NormanH Posted February 2, 2010 Share Posted February 2, 2010 The Pope ( who replaced "Ave Maria" with "Heil Hitler " when he was in the Hitlerjugend) is coming to the UK:The taxpayer is going to be faced with a bill for £20m for the visit –in which he has indicated he will attack equal rights and promotediscrimination:http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/feb/01/pope-condemns-british-equality-bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bugsy Posted February 2, 2010 Share Posted February 2, 2010 Crikey Norman, something on which I agree with you totally.[;-)]. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolybanana Posted February 2, 2010 Share Posted February 2, 2010 Me too. Should he be allowed in as he preaches intolerence? Mad mullah syndrome! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catalpa Posted February 3, 2010 Share Posted February 3, 2010 I'm even more amazed because I agree with all three of you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cooperlola Posted February 3, 2010 Share Posted February 3, 2010 Amazed on two counts. One, I agree also [:-))]and two, I felt sure this post was going to say "sick Brits living in France." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tegwini Posted February 3, 2010 Share Posted February 3, 2010 Norman that's very harsh !Pope Benedict was born in 1927 and he did not volunteer to join the Hitler Youth, nor the army. In fact his father opposed Hitler and was demoted for speaking out. He was lucky not to have been arrested. We all know what happened to those who opposed Hitler.As for the British taxpayer, well more Catholics attend weekly mass than Anglicans, and perhaps any other UK religion, so they have some importance in the UK. This is quite apart from the fact that the visiting Pope is the head of state of the Vatican. Doubtless most of the costs will go on security.This week we have heard of his objections to some of the clauses of the Equality Bill as it affects the RC church in the UK. The Anglican church has also objected to some of the clauses. The C of E's objections were barely reported- clearly the UK needs someone to speak out about so called equalities which often lead to more serious problems. And since this bill originates with Harriet Harmon I am not surprised. This is the second visit of a pontiff since Henry V111 'nationalised' all the assets of the RC church almost 500 years ago, and I know that catholics, who are also taxpayers, will be looking forward to it.Tegwini Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulT Posted February 3, 2010 Share Posted February 3, 2010 NormanThink you will have amazed a large number of people with something that they will agree with you on, including me.Was this your New Year resolution [:D] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cooperlola Posted February 3, 2010 Share Posted February 3, 2010 Well, Tegwini, if the Catholics want to see their leader, then why don't they pay? I have a cousin who is a priest and you would hardly credit the way he and his colleagues live - good wine with every meal, eating out in expensive restaurants, trips to the States every couple of months, runs a decent car. A vow of poverty my backside! They could save a little on they way their officials live and spend it on paying for their top bod to come and visit them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quillan Posted February 3, 2010 Share Posted February 3, 2010 I don't have a problem with God, just religion. If the Pope wants to visit the UK then quite frankly he can pay for the security himself. Its not as if the Catholic church is skint in fact far from it.I think that probably more British Muslims pray everyday than Catholics so logic follows their leaders get the same rights as the Pope. I don't think it is right or ethical for any religion to try and bias the politics and laws of a country, it goes against the electorate be it Muslim about Shariah Law or the Catholic church against equality. In my mind they are both equal in this respect. Ban all religions and just keep God, that will solve a load of the worlds problems at a stroke.Just because the family had to move several times because of his fathers objections to the German political party at the time it did not stop Joseph Ratzinger joined the Hitler Youth in 1941, this is well documented in several sources. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard51 Posted February 3, 2010 Share Posted February 3, 2010 http://atheism.about.com/od/benedictxvi/i/RatzingerNazi.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tancrède Posted February 3, 2010 Share Posted February 3, 2010 Naturally I am outraged that the British taxpayer should be expected to pay anything toward the visit of any foreign Head of State whose views are not in strict alignment with the current canons of orthodox liberalism.But I am reassured to discover that the true cost of this enterprise, unmediated by the tendentious guess-work of the president of the Secular Society and the 'Guardian', is more likely to be a modest £3 million - a figure which, I am sorry to say, compares quite favourably with the visits of undeniably right-thinking Heads of State in the past. I think for example of that of the Ceausescus in 1978.It remains to be seen, however, whether Benedict XVI will attract such vast and approving crowds as Nicholae and Elena did. Personally I doubt it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin Posted February 3, 2010 Share Posted February 3, 2010 [quote user="Quillan"]Its not as if the Catholic church is skint in fact far from it.[/quote]They're probably trying to conserve it against possible future claims. A bit like Gary Glitter.Don't they get moved on every three years now?Thank you for the link Norman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tegwini Posted February 3, 2010 Share Posted February 3, 2010 Well Quillan - it's well known that membership of the Hitler Youth was compulsary after 1936 so Benedict had no choice.As for the costs of his visit - it's usual when there is a visit of the head of state who is also the leader of the largest faith in the world that the usual security costs are met by the host country. And, RCs attending mass etc is still larger than other faith gatherings. In fact, with the increase of Poles in the UK for example, the RC church has been greatly invigorated. Tegwini Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bugsy Posted February 3, 2010 Share Posted February 3, 2010 I don't have a particular problem with his history whatsoever but his teachings, well that's a totally different matter.Telling, no, insisting that catholics in Aids-ridden Africa should not use condoms, effectively condemming thousands to death, is, quite simply, beyond belief.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tegwini Posted February 3, 2010 Share Posted February 3, 2010 [quote user="Bugbear"]I don't have a particular problem with his history whatsoever but his teachings, well that's a totally different matter.Telling, no, insisting that catholics in Aids-ridden Africa should not use condoms, effectively condemming thousands to death, is, quite simply, beyond belief..[/quote]It seems - according to this :http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/georgetown/2009/03/pope_condoms_and_aids.htmlthe Pope has been misquoted or misunderstood.In Africa AIDS is so rampant (sorry!) because of promiscuity, the social status of women and African leaders unwillingness to tackle AIDS by sensible modern methods. The African PMs in South Africa suggesting showers or beetroot is typical.The Pope is aware of this, and it is common knowledge that condoms don't provide full protection either.Tegwini Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Russethouse Posted February 3, 2010 Share Posted February 3, 2010 Yes you are right Tegwini, Condoms are only 90% successful in the prevention of aids, of course abstinence is 100% successful, but as The Pope is unable to persuade all of his Priests to follow this teaching its unlikely that those in Africa, where their culture means that they want to have lots of children because they so often lose offspring, are going to be too enthusiastic about that.In addition now we have http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?forumID=7465&edition=1&ttl=20100203105932 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolybanana Posted February 3, 2010 Share Posted February 3, 2010 This visit has little to do with his own people but is part of the ongoing attempt by the RC's to try and get British Anglicans back into the Catholic fold. Which step I would regard with total horror given the tenets and practices of the latter religion.As to the taking of Catholic property by Cromwell, that was returning to the people what the Church had stolen in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pachapapa Posted February 3, 2010 Share Posted February 3, 2010 If I had been Cromwell I would have charged them several years of unpaid rent as well.[:D] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tegwini Posted February 3, 2010 Share Posted February 3, 2010 [quote user="woolybanana"]As to the taking of Catholic property by Cromwell, that was returning to the people what the Church had stolen in the first place.[/quote]Thomas Cromwell, was a true creep - but who wasn't then ? He took land, buildings, treasure whatever, not to pass it on to the new church of England (which was and still is quite RC in so many ways), but for the state's use - that's what nationalisation usually means.Henry was really bankrupt and thus all the money gained went to him to pay his debts and fund his extravangant lifestyle.As for property 'stolen in the first place' well many people gave to the church then - willingly. Perhaps for reasons we don't understand now, but that is the case. Salisbury Cathedral, and I am a volunteer guide there, was amazingly built over 40 or so years and was mainly paid for by gifts from believers.Tegwini Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tegwini Posted February 3, 2010 Share Posted February 3, 2010 [quote user="Russethouse"] Yes you are right Tegwini, Condoms are only 90% successful in the prevention of aids, of course abstinence is 100% successful, but as The Pope is unable to persuade all of his Priests to follow this teaching its unlikely that those in Africa, where their culture means that they want to have lots of children because they so often lose offspring, are going to be too enthusiastic about that.[/quote]I am uncertain if the prevention figure for condom is as high as 90% and perhaps condoms help little with some STDs.Yes, I agree that there are some bad eggs in the priesthood and I do wonder if celibacy is a good idea for some, or possible for many. In the early days of the church priests were allowed to marry, but that caused complications and divided loyalties.There must be a lot of embarrassment now over some of the scandals, although I have read of instances where some are joining in to get compensation where they do not have a case.Tegwini Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Russethouse Posted February 3, 2010 Share Posted February 3, 2010 Thomas Cromwell, was a true creep - but who wasn't then ? He took land, buildings, treasure whatever, not to pass it on to the new church of England (which was and still is quite RC in so many ways), but for the state's use - that's what nationalisation usually means.May I recommend you read Wolf Hall Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tegwini Posted February 3, 2010 Share Posted February 3, 2010 [quote user="Russethouse"]Thomas Cromwell, was a true creep - but who wasn't then ? He took land, buildings, treasure whatever, not to pass it on to the new church of England (which was and still is quite RC in so many ways), but for the state's use - that's what nationalisation usually means.May I recommend you read Wolf Hall [/quote]I have - but can't see too many appealing qualities in the man. To me he's like an official from Stalin's time. The fate of Richard Whiting, Abbot of Glastonbury is enough for me. Cruelly executed on various unproven charges, he was said to have safeguarded the abbey's treasures from Henry's collectors. Cromwell, an 'accountant', was very involved here and was aware of Henry's need for money. Sadly, Henry's greed had a lot to do with the English Reformation, rather than the corruption of the medieval RC church.Tegwini Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catalpa Posted February 3, 2010 Share Posted February 3, 2010 [quote user="tegwini"]I am uncertain if the prevention figure for condom is as high as 90% and perhaps condoms help little with some STDs.[/quote]We're talking modern day prophylactics here and used correctly they are a substantial safeguard. Frankly, I can hardly reign in my contempt for the phrase "perhaps condoms help a little with some STDs".[quote]Yes, I agree that there are some bad eggs in the priesthood... [/quote]Bad eggs? Bad eggs? That's a bad case of denial on display there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tegwini Posted February 3, 2010 Share Posted February 3, 2010 [quote user="Catalpa"][quote user="tegwini"]I am uncertain if the prevention figure for condom is as high as 90% and perhaps condoms help little with some STDs.[/quote]We're talking modern day prophylactics here and used correctly they are a substantial safeguard. Frankly, I can hardly reign in my contempt for the phrase "perhaps condoms help a little with some STDs".[quote]Yes, I agree that there are some bad eggs in the priesthood... [/quote]Bad eggs? Bad eggs? That's a bad case of denial on display there.[/quote]You do what you like with your 'contempt' Catalpa.And you have misquoted me too. Condoms can help but are not a guarantee against all forms of STDs. AND, in societies where men refuse to use condoms and 'put it about' no use at all. Something to be said for AIDs infected people to slow down at least on sex, if they cannot, or will not take precautions, and thus condemn their sexual partners to an early death.No 'denial' to quote you, on priests breaking their vows - or the law. A bad egg is pretty grim, to say the least.Trouble with so many here is that insults and rudeness seems to be the only answer if they disagree with an opinion. This is supposed to be a discussion! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quillan Posted February 3, 2010 Share Posted February 3, 2010 Actually Tegwini is correct about condoms in that it does not stop all STD's. However it depends on how you translate the results. There are STD's that can be transmitted without having sex or sexual forplay, some can be transmitted simply by kissing or just skin to skin touch. On the whole it is concidered that taking those type of STD's out of the equation and providing the condom is of 'proper quality' and used correctly it should be 98% safe. It is certainly very effective against HIV/AIDS.There is a link below that gives more information and there is loads of stuff on the web if you are really interested.http://www.cdc.gov/condomeffectiveness/latex.htmAfter reading some of the other posts perhaps some might see why I don't have a problem with God, only with religion. It is estimated that around 38M people all over the world have been killed because of religion in the last 100 years. I would hate to think how many people have been killed in the last 2000 because of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.