Pope faces protests and apathy on visit to Britain

[Magpie]

Your definition of human rights are artificial constructs - they are subjective - what you mean is in your view your secular view of human rights outweigh what Catholics see as divine objective doctrine.

All parents bring their children up in the manner they believe is appropriate, not just religious parents, and all children, at least in the UK, have the freedom to make up their own minds abour religion, and anything else once they become adults.

You seem to have a jaded view of religion if you believe it operates on a system of oppression and fear - those COE vicars with their tambourines and beards how incredibly oppressive.

[SeanMacGabhann]

Unless they now have the fear of God in them - Catholcism is notorious for burdening it's flock with unshakeable guilt - righ up until death. Not only that but by rejecting the Catholocism I had been brought up in my mother now things I am going to burn in hell for eternity and it saddens her daily

CoE believers have it EASY I tell you

[mockney piers]

"Holy Roman Empire say or about modern Islamic countries where the state and the church are one"

Just to be reallllly pedantic, I think the only islamic country that falls into that category is Iran, and even that is having an an age old tussle for supremacy between religious and secular power, weirdly enough in the guise of a so-called champion of religion there, the nutter Ahmedinajad.

And I think you may be confusing the Holy Roman Empire with the Roman Empire, very different things.

------------------------

Back to the point I totally agree about why on earth the Church should change its doctrine in the face of secular pressure. Alot of the church doctrine may be pretty stupid, but you cant say the church hasnt given it quite a bit of thought, and to overturn hundreds of years of theology because of namby pamby liberalism or the emergence of STDs and medical opinion about stopping the spread thereof when actually they do have a point, a stubborn and naive point but one nonetheless that actually not shagging before marriage and committing adultery is a pretty good recipe for staying AIDS free (obviously I'm briefly being devilishly advocational) is neither here nor there.

It's not that people are kept down by the church, though it is obviously in no rush to give its flock in third world countries a more complete picture about sex eduvcation say, buts that they are kept down by poverty and ignorance that their governments should be providing for, governments often kept down by corruption and by unfair trade systems.

I dont know how often I can say I'm no fan of the church, but attacking it is tilting at bloody windmills. Don't protest the pope, write to your MP and get our government to give more to overseas development (shutting the CDC down for starters might be wise). When nation building, build the damn nation, stop dropping bombs on it. Buy fairtrade and encourage others to do so, and lobby overseas governments to invest fully in education, sell your SUV, dont take cocaine, dont buy ?1 clothes etc etc etc . If you REALLY care, join charitable NGOs and go out and help, pick up an AK47 and overthrow a corrupt oppressive government if thats your thing (impetuous vrouw).

But whatever else you do DO NOT, join a fecking facebook group going 'Boo the Pope, he's bad m'kaaaay'

[DJKillaQueen]

CoE is definitely is more progressive but why is that?.....errr perhaps because historically it emerged out of the rejection of Catholicism and the power of the Vatican in Europe. Other branches of Christianity however have progressed nowhere...and there are lots of them.

There are plenty of sensible people with sensible views that are also religious - and there is no problem with that. But equally the nonsense that comes out of the mouths of others, justified by no other statement that 'God says so' drives me insane.

So MP Saudi Arabia does not use the hadiths to form it's some of it's laws - or are all those countries just using good old fashioned chauvenism rather than religious reasoning for their oppression of women? In fact, Iran in some respects is not as extreme as other Islamic countries on certain things. What is behind the law that forbids women to drive in Saudi Arabia for example? ALL of those counties use Islamic religious law in some form.

You grossly underestimate of the power of religious doctrine in shaping the views and behaviour of people in some parts of the world.

[mockney piers]

Brendan specifically said that the church and state were one and i was pedantically addressing that point, Saudis are purely secular rulers (we put them there for goodness sake, or at least formalised and recognized their supremacy in the struggle for power after the fall of the Ottomans) who colour their laws primarily by a very traditional Sunni morality.

I guess you could say that much of our legal canon is deeply grounded in Christian morality.

Regards views and behaviour, perhaps, though there are as usual a million other factors. I was simply pointing out that detractors can't have it both ways. On the one hand decry doctrine in opressing people, then when the church doesn't bend to pressure for say these of contraception, finds the churches insistence that Catholics simply obey, errr doctrine in terms of abstinence and fidelity, as somehow damaging.

I can accept that that insistence is unrealistic, but then you can't say that doctrine is somehow governing behaviour, though of course i accept that it may influence, and i accept that it has vested interest in keeping education heavily biased towards Christian teaching.

I AM saying that education is the key to informed behavioural choices full stop.

Incidentally i found most amusing that a recent historical time chart published by El Mundo a couple of years back, fascinating it was, about 8ft long and you could see the relative rise and fall of empires and so on, had a curious start at 4000bc with Adam and Eve expelled from the garden of Eden.

just because even the newspaper published it doesn't mean i know a single catholic there who believes it litterally. Even the roman and anglican churches believe Genesis to be allegorical and accept evolution and big bang theory. You don't get to be 1700 odd years old without bending in prevailing winds you know.

[Brendan]

mockney piers Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> And I think you may be confusing the Holy Roman

> Empire with the Roman Empire, very different

> things.

Oddly enough I knew that.

But didn't the head of the HRempire have control over appointing officials within the church and there was a bust up over it?

[mockney piers]

That there was. It was more a beauracratic issue i suppose though it, as usual with things religimous, resulted in years of bloodshed.

Swift springs to mind, big enders, little enders etc......

[Magpie]

The fact that the COE does not hold firm on doctrine and is far too keen to try and be trendy is one of the key reasons the congregation is collapsing, while Catholicsm is in relative health. I don't want to be read from the Good News Bible with its dumbed down language - as opposed to that great literary work the King James bible. I don't want to sing inane hymns with Guitars and tambourines, give me a pipe organ and a rousing chorus of "Great Redeamer". The COE is dying precisely because it trys to keep in with secular opinion which of its nature is secular.

Interesting the Saud family were not sponsered by the Brits - they moved in as a result of the vacumn created by the collapse of the Ottomans. The Brits were focused in modern day Jordan and Iraq and supported the Hussains. Oil was not discovered till the 1930s in Saudi with help from the American - Iraq and Iran were much more British Spheres of influence.

[mockney piers]

Err the King James Bible is an almost definitively Anglican masterpiece. Whoops. The CoE is able to adapt because post Henry VIII it was Protestant (albeit with huge doses of compromise). That means that there is a direct relationship between man and God, thus doctrine is not the be all and all catechismic diktat of Catholicism. This may be less certain but much more British. The current buoyancy of Catholicism in this country is mostly thanks to Africans, Poles and S Americans.

Plus the Queen is a nominal head not a direct bridge (pont, pontiff, pope geddit) between scummer and Deity.

And you didn't read what I wrote, that the saudis were rubber stamped*, however you look at it it was a secular decision with the nod of the real authorities, regardless of where the focus may or may not have been.

*"we put them there for goodness sake, or at least formalised and recognized their supremacy in the struggle for power after the fall of the Ottomans"

[mockney piers]

Btw I'm a bit pissed, no point arguing tonight.

[Peckhamgatecrasher]

In vino veritas!

[Huguenot]

Charming and erudite regardless of the intake.

Mockney hittee naillee though Magpie.

There's a fundamental difference between protestantism and catholicism relating to how you find god.

For protestants there is no essential authority - you find god in yourself. Hence guitars and tambourines are perfectly reasonable expressions of the wonder of his creation etc. Good News Bible whatever, it simply doesn't matter that much. Find the love in your heart and you've found god.

For Catholics, it's a different game. Pontifex Maximus means 'big bridge'. The pope is the direct connection between his adherents and the almighty. He is [the voice of]* god on earth.

The glamour and expenditure of the catholic faith is largely in recognition of the fact that the pope appoints people in a staggered hierarchy to do his bidding. The whole concept of holding his guys to account for paedophilia is a modern one. In catholicism you can't really hold anyone to account, because they are [the voice of]* god on earth etc. Geddit?

Comments such as "The fact that the COE does not hold firm on doctrine and is far too keen to try and be trendy is one of the key reasons the congregation is collapsing" are pointless.

Either you understand the key differences or you don't.

I suspect magpie, that you dwell in the large majority that welcomes and encourages rigid hierarchy. It defines and offers you a framework within which to develop your life. That's cool. No worries.

For atheist protestants like myself though, you're downright scary, because your rigidity is black boot fodder.

*edited to reflect a semantic distinction that has no meaning, but Silverfox felt was important to clarify.

[silverfox]

Sorry Huguenot, while you're correct that there is a doctrinal distinction, the last part of your statement below is a real howler:

"...For Catholics, it's a different game. Pontifex Maximus means 'big bridge'. The pope is the direct connection between his adherents and the almighty. He is god on earth..."

The Catholic church does not say the Pope is God on earth - that would be heresy. Rather Catholic tradition says he is a successor to Peter, in the apostolic tradition, and therefore is allowed to speak on behalf of God on matters spiritual.

Many question this claim but it is vitally important to grasp that he does not claim to be God.

[Huguenot]

Except that as the spokesman for a non-existent entity he effectively is god. :D

You're quite right, it was a slip of the keyboard 'the voice of god on earth'.

I think there is some comedy in a religion claiming someone else made 'a howler'.

[Magpie]

You do like these sweeping assumptions set out as patronising insults Huguenot. However, you have over interpreted my interest. My criticism of the COE is entirely about taste, and is what I consider an observation by an interested observer.

The COE in recent times (ie post-war) has sought to do away with its inheritance - ie the King James Bible, traditional hymns, traditional services, and modernise. This modernisation puts off the traditional congregation, or those who respect the quality, integrity and inspiration of the traditional language and the music, while at the same time failing to attract a new congregation. Being pithy when I go to church, I want to hear a few thous, doths, and trespasses, not you, did and sins, I want to sing Jerusalem or Christian soldiers, not kum by yah. This is because I find the traditional language and music vastly superior in terms of aesthetics. Modern interpretations may help the understanding of the key messages, but in my view, fail to inspire.

The Catholic church has the self confidence not to sway with the prevailing winds, and hence is a healthier organisation. I agree that the UK arm of the church has been swollen by arrivals from Eastern Europe and Africa, but still think my point holds.

On the Saud issue - my understanding of the issue was that the Sauds moved into Mekkah while the British were looking the other direction, and we hence had little choice, I don't think its correct to say they were rubberstamped. However, I haven't read about the period for a while, so maybe we played a greater role. I agree though that they were secular, however, there is certainly a clear partnership betweeh the Sauds and Wahibbists that stretches back to the 1700s

[Huguenot]

Well crikey Magpie, if you like singing songs about the crusades and England, England uber alles can I not be forgiven for interpreting that as being into a bit of oppression and jack boots?

I can see what you mean about the theatrical quality of the church, but unlike you I can't disassociate myself with the heinous cimes and meanness of spirit that were needed to achieve it.

[Magpie]

Oh dear - now you're just getting hysterical - crusades, jackboots, England Uber allies? Suggest you put away your pocket handbook to being controversial, its all so cliched.

[SeanMacGabhann]

and many others - no stranger to cliche yourself there Magpie

[intexasatthe moment]

Magpie - no point in responding to posters like Hugenot ,it only encourages them .

[Magpie]

My cliches have the benefit of being true - linking the CoE and hymns like Jersulam with the crusades and jackboots just demonstrates ignorance.

Many (if not the majority) of the great European works of art, architecture, literature, and music are influenced or inspired by Christianity, dismissing them all is rather bizarre. One can admire art without admiring its creator or its motivation.

[Huguenot]

What, and you think Onward Christian Soldiers is not about a religious crusade. Why do you think the Salvation Army chose it?

You think Jersualem is not a jingoist anthemn nominating England as the birthplace of a counter industrial religious war?

These are all songs that justify righteous religious violence through metaphor.

It's not just me that thinks so either, here's Winston Churchill on the powerful influence of Onward Christian Soldiers:

We sang "Onward, Christian Soldiers" indeed, and I felt that this was no vain presumption, but that we had the right to feel that we serving a cause for the sake of which a trumpet has sounded from on high. When I looked upon that densely packed congregation of fighting men of the same language, of the same faith, of the same fundamental laws, of the same ideals ... it swept across me that here was the only hope, but also the sure hope, of saving the world from measureless degradation.

Righteous violence with religion at it's core.

The Nazis were incorrectly asserted by popular myth to be godless heathens, occultists, or as the pope put it, atheists. Hence the religious conquest of the Third Reich was part of the overall motivation for war.

Ironically, amongst many of his ambitions, Adolf was trying to recreate the Holy Roman Empire.

How do you think he managed to engage his troops in the holocaust? I assure you it wasn't a war on noses.

[Magpie]

Actually no I don't. They are about evangelical not military/violent struggle - renewing the nation/self, spreading the word, and in the case of Jerusalem, focused solely on England. You have also lived up to Godwin's law by the way.

[Magpie]

And anyway they sound better (and are more fun to sing) than bloody Kum by yah

[Huguenot]

If only you'd been there to advise Churchill on how wrong he was.

You don't seem to be too familiar with Godwin's Law, but it refers to a reductionist argument or comparison, not a reference.

The interesting thing about the Holy Roman Empire is that it most definitely was a religious empire. When Henry IV attempted to go all secular on the pope's ass in 1075, he was excommunicated and lost complete political control.

Hence the pope was effectively the Emporer, not whichever misfortunate actually carried the title.

It's plausible that when this pope, with his German background, comes to the UK to lambast the secular nature of the state it's reasonable to assume that he's not berating us for a lack of moral fibre, but in fact cursing the UK's secession from his Empire.

Catholicism is not just a religion, it's a tyrannical government in exile. It has a naked ambition to usurp the state and the nerve to turn up on our doorstep to tell us so.

The issues of dogma seem rather trivial by comparison.

[DJKillaQueen]

This is what Wiki says;

Onward Christian Soldiers - the words were written by Sabine Baring-Gould in 1865, and the music was composed by Arthur Sullivan in 1871 -

So a good few centuries after any crusade.

The hymn's theme is taken from references in the New Testament to the Christian being a soldier for Christ, for example II Timothy 2:3 (KJV): "Thou shalt endure hardness, as a good soldier of Jesus Christ."

The lyric was written as a processional hymn for children walking from Horbury Bridge, where Baring-Gould was curate, to Horbury St Peter's Church near Wakefield, Yorkshire, at Whitsuntide in 1865. It was originally entitled, "Hymn for Procession with Cross and Banners." According to the Center for Church Music, Baring-Gould reportedly wrote "Onward, Christian Soldiers" in about 15 minutes, later apologizing, "It was written in great haste, and I am afraid that some of the lines are faulty."

When Winston Churchill and Franklin Roosevelt met in 1941 on the battleship HMS Prince of Wales to agree the Atlantic Charter, a church service was held for which Prime Minister Churchill chose the hymns. He chose "Onward, Christian Soldiers" and afterwards made a radio broadcast explaining this choice.

It seems clear to me that it was a Hymn that is very much of it's time (19th C) and had nothing to do with crusades from the writer. It is indeed metaphorical and that Churchill (and indeed the Salvation Army) chose to adopt it was THEIR take on the lyrics, as opposed to the intention of the writer.

But H is right on 'Jerusalem'. It was indeed a poem written to say that England is Heaven on earth......no doubting the intent there.