The Pope's Visit

Welcome to UKHIppy2764@2x.png

UKHippy is a long running online community and of likeminded people exploring all interpretations on what it means to be living an alternative lifestyle -- we welcome discussions on everything related to sustainability, the environment, alternative spirituality, music, festivals, politics and more -- membership of this website is free but supported by the community.

  • The Pope is an evil man, as the catholic church is a corrupt morally bankrupt institution based on the blood of nations and the innocence of many....Benedict has historically stalled to intervene in several high profile child abuse cases involving the higher echelons of his freemasonic brood...in the case of Rev. Stephen Kiesle, who pleaded no contest to misdemeanors involving child molestation in 1978, it took the Vatican 5 1/2 years to act on his no contestation plea. The diocese recommended removing Kiesle in 1981 (3 years later) when Ratzinger took over the role of disciplining abusive priests, Ratzinger let the case languish 4 more years...urging the Diocesan Bishop to exercise "as much paternal care as possible" with Kiesle whilst awaiting his decision. Whilst Kiesle continued to do volunteer work with children in the church... MADNESS, EVIL EVIL MADNESS...Showing more concern for the corpulent bloated institution than for the welfare of the children at risk.. In the 5 1/2 years this farce continued Kiesle faced no papalcharges for child abuse despite his no contestation plea.He eventually gave up his ministry in 1987 at his own request, his papers gave no reason as to how or why, and no input from Ratzinger was recorded!!Furthermore this level of protectionism toward his clergy is furthermore demonstrated in Ratzingers cyclical regarding Solicitation (we call it child abuse!!), Ratzinger also was responsible for setting the papal statute of limitations on charges of solicitation (the vatican has historically viewed all sexual misdemeanours by celibates as equal, whether with male, female of minor?!) as 10 years from the act, or in the case of minors from the act till when the minor turns 18!!!!
    An evil man covering up the sick acts of those within his brood of vipers....
    And as a follower of Yahshua I refute this mans position, his claims and refute his authority, he is not a follower of Yahshua,he is a follower of worldy position, wealth and influence..... PASS THE TOMATOES!!!!!

    Mt 18:6 But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.

  • But then, the way I see it, eternal damnation is a lot worse than bad karma being visited on you in a future incarnation - at least in a future incarnation you have the opportunity to change things for the incarnation after that (plus, based on the article you sourced your information from, it also gives other people the opportunity to avoid bad karma themselves and live in a more positive way - no judgement on why you have a disability) whereas if you're damned for eternity...well, it's for eternity with no hope beyond :p



    They both teach, in essence, "eternal damnation unless you act correctly" :shrug: The difference is in that Buddhism teaches that you can be motivated by experience ("is life bad NOW? act differently then") and gives you more chances to "repent", whilst Roman Catholicism motivates by faith ("think you are going to hell in the FUTURE? act differently then") and only gives you one lifetime (which is really neither here nor there unless you believe in multiple lives.....). Buddhism sees suffering as unavoidable (unless you act in the prescribed manner and recieve nirvana) because it is the law of the nature of things, Catholicism sees suffering as unavoidable because of original sin (unless you act in the prescribed manner and recieve salvation). There are differences in theology, but in practice Tibetan Buddhism and Roman Catholicism alike consider homosexual acts to be "wrong", consider suffering to be the way of worldly life, and have similar stances against abortion (both consider life to start at conception and abortion thus to be killing a child).


    In the here and now, they are not so different; except perhaps in presentation and portrayal.

    "The only rules that really matter are these: what a man can do and what a man can't do."

  • .....and have similar stances against abortion (both consider life to start at conception and abortion thus to be killing a child). In the here and now, they are not so different; except perhaps in presentation and portrayal.

    That is an act of ludicrous logical contortion. I believe that life starts at conception, and I believe that abortion ends a life, but that doesn't exactly align me with the catholics - what with me being pro-choice and anti-moral-absolutism. Buddhism has no more in common with Catholicism than I do.


    Quote from Coyote

    Tibetan Buddhism and Roman Catholicism alike consider homosexual acts to be "wrong"

    Erm... I don't think you'll find the Dalai Lama exactly aligned with the pope on this issue....


    Quote from World Tibet Network News

    In a 1997 interview, the Dalai Lama (the leader of Tibetan Buddhism and a widely-respected spiritual figure) was asked about homosexuality. He did not offer any strong answer either way, but noted that all monks are expected to refrain from sex. For laypeople, he commented that the purpose of sex in general is for procreation, so homosexual acts do seem a bit unnatural. He said that sexual desires in themselves are natural, perhaps including homosexual desires, but that one should not try to increase those desires or indulge them without self-control

    Not quite in the same league as "it's a mortal sin and you'll burn in hell for all eternity".

  • Everything that i would like to say about the Pope has already been said, so i will not rant too much. The Pope is quite welcome to visit the UK, but he shouldn't do it under the pretense of 'head of state', and it certainly shouldn't come down to the taxpayers for funding. Although of course i am quite disgusted he is allowed to be treated as an infallible religious figure and can still roam free spreading hate when he is quite guilty of prolonging the suffering of many children. He is a disgusting man, and i get angry every time i see his disgusting face. He has free will, so he is quite welcome to compare atheism to fascism, quite welcome to condemn homosexuality and contraception, and female rights. But he should NOT be allowed to spread this hate everywhere he goes, and he and the other despicable religious figures who made those children suffer should trialled for those awful crimes. So in the words of Tim Minchin, fuck the motherfucking pope.


    Ok, i ranted a bit. But he does make me so incredibly angry :curse:

    "Change will not come if we wait for some other person, or some other time. We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are the change we seek."


    Barack Hussein Obama, 44th President of the United States.

  • I'm actually getting quite angry now. How dare he spout aboutbeing alarmed that religion being marginalized in England. As one of the people he hates for no other reason than not sharing his faith or anybody elses, I have had to suffer watching us driven to a pointless war killing millions by a prime minister who "talked to god first" before getting more serious and going catholic. We have faith schools paid with our tax money teaching fairy stories in science lessons, we have nonsense of one flavour or another rammed down our throats daily and if that wasn't enough, our entire news service reports nothing else except his disgusting rantings. Now he's on about moral codes and they're all discussing it as I type. Evil evil evil. Oh, but he's right about becoming a third world country, I've lived in deveral and they are all characterized by being religious in the extreme, having shit human rights and being economically bankrupt as well as morally bankrupt. :curse:

  • NO! NO! NO! You're all missing the point. While he's poncing about over here in his bullet proof Popemobile what we should be doing is jumping into a fleet of Mini Coopers, driving to Vatican City, ram raiding the vault where the Caths keep their vast fortune in gold and distributing it to the poor. Quickly! To the car ferries everyone!


    You didn't really expect me to post anything serious, did you? :rolleyes:

  • I'm actually getting quite angry now. How dare he spout aboutbeing alarmed that religion being marginalized in England. As one of the people he hates for no other reason than not sharing his faith or anybody elses, I have had to suffer watching us driven to a pointless war killing millions by a prime minister who "talked to god first" before getting more serious and going catholic.


    I can't agree more young Julian.....and we all know that's why Blair invited him here in the first place so him and the missus would get fast tracked to saint hood.......

  • In many ways he is right.....


    Religion is being marginalised in Britain, with the demand increasingly being that religion is a private activity that does not belong in the public sphere.


    Relativism is increasingly the dictatorship of the modern age, fragmenting societies and dividing the generations.


    Pragmatic calculation, which increasingly replaces long-standing principle, does render a society souless and without duty to both those gone and those yet to come.


    That said, I do not agree with some of his raised points.....


    We do not, for example, have a duty to develop the world and bring the third world into a developed state.


    .....although, I welcome his visit for the issues it has raised.

    "The only rules that really matter are these: what a man can do and what a man can't do."


  • Utter, absolute, triple distilled bollocks.

  • Fine. You obviously know fuck all about the third world. I do. Duty? How about having the decency not to shit on them for our own benefit? We spent the last two hundred years plundering their countries, destroying their established forms of government and social order and generally wreaking mayhem on them, and all incidentally in the name of religion, specifically C of E, as early traders had no interest in empire, often intermarried and were fluid on matters of faith. So now it's ok to leave them in the shit? In any case, most the aid we give is for our own benefit, and used to buy more stuff from our factories. You talk as if you were being bled dry by ungrateful scroungers and its the typical argument of a well fed lord of the manor whose tenants dress in rags. The rest of your arguments seem to come from the same sort of world, where everything would be fine if we all went to church on Sunday, lived in a pretty little village, doffed our caps to his lordship as he passed by in his carriage and went home to be grateful for the boiled turnips we were having for dinner. I really can't be arsed to go on, except to note in passing that you seem to be putting in a bid to be named as a defender of the faith lately. If so, you really ought to come clean about it.

  • interesting thing on the radio this morning.. they were going on about the popes connection with hitler youth, and that he had been 'forced' to join the german army. There was a bit where the interviewer was saying that Goering had stated he had no conscience, that Hitler was his conscience..that he just obeyed the word of hitler..
    Catholics believe that the pope is their conscience, that they will be ex communicated if they dont obey the word of the pope, can anyone see any difference between the two.. or have I just invoked godwin's law! :D

  • Fine. You obviously know fuck all about the third world. I do. Duty? How about having the decency not to shit on them for our own benefit? We spent the last two hundred years plundering their countries, destroying their established forms of government and social order and generally wreaking mayhem on them, and all incidentally in the name of religion, specifically C of E, as early traders had no interest in empire, often intermarried and were fluid on matters of faith.


    If by "we" you mean Britain, the last two-hundred years of exploitation have been bugger all to do with Christianity (in its many forms) except as a "Tag on", and a whole lot to do with economics.


    Quote

    So now it's ok to leave them in the shit? In any case, most the aid we give is for our own benefit, and used to buy more stuff from our factories. You talk as if you were being bled dry by ungrateful scroungers and its the typical argument of a well fed lord of the manor whose tenants dress in rags.

    So you agree with the Pope's general Globalist stance then?


    Quote

    except to note in passing that you seem to be putting in a bid to be named as a defender of the faith lately. If so, you really ought to come clean about it.

    Or perhaps they are a defacto ally against pernicious relativism that would leave society fragmented for lack of coherent shared values, increase the divide between generations (as in relativism there is little if anything to pass on to the next generation - the last generation and their values are seen as superfluous) and leave people all at sea grasping at this and that in an increasingly desperate flailing when they lack a rock to build upon.


    That is why I agree with Benedict that we have a problem with the "dictatorship of relativism". It destroys societies because it errodes the commonalities, the shared ground, and puts each person in their own private little space set away from everyone else. It is, and always has been, at the heart and root of capitalism (as much as those terms can be applied to such a heartless and rootless thing - perhaps it would be better t say they personify the void at the centre of capitalism). In embracing relativism we are sliding back to the jungle.


    Meanwhile it seems that it takes Benedict's presence to summon a discussion on the secularisation of society; secularisation meaning not simply "seperation of church and state" but the active modernisation.....modernisation meaning the urbanisation, industrialisation and rationalisation of society, or more specifically that calculated efficiency becomes the motivator and guide rather than tradition and rooted identity. Essentially, the dehumanisation of human life away from community, with its practices passed on from person to person, a shared grounding and rooting identity.....and into something Ford could have dreamed of.

    Life removed from history and culture, and placed into a cold calculation practiced by atomised people.


    A secular society is one where cultural myths and traditions are relegated to the personal realm whilst the public realm becomes that of rational calculation (and calculation is always vulnerable to trickery of the smooth talker, the spin doctor and the avertising exec who can skew the presentation of evidence).


    BOTH of these are fragmenting and erroding society, which will bring chaos in its wake...and chaos invariably brings the kind of desperate response seen in the 20s in Russia and in the 30s in Germany and Italy.

    "The only rules that really matter are these: what a man can do and what a man can't do."

    The post was edited 1 time, last by Coyote ().

  • Oh dear, so you have to have an imaginary friend before you believe in community, shared valued, helping other out, that kind of thing? Odd that, though perhaps not so odd coming from people with vested interests in imaginary friends rather than real ones. As for empire being a matter of economics, sorry, you need to read up on your history. There was mutually beneficial trade with countries like India right up until the bishops leaned on parliament to change the law banning missionaries. After that, it was open season, we had to plunder because it was for their own good, along came empire and armies and they were all doing gods work (while making a mint for Britain). Now we just get all our dirty jobs done by people in thailand who live in shit for a dollar a day, but its ok because we all drink fairtrade coffee. And having this all important faith will change that how?

  • Oh dear, so you have to have an imaginary friend before you believe in community, shared valued, helping other out, that kind of thing?


    If by "imaginary friend" you mean "God", where did I say that you have to believe in such? Erm, nowhere at all. Rather, what I said was that consigning religion to the private realm, because it doesnt accord with secularism (secularism, requiring calculation based upon evidence, has no public place for non-rational cultural myths and traditions), results in a fundamentally cold society where anything that cannot be based on evidence has no value in the public realm.


    I even spelled it out for you:
    "A secular society is one where cultural myths and traditions are relegated to the personal realm whilst the public realm becomes that of rational calculation (and calculation is always vulnerable to trickery of the smooth talker, the spin doctor and the avertising exec who can skew the presentation of evidence)."


    Quote

    Odd that, though perhaps not so odd coming from people with vested interests in imaginary friends rather than real ones. As for empire being a matter of economics, sorry, you need to read up on your history. There was mutually beneficial trade with countries like India right up until the bishops leaned on parliament to change the law banning missionaries. After that, it was open season, we had to plunder because it was for their own good, along came empire and armies and they were all doing gods work (while making a mint for Britain). Now we just get all our dirty jobs done by people in thailand who live in shit for a dollar a day, but its ok because we all drink fairtrade coffee.

    People in the third world had their societies wrecked by colonialism, which was an economic not religious procedure, and it has been happening since at least the Elizabethan era (or do you think Francis Drake and Walter Raleigh were taking the bible rather than simply profiteering under whatever flag of convenience?).


    So, like I said, do you agree with Pope Benedict that there is a duty to help the third world develop?


    Quote

    And having this all important faith will change that how?

    What are you on about?

    "The only rules that really matter are these: what a man can do and what a man can't do."

  • Right. I'm now at that all to common point of wondering just what the fuck you're arguing about. So lets get this straight, you are saying that the state has become too separated from the Church? I would go on, but I just want to know what the fuck we're on about first.

  • Right. I'm now at that all to common point of wondering just what the fuck you're arguing about. So lets get this straight, you are saying that the state has become too separated from the Church? I would go on, but I just want to know what the fuck we're on about first.


    If by that you mean “are [you] saying that the state has become too separated from [an organised State Religion]?”, then the answer is yes. Religion should be integral to national identity, to the structure of a state and to the way society is directed, because empiricism (the guidestone of Secularism) cannot cover all that it means to be human. Specifically, it utterly fails to understand cultural mythology; such being the stories and traditions that make up a national identity and character. To secularism and empiricism, Aesop makes no sense whatsoever. This is where religion comes in. The myths, traditions, rituals and symbols together make up the glue of society that binds us together in a way mere calculated utility cannot.

    Secularism's inherent nature is to weaken the bonds of society. Proponents of secularisation call this promoting “freedom”. Opponents call it promoting anomie and chaos. If the latter charge is true, secularism is the herald of the police state, because such invariably arises in desperate response to chaos.

    In secularism, all that is not empirical is relegated to the private realm; it is to have no influence in the public area, but rather is to be no more than recreation or entertainment. Custom, tradition and conscience have no place in the governance of a secular state; instead all is to be empirical calculation under constant re-assement. Which is great if you want to sell people an identity fashion product, purchased anew and different for each desperate alienated new generation, but useless if you want an identity that can be passed down.

    "The only rules that really matter are these: what a man can do and what a man can't do."

  • I for one will be glad when he goes back to where he came from. He means nothing to me, and won't ever admit he and the church were wrong. He isn't Holy, he is just a man.

  • Quote

    [quote='Coyote','http://ukhippy.com/freakpower/forum/index.php?thread/&postID=1002475#post1002475']In many ways he is right.....


    Religion is being marginalised in Britain, with the demand increasingly being that religion is a private activity that does not belong in the public sphere.


    I think religion, Christianity in particular, needs to be marginalised in order to protect people from the disproportionate power it holds. They talk about aggressive atheists but really this is people who are standing up to religion and challenging it's power. Religion can often be a force for good and we don't admit that enough. It has it's bad points as well though and as long as religion isn't marginalised it has the power to force restrictions on the lives of those who aren't of the same beliefs. Stripping religion of the power to force down it's beliefs on people has been and is a wonderful thing. You say secularism weakens the bonds of society but come to Glasgow or visit Belfast and see how religion divides our city's. Some families here if you dare to marry a Catholic when your a Protestant or vice versa end up having heavy fallings out. How many secularists go out and stab someone when they're drunk because they have a different view from them. In Glasgow it's been going on for years. Where I've been brought there is nothing that could ever come as close to being divisive as religion. Also look at countries like Norway which are much less religious and far more secular. They look after each other and are liberal and tolerant with a decent society, lack of religion hasn't had a negative impact on them. Religion is as bad as everyone makes out but we have to be wary of it because it can be dangerous in the extreme.

  • You say secularism weakens the bonds of society but come to Glasgow or visit Belfast and see how religion divides our city's.


    It is division of a different order. Two competing religions in the same area can indeed lead to the situation you describe (which is why we need a single strong religion, not a "Pluralist" situation). However, secularism divides into many groups or individuals, not just a couple of them, so rather than getting an A vrs B situation, you end up with generally atomised divisions with no strong pro-"anything in particular" stance. Essentially, secularism doesnt give you anything worth fighting over :shrug: That said, it is only fair to point out that the Scottish were beating the shit out of each other long before Christianity turned up ;) Only back then, it was clan v clan....

    "The only rules that really matter are these: what a man can do and what a man can't do."

  • So you are talking patronising bollocks. Thought so. You make huge assumptions about all sorts of things, define things oaccording to your own narrow views and deflect arguments onto obscure points and ignore anything that doesn't fit your arguments. You want more church involvement in our government? We still have bishops in the lords ffs. Why is beyond me, they don't represetnt anyone except themselves and their faithful have no say in choosing them. And how do they deal with it? Oh, by appointing Muslims as well. Fucking genius. Oh, but I forgot, in your world c of e is the only english church, except when the pope says something you agree with. Nice how you disagree about the only genuinely christian thing the pope has said, i.e. that we do have a repsonsibility to the third world, since like it or not, and despite whatever drake and raleigh got up, we didn't start subduing countries and plundering them properly until the church got in on the act. Plunder is so much nicer when its for their own good don't you think?

  • So you are talking patronising bollocks. Thought so.


    Do you have the ability to discuss politely? Thought not.


    Quote

    You make huge assumptions about all sorts of things, define things oaccording to your own narrow views and deflect arguments onto obscure points and ignore anything that doesn't fit your arguments.

    If you are going to make that accusation say where and how.


    Quote

    You want more church involvement in our government? We still have bishops in the lords ffs. Why is beyond me, they don't represetnt anyone except themselves and their faithful have no say in choosing them.

    The role of the HoL is NOT to represent (the electorate). That is what the HoC is for. The role of the HoL is to apply wisdom and experience to ammend bills and call govt actions to account. But we digress on that point.


    Quote

    Oh, but I forgot, in your world c of e is the only english church, except when the pope says something you agree with.

    The CoE is the traditional English Church, fulfilling a role in society involving the myths and rituals of the nation. The pope, sometimes also says thing that I agree with.


    Quote


    Nice how you disagree about the only genuinely christian thing the pope has said, i.e. that we do have a repsonsibility to the third world,

    He is a globalist, I am not.


    Quote

    we didn't start subduing countries and plundering them properly until the church got in on the act.

    Nonsense (colonialism is not a Christian phenomenon) but off topic nonsense.


    If you wish to disagree with me, why not address the 3 on topic points I made:
    Religion is being marginalised in Britain, with the demand increasingly being that religion is a private activity that does not belong in the public sphere.


    Relativism is increasingly the dictatorship of the modern age, fragmenting societies and dividing the generations.


    Pragmatic calculation, which increasingly replaces long-standing principle, does render a society souless and without duty to both those gone and those yet to come.

    "The only rules that really matter are these: what a man can do and what a man can't do."

    The post was edited 1 time, last by Coyote ().

  • The role of the HoL is NOT to represent (the electorate). That is what the HoC is for. The role of the HoL is to apply wisdom and experience to ammend bills and call govt actions to account. But we digress on that point.
    That is not a valid reason to entitle bishops to sit there. If it is, then every other faith, as well as the secular society ought to be represented, as well as every school of philosophy etc etc etc.


    The CoE is the traditional English Church, fulfilling a role in society involving the myths and rituals of the nation. The pope, sometimes also says thing that I agree with.
    The C of E is one of the traditional churches, not THE traditional church. The quakers for example have a long and honourable tradition as well, and I think you'll find the catholics have been around even longer. I think you'll find witches have been around a while too, as well as atheists, though its never been a good idea to admit to it. Even now its almost a crime not to have some kind of faith. Apparently I'm a fascist according to a german bishop. This doesn't actually worry me, because I think he's a cunt who should mind his own business, but the point remains.


    He is a globalist, I am not.
    Gloabalism has nothing to do with it? Apart from being a way to swerve the basic argument. The pope says we have a christian duty to help the less fortunate, I agree, except that I don't see what christianity has to do with it, especially since we were and still are the main cause of their misfortune. You disagree.


    Nonsense (colonialism is not a Christian phenomenon) but off topic nonsense.
    Might not be a christian phenomenon, but they've done it better than anyone else.
    If you wish to disagree with me, why not address the 3 on topic points I made:
    Religion is being marginalised in Britain, with the demand increasingly being that religion is a private activity that does not belong in the public sphere.
    Really? So why do we still have bishops in the lords, and more importantly why are we now financing faith schools with our money?
    Religions can teach whatever they like as far as I'm concerned, and their followers have the same right to influence public policy as you or I, why should they be granted extra powers by virtue of their leaders being given extra influence?


    Relativism is increasingly the dictatorship of the modern age, fragmenting societies and dividing the generations.
    Sorry, I've just checked wiki, that makes no sense at all.
    Pragmatic calculation, which increasingly replaces long-standing principle,
    does render a society souless and without duty to both those gone and those yet to come.[/QUOTE]
    Yet again you present this as a simple choice. Either you let the bishops run everything or you are a soulless drone who only sees things in terms of their what, monetary value? You leave absolutely no room for other arguments or schools of thought. What happened to humanitarianism for example? I find this especially rich coming from someone who admires thatcher, who as far as I'm concerned knew the price of everything and the value of nothing, but damn, she's keen to be seen with the clergy. Back on topic, the pope is implicated up to his gills in a most horrifying and ongoing event. He has no business bleating about morality or anything else and should fuck off where he came from. At least our "secular" tv can get back to normal instead of wasting time following him round the country reporting on his every stomach churning utterance.

  • Offtopic bit spoilered


    Quote

    Really? So why do we still have bishops in the lords, and more importantly why are we now financing faith schools with our money?
    Religions can teach whatever they like as far as I'm concerned, and their followers have the same right to influence public policy as you or I, why should they be granted extra powers by virtue of their leaders being given extra influence?

    The house of lords has been systematically sidelined since the Parliament Act was introduced.


    The drive in society is to marginalise religion into the private realm; how often have we heard that religion belongs behind closed doors.


    Quote

    Sorry, I've just checked wiki, that makes no sense at all.

    That is a non-answer.

    Quote

    Yet again you present this as a simple choice. Either you let the bishops run everything or you are a soulless drone who only sees things in terms of their what, monetary value? You leave absolutely no room for other arguments or schools of thought. What happened to humanitarianism for example?

    Secularism has no place for conscience; the only thing allowed input is empirical evidence. That is what secularism is about.


    Quote

    I find this especially rich coming from someone who admires thatcher, who as far as I'm concerned knew the price of everything and the value of nothing, but damn, she's keen to be seen with the clergy.

    Are you refering to me or Benedict now? I do hope you do not mean me as I have said several times that I consider Mrs Thatcher to be a liberal and not a conservative....

    "The only rules that really matter are these: what a man can do and what a man can't do."

    The post was edited 1 time, last by Coyote ().

  • I think if we ban the Pope from coming here we should also ban the Dali Lama.


    man i would deffo go to a dali lama gathering. think that would be my kind of vibe. i am sick and tired of the pope. he makes me use big sweary words( other than fartleberries) and think things other than peace n love. but each to his own eh? thank fuck he's going away soon. if you want to be ruled by the edicts of the vatican, be happy. i'd be on the side of the revolt tho if it became compulsory. the whole lot of them - the entire crew - make me want to heave.