Lets look at the popes visit as an opportunity to

[????]

DJKQ=Rick from The Young Ones

Edited for Rick not Niel

[ianr]

DJKillaQueen Wrote:

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

> 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.

David Sheppard?

[*Bob*]

right on, sister

[SeanMacGabhann]

A few people on here and many people generally like to make the point (and I paraphrase)

?you wouldn?t attack the muzzers religion like you do Christianity/Catlicks?

And every time I think ?what does that even MEAN??

Firstly, many people do attack Islam ? that MIGHT be why you saw that palaver about the Danish Cartoonist for example. Or why Chris Morris Four Lions is in the cinema/on DVD

But if there is a reluctance amongst western media to criticise Islam in quite the same way is it because a) we don?t know it as intimately as we know our own religion and/or b) we know that people who criticise Islam are often the subject of pretty serious threats

So mainly what it says to me is ?ooh I wish we nice Christians could get as cross as the Muslims and actually attack people who dare criticise our religion!?

Or have I got that wrong?

[????]

Nope - My point is that the the record of many aspects of Islam is as bad and maybe worse than Catholicism (please not the -isms and -ams, not -ims or -ics). They are both legitimate targets largely for being medieval superstitious nonsense with an often babaric twist. I think that one is an easier target than the other, for some of the reasons you point out BUT with a dose of PCism in there too. Certaintly the scorn and vitriolism for the popes visit in the usual media suspects looks pretty similar to the 'hook hand hatred stirrer' headlines of the Sun/mail etc.... subjects and targets that my favourite newspaper (not) very rarely takes on.

[????]

added to which, when I'm on a bandwagon my instinct is to get off it. So I won't be joining any of those pages on Facebook..which don't look that different to what the knumbskulls at EDL put out to be hpones, just a different religous target

[Brendan]

Well if you?re going to make some sort of proper argument you can?t compare Catholicism to Islam. Catholicism is just a denomination of Christianity. Islam, like Christianity, has many different denominations.

[????]

I'm not making a proper argument. Just feels a bit pitchforky to me... but of course in a very Gurdianista manner

[SeanMacGabhann]

I'm with you most of the way there quids - I see a lot of bandwagoning going on with this papal visit and I'm not that keen

(I do like the protestors holding up "down with this sort of thing" placards tho - top Father Ted reference)

But I don't think you can compare Hamza (isolated strange idiot) with the global head of such a huge church, whose teachings ARE adhered to by many millions, and many of whom will die because of it

Nor will any Catholics be physically attacked during all the protests against the pope - whereas the Sun stirring up hatred against old Hooky genuinely does raise tensions. I would much rather be a Catholic anywhere in London this week, that I would be a Muslim living around West Ham when the Sun does a number

[SeanMacGabhann]

Just adding a bit to say I didn?t intend that to become a paper Y versus paper X argument. But it?s fallacious to say they are the same thing or will have similar outcomes

[PeckhamRose]

http://www.protest-the-pope.org.uk/

[Jah Lush]

[RosieH]

Very funny Jah. Childish as hell, but most excellent.

[mockney piers]

Was that an ironic bandwagon link PR?

And do you know, i think that cardinal had a point. I think there has been something of a more aggressive, one might even say dogmatic, form of atheism in this country.

It's yet another bad habit we seem to getting osmotically from across the pond. I've always been proud that this country is secular in a mostly just not giving a shit manner rather than in an attempt to undermine others' religions.

I kind of understand why the latter in the states where evangelist churches are organised politically, aggressive and really do affect education, debate, scientific research and have powerful allies in the legislatures and executive offices at state and federal level.

We don't have the need for this here, where the worst that happens is that that there is state funding of faith schools (nowt wrong with faith schools, just the public funding in my opinion, you want something special, pay for it). But the likes of Dawkins and a misinformed debate about sharia law in this country among other things have contributed to an uglier atmosphere and a lessening of tolerance if you ask me.

We are still leagues away from being awful, but it's a trend i would love to see reversed in what is a wonderfully tolerant and genuinely multicultural (culture in the widest sense of the word) country, one we should all be proud of, and i hope these pathetic facebook/website protest bandwagons are reflective of the fact that internet memes are ridiculously virulent whilst being almost entirely benign (ie honestly think people click once and never look again, join a Facebook group and that's the last thought they give to it) rather than the thin end of the wedge in a fundamental (pun intended) shift in our society.

And yes I'm an atheist but think Dawkins is both interesting and annoying and juuust a little bit irrelevant.

Edited to say that's what I like Jah, Brits don't get high and mighty and snotty, if we don't like something we take the piss, nice one!

Edited one time one time(s). Last edit was today, 12:23am by Mockney Piers.

[Brendan]

What he said.

[Brendan]

We?re missing an important question here. Does he really shit in the woods?

[SeanMacGabhann]

Blimey Piers ? what next? ?Homeopathy: I?ve been too harsh?

I don?t see there is as much militant atheism around as is being claimed. I?ve certainly never understood why Dawkins (irrlevant or not) is so often described as aggressive. If the papal visit is attracting ire, then surely we can see that it?s more to do with the (at last) realisation of how much power that church have brandished to keep abuses quiet. If people are now questioning where all that authority comes from, it?s hardly militant

And surely one doesn?t have to look as far as the states to see religion being out of hand. The Free State across the Irish Sea is still struggling to escape the death-grip of a moribund ideology

If people think the UK has some kind of monopoly in having a go at the Catholic Church they should pop over to the Republic of Ireland fairly soon - that place is livid with them!

[*Bob*]

Brendan Wrote:

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

> We?re missing an important question here. Does he

> really shit in the woods?

Just one of the many questions that many have been asking..

[Keef]

What Piers said.

[????]

...looks like another lot of religous nutters were out to get him

...still the Guardian would have been happy

[TheArtfulDogger]

and someone has used his visit as an excuse to shut central london and now I can not get home from work

[TillieTrotter]

This has the possibility to offend. Please don't watch if you can't take extremely foul language.

[sofaRunner]

TillieTrotter Wrote:

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

> >

> This has the possibility to offend. Please don't

> watch if you can't take extremely foul language.

*tee hee hee*

[TillieTrotter]

Anyone going to the protest today then?

[louisiana]

Can't be bothered.