Dude I'm (moderately) religious and I agree wholeheartedly with everything in that letter. It's not a religious/atheist thing it's a the Pope is wrong thing.JohnG@lt wrote:
A bunch of raging atheists. Who cares?Uzique wrote:
the whole point of protest about the pope's 'state' (i.e. political) visit, though, is that the Vatican ISN'T a real state.
here's a quote from the link earlier from ghettoperson:We, the undersigned, share the view that Pope Ratzinger should not be given the honour of a state visit to this country. We believe that the pope, as a citizen of Europe and the leader of a religion with many adherents in the UK, is of course free to enter and tour our country. However, as well as a religious leader, the pope is a head of state, and the state and organisation of which he is head has been responsible for:
Opposing the distribution of condoms and so increasing large families in poor countries and the spread of Aids.
Promoting segregated education.
Denying abortion to even the most vulnerable women.
Opposing equal rights for lesbians, gay, bisexual and transgender people.
Failing to address the many cases of abuse of children within its own organisation.
The state of which the pope is head has also resisted signing many major human rights treaties and has formed its own treaties ("concordats") with many states which negatively affect the human rights of citizens of those states. In any case, we reject the masquerading of the Holy See as a state and the pope as a head of state as merely a convenient fiction to amplify the international influence of the Vatican.
Stephen Fry, Professor Richard Dawkins, Professor Susan Blackmore, Terry Pratchett, Philip Pullman, Ed Byrne, Baroness Blackstone, Ken Follett, Professor AC Grayling, Stewart Lee, Baroness Massey, Claire Rayner, Adele Anderson, John Austin MP, Lord Avebury, Sian Berry, Professor Simon Blackburn, Sir David Blatherwick, Sir Tom Blundell, Dr Helena Cronin, Dylan Evans, Hermione Eyre, Lord Foulkes, Professor Chris French, Natalie Haynes, Johann Hari, Jon Holmes, Lord Hughes, Robin Ince, Dr Michael Irwin, Professor Steve Jones, Sir Harold Kroto, Professor John Lee, Zoe Margolis, Jonathan Meades, Sir Jonathan Miller, Diane Munday, Maryam Namazie, David Nobbs, Professor Richard Norman, Lord O'Neill, Simon Price, Paul Rose, Martin Rowson, Michael Rubenstein, Joan Smith, Dr Harry Stopes-Roe, Professor Raymond Tallis, Lord Taverne, Peter Tatchell, Baroness Turner, Professor Lord Wedderburn of Charlton QC FBA, Ann Marie Waters, Professor Wolpert, Jane Wynne Willson
This whole turning your back on people simply because you have a difference of views is childish.
The Dalai Lama has some issues too...
In 1998, Hitchens criticized Tenzin Gyatso, 14th Dalai Lama for a number of reasons, including: the Dalai Lama's acceptance of "45 million rupees, or about 170 million yen" from Shoko Asahara, the leader of the Aum Shinrikyo cult which released sarin nerve gas in the Tokyo Subway system; the Dalai Lama's proclamation that Hollywood actor Steven Seagal was a tulku and a reincarnated lama of Tibetan Buddhism; the persecution of followers of the Dorje Shugden deity whom Hitchens describes as having been "threatened with violence and ostracism and even death following the Dalai Lama's abrupt prohibition of this once-venerated godhead"; the Dalai Lama's specified sexual norms, which ban oral and anal sex, masturbation and explain the proper way to pay for prostitution; and, most importantly, the Dalai Lama's support of India's Pokhran-II thermonuclear tests. The World Tibet Network News service later said that the Dalai Lama was "saddened to hear about the series of nuclear tests conducted by India," and was "fundamentally against the existence and stockpiling of any wapons [sic] of mass destruction."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christophe … ic_figures
In 1998, Hitchens criticized Tenzin Gyatso, 14th Dalai Lama for a number of reasons, including: the Dalai Lama's acceptance of "45 million rupees, or about 170 million yen" from Shoko Asahara, the leader of the Aum Shinrikyo cult which released sarin nerve gas in the Tokyo Subway system; the Dalai Lama's proclamation that Hollywood actor Steven Seagal was a tulku and a reincarnated lama of Tibetan Buddhism; the persecution of followers of the Dorje Shugden deity whom Hitchens describes as having been "threatened with violence and ostracism and even death following the Dalai Lama's abrupt prohibition of this once-venerated godhead"; the Dalai Lama's specified sexual norms, which ban oral and anal sex, masturbation and explain the proper way to pay for prostitution; and, most importantly, the Dalai Lama's support of India's Pokhran-II thermonuclear tests. The World Tibet Network News service later said that the Dalai Lama was "saddened to hear about the series of nuclear tests conducted by India," and was "fundamentally against the existence and stockpiling of any wapons [sic] of mass destruction."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christophe … ic_figures
Dalai Lama seems like a pretty cool guy. Not so much up in yer face about it. Edit: Just read Turq's posteleven bravo wrote:
what about the dalai lama
The thing that narks me about Benny's visit is that the British taxpayers have to pay for everything surrounding his visit, or so I've heard at any rate.
Last edited by M.O.A.B (2010-09-16 11:39:02)
I don't agree with the churches stance on abortion and birth control. I don't agree with their stance on evolution and a bunch of other things. Doesn't mean I wouldn't be polite to the guy if I saw him walking down the street. You aren't going to change his mind by yelling at him, only harden his resolve.ghettoperson wrote:
Dude I'm (moderately) religious and I agree wholeheartedly with everything in that letter. It's not a religious/atheist thing it's a the Pope is wrong thing.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
It's more than that though. The Catholic Church is an institution that has clearly aided and abetted pedophiles. The Pope is their leader, and if he was any other head of state, he'd be taken to task by the U.N. for some of the things he's been an accessory to.JohnG@lt wrote:
A bunch of raging atheists. Who cares?Uzique wrote:
the whole point of protest about the pope's 'state' (i.e. political) visit, though, is that the Vatican ISN'T a real state.
here's a quote from the link earlier from ghettoperson:We, the undersigned, share the view that Pope Ratzinger should not be given the honour of a state visit to this country. We believe that the pope, as a citizen of Europe and the leader of a religion with many adherents in the UK, is of course free to enter and tour our country. However, as well as a religious leader, the pope is a head of state, and the state and organisation of which he is head has been responsible for:
Opposing the distribution of condoms and so increasing large families in poor countries and the spread of Aids.
Promoting segregated education.
Denying abortion to even the most vulnerable women.
Opposing equal rights for lesbians, gay, bisexual and transgender people.
Failing to address the many cases of abuse of children within its own organisation.
The state of which the pope is head has also resisted signing many major human rights treaties and has formed its own treaties ("concordats") with many states which negatively affect the human rights of citizens of those states. In any case, we reject the masquerading of the Holy See as a state and the pope as a head of state as merely a convenient fiction to amplify the international influence of the Vatican.
Stephen Fry, Professor Richard Dawkins, Professor Susan Blackmore, Terry Pratchett, Philip Pullman, Ed Byrne, Baroness Blackstone, Ken Follett, Professor AC Grayling, Stewart Lee, Baroness Massey, Claire Rayner, Adele Anderson, John Austin MP, Lord Avebury, Sian Berry, Professor Simon Blackburn, Sir David Blatherwick, Sir Tom Blundell, Dr Helena Cronin, Dylan Evans, Hermione Eyre, Lord Foulkes, Professor Chris French, Natalie Haynes, Johann Hari, Jon Holmes, Lord Hughes, Robin Ince, Dr Michael Irwin, Professor Steve Jones, Sir Harold Kroto, Professor John Lee, Zoe Margolis, Jonathan Meades, Sir Jonathan Miller, Diane Munday, Maryam Namazie, David Nobbs, Professor Richard Norman, Lord O'Neill, Simon Price, Paul Rose, Martin Rowson, Michael Rubenstein, Joan Smith, Dr Harry Stopes-Roe, Professor Raymond Tallis, Lord Taverne, Peter Tatchell, Baroness Turner, Professor Lord Wedderburn of Charlton QC FBA, Ann Marie Waters, Professor Wolpert, Jane Wynne Willson
This whole turning your back on people simply because you have a difference of views is childish.
You won't change his mind, but you might change the world some if you arrested him.JohnG@lt wrote:
I don't agree with the churches stance on abortion and birth control. I don't agree with their stance on evolution and a bunch of other things. Doesn't mean I wouldn't be polite to the guy if I saw him walking down the street. You aren't going to change his mind by yelling at him, only harden his resolve.ghettoperson wrote:
Dude I'm (moderately) religious and I agree wholeheartedly with everything in that letter. It's not a religious/atheist thing it's a the Pope is wrong thing.
Oh ok. Weren't you against the invasion of Iraq that toppled a much more sinister person that was personally responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths? You're blinded by your hatred of religion.Turquoise wrote:
You won't change his mind, but you might change the world some if you arrested him.JohnG@lt wrote:
I don't agree with the churches stance on abortion and birth control. I don't agree with their stance on evolution and a bunch of other things. Doesn't mean I wouldn't be polite to the guy if I saw him walking down the street. You aren't going to change his mind by yelling at him, only harden his resolve.ghettoperson wrote:
Dude I'm (moderately) religious and I agree wholeheartedly with everything in that letter. It's not a religious/atheist thing it's a the Pope is wrong thing.
Last edited by JohnG@lt (2010-09-16 11:42:32)
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
If we had to invade the Vatican and sacrifice thousands of lives and trillions of dollars to do so I'd be against it too. However saying we don't feel the need to entertain the Pope's visit isn't exactly on that level...
Saddam was a temporary problem. Religion is a perpetual problem.JohnG@lt wrote:
Oh ok. Weren't you against the invasion of Iraq that toppled a much more sinister person that was personally responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths? You're blinded by your hatred of religion.Turquoise wrote:
You won't change his mind, but you might change the world some if you arrested him.JohnG@lt wrote:
I don't agree with the churches stance on abortion and birth control. I don't agree with their stance on evolution and a bunch of other things. Doesn't mean I wouldn't be polite to the guy if I saw him walking down the street. You aren't going to change his mind by yelling at him, only harden his resolve.
Besides, we had Saddam where we wanted him. There was no need to topple him, unless we planned on finishing what he started.
Nation building doesn't make much sense in most cases. It's much more cost effective to just firebomb the shit out of a place and leave.
saddam was quite secular actuallyTurquoise wrote:
Saddam was a temporary problem. Religion is a perpetual problem.JohnG@lt wrote:
Oh ok. Weren't you against the invasion of Iraq that toppled a much more sinister person that was personally responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths? You're blinded by your hatred of religion.Turquoise wrote:
You won't change his mind, but you might change the world some if you arrested him.
Besides, we had Saddam where we wanted him. There was no need to topple him, unless we planned on finishing what he started.
Nation building doesn't make much sense in most cases. It's much more cost effective to just firebomb the shit out of a place and leave.
Indeed... So were Stalin and Mao. I'm not saying that it requires religion to have evil. I'm also not saying that religion is always evil outright either. I'm just saying that the Catholic Church is more of a negative influence on the world than it is a positive one.Cybargs wrote:
saddam was quite secular actuallyTurquoise wrote:
Saddam was a temporary problem. Religion is a perpetual problem.JohnG@lt wrote:
Oh ok. Weren't you against the invasion of Iraq that toppled a much more sinister person that was personally responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths? You're blinded by your hatred of religion.
Besides, we had Saddam where we wanted him. There was no need to topple him, unless we planned on finishing what he started.
Nation building doesn't make much sense in most cases. It's much more cost effective to just firebomb the shit out of a place and leave.
This is related I spose, the whole child molestation cover-ups are one of the major reasons he's not wanted in the UK but, aside from that it's also rather funny (and Tim Minchin is better than God TBH ) and as I can't be bothered to add anything constructive, I'll just lighten the tone a little
Rather dislike the Catholic Church.
And that's about all I can write without launching into a ranting tirade.
Until they can use their magical pixie dust and divine influence to bring a friend of mine back from the grave they put her in, I've nothing kind to say about them. (No, nothing to do with pedophile priests. They like the boys remember).
A holy organization that pretends to teach Morality and Righteousness, claims to be THE channel to THE God. Yet protects pedophiles making a mockery of their priesthood (rather than, say, damning them to hell, excommunicating them, and sticking them in some ancient dungeon to rot for the rest of their miserable lives). Nah, that'd make logical, consistent sense to, y'know, punish and denounce Evil...
If the Catholic Church is going to protect the pedopriests, then charge the whole damn institution/state with crimes against humanity.
The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court seems to apply;
"Crimes against humanity [...] are particularly odious offences in that they constitute a serious attack on human dignity or grave humiliation or a degradation of one or more human beings. They are not isolated or sporadic events, but are part either of a government policy (although the perpetrators need not identify themselves with this policy) or of a wide practice of atrocities tolerated or condoned by a government or a de facto authority. Murder; extermination; torture; rape, political, racial, or religious persecution and other inhumane acts reach the threshold of crimes against humanity only if they are part of a widespread or systematic practice. Isolated inhumane acts of this nature may constitute grave infringements of human rights, or depending on the circumstances, war crimes, but may fall short of falling into the category of crimes under discussion."
And that's about all I can write without launching into a ranting tirade.
Until they can use their magical pixie dust and divine influence to bring a friend of mine back from the grave they put her in, I've nothing kind to say about them. (No, nothing to do with pedophile priests. They like the boys remember).
A holy organization that pretends to teach Morality and Righteousness, claims to be THE channel to THE God. Yet protects pedophiles making a mockery of their priesthood (rather than, say, damning them to hell, excommunicating them, and sticking them in some ancient dungeon to rot for the rest of their miserable lives). Nah, that'd make logical, consistent sense to, y'know, punish and denounce Evil...
If the Catholic Church is going to protect the pedopriests, then charge the whole damn institution/state with crimes against humanity.
The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court seems to apply;
"Crimes against humanity [...] are particularly odious offences in that they constitute a serious attack on human dignity or grave humiliation or a degradation of one or more human beings. They are not isolated or sporadic events, but are part either of a government policy (although the perpetrators need not identify themselves with this policy) or of a wide practice of atrocities tolerated or condoned by a government or a de facto authority. Murder; extermination; torture; rape, political, racial, or religious persecution and other inhumane acts reach the threshold of crimes against humanity only if they are part of a widespread or systematic practice. Isolated inhumane acts of this nature may constitute grave infringements of human rights, or depending on the circumstances, war crimes, but may fall short of falling into the category of crimes under discussion."
Sorry to keep hitting the same key but i have to mention this… the Pope was here in Lisbon back in May and there were so many private companies willing to sponsor the visit that it didn't cost us a dime.Uzique wrote:
thoughts? personally i am opposed to a state-sponsored visit/welcome of any head of a religious insitution. the pope included.
he's kicking up an absolute shit-storm here in the united kingdom, along with his aides. so many terrible statements.
The problem is the Vatican is a State so the Pope visit is the same as any other country's Head of State so the same protocol applies.
IMO the Vatican status needs to be revoked but that's another issue altogether.
vatican is as much of a state that taiwan is.Ticia wrote:
Sorry to keep hitting the same key but i have to mention this… the Pope was here in Lisbon back in May and there were so many private companies willing to sponsor the visit that it didn't cost us a dime.Uzique wrote:
thoughts? personally i am opposed to a state-sponsored visit/welcome of any head of a religious insitution. the pope included.
he's kicking up an absolute shit-storm here in the united kingdom, along with his aides. so many terrible statements.
The problem is the Vatican is a State so the Pope visit is the same as any other country's Head of State so the same protocol applies.
IMO the Vatican status needs to be revoked but that's another issue altogether.
i agree. fuck the catholic church. it has done more bad than good thingsUzique wrote:
the whole point of protest about the pope's 'state' (i.e. political) visit, though, is that the Vatican ISN'T a real state.
here's a quote from the link earlier from ghettoperson:We, the undersigned, share the view that Pope Ratzinger should not be given the honour of a state visit to this country. We believe that the pope, as a citizen of Europe and the leader of a religion with many adherents in the UK, is of course free to enter and tour our country. However, as well as a religious leader, the pope is a head of state, and the state and organisation of which he is head has been responsible for:
Opposing the distribution of condoms and so increasing large families in poor countries and the spread of Aids.
Promoting segregated education.
Denying abortion to even the most vulnerable women.
Opposing equal rights for lesbians, gay, bisexual and transgender people.
Failing to address the many cases of abuse of children within its own organisation.
The state of which the pope is head has also resisted signing many major human rights treaties and has formed its own treaties ("concordats") with many states which negatively affect the human rights of citizens of those states. In any case, we reject the masquerading of the Holy See as a state and the pope as a head of state as merely a convenient fiction to amplify the international influence of the Vatican.
Stephen Fry, Professor Richard Dawkins, Professor Susan Blackmore, Terry Pratchett, Philip Pullman, Ed Byrne, Baroness Blackstone, Ken Follett, Professor AC Grayling, Stewart Lee, Baroness Massey, Claire Rayner, Adele Anderson, John Austin MP, Lord Avebury, Sian Berry, Professor Simon Blackburn, Sir David Blatherwick, Sir Tom Blundell, Dr Helena Cronin, Dylan Evans, Hermione Eyre, Lord Foulkes, Professor Chris French, Natalie Haynes, Johann Hari, Jon Holmes, Lord Hughes, Robin Ince, Dr Michael Irwin, Professor Steve Jones, Sir Harold Kroto, Professor John Lee, Zoe Margolis, Jonathan Meades, Sir Jonathan Miller, Diane Munday, Maryam Namazie, David Nobbs, Professor Richard Norman, Lord O'Neill, Simon Price, Paul Rose, Martin Rowson, Michael Rubenstein, Joan Smith, Dr Harry Stopes-Roe, Professor Raymond Tallis, Lord Taverne, Peter Tatchell, Baroness Turner, Professor Lord Wedderburn of Charlton QC FBA, Ann Marie Waters, Professor Wolpert, Jane Wynne Willson
Taiwan is at least larger in population and has an economy that matters. The Vatican is a joke when viewed as a "state."Cybargs wrote:
vatican is as much of a state that taiwan is.Ticia wrote:
Sorry to keep hitting the same key but i have to mention this… the Pope was here in Lisbon back in May and there were so many private companies willing to sponsor the visit that it didn't cost us a dime.Uzique wrote:
thoughts? personally i am opposed to a state-sponsored visit/welcome of any head of a religious insitution. the pope included.
he's kicking up an absolute shit-storm here in the united kingdom, along with his aides. so many terrible statements.
The problem is the Vatican is a State so the Pope visit is the same as any other country's Head of State so the same protocol applies.
IMO the Vatican status needs to be revoked but that's another issue altogether.
So if the pope kills a dude in the vatican... who gets involved lel.Turquoise wrote:
Taiwan is at least larger in population and has an economy that matters. The Vatican is a joke when viewed as a "state."Cybargs wrote:
vatican is as much of a state that taiwan is.Ticia wrote:
Sorry to keep hitting the same key but i have to mention this… the Pope was here in Lisbon back in May and there were so many private companies willing to sponsor the visit that it didn't cost us a dime.
The problem is the Vatican is a State so the Pope visit is the same as any other country's Head of State so the same protocol applies.
IMO the Vatican status needs to be revoked but that's another issue altogether.
Supposedly God, I guess... lolCybargs wrote:
So if the pope kills a dude in the vatican... who gets involved lel.Turquoise wrote:
Taiwan is at least larger in population and has an economy that matters. The Vatican is a joke when viewed as a "state."Cybargs wrote:
vatican is as much of a state that taiwan is.
the vatican's security force is not a joke. those guys are hardcore.Cybargs wrote:
So if the pope kills a dude in the vatican... who gets involved lel.Turquoise wrote:
Taiwan is at least larger in population and has an economy that matters. The Vatican is a joke when viewed as a "state."Cybargs wrote:
vatican is as much of a state that taiwan is.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
Uzique wrote:
the vatican's security force is not a joke. those guys are hardcore.Cybargs wrote:
So if the pope kills a dude in the vatican... who gets involved lel.Turquoise wrote:
Taiwan is at least larger in population and has an economy that matters. The Vatican is a joke when viewed as a "state."
nah they have like a proper police force with amazing intelligence technology and CCtv literally EVERYWHERE. like worse than the UK.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
Hardcore eye strain....Ticia wrote:
http://img512.imageshack.us/img512/9185 … 20copy.jpgUzique wrote:
the vatican's security force is not a joke. those guys are hardcore.Cybargs wrote:
So if the pope kills a dude in the vatican... who gets involved lel.
Supposedly the jester-like dudes are tough bastards as well. Just they'll fuck you up with some kind of axe-spear rather than a rifle.
I've been to the vatican, saw the pope (from a long way away).
Can't remember the CCTV, had some pretty good ice cream.
View from the top is nice, shame it was cloudy.
Can't remember the CCTV, had some pretty good ice cream.
View from the top is nice, shame it was cloudy.