Should the Pope be treated as a terrorist ?
- Thread starter co55ie
- Start date
silver75 said:
In your opinion its a ridiculous question . It doesnt seem its ridiculous to everyone though. Maybe people think your views are ridiculous
Who is doing the shouting down ? You are.
Your very defensive Silver why ? I am sure you know the rule of thumb with regards to being overly defensive.
The heads of most other denominations have been pressuring the Vatican for years over this , they dont seem to think its ridiculous.
co55ie said:
I dont have views on this subject because it is ridiculous. All I have are the facts.
36 million around the world have AIDS 24 million of them are in Africa.
The majority of Africa isnt Catholic.
ALL of South America is Catholic, but they dont have 24 million people there living with AIDS.. simple mathematics surely?
There is no link between being Catholic and having AIDS. If there is it is very minor and the Catholic church should be questioned about it... but there isnt enough of a link to call the Pope a terrorist.
co55ie said:
silver75 said:
please read
There are approximately 1.2 to 2.4 million adults and children living with HIV in Latin America--a figure that includes the estimated 100,000 to 420,000 people who acquired the virus in 2005. AIDS-related illnesses killed between 47,000 and 76,000 people in the region in 2005.
silver75 said:
You dont have the facts. You are not accouting for the millions whom have HIV but dont know they have , this is where the real problem lies (read any report on the subject you like and it will back this up) and why the epidemic is raging. Given the lack of medical facilities available the Vatican if it acted in a responsible fashion given the circumstances should be promoting the use of condoms and raming it down everyones throat not just the catholics either for all they are worth.
But what are they still saying.
I think you are underestimating the catholic population of the African Nations and not accounting for the fact that much of the affected are uneducated , poor and very simple. They do not fully understand the implications.
The bible states that you should not have sex before marriaget so if you are black white yellow or purple and you want to f--k that hot little minx with the big tatties whoes fault is it if you get aids, if you say the Catholics you are talking s--t if you say its your own fault for being tempted then good on you, blaming a religion is bo--ocks, if people wangt to shag around good for them, BUT according to the bible you should not f--k until marriage so blaming a religion is b---ocks.
Im C of E by the way
Im C of E by the way
co55ie said:
Why? What makes them laughable? You need to back views up like this with a reasoned argument. Are you stating that Catholic Church does not promote monogamy, and not having sex before marriage?
So far all that has really been said in this tread is numbers - 24 million here 36 million there.....
Without knowing what communities and countries these numbers are from, it is impossible to state that the allowed use of condoms would or would not affect these numbers - as there are a high number of communities who do not have access to, nor the money to pay for contraception of any kind. Therefore, if the majority of HIV infected people are in these communities, allowing the use of conrtaception will make little difference.
Of course, if they are in communities that have access and money to get such products then that is a different story all together.
"Catholic leaders in Africa have pledged to step up their involvement in the fight against the AIDS pandemic, while continuing to reject the use of condoms to fight the disease.
"The church says one must be faithful in marriage and save oneself for marriage," said Senegal Bishop Alexandre Mbengue. "We cannot cave in to the current trend."
According to the UN agency UNAIDS sub-Saharan Africa is hardest hit by AIDS, being home to more than two-thirds of those infected with HIV worldwide - 29.4 million out of 42 million.
Congo's Kinshasa Archbishop Dominique Bulamatari said: "Using condoms as a means of preventing AIDS can only lead to sexual promiscuity."
I think Congo's Archbishop forgot to mention that using condoms can also prevent you from being infected with HIV.
The problem is religion as a whole just hasn't moved with the time .
Monagamy
Dont use Condoms
This just isnt the real world anymore.
I am not actually condemning what the Catholic church stands for with regards to its views on monogamy etc etc but I am comdemning the relevance of it in todays society.
With no medical facilites you can be as monogamous as you like but how do you know your longterm partner hasnt contracted HIV in a country with an epidemic, you end up with children with the Virus and so on. The real problem is not those who have been accounted for its those that havent. I would imgaine for every accounted for HIV carrier there is at least one other who isnt accounted for.
Rightly or wrongly accesible to the masses or not religion should be putting people first . I dont believe the Vatican are in this instance.
"The church says one must be faithful in marriage and save oneself for marriage," said Senegal Bishop Alexandre Mbengue. "We cannot cave in to the current trend."
According to the UN agency UNAIDS sub-Saharan Africa is hardest hit by AIDS, being home to more than two-thirds of those infected with HIV worldwide - 29.4 million out of 42 million.
Congo's Kinshasa Archbishop Dominique Bulamatari said: "Using condoms as a means of preventing AIDS can only lead to sexual promiscuity."
I think Congo's Archbishop forgot to mention that using condoms can also prevent you from being infected with HIV.
The problem is religion as a whole just hasn't moved with the time .
Monagamy
Dont use Condoms
This just isnt the real world anymore.
I am not actually condemning what the Catholic church stands for with regards to its views on monogamy etc etc but I am comdemning the relevance of it in todays society.
With no medical facilites you can be as monogamous as you like but how do you know your longterm partner hasnt contracted HIV in a country with an epidemic, you end up with children with the Virus and so on. The real problem is not those who have been accounted for its those that havent. I would imgaine for every accounted for HIV carrier there is at least one other who isnt accounted for.
Rightly or wrongly accesible to the masses or not religion should be putting people first . I dont believe the Vatican are in this instance.
OutLore said:
We have a Worldwide Aids Pandemic, sexually transmitted diseases are permanently on the increase, men of the cloth have taken to buggering choir boys in the name of the lord , teen pregnancy is at an all time high the congregations are dwindling but worst of all the collection boxes are empty.(who is going to pay to restore that stained glass window ?)
Is that reasoned enough for you ?
Do you have a problem with a Surgeon wearing rubber gloves and taking precautions so as to avoid the spread of disease ?
The Catholic teachings are a pipe dream from a bygone age.
AndyMac
Retired from service
OK so we've heard plenty from the outraged masses about the so called "ludicrous" claims made on this thread.
So any "god fearing" people out there want to make the claim that if the catholic church changed it's stance on condoms it would not make any difference to the number of people contracting aids in Africa?
Ummm thought not.
Why are you all even arguing about this, it's obviously the only sensible thing for the Vatican to do, it will save Catholic lives. If god didn't want us to have recreational sex then he shouldn't have made it so ****** enjoyable!
So any "god fearing" people out there want to make the claim that if the catholic church changed it's stance on condoms it would not make any difference to the number of people contracting aids in Africa?
Ummm thought not.
Why are you all even arguing about this, it's obviously the only sensible thing for the Vatican to do, it will save Catholic lives. If god didn't want us to have recreational sex then he shouldn't have made it so ****** enjoyable!
Onlyme said:
You seem to be suffering from George Bush Syndrome
He pretends that the USA isnt contributing to Global warming but knows damn well its going to kill us all eventually.
I dont think there was an Aids Pandemic when the bible was written.
Jesus was a reasonable guy I am sure he would have wanted to save as many lives as possible and anyway I thought he was all for a bit of prostitute porking ?.
AndyMac
Retired from service
I think god got Sky along time ago. He occasionally flips to the Earth channel during the adverts for a laugh but I don't think his mind is fully on the job. The Earth channel is a bit like UK Gold he'll watch it when there's nothing else on but it's full of repeats. 2000 years on and we're still showing the same tired "death & destruction in the name of our lord". Amazed he hasn't sued the church for deformation of character.
I think this thread serves the purpose of proving that faith does little else but to blinker peoples perception of reality.
That really is the fundamental flaw with all religion and the cause of 90% of the worlds problems.
I love the way that all religion is so contradictory an eye for an eye , turn the other cheek etc etc, there's allways an equally dumb reason and explanation why this or that is right or wrong according to your religious story book of choice on the other hand there is very rarely a reasonable explanation you are just told that you must have faith and that the lord works in mysterious ways and that all the none believers are wrong !!!!!!
I also love the way religion and its follwers love to pidgeon hole people, I am a bigot however you spell it because I pointed out a real problem !!!!!!!!!!
That really is the fundamental flaw with all religion and the cause of 90% of the worlds problems.
I love the way that all religion is so contradictory an eye for an eye , turn the other cheek etc etc, there's allways an equally dumb reason and explanation why this or that is right or wrong according to your religious story book of choice on the other hand there is very rarely a reasonable explanation you are just told that you must have faith and that the lord works in mysterious ways and that all the none believers are wrong !!!!!!
I also love the way religion and its follwers love to pidgeon hole people, I am a bigot however you spell it because I pointed out a real problem !!!!!!!!!!
Yup - but you seem to have missed my point a little. I'm NOT agreeing with what the Catholic church preaches - far from it.co55ie said:
If you are going to lay blame on the church for not allowing the use of contraception, then you have to also lay blame with the people for not following the other "rules of the game".
YES - if the Catholics were allowed to use contraception it would almost certainly have a massive effect on the problem. However, as you have pointed out - they don't really have a grasp on reality (a bit like most/all polititians) - they really do believe that people are going to follow monogamy and not have sex before marriage, so they wont see how this will improve the situation.
Yes, they are. But these people CHOOSE to follow them. They do not HAVE to. Once again - if you are going to play the game, follow all the rules.co55ie said:
If you are not going to play the game, then there should not be a problem.
I'll agree with that, like anyone follows the 10 commandments nowadays.
I also have another point to add, I think there should be an 11th commandment to be strictly followed, and that is "Thou shalt quit this ******* thread for it is dead and cannot be resurrected, people are sick of someone's whining moral crusade"
There's the word of god!
I also have another point to add, I think there should be an 11th commandment to be strictly followed, and that is "Thou shalt quit this ******* thread for it is dead and cannot be resurrected, people are sick of someone's whining moral crusade"
There's the word of god!
AndyMac
Retired from service
Spoken like a true politician.
Funny how this thread has suddenly become "whining" when the answers don't suit your argument.
OutLore, I think you have to accept that most people of any religion & origin will have sex outside marriage. That's just reality and nothing will stop it. The condom issue, though hypocritical, is more of a cultural problem exacerbated by the Catholic standpoint. It's hard enough to get educated non-catholics in the UK to use them without adding a ruling from the Pope outlawing them. Condom use is a premeditated decision, whereas casual sex is usually spur of the moment and that's where you get the dilemma of a good catholic boy happy to overlook one aspect of his faith, but unprepared to carry it out safely.
Funny how this thread has suddenly become "whining" when the answers don't suit your argument.
OutLore, I think you have to accept that most people of any religion & origin will have sex outside marriage. That's just reality and nothing will stop it. The condom issue, though hypocritical, is more of a cultural problem exacerbated by the Catholic standpoint. It's hard enough to get educated non-catholics in the UK to use them without adding a ruling from the Pope outlawing them. Condom use is a premeditated decision, whereas casual sex is usually spur of the moment and that's where you get the dilemma of a good catholic boy happy to overlook one aspect of his faith, but unprepared to carry it out safely.
AndyMac said:
And, therin lies the difference between the pope and hussain/ whoever. The popes "victims" have a choice.
I do accept that people are going to have sex outside of marriage, I'm just trying to highlight the point that there are other people to blame, not just the one at the head of the organisation....
A4Quattro said:
Dude!!! For once, this thread has actually got pretty good - for the most part there has been little name calling etc in recent posts.
Reasoned arguments and civilised(ish) behaviour makes a good debate
Can you imagine what the world would be like if everybody agreed on everything? B O R I N G!!!!!
AndyMac said:
hmm. I hope I'm not one of the "god fearing" people you talk about as though I do find the claims on this thread ludicrous I am far from God fearing.
All my comments have been to the comments made on the 1st page and the title of the thread.
I also believe that if the church changed its stance on condoms it would not make a significant difference to the number of people catching AIDS in Africa.
The only way I can accept it would, is if someone was to give me the stats that say the majority of people who have contracted AIDS in Africa have been catholic.
No one has done this yet. As it stands all we have learned on this thread is that a lot of people in Africa have AIDS and that the Vaticans views on this are clearly outdated. Everyone can see this but no one has shown the link between the Catholic churches views and the number of people in Africa with AIDS.
Latin America from Mexico to Chile is 100% catholic if it is as simple as some on here are saying why is there no epidemic there??
pics?silver75 said:
There is an epidemic in the south Americas , Currently the number accounted for is increasing yearly by 25% so could also well spiral out of control.
Silver the problem is you cant produce stats in this instance due to the total lack of medical facilites made available, as I have repeatedly pointed out it is not the accounted for , it is the unaccounted carrier of HIV that poses the real problem and why Monogamy etc etc isnt really going to help .
How would you know your potential longterm partner hadnt contracted HIV even if they were a virgin ? You wouldnt know so even in this monogamous instance the use of a condom is sensible especially when you consider the long gestation period of HIV in certain cases. You end up with a husband and wife who have HIV aswell as the children and on it goes.
LottieA3 said:I am not a Catholic because I do not believe in that Faith but I would NEVER publicy comment or out right portray them as bad. We may not agree with the ways Religions choose to do things and preach but then I know people with my religion have there opinions and shared that. of which I am fully open to.
I think all Religions have there own story's and believe's and have there own ups and downs to some extent. But who are we to be rude and disrespect that. I think someone wanted an argument with this Thread!Call a Doctor!
Its seems that silver75 / A4Quattro / OutLore / Rev-head and jdp1962 have there heads screwed on properly and I think we need to move on from this one. Like to.....................that bizarre lesbian quote earlier.
So what you are saying is that you want the country run like North Korea ?.
You are stating that in the name of religion it would be perfectly acceptable to carry out any act of atrocisty and it would be unreasonable for anyone to question it.
I actually feel sorry for you
You do not have your head screwed on.
AndyMac
Retired from service
You don't really need stats, I find my brain quite a useful alternative, given the numbers involved I think we can safely say it's in the millions.silver75 said:
Or are you suggesting that because we have no stats we can assume no African Catholic has contracted AIDS?
It wouldn't have a significant effect? Maybe not, but if it saved one persons life (which it obviously would given the scale of the problem) would that not be worth it?
As already said (correct me if I'm wrong cozzie) I think the title of the thread was deliberately provocative to get a reaction, which worked well, but not hugely OTT compared to some of the tabloid shyte we digest on a daily basis.
silver75 said:
It is exactly why we can in my opinion . And why the promotion of condoms is paramount to the issue
AndyMac said:
Yes it was to provoke a reaction, I didnt claim the Pope was a terrorist I asked the question.
I personally do think that the Vatican has helped to spread the aids epidemic and will continue to do so with their unwaveable stance on contraception. I cant see how you can really think any different.
The Vatican take this stance when even they know in todays climate it is wrong purely because its the very easy option.
Why people get so defensive is beyond me. It is a legitimate subject and a one worthy of debating. It isnt really even controversial.
You can deny the problem you can pretend it doesnt exist you can pretend whatever you like but it does exist it is only going to get worse and one day it will end up on your own doorstep if things carry on as they are now..
People get defensive over this because its a slur on a religious leader, back a couple of hundreds of years ago, saying something like you said originally would have seen you hung.
Its a mark of the Christian Religion that we CAN discuss things like this without the threat of violence, just look at what happened when someone DREW a cartoon of the prophet Mohammed, there was violence in the streets and condemnation for the drawing.
If only every religion was as tolerant as Catholics and C of E.
You never hear of anyone who's a christian or catholic calling for the execution of another religious leader/figure because he said something offensive towards them like what happened when Pope Bendict quoted the scriptures of a 14th century emperor....
The religion upon which this nation stands is very tolerant of critism, but saying the leader of that may be a terrorist will offend people, even atheists, and yes it does offend me.
Its a mark of the Christian Religion that we CAN discuss things like this without the threat of violence, just look at what happened when someone DREW a cartoon of the prophet Mohammed, there was violence in the streets and condemnation for the drawing.
If only every religion was as tolerant as Catholics and C of E.
You never hear of anyone who's a christian or catholic calling for the execution of another religious leader/figure because he said something offensive towards them like what happened when Pope Bendict quoted the scriptures of a 14th century emperor....
The religion upon which this nation stands is very tolerant of critism, but saying the leader of that may be a terrorist will offend people, even atheists, and yes it does offend me.
An excellent Article and well worth reading
The Guardian (London), June 26, 2004
Catholics, Condoms and Africa
BYLINE: Austen Ivereigh,
(deputy editor of the Tablet, a Catholic newspaper in England)
The Catholic church today finds itself in a curious position: while caring for a quarter of all Aids sufferers in sub-saharan Africa, it is accused of being a killer rather than a healer; by rejecting condoms in the battle against Aids, it stands charged with contributing to its spread.
The church argues that the only realistic and long-lasting response to Aids is a change in moral behaviour, one that rejects promiscuity and adheres to abstinence and fidelity in sexual relations. Condoms, it says, are not the solution, and it points to good evidence that campaigns promoting them in Africa have actually encouraged promiscuity - and thus fuelled the spread of Aids.
Catholic health and aid agencies in Africa say that Aids can only be dealt with by attacking its roots in war, poverty and the sexual abuse of women. And they point to the cruelty of Africans being deprived of access to anti-retroviral therapy, which, in the west, has meant Aids is no longer seen as a certain killer. Provide such treatment, they say, and you break the cycle of stigma and despair which often lies behind the promiscuity and abusive behaviour that cause Aids to spiral.
This is a powerful witness. But it has been undermined by the church's refusal, officially, to concede that in some circumstances the use of a condom may be not just licit but obligatory.
Tomorrow's BBC Panorama programme carries an interview with a Catholic woman in Uganda who has chosen to sleep unprotected with her infected husband: "We won't go to heaven if we use condoms," she explains. Asked if the woman made the right choice, the Archbishop of Kampala, Cardinal Emmanuel Wamala, replies: "If it is wrong to use the condom, then she has made the right choice." Even if it costs her her life? "Yes," replies the cardinal. "That is a harsh teaching," the reporter responds.
It is also misguided. Moral theologians agree that what makes a condom good or bad is the use to which it is put; if it is being used to prevent the transmission of death, then it is not contraceptive in intention. The doctrine of double effect holds that some good actions have bad, unintended consequences, but if the primary intention is good, it remains valid.
For this reason, the 1968 encyclical Humanae Vitae accepted the legitimacy of taking the birth-control pill for a medical, rather than a contraceptive, purpose - to regulate menstrual cycles rather than to prevent pregnancy. In the case of Aids, it can be argued that there is a positive moral obligation on an infected person to don a contraceptive.
'Someone who is infected with the HIV virus, and decides to have sex with an uninfected person, has to protect his partner by using a condom," the Archbishop of Brussels, Cardinal Godfried Danneels, said in January. If that person is promiscous, the act of putting on a condom may be a positive moral act. To Rome, that may smack of moral relativism; but morality is a journey, and it must start somewhere.
No European or American cardinal would dare to follow the line taken by the Archbishop of Kampala. Even if they did not go as far as Danneels, they would stress the importance of conscience. So another casualty of the controversy is the obvious injustice that while Catho-lics in the west are, in effect, allowed a conscience, African Catholics are not.
Rome's refusal to modify its stance on condoms in the light of Aids has much to do with the longstanding impasse over its ban on artificial contraception. Pope John Paul II has made adherence to Humanae Vitae a touchstone of orthodoxy and obedience; there is an in-built resistance in the Vatican to any attempt to soften the condom ban in the light of the new circumstances of Aids.
But if that explains Rome's callous intransigence, it does not justify it. By its refusal to deal with human realities, the church has muffled its own prophetic voice on Aids, and encouraged the conclusion that Christian teaching that can only be upheld at the cost of African lives does not deserve that name.
Austen Ivereigh is deputy editor of the Tablet
<< The Guardian -- 6/26/04 >>
The Guardian (London), June 26, 2004
Catholics, Condoms and Africa
BYLINE: Austen Ivereigh,
(deputy editor of the Tablet, a Catholic newspaper in England)
The Catholic church today finds itself in a curious position: while caring for a quarter of all Aids sufferers in sub-saharan Africa, it is accused of being a killer rather than a healer; by rejecting condoms in the battle against Aids, it stands charged with contributing to its spread.
The church argues that the only realistic and long-lasting response to Aids is a change in moral behaviour, one that rejects promiscuity and adheres to abstinence and fidelity in sexual relations. Condoms, it says, are not the solution, and it points to good evidence that campaigns promoting them in Africa have actually encouraged promiscuity - and thus fuelled the spread of Aids.
Catholic health and aid agencies in Africa say that Aids can only be dealt with by attacking its roots in war, poverty and the sexual abuse of women. And they point to the cruelty of Africans being deprived of access to anti-retroviral therapy, which, in the west, has meant Aids is no longer seen as a certain killer. Provide such treatment, they say, and you break the cycle of stigma and despair which often lies behind the promiscuity and abusive behaviour that cause Aids to spiral.
This is a powerful witness. But it has been undermined by the church's refusal, officially, to concede that in some circumstances the use of a condom may be not just licit but obligatory.
Tomorrow's BBC Panorama programme carries an interview with a Catholic woman in Uganda who has chosen to sleep unprotected with her infected husband: "We won't go to heaven if we use condoms," she explains. Asked if the woman made the right choice, the Archbishop of Kampala, Cardinal Emmanuel Wamala, replies: "If it is wrong to use the condom, then she has made the right choice." Even if it costs her her life? "Yes," replies the cardinal. "That is a harsh teaching," the reporter responds.
It is also misguided. Moral theologians agree that what makes a condom good or bad is the use to which it is put; if it is being used to prevent the transmission of death, then it is not contraceptive in intention. The doctrine of double effect holds that some good actions have bad, unintended consequences, but if the primary intention is good, it remains valid.
For this reason, the 1968 encyclical Humanae Vitae accepted the legitimacy of taking the birth-control pill for a medical, rather than a contraceptive, purpose - to regulate menstrual cycles rather than to prevent pregnancy. In the case of Aids, it can be argued that there is a positive moral obligation on an infected person to don a contraceptive.
'Someone who is infected with the HIV virus, and decides to have sex with an uninfected person, has to protect his partner by using a condom," the Archbishop of Brussels, Cardinal Godfried Danneels, said in January. If that person is promiscous, the act of putting on a condom may be a positive moral act. To Rome, that may smack of moral relativism; but morality is a journey, and it must start somewhere.
No European or American cardinal would dare to follow the line taken by the Archbishop of Kampala. Even if they did not go as far as Danneels, they would stress the importance of conscience. So another casualty of the controversy is the obvious injustice that while Catho-lics in the west are, in effect, allowed a conscience, African Catholics are not.
Rome's refusal to modify its stance on condoms in the light of Aids has much to do with the longstanding impasse over its ban on artificial contraception. Pope John Paul II has made adherence to Humanae Vitae a touchstone of orthodoxy and obedience; there is an in-built resistance in the Vatican to any attempt to soften the condom ban in the light of the new circumstances of Aids.
But if that explains Rome's callous intransigence, it does not justify it. By its refusal to deal with human realities, the church has muffled its own prophetic voice on Aids, and encouraged the conclusion that Christian teaching that can only be upheld at the cost of African lives does not deserve that name.
Austen Ivereigh is deputy editor of the Tablet
<< The Guardian -- 6/26/04 >>
A4Quattro said:
I agree with some of what you say. I find people needlessly dying offensive and I find a supposed religious leader who is to weak to act offensive.
Again I would refer you to history most religious leaders have been tyrants and terrorists through the ages.
Read the article above . But here is an extract
Tomorrow's BBC Panorama programme carries an interview with a Catholic woman in Uganda who has chosen to sleep unprotected with her infected husband: "We won't go to heaven if we use condoms," she explains. Asked if the woman made the right choice, the Archbishop of Kampala, Cardinal Emmanuel Wamala, replies: "If it is wrong to use the condom, then she has made the right choice." Even if it costs her her life? "Yes," replies the cardinal. "That is a harsh teaching," the reporter responds.
I think if you researched the issue a little you would feel sick that a supposed religion can carry on in this way. This isnt religion in my opinion its evil. You cant justify it.
AndyMac
Retired from service
"back a couple of hundreds of years ago, saying something like you said originally would have seen you hung."
I think it was John Cleese who said it best when faced with a similar statement about the Life of Brian "I'd like to think we've actually evolved in the last 200 years".
Yes pat yourselves on the back for not stringing us up for even debating such a topic, I've never heard anything so pathetic. So you're basically saying "look we're not as bad as the Muslim fundamentalists, we just let our people die, we don't actually kill them". Well that's big of you, frankly I don't know which is worse.
"The religion upon which this nation stands is very tolerant of critism". I'd check out the stats at the church services and I think you'll find it's on its knees rather than propping anything up. Anyway I digress.
I'm an aethiest BTW (if you hadn't guessed) and the only thing I've found offensive in this thread is the blind ignorance displayed by some of the religions supporters.
I think it was John Cleese who said it best when faced with a similar statement about the Life of Brian "I'd like to think we've actually evolved in the last 200 years".
Yes pat yourselves on the back for not stringing us up for even debating such a topic, I've never heard anything so pathetic. So you're basically saying "look we're not as bad as the Muslim fundamentalists, we just let our people die, we don't actually kill them". Well that's big of you, frankly I don't know which is worse.
"The religion upon which this nation stands is very tolerant of critism". I'd check out the stats at the church services and I think you'll find it's on its knees rather than propping anything up. Anyway I digress.
I'm an aethiest BTW (if you hadn't guessed) and the only thing I've found offensive in this thread is the blind ignorance displayed by some of the religions supporters.
I would say that the Archbishop of Kampala, Cardinal Emmanuel Wamala should be tried and sentenced to death for crimes against humanity.
There is video footage and proof of his conduct , he using terror and preying on superstitious uneducated people and basically sentencing them and thier families to death.
Given that the Pope is in charge of this corrupt corporation shouldnt he be accountable for his lack of action ? .. He can hardly plead ignorance now can he ?
There is video footage and proof of his conduct , he using terror and preying on superstitious uneducated people and basically sentencing them and thier families to death.
Given that the Pope is in charge of this corrupt corporation shouldnt he be accountable for his lack of action ? .. He can hardly plead ignorance now can he ?
LottieA3 said:Right I was holding back...you are certainly one big old freak you wacko. I was being polite and respectful and because I and others don't believe in what you are saying or question it, or whatever, you pick on us like you just have me. So what does that say about you then? A? You've got your head screwed on wrong mate. And no need to feel sorry for me I feel sorry for me self for getting invloved in this stupid thread.
It is unreasonable to expect no other opinion on your thread! You every right to question it and I have not said that I disagree with your very 1st comment have I??????????????????????????????????????????
I am not a Catholic but will not publicy cause a dispute against them because I have respect! There are people on here that 'are' catholics and we need to respect them, not pick on them.
So play it a little less calm mate and maybe remember that EVERYONE is entitled to there OWN opinion!!!!!!!
"Oh and remember to brush your teeth before bedsy byes!"
Your moronic dross offends me . Your point ? You dont have one do you
LottieA3 said:killing people is wrong and that is what sentencing is. But I see what you are saying co55ie but I really think you need to be careful. You'll get your head kicked in if your not careful. (not by me though I'm a lickle blonde lady)
So now you are using threats of violence as a deterent. A typical Religious tactic
if ever there was one.Why do I need to be careful ? For stating well documneted fact.
It just goes right over your head.
LottieA3 said:
Are you being forced to read it or contribute . No. If it offends you hard luck.
You and your values offend me .
And it seems I am not alone in being offended by the un rational rantings of our pro catholic friends.
Rev-head
Registered User
AndyMac
Retired from service
Just to be clear:
LottieA3 said "you are certainly one big old freak you wacko"
"You'll get your head kicked in if your not careful."
completely mature and unthreatening, I'm sure she'd agree.
I think you need to reread your post Lottie as it sounded to me like you just fell on the keyboard. I think that was the dross co55ie was referring to. Retarded & worthless? where did you get that from?
LottieA3 said "you are certainly one big old freak you wacko"
"You'll get your head kicked in if your not careful."
completely mature and unthreatening, I'm sure she'd agree.
I think you need to reread your post Lottie as it sounded to me like you just fell on the keyboard. I think that was the dross co55ie was referring to. Retarded & worthless? where did you get that from?
So far I am a wind up merchant a bigot , should have been hung 200 years ago and have now been threatened with violence
Funny how easily people become so irrational when religion is involved and fact is presented.
I dont see how fact can be disrespectful myself, it is what it is fact. The reality.
Personally I cant see what is so sensitive or outrageous about a little bit of accountability .
" Tomorrow's BBC Panorama programme carries an interview with a Catholic woman in Uganda who has chosen to sleep unprotected with her infected husband: "We won't go to heaven if we use condoms," she explains. Asked if the woman made the right choice, the Archbishop of Kampala, Cardinal Emmanuel Wamala, replies: "If it is wrong to use the condom, then she has made the right choice." Even if it costs her her life? "Yes," replies the cardinal. "That is a harsh teaching," the reporter responds.
No European or American cardinal would dare to follow the line taken by the Archbishop of Kampala. Even if they did not go as far as Danneels, they would stress the importance of conscience. So another casualty of the controversy is the obvious injustice that while Catho-lics in the west are, in effect, allowed a conscience, African Catholics are not. "
If anyone read the thread from beginning to end they would have seen that my posts were actually directed at the African Arm of the Catholic church .
Funny how easily people become so irrational when religion is involved and fact is presented.
I dont see how fact can be disrespectful myself, it is what it is fact. The reality.
Personally I cant see what is so sensitive or outrageous about a little bit of accountability .
" Tomorrow's BBC Panorama programme carries an interview with a Catholic woman in Uganda who has chosen to sleep unprotected with her infected husband: "We won't go to heaven if we use condoms," she explains. Asked if the woman made the right choice, the Archbishop of Kampala, Cardinal Emmanuel Wamala, replies: "If it is wrong to use the condom, then she has made the right choice." Even if it costs her her life? "Yes," replies the cardinal. "That is a harsh teaching," the reporter responds.
No European or American cardinal would dare to follow the line taken by the Archbishop of Kampala. Even if they did not go as far as Danneels, they would stress the importance of conscience. So another casualty of the controversy is the obvious injustice that while Catho-lics in the west are, in effect, allowed a conscience, African Catholics are not. "
If anyone read the thread from beginning to end they would have seen that my posts were actually directed at the African Arm of the Catholic church .
Similar threads
bainsyboy
