Banterbus28 wrote: Sure you'd likely think it's wrong for someone to protest outside a mosque or synagogue.
Hitman3000 wrote: » Banterbus28 wrote: Sure you'd likely think it's wrong for someone to protest outside a mosque or synagogue. No if there is a reason to protest I see no problem with a protest outside a Mosque/Synagogue. No issue at all. Personally I think all religion is bollix but I'm happy to let them do what this wish once no harm is caused or a belief is used as justification to cause harm.
Banterbus28 wrote: Protesting some blokes visit isn't gonna do much. It'll be a fleeting visit.
Banterbus28 wrote: » Why not live and let live and do other things to fight the worlds injustice?
RobertKK wrote: » People can protest without denying others attending the events.
martyc5674 wrote: » It’s the very injustices of his org that people are likely to protest... most if the worlds injustices can be linked back to religious groups and the fivides they have created.
Graces7 wrote: » martyc5674 wrote: » It’s the very injustices of his org that people are likely to protest... most if the worlds injustices can be linked back to religious groups and the fivides they have created. Hitler?
Graces7 wrote: » Hitler?
Banterbus28 wrote: » Communism killed more people than the Third Reich and any single religious group.
Chaos Tourist wrote: » Banterbus28 wrote: » Communism killed more people than the Third Reich and any single religious group. Maybe -- the British Empire is up there as well, seriously. Author Shashi Tharoor claims Britain is responsible for deaths of 35 million Indians.:eek:
Banterbus28 wrote: » That's still a drop in the pond compared to the communist murder toll, Mao killed sooo many folk. But back on topic.
Chaos Tourist wrote: » Yes - but that's just from one country. The overall numbers would be much, much higher going over 150-200 years. Indeed, it could even be greater than Communism.
Wombatman wrote: » If you can't understand why some people detest, and might want to protest the leader of this malignant cult you are out of touch with reality. Couching it as some sort of irrational prejudice is totally disingenuous. I'd be surprised if people didn't protest, considering the amount of deep misery, hurt and pain this organisation has inflicted on some. - Vile physical, psychological and sexual child abuse - Covering up and knowingly exposing others to dangerous predators - Mother and baby prisons - Pits full of babies - Anti contraception - Anti abortion - Anti gay rights - Basically anti women - Anti any kind of proper sex education - Anti any progressive social change really - Selling babies - Destroying evidence and intimidating witnesses - Shaming and repressing from the pulpit - Dragging feet on reparations - Victim blaming The desire to protest is perfectly in line with human nature in the face of this organisation's track record.
Taytoland wrote: » Martin Luther warned you about the papists and only now are we seeing these responses.
Donald Trump wrote: » Taytoland wrote: » Martin Luther warned you about the papists and only now are we seeing these responses. Are sure look. The only reason the Brits are Prods is that one of their divine rulers couldn't get his lad up :pac: . Not some collective sudden epiphany by the masses. (no puns intended on the uses of either "epiphany" or "masses". Well maybe a little bit)
Mary Thoughtless Yo-yo wrote: » Zealotry of one form or another - not necessarily religious... The belief that a higher cause supersedes conventional morality. That’s what’s behind the biggest mass killings. Getting off the point a bit. The catholic church wrought horrors upon us and they ignore the billions in compensation they owe their victims here. It’s abhorrent that we foot the bill for their leader to come and speak as some sort of moral authority. Absolutely outrageous.
When one gives up the Christian faith, one pulls the right to Christian morality out from under one's feet. This morality is by no means self-evident... By breaking one main concept out of Christianity, the faith in God, one breaks the whole: nothing necessary remains in one's hands."
Banterbus28 wrote: » Well that's sweepimg generalisation but no the topic of conversation. Basically it boils down to Henry VIII liked money.
Leroy42 wrote: » How can you read a list like that and claim it is simply boilerplate issues. Have you ever known anyone that was subjected to rape. The devastation that it reeks on their life. Now couple that with it being done to a child, so you have not only the impact but the fact that the child has no ability to deal with it. Then take that, and force that child to continue to face the person who raped them, possibly even forcing them into repeated rapes. And the only 'solution' that the CC came up with when faced with evidence was to first try to silence the child, but if the potential damage could not be contained then moving the perpetrator to another parish, with no warning as to the danger they brought with them. In many cases the priest was allowed take an active role dealing with children again. So the child struggles through a broken childhood and maybe with the help of friends etc decides to publicise their story in order to get some resolution. The 1st response by the CC is to attack the person (when they know full well they are telling the truth). So to state, the telling the truth should be something a religious person is in favour of. How is the CC not anti-women. It implicitly states that women cannot serve as messengers of the lord, ie priests. So straight off the bat you have an organisation that is institutionally misogynistic, completely against the laws of the state but somehow we need to allow it because they believe in something (that something never mentioned women being inferior). But it probably just a phase. I think it is very healthy that we invite that type of organisation into our schools to help inform our kids about morals! The fact that you given up any idea of empathy for the sake of your religion, a religion founded on the ideas of a man who preached empathy and caring and loving one another and tearing down temples that didn't live to Gods idea is staggering.
TomOnBoard wrote: » Should we allow a protest? Absolutely! Should we protest? If you like! Will I protest? Absolutely not! Should tickets for one of the Papal performances be acquired then burned to ensure no one gets to use them? Absolutely not!Will I go see his performance? Not if he was doing it in the neighbours front garden across the road!
Donald Trump wrote: » Banterbus28 wrote: » Well that's sweepimg generalisation but no the topic of conversation. Basically it boils down to Henry VIII liked money. Well lets be thankful for their sakes at least that, when he was looking to convert his populace into another religion on his own whims (broken mickey and lust for money), that flying spaghetti monsterism wasn't around :pac:
Donald Trump wrote: » You take all the evidence that you have and bring it to your local Garda station. Then if they do not follow up, bring it to higher up. At that stage, the guards are also at fault. As are all the people who knew whatever went on and did nothing.
Donald Trump wrote: » If you want to go on and on about things that happened 50 or 100 years ago, change the tune.
Leroy42 wrote: » How can you read a list like that and claim it is simply boilerplate issues. .
Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: » yeah, let's protest against freedom of expression and freedom of religion. That'll show the rest of the world how modern and toletant we are...
Donald Trump wrote: » As I said. You'll justify your hatred of people and dress it up however you want. Basically just reeling off a list of boilerplate stuff that you don't give a shite about except that the they are useful as an excuse for you. Just handy excuses Go read a few of Paisley's speeches for inspiration
