Pope Bashers

[sambajustice]

So what have all the Pope bashers got to say now about this Royal Wedding? Given that the "main" (ahem) reason you didnt want him coming here was because of the cost to the Taxpayer...

I'm assuming you're going to make many similar posts and threads berating this royal wedding and saying it shouldnt happen! I mean, the Taxpayers will be paying for that!!!

Surprised that none of you who got tore right into the Pope’s visit haven’t picked up on this yet…

[--------]

So what have all the Pope bashers got to say now about this Royal Wedding? Given that the "main" (ahem) reason you didnt want him coming here was because of the cost to the Taxpayer...

I'm assuming you're going to make many similar posts and threads berating this royal wedding and saying it shouldnt happen! I mean, the Taxpayers will be paying for that!!!

Surprised that none of you who got tore right into the Pope’s visit haven’t picked up on this yet…


Excuse me....

I have a thread on here about this. I am totally impartial about whom I bash. I will bash Ratty-boy as enthusiastically as I will bash Willy Fitz-Big-Ears, and vice-versa.

Do not accuse me of bias in my Plook-bashing.

End of. :grr:

[easty]

So what have all the Pope bashers got to say now about this Royal Wedding? Given that the "main" (ahem) reason you didnt want him coming here was because of the cost to the Taxpayer...

I'm assuming you're going to make many similar posts and threads berating this royal wedding and saying it shouldnt happen! I mean, the Taxpayers will be paying for that!!!

Surprised that none of you who got tore right into the Pope’s visit haven’t picked up on this yet…

Maybe leave it to a bit closer to the time. One day they'll have kids, maybe, and then we'll be paying for that wedding as well. But again, I'll wait till closer to the date of that actual event before complaining.

[--------]

Maybe leave it to a bit closer to the time. One day they'll have kids, maybe, and then we'll be paying for that wedding as well. But again, I'll wait till closer to the date of that actual event before complaining.


While being well aware of the drawbacks of a Republican system, I cannot help but think it might be a LITTLE better than trusting to the random coupling of chinless wonders and society bimbos....

Just a thought.


Much like I wonder about a system that allows a bunch of theoretically celibate (or even polygamous) old guys elect one of themselves to be the infallible voice of God on earth - see RC's, see Mormons .... :greengrin

[khib70]

So what have all the Pope bashers got to say now about this Royal Wedding? Given that the "main" (ahem) reason you didnt want him coming here was because of the cost to the Taxpayer...

I'm assuming you're going to make many similar posts and threads berating this royal wedding and saying it shouldnt happen! I mean, the Taxpayers will be paying for that!!!

Surprised that none of you who got tore right into the Pope’s visit haven’t picked up on this yet…
Ah, the old "two wrongs make a right" thing.

It's perfectly possible to totally disapprove of both bloated, irrelevant events. No illogicality there. At a time of financial stress all round it's criminal to sqaunder public money on either the ex-Nazi head of the world's largest support organisation for perverts, or on the nuptials of inbred parasites.

And I think you'll find that most of us who disapproved of the papal nonsense are present and correct on the thread about the royal nonsense.

[Wilson]

I've been known to bash the bishop.

Bashing a royal just doesn't have the same appeal.

[bighairyfaeleith]

I've been known to bash the bishop.

Bashing a royal just doesn't have the same appeal.

See I always thought fergie might have been worth a bash, in her younger suckier days of course:wink:

[Woody1985]

I've been known to bash the bishop.

Bashing a royal just doesn't have the same appeal.

:faf:

On a more serious note, the biggest issue for me was that the pope was coming as a head of state and received the funding in that capacity but used the visit mainly to preach to his followers about his religion.

I don't care about the royal family (I skipped every aspect of it in papers and the news where possible) but the scenario is different. I also think I recall reading that the royal family generate a net amount of hundreds of millions more than they take. You could argue that they're a pretty good investment. :LOL:

[Phil D. Rolls]

So what have all the Pope bashers got to say now about this Royal Wedding? Given that the "main" (ahem) reason you didnt want him coming here was because of the cost to the Taxpayer...

I'm assuming you're going to make many similar posts and threads berating this royal wedding and saying it shouldnt happen! I mean, the Taxpayers will be paying for that!!!

Surprised that none of you who got tore right into the Pope’s visit haven’t picked up on this yet…

There were many reasons why people objected to the Papal visit. Surprised you've focussed on the taxation issue.

[GhostofBolivar]

So what have all the Pope bashers got to say now about this Royal Wedding? Given that the "main" (ahem) reason you didnt want him coming here was because of the cost to the Taxpayer...

I'm assuming you're going to make many similar posts and threads berating this royal wedding and saying it shouldnt happen! I mean, the Taxpayers will be paying for that!!!

Surprised that none of you who got tore right into the Pope’s visit haven’t picked up on this yet…

If it'd make you happy, I would be more than willing to organise an election to decide which of these vacuous individuals should be first against the wall when the revolution comes.

[Woody1985]

It's in the Sun today that a royal wedding could generate 1 billion pound for the UK economy. Now, the Sun will probably have vastly inflated the true figure but if this is even 20% of the suggested figure then the tax payer will get their money back and more.

[--------]

If it'd make you happy, I would be more than willing to organise an election to decide which of these vacuous individuals should be first against the wall when the revolution comes.


We couldn't find a wall long enough for them all? :cool2:


BTW - it slightly puzzled me that more folks didn't puck up on his comments when he was in Spain a couple of weeks ago - bemoaning the growth of a secular and anti-church atmosphere, "just like in the 1930s".

Ain't it a shame that wee PapaNazi cannae find a fat fascist dictator and a Condor Legion just when he needs them, eh?

[Phil D. Rolls]

We couldn't find a wall long enough for them all? :cool2:


BTW - it slightly puzzled me that more folks didn't puck up on his comments when he was in Spain a couple of weeks ago - bemoaning the growth of a secular and anti-church atmosphere, "just like in the 1930s".

Ain't it a shame that wee PapaNazi cannae find a fat fascist dictator and a Condor Legion just when he needs them, eh?

The 30s was something of a golden age for the Vatican though. You wait decades for a head of state who shares your views and then three show up at once.

[--------]

The 30s was something of a golden age for the Vatican though. You wait decades for a head of state who shares your views and then three show up at once.


Just like corporation buses, eh? :agree:

[bighairyfaeleith]

We couldn't find a wall long enough for them all? :cool2:


BTW - it slightly puzzled me that more folks didn't puck up on his comments when he was in Spain a couple of weeks ago - bemoaning the growth of a secular and anti-church atmosphere, "just like in the 1930s".

Ain't it a shame that wee PapaNazi cannae find a fat fascist dictator and a Condor Legion just when he needs them, eh?

Where is cameron just now:duck:

[--------]

Where is cameron just now:duck:

Stuck in the 1930s?

[Bad Martini]

Whilst we're at objecting about objectionable things, can I object to rangers on account of them being *******s?

Whilst at it, I would like to move to the unseen utopia where there's "nothing to kill or die for...and no religion too" :greengrin Lennon, Chapter 6, Verse 2. Book 07 of Rightness.

The People's Republic of Ma Hoose does not recognise, condone or even see the "royal" family. They don't exist and thus, are no longer an irrelevant, unelected, expensive and wanton pain in the erse. The Royle family on the other hand, could do a fine job of running the country, have better morals, hygeine habbits and make us all laugh in the way the Almighty intended. :devil:

ENDOF

PS Doddie...yer a bad man though I do indeed hear ya with that frocked dudes telling others what to dae when naebody voted thum in :devil: :greengrin :cool2:

[--------]

Whilst we're at objecting about objectionable things, can I object to rangers on account of them being *******s?

Whilst at it, I would like to move to the unseen utopia where there's "nothing to kill or die for...and no religion too" :greengrin Lennon, Chapter 6, Verse 2. Book 07 of Rightness.

The People's Republic of Ma Hoose does not recognise, condone or even see the "royal" family. They don't exist and thus, are no longer an irrelevant, unelected, expensive and wanton pain in the erse. The Royle family on the other hand, could do a fine job of running the country, have better morals, hygeine habbits and make us all laugh in the way the Almighty intended. :devil:

ENDOF

PS Doddie...yer a bad man though I do indeed hear ya with that frocked dudes telling others what to dae when naebody voted thum in :devil: :greengrin :cool2:

Hi, BM. I have no problem whatsoever with you objecting to Rangers. They figure highly among the most objectionable things in the known universe. Please allow me to join you in your objections.

I am indeed a bad man. But you ain't seen the half of it, I assure you. :devil:

[Bishop Hibee]

We couldn't find a wall long enough for them all? :cool2:


BTW - it slightly puzzled me that more folks didn't puck up on his comments when he was in Spain a couple of weeks ago - bemoaning the growth of a secular and anti-church atmosphere, "just like in the 1930s".

Ain't it a shame that wee PapaNazi cannae find a fat fascist dictator and a Condor Legion just when he needs them, eh?

Yes, the slaughter of clergy, religious and lay-people in the Spanish Civil War for refusing to denounce their Christian faith was hilarious :rolleyes:

Back on topic, the Papal visit was different. Like it or lump it, Prince William, barring his untimely demise will one day be King of UK including Scotland. As the majority of the population of the UK vote for Unionist parties, any money spent on the wedding as long as it's not too excessive is justifiable surely?

King Billy will take an oath following his coronation to preserve the Church of Scotland. You'll be pleased about that and the fact he isn't marrying a pape Doddie surely? Hold on, he'd have to renounce any claim to the throne if he did. No need for a conspiracy, that piece of bigotry is out in the open.

[--------]

Yes, the slaughter of clergy, religious and lay-people in the Spanish Civil War for refusing to denounce their Christian faith was hilarious :rolleyes:

Back on topic, the Papal visit was different. Like it or lump it, Prince William, barring his untimely demise will one day be King of UK including Scotland. As the majority of the population of the UK vote for Unionist parties, any money spent on the wedding as long as it's not too excessive is justifiable surely?

King Billy will take an oath following his coronation to preserve the Church of Scotland. You'll be pleased about that and the fact he isn't marrying a pape Doddie surely? Hold on, he'd have to renounce any claim to the throne if he did. No need for a conspiracy, that piece of bigotry is out in the open.


How was the papal visit different? He seems to make a habit of visiting countries ostensibly as head of a foreign state, then pontificating ex cathedra about how they should run their affairs. bad manners, to say the least.

I think most folks know by now that I would welcome the break-up of the United Kingdom. I would hope that when this happens, Scotland becomes a republic - I can see no mileage at all in persisting with outdated institutions like the Royal Family. I favour as wide a separation of powers as possible - state churches stink, and for your information, the Church of Scotland is NOT an established Church and hasn't been for almost a century. So whatever oaths Willy takes or does not take will make no difference to me whatsoever. And whatever the Act of Settlement says, i don't see any State persecution of the Catholic Church going on in my neck of the woods.

As for the atrocities committed by both sides in the Spanish Civil War, I would refer you to Chapter 7 of Anthony Beevor's fair and even-handed, and very authoritative account of that war.

Beevor acknowledges that there was violence against opposition minorities in both Nationalist and Republican areas; however he rightly points out that while the shooting of priests was grossly exaggerated by the Catholic Church (BTW, the priests shot "for their faith" included 16 Basque priests, including the arch-priest of Mondragon shot by the Catholic Fascist Nationalist Army) the Republican violence against the Church was of a short duration and limited in nature. It doesn't make the killing any better, I know, but it puts the two sides in perspective, I'd say.

The Fascist/Catholic purging of 'atheists' and 'communists' continued long after the Second World War. As a Protestant, I would have been classed as an 'atheist' by Franco's police state.

And as for bigots, a pope whose writings include a treatise on the doctrine of 'extra ecclesia nulla salus' (if you're not a Catholic you're going to hell, in other words) seems to me to fit that bill rather nicely.

Even in the Spanish Fascist government's official indictment of the 'atheist' Republicans issued in 1946, Franco couldn't furnish credible evidence for most of the alleged Republican atrocities. History usually is written by the winners in a war, yet even as the winner, and as the head of a Fascist police state, Franco couldn't verify (or even fabricate) evidence for the lurid wartime press stories of bloodbaths in monasteries or the mass raping of nuns. The official Fascist indictment of the Republicans, issued in 1946, leaves most of the allegations that were printed in the European and American press during the Civil War unmentioned. I wonder why? Could it be that the Fascists had been lying in their teeth?

And if you're suggesting that the exceedingly highly-politicised Catholic Church in pre-Civil War Spain was any more Christian than, for example, the equally highly-politicised Catholic Church in many countries of South America today, then you have a very different understanding of the word 'Christian' than I have.

Fat bishops and archbishops supporting military juntas in the suppression of human rights and liberties isn't my idea of Christianity.

[bighairyfaeleith]

How was the papal visit different? He seems to make a habit of visiting countries ostensibly as head of a foreign state, then pontificating ex cathedra about how they should run their affairs. bad manners, to say the least.

I think most folks know by now that I would welcome the break-up of the United Kingdom. I would hope that when this happens, Scotland becomes a republic - I can see no mileage at all in persisting with outdated institutions like the Royal Family. I favour as wide a separation of powers as possible - state churches stink, and for your information, the Church of Scotland is NOT an established Church and hasn't been for almost a century. So whatever oaths Willy takes or does not take will make no difference to me whatsoever.

As for the atrocities committed by both sides in the Spanish Civil War, i would refer you to Chapter 7 of Anthony Beevor's fair and even-handed, and very authoritative account of that war.

Beevor acknowledges that there was violence against opposition minorities in both Nationalist and Republican areas; however he rightly points out that while the shooting of priests was grossly exaggerated by the Catholic Church, and that the priests shot "for their faith" included 16 Basque priests, including the arch-priest of Mondragon by the Catholic Fascist Nationalist Army.

Even Franco after the Second World War couldn't come up with any credible evidence for the alleged raping of nuns - he had had more than 6 years to fabricate it, and still there was none, even in his government's official indictment of the 'atheist' Republican government.

And if you're suggesting that the exceedingly highly-politicised Catholic Church in pre-Civil War Spain was any more Christian than, for example, the equally highly-politicised Catholic Church in many countries of South America today, then you have a very different understanding of the word 'Christian' than I have.

Fat bishops and archbishops supporting military juntas in the suppression of human rights and liberties isn't my idea of Christianity.

Could you possibly summarise your post for me?

[--------]

Could you possibly summarise your post for me?

I have already - it's the last sentence - the bit in bold print.

I'm sure that some people died for their Roman Catholic faith during the Spanish Civil War. I'm equally certain that many of the clergy who were killed were killed not because of their Christianity - if indeed they WERE Christians - but because of the political role they had played pre-war as representatives of a state church supporting extreme-right political parties.

[bighairyfaeleith]

I have already - it's the last sentence - the bit in bold print.

I'm sure that some people died for their Roman Catholic faith during the Spanish Civil War. I'm equally certain that many of the clergy who were killed were killed not because of their Christianity - if indeed they WERE Christians - but because of the political role they had played pre-war as representatives of a state church supporting extreme-right political parties.

Gotcha, but what exactly does this have to do with bashing your Bishop :)

[--------]

Gotcha, but what exactly does this have to do with bashing your Bishop :)



Bishop?

I don't have a bishop... Well, apart from the ones in my chess set? :confused:

[CropleyWasGod]

Bishop?

I don't have a bishop... Well, apart from the ones in my chess set? :confused:

Ah, the poor deprived clergy who don't have a clue about what goes on in the real world..... :greengrin

[--------]

Ah, the poor deprived clergy who don't have a clue about what goes on in the real world..... :greengrin

Yeah, I know - really unworldly I am. Haven't a clue about anything. Not safe to be let out on my own....

I do know one thing, though - you don't become a Christian by putting your collar on back to front and wearing a long dress. There's a bit more to it than that....


Actually, I do believe that this thread started off in regard to bashing (or not bashing) the Bishop of Rome....








... I blame Richard Dawkins. :soapbox:


Edit: Naw - I REALLY blame that nasty wee fat thug Franco.

[marinello59]

Yeah, I know - really unworldly I am. Haven't a clue about anything. Not safe to be let out on my own....

I do know one thing, though - you don't become a Christian by putting your collar on back to front and wearing a long dress. There's a bit more to it than that....


Actually, I do believe that this thread started off in regard to bashing (or not bashing) the Bishop of Rome....








... I blame Richard Dawkins. :soapbox:

Maybe not. It does make a long lonely weekend less boring though.

I blame the internet.

[--------]

Maybe not. It does make a long lonely weekend less boring though.

I blame the internet.



Really?

:confused:

[bighairyfaeleith]

I am going to sit on my arm for a bit :)

[marinello59]

I am going to sit on my arm for a bit :)
:faf:

[Greentinted]

I do know one thing, though - you don't become a Christian by putting your collar on back to front and wearing a long dress. There's a bit more to it than that....


I'm no goanny join in the initial debate as I'de loss the plot big time but the above quote says so much about so many.

My Old Dear had a spot of bother many years ago with an upstanding member of the local community and Kirk. She was known to pen the odd ditty and wrote the following:

I am a Christian, yes I am
Go to church on a Sunday. When I can
Do no bad, only good.
Why don't you like me?
You should!

(c) My Ma. 1983

[--------]

I'm no goanny join in the initial debate as I'de loss the plot big time but the above quote says so much about so many.

My Old Dear had a spot of bother many years ago with an upstanding member of the local community and Kirk. She was known to pen the odd ditty and wrote the following:

I am a Christian, yes I am
Go to church on a Sunday. When I can
Do no bad, only good.
Why don't you like me?
You should!

(c) My Ma. 1983


I'll bear that one in mind. :greengrin

[Bad Martini]

The ramblings of the unedumucated radgeo;

1) The Pope's jaob is to promote the RC Church. It's part ay the joab description thus, whether we agree/disagree/like or even respect the stuff he says, you will find the heid of the RC church pontificating as to all teachings of the "good book" at every chance..........its his joab.
- This will not change regardless of where he is and whom the audience is
- If he didny do that, he'd get his P45...
- ...according to the prophecy.

2) The Royal Family. Who died and made them God :greengrin ... why does the unelected head of State presume to take over ANY power of ANY religious movement, uninvited, unrequired and unwanted? I've never understood that.

3) The proddies, the papes and awra rest. Hmm. This one will always cause matters to "kick aff". The truth is; until we are deid, we're no gonna settle this one. Thus, why do we try :greengrin
- If you believe having as much fun as ye can, in a hedonistic, carnal manner is the way forward, bash on...if there's nae hell, you're sorted and wehey ya bass
- And if there is, ye might burn there, forever, ya bass :devil: ... ye pays yer money, takes yer chances

4) Who gives a ****?


One small thing; regards the pontification of one side or the other...can I find this offensive from both sides, even when I belong to one side, and claim my European Human Rights have been breached under Chapter 07 of the****knowswhat convention and claim a few million from the government?

Seemed to work fine in the case of the tortured terrorists? Might work as their rationaile in paying out millions is, it would cost them EVEN MORE money to prove they done nothing wrong. Therefore, party on....it'll cost them even more money to prove they haven't breached at least one of my 93483908429384 Human Rights and thus, I'll be minted.

Now remind me what the ***** question wis again :greengrin

MON THE HIBS YA BASS

[heretoday]

The point is that many people find The Pope a top man because they have been Catholics all their lives and they can't help it.

Similarly, many people - many of them Catholics - like the Royal Family because they have been used to them all their lives.

Speaking personally, the Queen was crowned shortly before I was born, she's been there all my life and she'll probably be there after I'm dead.

It's like she's always been there, you know?

[--------]

The point is that many people find The Pope a top man because they have been Catholics all their lives and they can't help it.

Similarly, many people - many of them Catholics - like the Royal Family because they have been used to them all their lives.

Speaking personally, the Queen was crowned shortly before I was born, she's been there all my life and she'll probably be there after I'm dead.

It's like she's always been there, you know?


That's exactly what's been bugging Big-Ears since about 1985 ... :devil: