Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  Quote
Those affected by the issue will not thank people for making a joke out of it.


Says who? They may be all too pleased about jokes that show up their abusers for what they are. I may be wrong of course, but then, I wouldn't presume to speak for a group of people, just because I felt uncomfortable about something.

The worst of these incidents are no laughing matter, but on a wider note Catholics seem (to me) to have often sported a good sense of humour about their own religion and Christianity in general.


I remember the only proper churchgoing Catholic family we knew as a child taking the whole family en masse (ho ho) to see Life of Brian when it was weleased.. I mean, er, released.


Which doesn't mean I don't think the world would be better-off without all such manner of medieval nonsense. Because I do.

Huguenot Wrote:

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

> Mind you, on many of those criteria you could also

> exclude Obama.

>

> Probably not the child abuse, but you could trade

> Pius XII for state-sponsored terrorism.

>

> You also can't hope to explore negotiated

> solutions if you haphazardly start excluding heads

> of state from your country. You tend to end up

> with a quid pro quo and a complete breakdown in

> communication. Nah gid fa naahbody.



Compare him with Obama?! Hardly!


I don't think anyone is saying he should be excluded from the country, if Catholics want to see him then they have the right to. It's more about the fact that he shouldn't be advocated by our government/politicians and that we shouldn't be spending a penny of public money on this morally bankrupt cult leader.

Keef Wrote:

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

> Those affected by the issue will not thank people

> for making a joke out of it.

>

> Says who? --- ME


They may be all too pleased about jokes

> that show up their abusers for what they are. I

> may be wrong of course, ------------ YEP

Jah Lush Wrote:

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

> 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:

>

> 1. opposing the distribution of condoms and so

> increasing large families in poor countries and

> the spread of AIDS

>

> 2. promoting segregated education

>

> 3. denying abortion to even the most vulnerable

> women

>

> 4. opposing equal rights for lesbians, gay,

> bisexual and transgender people

>

> 5. failing to address the many cases of abuse of

> children within its own organisation.

>

> 6. rehabilitating the holocaust denier bishop

> Richard Williamson and the appeaser of Hitler, the

> war-time Pope, Pius XII.

>

> * The state of which the Pope is the 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.

>

> * As a head of state, the Pope is an unsuitable

> guest of the UK government and should not be

> accorded the honour and recognition of a state

> visit to our country



I agree. 100%.

> * As a head of state, the Pope is an unsuitable

> guest of the UK government and should not be

> accorded the honour and recognition of a state

> visit to our country


Fair argument but one that could be made just as compelling for a number of other countries that have made state visits.

Just watched the news...nearly choked when the Pope said that secularism and atheist extremism (whatever that is) were bad for mankind (or words to that effect). Reminded of me when I was 17 and the bishop of Liverpool came to speak to my sixth form. He said that those without faith couldn't have any morality. I stood up and shouted BS accross the room...and then recounted everything bad (since as far back as my knowledge of history would allow at that time) bad in the name of religion, finishing with Northern Ireland, as it was the 80's. 'Is that what you mean by morality' I asked. The headmistress hung her head in embarassment.....and the bishop? Well let's just say he wasn't expecting that.

DJKillaQueen Wrote:

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

> Err I think Muslim imans do get equally criticised

> when they have equally controversial baggage

> attached to them. The difference is that we don't

> spend ?20m on bringing them here to visit us.


I'm starting to fall for you DJKQ! X

  Quote
Reminded of me when I was 17 and the bishop of Liverpool came to speak to my sixth form. He said that those without faith couldn't have any morality. I stood up and shouted BS accross the room...and then recounted everything bad (since as far back as my knowledge of history would allow at that time) bad in the name of religion, finishing with Northern Ireland, as it was the 80's. 'Is that what you mean by morality' I asked.


Did you then go on to run your student union at Uni?

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Sorry. Link wasn't working on my phone, but it is now, and I couldn't delete the post.
    • I think there's a fair number of "participating" sub offices that do passports or, at least, play the "check and send" game (£16 for glancing at your form), so some degree of cherry-picking seems to be permitted. Though it does look as if Post Offices "Indentity Services" are where it things the future lies, and "Right to Rent" (though it's more an eligibility check) looks a bit of an earner, along with DBS checks and the Age Verification services that, if the government gets its way, we'll all need to subscribe to before we're allowed on mumsnet. Those services, incidentally, seem mostly outsourced to an outfit called "Yoti", a privately-owned, loss-making "identity platform" with debts of £150m, a tardy approach to filings, and a finger in a bunch of questionable pies ("Passive Facial Liveness Recognition" sounds gloriously sinister) so what the Post Office gets out of the arrangement isn't clear, but I'm sure they think it worthwhile. That said, they once thought the same of funeral plans which, for some peculiar reason, failed to set fire to the shuffling queues, even metaphorically. For most, it seems, Post Office work is mostly a dead loss, and even the parcel-juggling is more nuisance than blessing. As a nonchalant retailer of other people's services the organisation can only survive now on the back of subsidies, and we're not even sure what they are. The taxpayer-funded subsidies from government (a £136m hand-out to keep Horizon going, £1bn for its compensation scheme, around £50m for the network, and perhaps a loan or two) are clearish, but the cross-subsidies provided by other retail activities in branches are murkier. As are the "phantom shortfalls" created by the Horizon system, which secretly lined Post Office's coffers as postmasters balanced the books with contributions from their own pockets. Those never showed up in the accounts though - because Horizon *was* the accounting system - so we can't tell how much of a subsidy that was. We might get an idea of the scale, however, from Post Office's belated Horizon Shortfall Scheme, which is handing £75k to every branch that's complained, though it's anyone's guess if that's fair or not. Still, that's all supposed to be behind us now, and Post Office's CEO-of-the-week recently promised an "extra" £250m a year for the branches (roughly enough to cover a minimum wage worker in each), which might make it worth the candle for some. Though he didn't expect that would happen before 2030 (we can only wonder when his pension will mature) and then it'd be "subject to government funding", so it might have to be a very short candle as it doesn't look like a promise that he can make. Still, I wouldn't want to discourage anyone from applying for a franchise, and it's possible that, this time, Post Office will be telling the truth. And, you never know, we might all be back in the Post Office soon, and eagerly buying stamps, if only for existence permits, rather than for our letters.
    • The situation outside Oru is far worse with their large tables immediately adjacent to badly parked bikes using the bike racks there. And the lamppost also blocking the pavement.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...