Should we protest against the pope's visit?

martyc5674 wrote: »

The CC the government and the guards have been in each other’s pockets in this country for hundreds of years , you know that and I know that.
You see how draining it has been on McCabe calling the guards out on poor practice. Unfortunately it’s not as easy as blaming the guards for not carrying out their duties when they have also been proven corrupt aswell, ignoring victims complaints has been a regular feature with AGS.

Grand. Where is your thread for protesting the guards?

Seeing as how the guards actually have power within this country, surely it's a far more sinister threat to the people to have corrupt enforcers of the law rather than some fella saying a mass over in the Vatican

Surely that's the more important one to knock out first?

martyc5674

Donald Trump wrote: »

Grand. Where is your thread for protesting the guards?

Seeing as how the guards actually have power within this country, surely it's a far more sinister threat to the people to have corrupt enforcers of the law rather than some fella saying a mass over in the Vatican

Surely that's the more important one to knock out first?

We don’t need a thread like this one for the guards.... they don’t have a fan base with their heads in the sand.

martyc5674 wrote: »

We don’t need a thread like this one for the guards.... they don’t have a fan base with their heads in the sand.

Surely it would be an easier one to win then? no?

Easier and have more benefit. If some priest says something stupid in the Vatican, less of a shit I could not give. Local guard is a dodgy bollix - well that can have serious and direct negative effects on me

Yet you aren't doing it

Real reason is that you just want to niggle at this so-called fan base

RobAMerc

Donald Trump wrote: »

Yeah. You should read the details of the article you sent

They don't owe the money.

If something is "owed" it could be legally recovered through the courts system. Simple fact is it isn't owed.

Bollocks - they owe compensation money to those their members wronged and they protected
By your logic - if I kick you in the nuts, unless a court says so you dont owe me one, yea right

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

RobAMerc wrote: »

Bollocks - they owe compensation money to those their members wronged and they protected
By your logic - if I kick you in the nuts, unless a court says so you dont owe me one, yea right

Yes.
You can try to argue they should have paid more.
But they don't owe anything to anyone. The government stepped in and paid compo. If they shouldn't have - then take it up with them

What is happening here is you are hearing some inaccurate standard claim by the intolerant bigots and not finding out the details.

martyc5674

Donald Trump wrote: »

Surely it would be an easier one to win then? no?

Easier and have more benefit. If some priest says something stupid in the Vatican, less of a shit I could not give. Local guard is a dodgy bollix - well that can have serious and direct negative effects on me

Yet you aren't doing it

Real reason is that you just want to niggle at this so-called fan base

There’s a real theme to your posts, the pope doesn’t effect me so I don’t care, the guards could effect me so I do care, I don’t care if tax payers money is wasted on his trip so I don’t give s crap etc etc etc.
All very revealing of a selfish person who only cares about themselves.

RobAMerc wrote: »

He's the leader of the church that perpetrated the crimes and then covered them up. He holds the power to apologise and agree to pay the money's owed to the victims of his gangs wrong doings. He's not just some Joe who's over for a visit.

So it's not something he did, it's something he failed to do?

Are you suggesting the folks going to see him are opposed to him apologising?

No idea how you came to that conclusion. Are you replying to the correct post...?

Donald Trump wrote: »

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

I think you've embarrassed yourself enough. Perhaps an early night. Your hysterics aren't getting you anywhere.

L O fucking L :pac:

Piss off with the paisley crap that was just a means to a political end.

work

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

lazy post yourself at least discredit the list if you can. but all of the list not bits

nthclare

So there's a protest about the people who are against the Pope visiting.

I'd say that would be a laugh.

work

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

How about we just live and let live? If you don’t want anything to do with the Popes’ vist OP that fine. But don’t presume to tell the rest of us how to feel.

If you read my posts I have clarified that. I was a little strong to get a reaction but certainly never presume to tell people how to feel or act etc, that right sits strongly with religeon with the CD being especially good telling people how to conduct every element of their lives.

work wrote: »

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

How about we just live and let live? If you don’t want anything to do with the Popes’ vist OP that fine. But don’t presume to tell the rest of us how to feel.

If you read my posts I have clarified that. I was a little strong to get a reaction but certainly never presume to tell people how to feel or act etc, that right sits strongly with religeon with the CD being especially good telling people how to conduct every element of their lives.

A religion is also a life style though...

gormdubhgorm

May just protest against the naming choices.... in May.

After those blissfully heady two days there will be loads of kids called Francis milling around the month of May.

It is bad enough for all those John Paul's immediately dated as 1979 for life.

s7ryf3925pivug

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/abuse-compensation-deal-a-get-out-of-jail-free-card-for-church-1.3005781

This article explains the situation with the compensation. The government in 2002 agreed a cap on what they could be compelled to pay of 128M. This was because the total owed was estimated to be about 250M, and because they didn’t want every indidual claimant to have to take a court case to get compensated. However the church knew that the government’s estimates were too low - the compensation amount to about ten times the estimated amount.

So the church tricked the state into agreeing to cap their obligation at 5% of the total fund instead of 50%. Of course they still haven’t paid even that.

JupiterKid

As I’ve said before I have no problem with the Pope coming here to visit. I DO have a serious problem with a single cent of tax payers money being spent to fund the event.

The Catholic Church inflicted the most heinous and vile abuses on Irish society and I sincerely hope that there will be a sizable protest. But the most telling thing will be the numbers going to see the pope - they will be a small fraction of 1979.

The Church is all but dead in Ireland now anyway - their collapse actually began back in 1992 and has gathered pace since. Most so-called “Catholics” in the 2016 census are not true believers and over the next 20 years these numbers will decline hugely. The schools issue is the last thing to be dealt with to fully exorcise the church control from our country and this will happen pretty soon.

BTW I think the ploy to book tickets just to deny others to see the Pope is mean-spirited and unfair.

Mary Thoughtless Yo-yo wrote: »

So the church tricked the state into agreeing to cap their obligation at 5% of the total fund instead of 50%. Of course they still haven’t paid even that.

This is the bit that shows that despite all the talk of the church changing, at its core it is still battling against the state, the wellbeing of the victims.

Even parking the vile raping of children that lead to this agreement, the fact that they are not even prepared to stick to an agreement they made shows them for the corporation that they are. Its about money and power, morals and religion has nothing to do with it.

Would we welcome the head of a company that had carried out the same level of abuse and failed to live up to prior agreements with such open arms? Not a chance. The only reason we are even contemplating it is because people believe in the stuff they are selling, and are willing to overlook the harm, deceit and downright evil that this organisation has not only allowed, but in many cases actively worked towards.

I mean, imagine getting a child to sign a non disclosure agreement! On what moral standing can something like that even be considered?

There is a lot of talk about how the ordinary catholic had nothing to do with all of this, and that of course is correct. But this visit actually gives a unique chance for those very same people to make their views known. It shouldn't be left down to others to make the point that CC is failing to live by the ideals it sets others.

The ordinary Catholic should be protesting his visit, demanding the end to men on priests, demanding that the compensation agreed is paid, and that morally they really should pay their full share regardless of how gormless are TD's were at the time (yet again the church abusing their power).

martyc5674 wrote: »

There’s a real theme to your posts, the pope doesn’t effect me so I don’t care, the guards could effect me so I do care, I don’t care if tax payers money is wasted on his trip so I don’t give s crap etc etc etc.
All very revealing of a selfish person who only cares about themselves.

No answer to my point then.

You claim guards and catholic church are equally responsible and negligent for unspecified general crimes. Surely if you believed that, you would try to have someone held responsible.

Effecting change, or holding those responsible, is eminently more easily achieved within the guards, yet you're not attempting to do it.

In reality you don't care about victims of anything. You are just so self centered that you want the world to revolve around you and your irrational hatred of Catholics.

It's easy to blunder and bluster at the Vatican from thousands of miles away. It's just like a kid throwing a tantrum. you can vent and whine online for a few minutes then forget about it and walk away.

Write a letter to the new Garda commissioner detailing your concerns. Sure he's a Protestant. He'd hardly love the Pope now would he? Should be easy. Or does it suit your MO just not to have these things either proven and dealt with or disproved? Because then you'd have nothing to bluster about

Leroy42 wrote: »

This is the bit that shows that despite all the talk of the church changing, at its core it is still battling against the state, the wellbeing of the victims.

Even parking the vile raping of children that lead to this agreement, the fact that they are not even prepared to stick to an agreement they made shows them for the corporation that they are. Its about money and power, morals and religion has nothing to do with it.

Would we welcome the head of a company that had carried out the same level of abuse and failed to live up to prior agreements with such open arms? Not a chance. The only reason we are even contemplating it is because people believe in the stuff they are selling, and are willing to overlook the harm, deceit and downright evil that this organisation has not only allowed, but in many cases actively worked towards.

I mean, imagine getting a child to sign a non disclosure agreement! On what moral standing can something like that even be considered?

There is a lot of talk about how the ordinary catholic had nothing to do with all of this, and that of course is correct. But this visit actually gives a unique chance for those very same people to make their views known. It shouldn't be left down to others to make the point that CC is failing to live by the ideals it sets others.

The ordinary Catholic should be protesting his visit, demanding the end to men on priests, demanding that the compensation agreed is paid, and that morally they really should pay their full share regardless of how gormless are TD's were at the time (yet again the church abusing their power).

I thought Paisley was dead

Donald, I struggling to understand your logic. You seem to be arguing that since the Garda didn't deal with the allegations correctly that we should blame them and since ti is easier to tackle that we should forget about the church's role and focus on the Garda.

The Gardai have been correctly shown to have been under the influence of the church, too often looking to protect the church and take the word of the local priest rather than pursue justice. And there is no doubt that there was significant failings (in this and other areas). As an arm of the state, it is the state that must be ultimately responsible, and they have. They have stumped up the cash for victims. They have undertaken investigations, tribunals (in other cases).

But the clear signal throughout all of this is that the church abused it position to get the Garda to protect it. Yet you seem to want to short the blame to the garda. You seem to be trying to claim that the Garda just make this decision, with no outside influences. We all know enough about these scandals, both in Ireland and elsewhere) to know that the CC used their power and influence to make sure that anyone ho did try to pursue actions was targeted and attempted to be silenced. In many cases the CC had in their possession details the Garda needed to take the case further but never even mentioned it. Instead they hid it, forcing the victims to relive their horrendous experiences again and again when they knew all along that what they were saying was true and in fact they knew of other cases.

You cannot simply look a it in isolation. The fact that it is not just limited to Ireland shows that the cause for this sits with the church.

Again, you keep harking back to peoples hatred of catholics. It has nothing at all do with that, although I accept that is a useful line for you to use to create an vs them attitude.

This is against the organisation that allowed and in some cases facilitated the abuse. It is against an organisation that has put itself over the laws of the state. This os not about hating catholics or their religion. It is about making the case that the CC doesn't represent what that religion is supposed to be about.

It is clear some you posts that non of this have effected you, that you simply cannot understand the pain and hurt and long term damage that the CC has caused. But even from a simple POV, think about a church that actively tells have the population they they have less worth than the other half. I take it you are the type of person that tells those faced with racism to simply move. Or get another job, or go to a different school.

It doesn't affect you so what harm? YEt that is the very sae attitude that the Garda had that you seem so exercised about, to the point that you are trying to derail a thread about the visit of the pope into a discussion about the Gardai

Donald Trump wrote: »

I thought Paisley was dead

Any actual rebuttals, or is this your only line.

You also seem to have an unhealthy fixation with Paisley. It would appear that your constant cries of anti-catholic are matched by your clear hatred of NI protestants.

Leroy42 wrote: »

Any actual rebuttals, or is this your only line.

You also seem to have an unhealthy fixation with Paisley. It would appear that your constant cries of anti-catholic are matched by your clear hatred of NI protestants.

Haha good one.

Is it just the Catholics ya hate yourself then? Not all religions. Protestants are grand? And Muslims and Jews and Hindus

Leroy42 wrote: »

Donald, I struggling to understand your logic. You seem to be arguing that since the Garda didn't deal with the allegations correctly that we should blame them and since ti is easier to tackle that we should forget about the church's role and focus on the Garda.

The Gardai have been correctly shown to have been under the influence of the church, too often looking to protect the church and take the word of the local priest rather than pursue justice. And there is no doubt that there was significant failings (in this and other areas). As an arm of the state, it is the state that must be ultimately responsible, and they have. They have stumped up the cash for victims. They have undertaken investigations, tribunals (in other cases).

But the clear signal throughout all of this is that the church abused it position to get the Garda to protect it. Yet you seem to want to short the blame to the garda. You seem to be trying to claim that the Garda just make this decision, with no outside influences. We all know enough about these scandals, both in Ireland and elsewhere) to know that the CC used their power and influence to make sure that anyone ho did try to pursue actions was targeted and attempted to be silenced. In many cases the CC had in their possession details the Garda needed to take the case further but never even mentioned it. Instead they hid it, forcing the victims to relive their horrendous experiences again and again when they knew all along that what they were saying was true and in fact they knew of other cases.

You cannot simply look a it in isolation. The fact that it is not just limited to Ireland shows that the cause for this sits with the church.

Again, you keep harking back to peoples hatred of catholics. It has nothing at all do with that, although I accept that is a useful line for you to use to create an vs them attitude.

This is against the organisation that allowed and in some cases facilitated the abuse. It is against an organisation that has put itself over the laws of the state. This os not about hating catholics or their religion. It is about making the case that the CC doesn't represent what that religion is supposed to be about.

It is clear some you posts that non of this have effected you, that you simply cannot understand the pain and hurt and long term damage that the CC has caused. But even from a simple POV, think about a church that actively tells have the population they they have less worth than the other half. I take it you are the type of person that tells those faced with racism to simply move. Or get another job, or go to a different school.

It doesn't affect you so what harm? YEt that is the very sae attitude that the Garda had that you seem so exercised about, to the point that you are trying to derail a thread about the visit of the pope into a discussion about the Gardai

Logic is simple.

There are cases of crimes being committed. You posit some imaginary position that the church abused some mythical "position" and this abuse made the crimes even worse. You want redress/revenge for that.

I say - well if that happened then there were others whose negligence or acquiescence is equally as culpable in the latter so why not target those people?

Surely that would be the easier one to achieve and then a stepping stone to achieving the other step - proving the church did X/Y/Z. That is what I would do if I had evidence or even strong suspicion about specific cases.

The fact that people are not interested in that - knocking out the first stepping stone, leads me to believe that they don't really care about these things - if they happened - other than their use in furthering their own personal agenda.

Donald Trump wrote: »

Haha good one.

Is it just the Catholics ya hate yourself then? Not all religions. Protestants are grand? And Muslims and Jews and Hindus

Seriously can you actually read?

You keep mentioning hatred of catholics, please show me where I said that. And whilst you are at it, please include all the time I have made it clear that this has nothing to do with hatred of catholics.

I have an issue the the organisation that represents them. Take a step back from your defencise position and think about what the catholic church has been involved in. THe child rape and abuse, the cover ups, the continued denial of comensation to victims. The ingrained misogyny.

Are you really trying to say that you would accept that from a company. Because that is the core of it. Take away the veil of religion, for it is clouding your response.

If you found out that a teacher, a neighbour etc had been abusing your friend, brother, sister, children, would you give them a pass because they followed Liverpool, or thought the earth was flat, or prayed to Mohammed?

Leroy42 wrote: »

Seriously can you actually read?

You keep mentioning hatred of catholics, please show me where I said that. And whilst you are at it, please include all the time I have made it clear that this has nothing to do with hatred of catholics.

I have an issue the the organisation that represents them. Take a step back from your defencise position and think about what the catholic church has been involved in. THe child rape and abuse, the cover ups, the continued denial of comensation to victims. The ingrained misogyny.

Are you really trying to say that you would accept that from a company. Because that is the core of it. Take away the veil of religion, for it is clouding your response.

If you found out that a teacher, a neighbour etc had been abusing your friend, brother, sister, children, would you give them a pass because they followed Liverpool, or thought the earth was flat, or prayed to Mohammed?

Ah will you stop it with the compensation shite

Victims received compensation.

The issue people have now is that the church did not pay what they deem should have been "its fair share" and that the state gave them a far too soft deal. By all means debate that but don't put it out there like there are victims sitting by the door waiting for the day their cheque finally arrives. That does the victims a disservice.

Why did the government agree to pay any of it? I don't know but I would guess that they knew the state bore partial responsibility either for not enforcing laws or being lax with checks or else by not providing the services in the first place that the church stepped in to do

You are simply wrong Donald. The CC agreed a compensation deal but to date have failed to provide the agreed funds back to the state (the state has paid out the money to the victims).

Again, and you really do not seem to want to engage with this point, would you accept this behaviour from any other corporate organisation? Or are you willing to give them a break simply because it is the CC?

You keep harking back to the Garda, in some poor attempt to avoid dealing with the issue, but you are displaying the exact same attitudes. Sure the CC did stuff wrong, but what about the Gardas, and sure didn't they try to change, and isn't it better than having some other religion in charge etc etc.

You made the point that dealing with the garda would somehow help in dealing the church. But we know what the church was up to, we know that from our own experiences and that of other countries. We don't need any steps along the way to understand what happened.

Because the CC undertook exactly the same things in the UK, US, Australia, Canada etc etc. In fact the 1 common factor in all of the cases is the CC protecting itself rather than the victims.

You know why we don't have state visits for corporations? Because they don't sell themselves as the moral arbitrators of the land. Take a simple thing like the Good Friday pub closures. Based on nothing more than religious ideology. Our religion tells us not to drink so therefore nobody can. Now carry that across almost every aspect of your life. It is easy to dismiss it as being overblown now, now that many of the shackles have been removed but the power the CC had at one point in this country is truly scary looking back. And they totally abused that power.

Chaos Tourist

nthclare wrote: »

So there's a protest about the people who are against the Pope visiting.

I'd say that would be a laugh.

Damnit someone organise a protest against the crowd protesting against the protesters.

Leroy42 wrote: »

You are simply wrong Donald. The CC agreed a compensation deal but to date have failed to provide the agreed funds back to the state (the state has paid out the money to the victims).

How am I wrong? I stated the victims received compensation. And you ultimately seem to have accepted that with your last post despite previous posts referencing the continued denial of comensation to victims(sic) . If money is owed to the state, there are a plethora of legal mechanisms which the state can use to size that.

Leroy42 wrote: »

Again, and you really do not seem to want to engage with this point, would you accept this behaviour from any other corporate organisation? Or are you willing to give them a break simply because it is the CC?

You keep harking back to the Garda, in some poor attempt to avoid dealing with the issue, but you are displaying the exact same attitudes. Sure the CC did stuff wrong, but what about the Gardas, and sure didn't they try to change, and isn't it better than having some other religion in charge etc etc.

My point is that the state is the ultimate power. They should create and enforce laws, administer justice.

If you want to use a corporation analogy, if the Irish government sets up tax loopholes and Apple Inc avails of them, who is to blame?

Leroy42 wrote: »

You made the point that dealing with the garda would somehow help in dealing the church. But we know what the church was up to, we know that from our own experiences and that of other countries. We don't need any steps along the way to understand what happened.

Because the CC undertook exactly the same things in the UK, US, Australia, Canada etc etc. In fact the 1 common factor in all of the cases is the CC protecting itself rather than the victims.

Of course it would help. Get yourself a legal conviction that some guards colluded with the Church and then you have legal evidence/determination that there was collusion. What you have now is just accusations.

Leroy42 wrote: »

You know why we don't have state visits for corporations? Because they don't sell themselves as the moral arbitrators of the land. Take a simple thing like the Good Friday pub closures. Based on nothing more than religious ideology. Our religion tells us not to drink so therefore nobody can. Now carry that across almost every aspect of your life. It is easy to dismiss it as being overblown now, now that many of the shackles have been removed but the power the CC had at one point in this country is truly scary looking back. And they totally abused that power.

Ah will ya stop being so dramatic. And we have state visits for various sovereign leaders. If you want to be pedantic, the Pope is the sovereign leader of the Vatican state

Leroy42 wrote: »

Donald Trump wrote: »

I thought Paisley was dead

Any actual rebuttals, or is this your only line.

You also seem to have an unhealthy fixation with Paisley. It would appear that your constant cries of anti-catholic are matched by your clear hatred of NI protestants.

I second this.

Being one myself lol

Banterbus28 wrote: »

I second this.

Being one myself lol

Ah well at least we now know why you want to have a dog in this particular fight. I'd imagine that quite a number of other posters on here have the same motivations/agenda but at least you are honest enough to be open about it