The pope weeps for not mentioning Rohingya in Myanmar

Wanderer78

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Well no. Scientology was specifically created to make money.

Scientologists obviously dont see it that way

Oldtree wrote: »

As an atheist I'm surprised that you don't see catholicism and it's many counterparts as cults. It is just a well organised superstition that extracts money after all. You are looking at an ancient ponzi scheme.

your statement is understandable, but again, no i dont. many if not most of our predominant religions were created centuries ago for multiple reasons, mainly to give meaning to life. this is a very fundamental question of our existence. of course you can argue your point, i.e. they are just all ponzi schemes, and you d be partially right, but id say your more wrong than right. i have seen evidence of our predominant religions that bring positivity to society, in fact, id go further and say, ive seen them save lives.

Have you seen any atheists bring positivity into people's lives? People are fundamentally good and do not need a doctrine to be made into good people.

yup. difficult statement to respond to, but thats very subjective. theres many complex human behavioral traits that cause people to behave in a potentially dangerous and disturbing way to others, psychopathy comes to mind, but there are others.

c_man

Deleted User wrote: »

Ara jaysis. Don't get your panties in a twist there.

Err right, sorry to ruin the jerk.

RobertKK

As well as a religious figure, the Pope is also a political figure.

The problem in Myanmar is Christians are also a minority in the mostly Buddhist country. Christians there were apparently concerned for their own safety if the Pope had spoken out directly about the Rohingya.
The Pope instead talked about respecting the lives of all including the minorities in that country.

I don't think he could go into Myanmar gung-ho and start spouting off, with the likelihood things would end up worse.

Oldtree

Tell me how wrote: »

But how much can one person/figure do in one situation. He cannot fix all things with the flick of his wrist, does that mean he is a failure?

What is a realistic level of achievement you think any such figure has the power to deliver?

As for the cynical eye, that's your eye and your cynicism. Maybe it's coming from a place of negativity.

I'm not an avid Catholic and its probably more accurate to class myself as non-practising but I do feel that Pope Francis generally portrays a sense of love and support towards his fellow human beings and as a figurehead of an organization such as the Catholic church, that is a good thing. I don't expect him to be able fix all the problems of the world.

In this instance he did nothing and portrayed no love or support for the Rohingya people. qed

I'm not sure where you get the 'place of negitivity' bit from? I'm just saying what I see. Are you in a place of positivity due to being a non-avid catholic and do you want to take me there?

ohnonotgmail

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Scientologists obviously dont see it that way

not publicly they wouldn't. the founder had no such qualms.

Oldtree

super_furry wrote: »

You can't possibly know that. For most people the risk of sparking off further attacks and deaths by making what would be seen as an inflammatory public proclamation is one not worth taking.

well i can be somewhat sure as its been widely reported

“Had I said that word, I would have been slamming the door,” the Pope told journalists on the flight back from Bangladesh.

Oldtree

Wanderer78 wrote: »

yup. difficult statement to respond to, but thats very subjective. theres many complex human behavioral traits that cause people to behave in a potentially dangerous and disturbing way to others, psychopathy comes to mind, but there are others.

It is. But when it comes the masses, religion is a merely a mechanism of social control, used by those that understand that to have their way, so to speak, a mindset not too far away from psychopathy imo.

Oldtree

RobertKK wrote: »

As well as a religious figure, the Pope is also a political figure.

The problem in Myanmar is Christians are also a minority in the mostly Buddhist country. Christians there were apparently concerned for their own safety if the Pope had spoken out directly about the Rohingya.
The Pope instead talked about respecting the lives of all including the minorities in that country.

I don't think he could go into Myanmar gung-ho and start spouting off, with the likelihood things would end up worse.

Amnesty International did not feel that way and were very disapointed that the issue was ignored in a very public way.

Grayson

Oldtree wrote: »

Amnesty International did not feel that way and were very disapointed that the issue was ignored in a very public way.

Officially they were but I'm sure unofficially they understood.

Help!!!!

Oldtree wrote: »

That's just great after he didn't have the balls to say anything about the situation when in Myanmar.



Nothing like a good cry to sort out world peace.

I'm sooooooo sorry.........

Maybe when he go to Myanmar & heard the truth rather than the usual drivel from MSM he realised he shouldn't say anything
Has he ever gone to the Middle East & asked to stop the killing of the Christians??

Help!!!!

RobertKK wrote: »

As well as a religious figure, the Pope is also a political figure.

The problem in Myanmar is Christians are also a minority in the mostly Buddhist country. Christians there were apparently concerned for their own safety if the Pope had spoken out directly about the Rohingya.
The Pope instead talked about respecting the lives of all including the minorities in that country.

I don't think he could go into Myanmar gung-ho and start spouting off, with the likelihood things would end up worse.

The Myanmar would do nothing to the Christians because the Christians haven't been attacking the Myanmar or threatening to burn down their villages if they do not convert

Oldtree

Grayson wrote: »

Officially they were but I'm sure unofficially they understood.

Not sure that that would stand up anywhere.

super_furry

Oldtree wrote: »

well i can be somewhat sure as its been widely reported

No, I was referring to "Did it prevent further attacks? No......"

You can't possibly know if there would have been retaliation on the Rohingya if he'd gone over there with all guns blazing.

mordeith

Tell me how wrote: »

Not necessarily. Yes when it is hijacked by authoritarians, (of which there are plenty in all religions) but the central tennant which I think most religions profess are love, suppport, kindness and understanding.

How is that a bad thing? It's when the authoritarians gain a foothold, things start to go awry.

Hijacked? All religions are run by authoritarians, whether it's the pope or a local imam, priest or rabbi

Oldtree

Help!!!! wrote: »

Maybe when he go to Myanmar & heard the truth rather than the usual drivel from MSM he realised he shouldn't say anything
Has he ever gone to the Middle East & asked to stop the killing of the Christians??

Seeing is believing, isnt it. Not sure he saw anything to comment about other than having a cry afterwards.

as an aside, I wonder was he weeping about 12 year olds in the vatican, before he then decided to do something about that issue, but not too much if they are married

Help!!!!

Oldtree wrote: »

Seeing is believing, isnt it. Not sure he saw anything to comment about other than having a cry afterwards.

as an aside, I wonder was he weeping about 12 year olds in the vatican, before he then decided to do something about that issue, but not too much if they are married

Yeah I dont get the whole religious underage sex thing

Oldtree

super_furry wrote: »

No, I was referring to "Did it prevent further attacks? No......"

You can't possibly know if there would have been retaliation on the Rohingya if he'd gone over there with all guns blazing.

So are you saying that the popes mere presence stopped some/all attacks?

feargale

Your evident concern for the plight of the Rohingya people is touching.

Oldtree wrote: »

That's just great after he didn't have the balls to say anything about the situation when in Myanmar.

How many cases do you know of a head of state, while on a visit abroad, engaging in megaphone diplomacy with the hosts to good effect? The only case I can think of where a visitor did it your way was de Gaulle's visit to Canada in 1967 ("Vive le Québec libre") and that didn't end well. Francis was treading a minefield in Burma. As for what he did say privately you are entitled to your opinion as to whether he should have said more, but you make it sound as if he had a dishonourable motive for not doing so. Do you think he saw his trip to Burma as a junket? You haven't spelled out his motive as you see it.

Leading figures in the Catholic Church and international politics advised Pope Francis not to use the term Rohingya during a trip to Myanmar due to political sensitivities.

Daniel Aguirre, a former legal adviser to the International Commission of Jurists in Myanmar, said Pope Francis was “damned if he did and damned if he did not say the word Rohingya,” he told the The Independent. “Although it is disappointing that he did not refer to the Rohingya by name, his visit brought attention to the human rights violations against them.”


Francis told reporters aboard the papal plane on Saturday that he was confident his message had been heard during private meetings with Myanmar's leader Aung San Suu Kyi and military chief Min Aung Hlaing.

Oldtree wrote: »

Amnesty International did not feel that way and were very disapointed that the issue was ignored in a very public way.

Amnesty International has in the past done sterling work on behalf of those who have been blatantly denied their basic human rights. Now that it has begun to adopt a position on the interpretation of human rights in the democratic world, on an issue or issues that leave decent democrats deeply divided it has lost some of its sheen.

Oldtree wrote: »

as an aside, I wonder was he weeping about 12 year olds in the vatican, before he then decided to do something about that issue, but not too much if they are married

Aha! Now we see what you're at. If you want to talk about the sex abuse scandals aren't there numerous threads covering that? If they don't meet your requirements you can open a new one. Maybe Godwin should formulate a new law: When the Vatican is mentioned in Boards.ie whether in the context of the Rohingya or the Copts or whatever, a thread will not go more than a dozen or so posts before paedophilia gets a mention. Yes, we are all deeply affected by your concern for the Rohingya.

Oldtree wrote: »

It is. But when it comes the masses, religion is a merely a mechanism of social control, used by those that understand that to have their way, so to speak, a mindset not too far away from psychopathy imo.

This being your view, how come you don't remain consistent and maintain that the Pope should mind his own business and remain silent on the Rohingya question?

Oldtree wrote: »

Nothing like a good cry to sort out world peace.

I'm sooooooo sorry.........

Yes, so sorry for the Rohingya, you are.

feargale

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Oh yea. But when your predecessor was a f*cking Nazi Youth then you'd have to do something goddamn awful to be any worse.

Ratzinger's family, especially his father, a policeman, bitterly resented the Nazis, and his father's opposition to Nazism resulted in demotions and harassment of the family. Following his 14th birthday in 1941, Ratzinger was conscripted into the Hitler Youth—as membership was required by law for all 14-year-old German boys after March 1939—but was an unenthusiastic member who refused to attend meetings. In 1941, one of Ratzinger's cousins, a 14-year-old boy with Down syndrome, was taken away by the Nazi regime and murdered during the Action T4 campaign of Nazi eugenics. In 1943, while still in seminary, he was drafted into the German anti-aircraft corps as Luftwaffenhelfer. Ratzinger then trained in the German infantry. As the Allied front drew closer to his post in 1945, he deserted.

By all means criticise his views and his governance if you feel you must, but you should do a minimum of research before you post. It will help you to avoid defaming people. This old chestnut has previously appeared in Boards.ie from time to time. It's clear that some people rely exclusively on Boards for their "education."

I once knew an genial old man, long dead, who went to the outskirts of Moscow as a privare soldier in Hitler's army. If you call Ratzinger a Nazi you must also call him a Nazi, and also just about every German who wore a uniform, even if it was only a postman's uniform.

Mutant z

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Yup, I'm not sure I'd call the Catholic church a cult though, it's does create a lot of positivities for society

What else would you call an organisation that believes in an invisible man in the sky.

feargale

Mutant z wrote: »

What else would you call an organisation that believes in an invisible man in the sky.

Another man whose empathy with the Rohingya is palpable.

Oldtree

feargale wrote: »

Your evident concern for the plight of the Rohingya people is touching.

but you make it sound as if he had a dishonourable motive for not doing so. Do you think he saw his trip to Burma as a junket? You haven't spelled out his motive as you see it.

Aha! Now we see what you're at. If you want to talk about the sex abuse scandals aren't there numerous threads covering that? If they don't meet your requirements you can open a new one. Maybe Godwin should propound a new law: When the Vatican is mentioned in Boards.ie whether in the context of the Rohingya or the Copts or whatever, a thread will not go more than a dozen or so posts before paedophilia gets a mention. Yes, we are all deeply affected by your concern for the Rohingya.

This being your view, how come you don't remain consistent and maintain that the Pope should mind his own business and remain silent on the Rohingya question?

Yes, so sorry for the Rohingya, you are.

Why are you trying to talk like yoda?

I'm not sure how you can separate the church as we now know it, and paedophilia, it is after all synonymous in a lot of people's minds and why not mention it. The problem in our country in the past is that it wasn't mentioned enough imo.

The question I think you have to ask yourself is why did the pope apologise to the Rohingya in Bangladesh and have a little cry? It seems in Bangladesh he feels he has authority to speak for mankind not just the state he is head of. Would this not be talking out of both sides of his mouth as the people in Myanmar can read the papers too. Would that not lead to the much feared shutting of the door too?

I can only take from the above sarcasm laden post that you have little feeling for a besieged and beleaguered people, that could easily go on to some sort of genocide.

I don't think you know what I am at really, and get an inkiling that you have a "positive" agenda to push forward.