nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Should we protest against the pope's visit?

work

I believe a huge protest against the popes visit is required to show the government and church they are no longer welcome or wanted in our society. What do you think? There are many stakeholders that should protest their removal from any influence in our society. Some that come to mind are:
1) Anyone not supportive of misogyny
2) Anyone that doesn't believe in school indoctrination of children in a massive lie.
3) Anyone concerned about abusers in positions allowing abuse
4) Anyone with the most basic scientific education.
5) Anyone that doesn't support cults
6) Anyone that believes LGBT people should be treated fairly in society.
7) Anyone that believes women should have ANY control of their bodies.
8) Anyone that is not seen as equal in the church namely women children and men.

There are many other areas but I realised I have covered everyone. As such let's all go to the Phoenix park to let the Vatican know they are not welcome.
Are there any peaceful groups planning to protest?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Sycamore Tree

Rte playback is good this morning. The blinkered ones hate McAleese and think she is helping anarchists

Donald Trump

Hitman3000 wrote: »

It's quite ironic that the majority of the abusive and downright vile comments are coming from supporters of a faith that proports to teach tolerance, acceptance and understanding. I'm rather surprised Donald Trump is still not thread banned here, only time I guess he has already been banned off the other thread about Frank's visit.

Who is a supporter of anything other than people's freedom to practice whatever they want especially when it does not impinge on other people's rights.

Given that you appear to attempt to justify your whole bigoted attitude based on the historical turning of blind eyes and inactivity of the church and it's leadership in relation to historical abuses, I'd be interested to hear of your opinions of organs of the State who also turned blind eyes.

Given that the Church had no official legal power or authority over the state, but the likes of the social services and Gardai did, are they not also equally as culpable. And if the Pope is somehow "head of the paedos" is the top Garda not equally "head of the paedos" by the same logic?
And the blame attributed to current clergy can be equally applied to current members of the Gardai by the same logic?
And calling or implying that a Catholic is a paedophile supporter is analagous to implying that someone who supports the Gardai is a paedophile supporter.

So, what do you think? Do you support the Guards or do you think they are all paedos, tarnished by the activity of their predecessors. Are all the guards paedos? Covering over other paedos? Does that make you a paedo supporter if you support the guards by the similar logic applied to Catholics?

Granted that you could make allowances for the fact that most guards are thick, ill-educated gombeens, who generally were unfortunate in that there was usually not a lot of opportunity for intelligence to be inherited through their genes, but I don't think that would take a lot of the blame off them for their inaction.

Hitman3000

Donald Trump wrote:

Who is a supporter of anything other than people's freedom to practice whatever they want especially when it does not impinge on other people's rights.

Have you not been banned twice off this thread for disgusting commentary?

Donald Trump

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Have you not been banned twice off this thread for disgusting commentary?

Ah, no answer to the question

So I take it you agree that the Gardai are at least as culpable as the Church?

And that if anyone currently within the Catholic Church is supporting paedos by definition, then anyone in the Guards must be similarly doing so

Hitman3000

Donald Trump wrote:

Ah, no answer to the question

No interest in engaging in whataboutery. Others may but I won't.
Well we're you unbanned?

Donald Trump

Hitman3000 wrote: »

No interest in engaging in whataboutery. Others may but I won't.
Well we're you unbanned?

Has ya stumped eh?

Seems that your hatred of paodo-protecting clergy does not extend to paedo-protecting Gardai

A bit weird if you ask me. Given that the Guards had the legal power to act. Clergy had no legal or state power. They had no power to do anything beyond what the state bodies allowed them to get away with.

Maybe you just happen to know some thicko paedo-loving guards yourself

Dude89

A very warm welcome POPE FRANCIS

Canis Lupus

Dude89 wrote: »

A very warm welcome POPE FRANCIS

Is he reading boards?

nice_guy80

Sycamore Tree wrote: »

Rte playback is good this morning. The blinkered ones hate McAleese and think she is helping anarchists

Yeah.
Thought it was funny

Hitman3000

Donald Trump wrote:

Has ya stumped eh?

Not at all. As I said I don't engage in whataboutery. I leave that for clowns who wish to deflect.

Rosie2018

Hitman3000 wrote: »

No interest in engaging in whataboutery. Others may but I won't.
Well we're you unbanned?

You're here aswell!! Lol! Sad, just sad. Get a life. Oh child abuse in families and gardai doesn't bother you. Just anti church. Major dose of SMS you have.

Hitman3000

Rosie2018 wrote:

You're here aswell!! Lol! Sad, just sad. Get a life. Oh child abuse in families and gardai doesn't bother you. Just anti church. Major dose of SMS you have.

You accused me of lying when I said Frank accused the Chilean abuse victims of being liars. Did you read the links by several other posters to proof my cliam was true or do you still claim I was lying?

Rosie2018

Hitman3000 wrote: »

You accused me of lying when I said Frank accused the Chilean abuse victims of being liars. Did you read the links by several other posters to proof my cliam was true or do you still claim I was lying?

Very poor sources. Finito. Seen as you call Pope Francis 'Frank'.. I'll take the liberty of saying have a nice day Sh*tman.

Hitman3000

Rosie2018 wrote:

Very poor sources. Finito. Seen as you call Pope Francis 'Frank'.. I'll take the liberty of saying have a nice day Sh*tman.

So unable to counter my comments. Says it all about you. Name calling as well proves my point about the abuse on here being one sided.

Donald Trump

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Not at all. As I said I don't engage in whataboutery. I leave that for clowns who wish to deflect.

That's all you do baby

Random poster on boards wrote:

I'm looking forward to attend the mass

typical Hitman3000 post wrote:

Yeah yeah, but what about Tuam babies or Magdalene Laundries

I think that wherever abused happened, there were multiple levels of society that turned a blind eye and allowed it to continue. All should be identified and scrutinized and punished where possible and/or appropriate.

Picking one, and blaming solely one just makes it clear that you are simply just picking and choosing to further some other agenda or intolerance.

Same as how there was a thread on the terrible case of Muslims in the UK being convicted of grooming and abusing kids. It sank like a stone. Yet a few days later there was a report about abuses in Pennsylvania and it was gleefully jumped upon by anti-Catholics in one of these threads.

And the majority of the most prolific posters complaining about the Papal visit are also prolific posters on the Atheism forum. They decry child abuse on the Papal thread but not a whimper out of them when child abuse is perpetrated by others outside the church.

A hierarchy of victims or else just not a convenient tool to push a particular agenda?

Rosie2018

Hitman3000 wrote: »

So unable to counter my comments. Says it all about you. Name calling as well proves my point about the abuse on here being one sided.

Name calling.. says the one who is, in some childish way, calling Pope Francis, 'Frank'.

Abuse one sided, indeed, dream on.

Dude89

Such a lovely morning to welcome Pope Francis after the bad weather the last week.

Hitman3000

Donald Trump wrote:

And the majority of the most prolific posters complaining about the Papal visit are also prolific posters on the Atheism forum. They decry child abuse on the Papal thread but not a whimper out of them when child abuse is perpetrated by others outside the church.

I don't post on the Atheism forum as I'm not an Atheist. I do find your use of the word bigot incredibly ironic though.
I have nothing further to add to you as it's clear what you are attempting to do as it has already being tried by several others.

Rosie2018

Hitman3000 wrote: »

So unable to counter my comments. Says it all about you. Name calling as well proves my point about the abuse on here being one sided.

Let's face facts if there had never been one case of clerical abuse, you'd still be anti church because you see yourself as a rational, Aethist..

How much do you really care about the abused or is it just a stick to beat the RC with..

Hitman3000

Rosie2018 wrote:

Name calling.. says the one who is, in some childish way, calling Pope Francis, 'Frank'.

Is Frank not short for Francis?

[Deleted User]

Donald Trump wrote: »

I think that wherever abused happened, there were multiple levels of society that turned a blind eye and allowed it to continue. All should be identified and scrutinized and punished where possible and/or appropriate.

Well, that's a first. Usually your posts make me cringe, but I actually agree with you.

Rosie2018

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Is Frank not short for Francis?

You don't need an answer to that. The pope took his name from Francis of Assisi.

There was no Frank of Assisi. Name calling..

Hitman3000

Rosie2018 wrote:

There was no Frank of Assisi. Name calling..

Frank is the accepted short version for Francis.
Anyway did you read the links where Frank called the Chilean abuse survivors liars? You claimed I lied when I said Frank called them liars.

Hitman3000

Rosie2018 wrote:

How much do you really care about the abused or is it just a stick to beat the RC with..

Have you accquainted yourself with the thread title?. It will give you a clue to understanding the comments here.

Hitman3000

Rosie2018 wrote:

Let's face facts if there had never been one case of clerical abuse, you'd still be anti church because you see yourself as a rational, Aethist..

I'm not an Artist as already pointed out to another poster.

P_1

Stay strong people

Donald Trump

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Frank is the accepted short version for Francis.
Anyway did you read the links where Frank called the Chilean abuse survivors liars? You claimed I lied when I said Frank called them liars.

So basically your point is:

......What about the Chilean abuse survivors..........

I thought you didn't do that?

work

Donald Trump wrote: »

Hitman3000 wrote: »

It's quite ironic that the majority of the abusive and downright vile comments are coming from supporters of a faith that proports to teach tolerance, acceptance and understanding. I'm rather surprised Donald Trump is still not thread banned here, only time I guess he has already been banned off the other thread about Frank's visit.

Who is a supporter of anything other than people's freedom to practice whatever they want especially when it does not impinge on other people's rights.

Given that you appear to attempt to justify your whole bigoted attitude based on the historical turning of blind eyes and inactivity of the church and it's leadership in relation to historical abuses, I'd be interested to hear of your opinions of organs of the State who also turned blind eyes.

Given that the Church had no official legal power or authority over the state, but the likes of the social services and Gardai did, are they not also equally as culpable. And if the Pope is somehow "head of the paedos" is the top Garda not equally "head of the paedos" by the same logic?
And the blame attributed to current clergy can be equally applied to current members of the Gardai by the same logic?
And calling or implying that a Catholic is a paedophile supporter is analagous to implying that someone who supports the Gardai is a paedophile supporter.

So, what do you think? Do you support the Guards or do you think they are all paedos, tarnished by the activity of their predecessors. Are all the guards paedos? Covering over other paedos? Does that make you a paedo supporter if you support the guards by the similar logic applied to Catholics?

Granted that you could make allowances for the fact that most guards are thick, ill-educated gombeens, who generally were unfortunate in that there was usually not a lot of opportunity for intelligence to be inherited through their genes, but I don't think that would take a lot of the blame off them for their inaction.

Long post on Whataboutery. Yes other groups have questions to answer and should be pursued BUT the pope is here now and it is his group that carried out the crimrs++++++ and are covering it up. Let's deal with the leader and guilty group and then the complicit enablers.

Hitman3000

Donald Trump wrote:

......What about the Chilean abuse survivors..........

Two threads about Frank you're thread banned off the other one. So you have no context. It's not whataboutery it's relevant to a claim made about Frank being genuine and humble.

Donald Trump

work wrote: »

Long post on Whataboutery. Yes other groups have questions to answer and should be pursued BUT the pope is here now and it is his group that carried out the crimrs++++++ and are covering it up. Let's deal with the leader and guilty group and then the complicit enablers.

Yeah,......that sounds like hollow bullshit to be honest

There'll also be plenty of padeo-protecting Guards creaming off the overtime for the visit too. No? Maybe you can protest them while you are at it too.