Jump to content

Recommended Posts

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

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

    • Absolute mugs. That's what they take you for.  
    • Trossachs definitely have one! 
    • A A day-school for girls and a boarding school for boys (even with, by the late '90s, a tiny cadre of girls) are very different places.  Though there are some similarities. I think all schools, for instance, have similar "rules", much as they all nail up notices about "potential" and "achievement" and keeping to the left on the stairs. The private schools go a little further, banging on about "serving the public", as they have since they were set up (either to supply the colonies with District Commissioners, Brigadiers and Missionaries, or the provinces with railway engineers), so they've got the language and rituals down nicely. Which, i suppose, is what visitors and day-pupils expect, and are expected, to see. A boarding school, outside the cloistered hours of lesson-times, once the day-pupils and teaching staff have been sent packing, the gates and chapel safely locked and the brochures put away, becomes a much less ambassadorial place. That's largely because they're filled with several hundred bored, tired, self-supervised adolescents condemned to spend the night together in the flickering, dripping bowels of its ancient buildings, most of which were designed only to impress from the outside, the comfort of their occupants being secondary to the glory of whatever piratical benefactor had, in a last-ditch attempt to sway the judgement of their god, chucked a little of their ill-gotten at the alleged improvement of the better class of urchin. Those adolescents may, to the curious eyes of the outer world, seem privileged but, in that moment, they cannot access any outer world (at least pre-1996 or thereabouts). Their whole existence, for months at a time, takes place in uniformity behind those gates where money, should they have any to hand, cannot purchase better food or warmer clothing. In that peculiar world, there is no difference between the seventh son of a murderous sheikh, the darling child of a ball-bearing magnate, the umpteenth Viscount Smethwick, or the offspring of some hapless Foreign Office drone who's got themselves posted to Minsk. They are egalitarian, in that sense, but that's as far as it goes. In any place where rank and priviilege mean nothing, other measures will evolve, which is why even the best-intentioned of committees will, from time to time, spawn its cliques and launch heated disputes over archaic matters that, in any other context, would have long been forgotten. The same is true of the boarding school which, over the dismal centuries, has developed a certain culture all its own, with a language indended to pass all understanding and attitiudes and practices to match. This is unsurprising as every new intake will, being young and disoriented, eagerly mimic their seniors, and so also learn those words and attitudes and practices which, miserably or otherwise, will more accurately reflect the weight of history than the Guardian's style-guide and, to contemporary eyes and ears, seem outlandish, beastly and deplorably wicked. Which, of course, it all is. But however much we might regret it, and urge headteachers to get up on Sundays and preach about how we should all be tolerant, not kill anyone unnecessarily, and take pity on the oiks, it won't make the blindest bit of difference. William Golding may, according to psychologists, have overstated his case but I doubt that many 20th Century boarders would agree with them. Instead, they might look to Shakespeare, who cheerfully exploits differences of sex and race and belief and ability to arm his bullies, murderers, fraudsters and tyrants and remains celebrated to this day,  Admittedly, this is mostly opinion, borne only of my own regrettable experience and, because I had that experience and heard those words (though, being naive and small-townish, i didn't understand them till much later) and saw and suffered a heap of brutishness*, that might make my opinion both unfair and biased.  If so, then I can only say it's the least that those institutions deserve. Sure, the schools themselves don't willingly foster that culture, which is wholly contrary to everything in the brochures, but there's not much they can do about it without posting staff permanently in corridors and dormitories and washrooms, which would, I'd suggest, create a whole other set of problems, not least financial. So, like any other business, they take care of the money and keep aloof from the rest. That, to my mind, is the problem. They've turned something into a business that really shouldn't be a business. Education is one thing, raising a child is another, and limited-liability corporations, however charitable, tend not to make the best parents. And so, in retrospect, I'm inclined not to blame the students either (though, for years after, I eagerly read the my Old School magazine, my heart doing a little dance at every black-edged announcement of a yachting tragedy, avalanche or coup). They get chucked into this swamp where they have to learn to fend for themselves and so many, naturally, will behave like predators in an attempt to fit in. Not all, certainly. Some will keep their heads down and hope not to be noticed while others, if they have a particular talent, might find that it protects them. But that leaves more than enough to keep the toxic culture alive, and it is no surprise at all that when they emerge they appear damaged to the outside world. For that's exactly what they are. They might, and sometimes do, improve once returned to the normal stream of life if given time and support, and that's good. But the damage lasts, all the same, and isn't a reason to vote for them. * Not, if it helps to disappoint any lawyers, at Dulwich, though there's nothing in the allegations that I didn't instantly recognise, 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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