WinnyThePoo wrote: » Nothing wrong with cynicism on when it comes to the Catholic organisation. I see they are raping in Chile now.
Leroy42 wrote: » Its a crime to be religious! Get over yourself. Do you mean a crime like homosexuality used to be? Or how about if someone wanted to leave an unhappy marriage? Or what about drinking on a day you happen to have declared as special? Or having a baby out of wedlock? I wasn't talking out you in particular, obviously, don't be so precious. I was talking about the line about liberalism, as if it is something to be avoided. As I pointed out Liberalism is what has enabled up to break away from the rule of Kings, the control of organisations like the church. Liberalism as per Wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism Since we are coming from a past wher liberty and equality were far from the norm, liberalism is looking to challenge the thinking and bring about more freedom and equality. Not sure how anybody can see that in a pejorative sense which is what it is being used in on the quote the you included in your post. I took from your smiley face that you agreed with it.
OldNotWIse wrote: » If anything is being seen as dirty, it is people of faith. It's practically a crime now to be religious. If you don't support his visit then by all means don't attend, but deliberately trying to spoil the day for those who are interested is childish and pathetic.
OldNotWIse wrote: » And I am not sure what you mean when you refer to people who "don't like change" but I will assume you don't know me well enough to be able to qualify that statement.
is a political and moral philosophy based on liberty and equality.[1][2][3] Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but they generally support civil rights, democracy, secularism, gender and race equality, internationalism and the freedoms of speech, the press, religion and markets.
OldNotWIse wrote: » Very good piece about it in the Irish Independent today, pointing out that those who protest the loudest probably weren't even around when the church had Ireland by the scruff. I particularly like, "Say Nope to the Pope campaign is a perfect example of the rising tide of sneaky cynicism and nastiness which has been displayed by so many of Ireland's new wave of liberal crusaders". :P I couldn't give a toss so like most rational atheists, I simply wont be attending. I'd rather just ignore it than try to ruin it for others out of some sense of jumped up immature spite.
Leroy42 wrote: » I love when anybody that doesn't like change brings out the line Liberals. What are they suggesting, that we shouldn't be liberal? That equality is not a good idea, maybe remove free-speech. Or how about not allowing women to vote? Or same sex couples, should we make that illegal again? Liberalism is what gave us the freedoms we have today, someone, at some point, stood up against the prevailing system and said they wanted more, they wanted better treatment.But now, its seen as something dirty. Maybe they think we have enough liberalism. But my bet is the people back then thought exactly the same. Its got nothing to do with being sneaky. Unlike the CC, the people protesting will do so openly. The CC is the very epitimone of secrecy, even so far as getting scholdren who has been abused to sign confidentiallity agreements. People are not trying to ruin ot for anybody, they are trying to make the point that we shouldn't,as a society, be so quick to simply welcome and adore people who head organisations that have caused so much pain and heartache. You might not care, but taxpayers money continues to be given to an organsiation that remains, at its heart, sexist. Does it effect me? No. Is it right? No. Should we try to change things when they are not right? Yes.
Mark Horgan wrote: » The pope don’t give a shiite about your links.
Timberrrrrrrr wrote: » He claimed the abuse was not carried out by priests, my links show that it was.
Donald Trump wrote: » In fairness, I don't think the Irish government are involved in paying out to victims in the UK (2 of your article links) or Australia (the other one)
Mark Horgan wrote: » Thanks for that Donald
Mark Horgan wrote: » The pope will pass out with the heat and drought. Is there air con in his box?
Timberrrrrrrr wrote: » What?https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-43724871https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.thesun.co.uk/news/5109488/most-senior-catholic-priest-to-be-convicted-of-sex-crimes-in-the-uk-found-guilty-on-19-charges/amp/https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2018/05/22/asia/australia-catholic-church-abuse-intl/index.html You might want to educate yourself further before making a ridiculous statement like that!https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_sexual_abuse_cases
An_Toirpin wrote: » First of all, it is not church commitments. The abuse was not carried out by priests so its nothing to do with the church as such but rather orders who act independently of Rome. The compensation is being paid out. As fast as it can be. 96pc has been passed on according to the Indo.
Leroy42 wrote: » Donald, you are quite right that company like Apple is not responsible for taking advantage of the laws of the country. But that is not what happened. The CC did not abide by the laws (unless you happen to think there was a point in time that child rape was not illegal). When the crimes did start to be brought up, they did everything in their power to stop the victims going to the police. What have you got to say in relation to them getting victims to sign a non disclosure statement? Then when the victim actually found the courage and strength to go the the authorities did the CC organisation hold its hands up and give what evidence they had to the police so that the priest could be charged. We both know that answer, it has been repeated many times both in Ireland and across the world. But if Apple breaks the law of the land, which is the analogy you should be using, then whom should I blame? Firstly, Apple, then did or covered up the crime. Then the authorities for not preventing or pursuing them correctly. The key difference is the the CC puts itself in the position of being the moral guardians, the source of morality and law and as such they have taken a direct say in the creation of laws in this, and other countries. When your key selling point is that you (the CC) have a direct and real link to God and represent him on earth on all spiritual matters, then its quite a climbdown to say you were only doing what you could get away with. And in terms of compensation, yes the victims have been given compensation, but through the state. So you are happy with the church not living up to its agreement? Who do you blame for that? I guess we can blame the government but you seem to be always wanted to give the CC a helping hand, the very attitude that you denounce others for doing. Why do you think the CC should be allowed to not pay their commitments? Why should they continue to refuse to cooperate with investigations? Why do you think the CC should exempt from equality legislation?
Donald Trump wrote: » Dr. Ian :pac:
Taytoland wrote: » Ian Paisley a true son of Ulster told the truth on the Papacy.
Banterbus28 wrote: » I support the Pope's right to visit members of his faith unmolested???
Donald Trump wrote: » 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
Banterbus28 wrote: » I second this. Being one myself lol
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.
Donald Trump wrote: » I thought Paisley was dead
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).
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.
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.
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.
nthclare wrote: » So there's a protest about the people who are against the Pope visiting. I'd say that would be a laugh.
