Supreme Prophet of the Dark Side to begin tour of Outer Rim

[Astor]

...or Pope Benedict XVI to begin tour of the United Kingdom.

 

Amid the media frenzy, countless hand-wringing letters to The Guardian, and even more pontificating from Stephen Fry, what are people's thoughts about this?

 

Is this a good move, or a bad one (leaving aside one Cardinal's comments about the UK being a Third World country, of course)?

[Lynk Former]

 

@ thread title

[Drunkside]

I answer that picture with this one:

[Sabretooth]

Moving this thread out of Hot Topics isn't going to help - you need to move it straight to the Spaceport because it's going to degenerate into a "post pictures of the pernicious pope" before you know it (hint: it already has).

[Q]

He ought tho wear the black robes just as a joke. The resemblance is uncanny.

[Salzella]

my view, neatly summarised:

[Qui-Gon Glenn]

^^^^ Rats, sorry I missed the opportunity to read that garbage.... One man's trash is another man's treasure, just as one man's god is another man's devil.

 

The resemblance, no matter how you look at it, is stunning and hardly coincidental, IMO.

[Salzella]

it's not what you'd think. or it is, but in the way you might think. in fact, if you removed all the swearies it contains a very eloquent message. but to be fair, removing the swearies would remove the point of the song, so ho-hum.

 

either way, it certainly wasn't garbage.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Pope Benedict XVI to begin tour of the United Kingdom.

Better the Brits than us. Here's hoping he stays far away from Scandinavia.

[urluckyday]

The pope is coming?!

 

 

Nah but for real...I don't really see what the big deal is. I'm not of the best understanding of this I guess...do people in the UK have a specific problem with him?

[Dagobahn Eagle]

http://images1.memegenerator.net/ghetto-witness/ImageMacro/2613805/Hide-yo-kids-hide-yo-wife-and-hide-yo-husband-too-Cuz-The-Pope-is-comin-and-hes-rapin-errbody-out-he.jpg

Hilarious :¬: .

 

Nah but for real...I don't really see what the big deal is.

Apart from all the bigoted bargage he spouts about everything from nonbelievers to abortion, there is the disgusting business with him covering up sexual abuse Catholic Church priests, going as far as to excommunicating victims who dared press charges against their assailants. I honestly have no idea how on Earth you've managed to remain unaware of this through the huge storm the media and, frankly, everyone, have raised for quite a long while now .

 

Yes, it was garbage. The language within the video was not appropriate for a PG-13 audience.

You're right. It's not as if we already discuss war and sexual abuse in these threads.

[urluckyday]

I honestly have no idea how on Earth you've managed to remain unaware of this through the huge storm the media and, frankly, everyone, have raised for quite a long while now .

 

I tend to ignore the Catholic Church in general. I'm a Methodist, and I have so many problems with it that I just try not to waste any of my time or energy reading or hearing about it. I knew why people didn't like him...but I thought there was quite a large percentage of the UK population made up of Catholics...that's why I didn't understand it.

[jrrtoken]

Apart from all the bigoted bargage he spouts about everything from nonbelievers to abortion, there is the disgusting business with him covering up sexual abuse Catholic Church priests, going as far as to excommunicating victims who dared press charges against their assailants. I honestly have no idea how on Earth you've managed to remain unaware of this through the huge storm the media and, frankly, everyone, have raised for quite a long while now

Sorry; for a minute there I thought you were talking about Fred Phelps.

 

I suppose the pope is also an Illuminati-sympathizing pedophile as well, right? Honestly, most of the opposition towards his visit is as ironically hate-filled and bigoted as the claims made against him. Richard Dawkins made another "logical" tirade, pointing to the allusion that Hitler was Catholic (purported allegiance is indicative of personal practice and ideology, y'know), and since Ratzinger was once in Hitler-Jugend, duh-duh-DUH, the Catholic Church preaches Nazism(!) Delusional, indeed.

[Darth Avlectus]

Wait, that must mean my father is going to hell for the crime of blasphemy because

1) he's an independent non denominational reverend (translation: Delusional, straying from the path, self-righteous, pompous, judgmental arse hole)

2) obliged an Indian man and Chinese woman (both in their traditional wear no less), simply wanting a short sweet and to-the-point christian wedding ?

(Translation: Intra-racial weddings?! Nevermind that both are basically asian. Nonono, we can't have that. )

 

 

Being his son, does that mean I am hellspawn? The 4th ruler of hell?

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Sorry; for a minute there I thought you were talking about Fred Phelps.

Que? All Phelp's church does is hold idiotic protests and funeral picketings. I'm not aware of them covering up sex crimes within their family.

 

I suppose the pope is also an Illuminati-sympathizing pedophile as well, right? Honestly, most of the opposition towards his visit is as ironically hate-filled and bigoted as the claims made against him.

I'm just as shocked every time someone posts a response of this kind, because I honestly do not understand the problem. The Catholic Church is covering up sexual abuse up to and including rape. Please, take a step back and think about this. Imagine it's someone else than the Vatican. Imagine it's, say, the Boy Scouts in your country. Imagine that not only are Boy Scout leaders sexually abusing young boys, and that those few that dare tell the superiors about this are threatened with expulsion from the Scouts if they tell anyone, even their own parents. Imagine that you learn that boys or girls have been abused at your local school, and that two girls told the principal and their parents what had happened, only to be expelled from the school. Then imagine you learn that the teachers who committed the crimes were not punished, just given a diciplinary talk and moved to a different school.

 

What exactly is the reason for your anger? That he shouldn't be attacked because he is the Pope? That people who happen to be non-believers shouldn't attack him? What?

 

Richard Dawkins made another "logical" tirade, pointing to the allusion that Hitler was Catholic (purported allegiance is indicative of personal practice and ideology, y'know), and since Ratzinger was once in Hitler-Jugend, duh-duh-DUH, the Catholic Church preaches Nazism(!) Delusional, indeed.

Source, please? Edit: Never mind, found it. You had it all wrong: the Pope

 

“Even in our own lifetime, we can recall how Britain and her leaders stood against a Nazi tyranny that wished to eradicate God from society and denied our common humanity to many, especially the Jews, who were thought unfit to live. I also recall the regime’s attitude to Christian pastors and religious who spoke the truth in love, opposed the Nazis and paid for that opposition with their lives. As we reflect on the sobering lessons of the atheist extremism of the twentieth century, let us never forget how the exclusion of God, religion and virtue from public life leads ultimately to a truncated vision of man and of society and thus to a “reductive vision of the person and his destiny” (Caritas in Veritate, 29).”

 

Dawkins responds:

 

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. To mention Ratzinger’s membership of the Hitler Youth might be thought to be fighting dirty, but my feeling is that the gloves are off after this disgraceful paragraph by the pope.

 

So basically, you're correct except you kinda, slightly, sorta turned the matter on its head. It was Ratzinger who compared atheists to Nazis, not the other way around . Dawkins merely pointed out the Vatican's hypocrisity. Hope that clears stuff up for everyone.

 

Wait, that must mean my father is going to hell for the crime of blasphemy because

1) he's an independent non denominational reverend (translation: Delusional, straying from the path, self-righteous, pompous, judgmental arse hole)

2) obliged an Indian man and Chinese woman (both in their traditional wear no less), simply wanting a short sweet and to-the-point christian wedding ?

(Translation: Intra-racial weddings?! Nevermind that both are basically asian. Nonono, we can't have that. )

 

Being his son, does that mean I am hellspawn? The 4th ruler of hell?

...huh? Okay, now I'm definitely lost. Who are you replying to here:confused:?

[Canaan Sadow]

I honestly have no idea how on Earth you've managed to remain unaware of this through the huge storm the media and, frankly, everyone, have raised for quite a long while now [/Quote]

 

Eh? I tend to ignore the self accredited insomniacs that work in the Media field. They generally spout off garbage that may or may not be true. Per example all you have to say is the name Justin Bieber and there are claims against him, which are Media based (which are mostly untrue). Anyway... so I tend to ignore everything the media has to offer me.

 

Wait, that must mean my father is going to hell for the crime of blasphemy because

1) he's an independent non denominational reverend (translation: Delusional, straying from the path, self-righteous, pompous, judgmental arse hole)

2) obliged an Indian man and Chinese woman (both in their traditional wear no less), simply wanting a short sweet and to-the-point christian wedding ?

(Translation: Intra-racial weddings?! Nevermind that both are basically asian. Nonono, we can't have that. )

 

 

Being his son, does that mean I am hellspawn? The 4th ruler of hell?

 

Hellspawn, eh? Of course you're the 4th ruler of Hell... I thought that much was obviou- oh wait... I think maybe it just means different skin colors... as far as I know India and China have only slightly differing skin colors... so I think it'd be like a white man getting a tan in that regards.

[jrrtoken]

Que? All Phelp's church does is hold idiotic protests and funeral picketings. I'm not aware of them covering up sex crimes within their family.

The fact that you're willing to bring the Pope to his level is what's problematic. Regardless of your opinion of the papacy, comparing the two figures on some scale of moral relativity is absurd beyond comprehension.

 

I'm just as shocked every time someone posts a response of this kind, because I honestly do not understand the problem. The Catholic Church is covering up sexual abuse up to and including rape. Please, take a step back and think about this. Imagine it's someone else than the Vatican. Imagine it's, say, the Boy Scouts in your country. Imagine that not only are Boy Scout leaders sexually abusing young boys, and that those few that dare tell the superiors about this are threatened with expulsion from the Scouts if they tell anyone, even their own parents. Imagine that you learn that boys or girls have been abused at your local school, and that two girls told the principal and their parents what had happened, only to be expelled from the school. Then imagine you learn that the teachers who committed the crimes were not punished, just given a diciplinary talk and moved to a different school.

I understand that the Vatican has most certainly handled the situation in a paradigm of denial and ignorance, but is that telling that the Vatican is willfully propagating pedophilia amongst its clergymen? Likewise, does that also mean that all clergymen exhibit pedophilic tendencies, and are automatically threats to children? The current anti-papist narrative is one of implicit, universal buggery and intricate conspiracies to assert a pseudo-pro-sexual deviant agenda, honestly.

 

What exactly is the reason for your anger? That he shouldn't be attacked because he is the Pope? That people who happen to be non-believers shouldn't attack him? What?

That people aren't foolish and crass enough to assume that the Emperor himself is presiding over the Evil Empire. The entire anti-Vatican narrative is based on only a few incidences that are not only exaggerated to vapid proportions, but that the same criticisms can be applied to any religious, political, or philosophical organization. Demagogues, either atheist or fundamentalist Christian, have capitalized on this visit to assert some agenda, and have used populist deception to do. The entire protest is inherently illegitimate; a sham.

 

So basically, you're correct except you kinda, slightly, sorta turned the matter on its head. It was Ratzinger who compared atheists to Nazis, not the other way around . Dawkins merely pointed out the Vatican's hypocrisity. Hope that clears stuff up for everyone.

The argument still stands; no matter who labels anyone is not important, but the fact that Dawkins & Co. are ready to utilize the same tactics is ironically hypocritical. Comparing anyone to Nazis or Nazism is utterly self-destructive, at least for argument's sake.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

The fact that you're willing to bring the Pope to his level is what's problematic.

So now picketing soldiers' funerals makes you a worse person than someone who presides over, and denies, the cover-up of sexual abuse of minors?

 

Regardless of your opinion of the papacy, comparing the two figures on some scale of moral relativity is absurd beyond comprehension.

Agreed.

 

I understand that the Vatican has most certainly handled the situation in a paradigm of denial and ignorance, but is that telling that the Vatican is willfully propagating pedophilia amongst its clergymen? Likewise, does that also mean that all clergymen exhibit pedophilic tendencies, and are automatically threats to children?

Given that no one has even suggested anything remotely like this in this discussion, why do you ask:confused:?

 

The current anti-papist narrative is one of implicit, universal buggery and intricate conspiracies to assert a pseudo-pro-sexual deviant agenda, honestly. That people aren't foolish and crass enough to assume that the Emperor himself is presiding over the Evil Empire.

You continue to deny accusations no one has made. Except that yes, the Pope is indeed head of the Vatican and the Roman Catholic Church. That one is true.

 

The entire anti-Vatican narrative is based on only a few incidences that are not only exaggerated to vapid proportions, but that the same criticisms can be applied to any religious, political, or philosophical organization.

You're shamefully ignorant of the facts of this case. The policies of transfering offenders to other churches and shaming the victims into silence was indeed official RCC doctrine, and the number of offenses was more than "a few incidents". As I said earlier in the thread, I frankly do not understand how it's possible to deny this, given the extent of the media coverage and the sheer amount of evidence that's been produced. Here is a snippet of data to get you started.

 

Demagogues, either atheist or fundamentalist Christian, have capitalized on this visit to assert some agenda, and have used populist deception to do.

Newsflash: when someone does something outrageous, people are outraged.

 

"I beat this baby seal to death and now all of a sudden everyone hate me, they must have an agenda!". Puh-leeze.

 

The argument still stands; no matter who labels anyone is not important, but the fact that Dawkins & Co. are ready to utilize the same tactics is ironically hypocritical. Comparing anyone to Nazis or Nazism is utterly self-destructive, at least for argument's sake.

He didn't. The Vatican did.

[Darth Avlectus]

As it relates to the vatican and such I raise this quote from another thread for all to read at their leisure (Courtesy Darth InSidious):

Looks more like "making a statement" than actually trying to do any good.

 

Really don't have the time right now to discuss an issue that is absolutely huge, but a few salient links I've collected over the last few weeks:

 

http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/8526/

http://catholicanchor.org/wordpress/?p=601

http://www.mercatornet.com/justb16/view/7084/

http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20100411/interview/we-have-to-get-our-act-together

http://www.nationalcatholicreporter.org/update/bn080703.htm

http://www.newsweek.com/id/236096

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/andrew_marr_show/8591538.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8612596.stm

http://wdtprs.com/blog/2010/04/ap-throwing-more-spaghetti-at-pope-benedict-this-time-from-california/

http://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/otn.cfm?ID=632

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/andrewbrown/2010/apr/09/religion-catholicism-timothy-radcliffe-crisis

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2010/mar/30/pontiff-power-bureaucracy-catholic-church

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/andrewbrown/2010/mar/23/religion-catholicism

 

Just to add to the discussion since it seems so relevant. Just throwing it out here, not to anybody in particular.

(BTW, what's going on with spiked-online right now? Why is it down? Anywhere else have this article?)

If dawkins is relevant then please read the below, otherwise you may ignore and skip to the next quoting responses.

 

Now, Dawkins has lead the charge (crusade?) against the catholic church for some time. So when protests are raised towards a mere visit by the pope it tends to resonate sounding rather similar to Dawkins and his ilk.

 

IIRC one article in the above quoted of DI's post turns a skeptical eye on dawkins himself. Something on the order of "why *now* is the child abuse of great outrage to him, when it wasn't initially?". That's a very good question. While part of the reason might be explained in that either human beings change their minds, or maybe he didn't have enough information to react as such, there is still something missing. How, without actually being Dawkins, do you explain an initially indifferent reaction to something as outrageous as sexual abuse? What is a satisfactory explanation such a rationale that would do that? Just food for thought.

 

Now then...

 

Que? All Phelp's church does is hold idiotic protests and funeral picketings. I'm not aware of them covering up sex crimes within their family.

Seriously? Probably because P-X was being sarcastic. Could just be me, though.

 

EDIT: Pastrami, maybe you'd care to clarify? I'm just going of the general gist I got from you. /edit

 

I'm just as shocked every time someone posts a response of this kind, because I honestly do not understand the problem. The Catholic Church is covering up sexual abuse up to and including rape. Please, take a step back and think about this. Imagine it's someone else than the Vatican. Imagine it's, say, the Boy Scouts in your country. Imagine that not only are Boy Scout leaders sexually abusing young boys, and that those few that dare tell the superiors about this are threatened with expulsion from the Scouts if they tell anyone, even their own parents. Imagine that you learn that boys or girls have been abused at your local school, and that two girls told the principal and their parents what had happened, only to be expelled from the school. Then imagine you learn that the teachers who committed the crimes were not punished, just given a diciplinary talk and moved to a different school.

 

What exactly is the reason for your anger? That he shouldn't be attacked because he is the Pope? That people who happen to be non-believers shouldn't attack him? What?

*raises eyebrow* Oh-Kay O_O

 

Err, I don't think pastrami was responding angrily... I think that all he is getting at is that while outrage at what is going on is certainly justifiable, a good bit of this outrage is as a result of hyperbole. The point it seemed PX was getting at was there sometimes is just as much irrationality coming from the "down with the church" crowd as from the ones defending the church sometimes as well.

 

EDIT: PX, care to explain in case I got anything wrong? Don't let me speak for you./edit

 

This is not invalidation of the victims, it's merely attempting to retain a realistic scope on what has actually happened. I think there is always outsider rage at anything perceived like this. I think all PX was trying to do here was say basically the same for the outsiders as you said to those inside the catholic church: "think".

 

I agree (for personal reasons) the covering up of sexual abuse is horrendous. This makes it rather difficult to defend this religion (as an independent, non-state entity from government) as a whole. Some would argue the same is true for all religion, I disagree; I digress, this is bad. Yet it does little real good to follow the crowd in outrages like these sometimes, I think. Even if you are justified. It's still a valid point: WHY throw the entire religion in the garbage as a whole, as a concept, if it's the people in it that are doing the bad? Why not just go after the people individually?

 

Do we really need to annex religions into government? Is that what what you're after? What is it?

 

...huh? Okay, now I'm definitely lost. Who are you replying to here:confused:?

 

No sense of humor???

 

*facepalm*

Oy. Why do I even try for a jester badge?

I'm trying to be a good sport with you people. I really am.

 

Hellspawn' date=' eh? Of course you're the 4th ruler of Hell... I thought that much was obviou- oh wait... I think maybe it just means different skin colors... as far as I know India and China have only slightly differing skin colors... so I think it'd be like a white man getting a tan in that regards. [/quote']

 

Well, at least somebody caught my sense of humor.