]

He has a state visit because he's a head of state. It is customary for the host country to pay, although the religious events are being paid for by the church. When the Queen goes on state visits to other countries, the host country pays.

 

The Pope was in the Hitler Youth because it was compulsory although, apparently, he rarely attended meetings. His handicapped cousin was killed by the Nazis as part of their eugenics programme.

 

All well and good but when does the state that the pope is head of, pay for our queen to visit his state?

 

I wouldn't mind our country paying for his visit if the situation could be reversed at another time. IMO the church is not a state and hasn't been for a long time.

[hypochondriac]

my only problem with these sort of threads is that in general in the past, atheists have had a real problem with people believing in god whilst christians have been respectful of those with the view that christianity is total tosh. No I have not read the whole thread and am not a catholic. Carry on.

[Joensuu]

my only problem with these sort of threads is that in general in the past, atheists have had a real problem with people believing in god whilst christians have been respectful of those with the view that christianity is total tosh. No I have not read the whole thread and am not a catholic. Carry on.

 

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.

[Joensuu]

He has a state visit because he's a head of state. It is customary for the host country to pay, although the religious events are being paid for by the church. When the Queen goes on state visits to other countries, the host country pays.

 

The Pope was in the Hitler Youth because it was compulsory although, apparently, he rarely attended meetings. His handicapped cousin was killed by the Nazis as part of their eugenics programme.

 

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.

[Joensuu]

Exactly. It might not have worked fully in 1930's Germany, but i'm sure some lessons have been learned since to make it more successful next time FFS!

 

Come on Special K, you know that's a cheap shot. You are incorrectly associating atheism with totalitatianism, which are two things as related as chalk and cheese.

 

The Pope's slander of atheism (by suggesting it was responsible for 'nazi tyranny') was equally incorrect. I think Dawkin's response sums up my reaction. I suggest you read it to help avoid incorrectly associating the two unrelated concepts in the future:

 

Even if Hitler had been an atheist, his political philosophy was not based upon atheism and had no connection with atheism. Hitler was arguably (and by his own account) a Roman Catholic. In any case he enjoyed the open support of many of the most senior catholic clergy in Germany and the less demonstrative support of Pope Pius XII. Even if Hitler had been an atheist (he certainly was not), the rank and file Germans who carried out the attempted extermination of the Jews were Christians, almost to a man: either Catholic or Lutheran, primed to their anti-Semitism by centuries of Catholic propaganda about ‘Christ-killers’ and by Martin Luther’s own seething hatred of the Jews. [/Quote]

 

Edit: I should also add that Wehrmacht troops wore the text 'Gott mit Uns' (God with Us) on their belt buckles. Hardly the act of godless atheists eh...

Edited 19 September, 2010 by Joensuu

[Joensuu]

Not quite... Buddhism is not a theistic religion. The Buddha himself was a man and made no claim to be anything else. Buddhism only teaches a particular way of life centered around the rejection of materialism and the search for enlightenment. Whereas Catholicism demands that you believe some cosmic Jewish zombie can make you live forever if you symbolically eat of his flesh and telepathically tell him that you accept him as your master so that he can remove and evil spirit that is present in mankind because some rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat fruit from a magic tree.

 

Ha, quite right Bexy... cheers for the correction

[Joensuu]

Sadly I have not the time to reply in depth to some comments but I would conclude that the level of bile spoken about the World's largest religion illustrates how intolerant to other people's faith people are.

 

Sergei, I haven't had time to respond to this thread since last night either. I'm sure that some bile has indeed been thrown at Catholics in this thread. I do hope you aren't associating my comments with this bile though, as I have tried to be careful not a slander the religion in the way the Pope slandered my beliefs. I would also like to point out that I am engaging in this thread simply because I to want to root out intolerance. I believe strongly that the Pope is intolerant of my views, intolerant of the law of the land, responsible for worsening the spread of AIDS, discrinating on grounds of sexuality, and frankly responsible for far more intolerance than his directed back at him. I hope that one day our religious leaders decide to become part of the solution. Please don't mistake this accurate criticism for intolerance.

 

The original question asked whether the Pope should have a State visit. I suggested that because he is the Spiritual leader of a billion people he should be afforded that right. If the tax payer picks up the tab for the Notting Hill Carnival then we should for a Papal visit. The crowds I think have justified it. I noted the small demonstration against the visit attracted just a few thousand people.

 

I am not a Catholic but get irked when people rightly scream out for tolerance and then fail to respect other peoples.

 

No other 'spiritual leader' has ever had a state visit funded by the taxpayer. Why should the Pope?

 

Are these billion people all UK taxpayers? Or does the Pope only represent 10% of the UK population? Why is the 'billion' followers even slightly relevent?

 

Why compare this visit to the Notting Hill Carnival? I don't see a connection. Does the Notting Hill carnival offend more people than enjoy it?

 

The crowds are irrelevent. 10% of the UK population is a lot of people lining streets. 15% of the population is even more people angered and offended at home.

 

There was a demonstration against the visit? Damn, wish I'd heard about it. Perhaps the British Humanist Society should spend more on advertising.

 

BTW, your argument seems to be making less and less sense, I'm having to join a lot of dots to string it together. It seems like you have given up on providing reasons and evidence, and have instead resorted to making unevinced statements, scattered with irrelevant comparisions.

[Special K]

Come on Special K, you know that's a cheap shot. You are incorrectly associating atheism with totalitatianism, which are two things as related as chalk and cheese.

 

The Pope's slander of atheism (by suggesting it was responsible for 'nazi tyranny') was equally incorrect. I think Dawkin's response sums up my reaction. I suggest you read it to help avoid incorrectly associating the two unrelated concepts in the future:

 

 

 

Edit: I should also add that Wehrmacht troops wore the text 'Gott mit Uns' (God with Us) on their belt buckles. Hardly the act of godless atheists eh...

 

I didn't suggest that the Nazi's were atheists at all, where did i say that? I know full well that was not the case. I was merely trying to highlight that blanket intolerance of a religious faith was a fundemental part of the rise of Fascism. Fear and a lack of understanding of religious belief and ethnicity played a pivotal role in the manipulation of information which in turn led to violence and persecution.

[rpb]

However, I still object to the government inviting the Pope, and chosing to finance his visit.

 

According to today's Guardian (who are not exactly pro-Pope)...

 

For Benedict's visit to Birmingham, the cost to the local council was £80000 and the estimated revenue brought into the area was £12.5 million.

[thefunkygibbons]

Overall, looks like he had a very successful visit and UK Plc came out of it in a positive light

[Joensuu]

According to today's Guardian (who are not exactly pro-Pope)...

 

For Benedict's visit to Birmingham, the cost to the local council was £80000 and the estimated revenue brought into the area was £12.5 million.

 

Is this online? I can't find the article you are referring to. The figures you quote do sound rather strange though.

[rpb]

Is this online? I can't find the article you are referring to. The figures you quote do sound rather strange though.

 

I have no idea - I buy the Guardian so don't look online.

 

It's on page 15 - they have a brief summary of the attendance, number of police, etc. under the heading 'In numbers'.