Now that you have that splurge of anti-Catholic bigotry off your chest, will you also be marching with equal voice for an a dismantling of the British establishment too, what with us being a Christian state?

‘Now that you have that splurge of anti-Catholic bigotry off your chest, will you also be marching with equal voice for an a dismantling of the British establishment too, what with us being a Christian state?’

Well, I certainly would.

No special privilage for *any* religion.

Will you be protesting against Jews too?

And Muslims?

Or is it just Catholics you hate?

Sounds a bit daft to me.
If you enjoy a protest, then go for it. But I can’t see the point.

Catholic Church to rise up for its cultural and political role in Italy and Europe. One humble evidence: a conference, scheduled at the St. Thomas Pontifical University in Rome next February 22. Apparently, vice-president of Italian Parliament, the hyper-catholic Rocco Buttiglione (UDC), is just to pay homage to the memory of John Paul II. But conference’s title speaks out of a liaison with Second Vatican Council (“Karol Wojtyla e il Concilio Vaticano II”), in a time of open discussion about Council’s status and effectiveness, inside the very Catholic Church. And this, under the shadow of an up-to-come and discussed double papal beatification, linking together John Paul II and Pius XII. Benedict XVI Church looks to go straight for new political and cultural goals. After a few years of silenced preparation, it’s to show muscles, arranging its best knights into the battle-field.

No platform for, um, non-atheists. We’ve come a long way.

Agree with Shatterface, no special privilege for any religion but some here seem to be missing the point with regards to what this event is about, which is more anti-Pope and his personal politics, than anti-Catholic Church.

And why should the fact it is religious dogma effect a bad ideas status?

@Daniel – I’d be interested to see how you draw a distinction between the two. For example;

“Women’s equality and reproductive rights” – this is obviously against the Catholic position on abortion and contraceptives. This is not the personal politics of the Pope, but the theology of the Catholic Church.

“Equal rights for LGBT people” – this is obviously an argument against the Catholic belief that homosexual sexual practices are sinful. This is not the personal politics of the Pope, but the theology of the Catholic Church.

“The Pope opposes women’s rights, gay equality, embryonic stem cell research, death with dignity and the use of condoms to prevent the spread of HIV” – Again, this is not about the personal politics of the Pope, but the theology of the Catholic Church (as their opponents understand it, which is not very well) – a theology and tradition that is greater than, older than, and will last longer than, any individual pope. Too many people who watch too much West Wing think this is all about personality politics, that the Pope can negotiate a moral here and there for some political benefit a little down the line, or that when a new pope comes along somehow millennia-old beliefs will be traded away to bring the Church into the ‘modern world’. Which is ill-informed to say the least.

For which reason, such bile should be called out for exactly what it is – anti-Catholic bigotry

Hi Michael:

There is a distinction, a fine one but a distinction, although obviously, someone like me and others that would support this protest have a problem with the backward thinking myopic religious dogma of the Catholic church and its infringements on human rights; just as I have a problem with the influences of Islam and Judaism and all the other religions.

ANd you’d be daft not to accept that different Popes have brought their own take on the the church and the church has been influenced by that, some push harder on some issues, some prefer to pretend they don’t exist; this Pope is pushing a lot of moral issues, far harder at times than the Pope before him, which is fair enough but many of us do not like the values that the Pope, or his church, stand for.

Which is fair enough I think.

The Pope is ‘infallible’: he IS the Catholic Church.

@Shatterface – you’ve learned a couple of keywords. Well done. Now it might be worth your time finding out what they actually mean – and what catholics actually believe (as opposed to what you think they believe). Or, alternatively, just keep on spouting ill-informed nonsense like that.

@Daniel – point taken. But the larger issue, that these beliefs are larger than any one pope, remains, and so I’m not that the suggestion that this is all just about the personal characteristics of Pope Benedict is really very accurate.

It’s a mix of both Michael and this Pope is a little more vociferous in his beliefs than previous ones and the point still stands that many people find Catholic belief systems as well as those of all religions, deeply repressive and anti-human and I think that is what is fuelling the protest, more anti-religion full stop than anything else.

I’m with Michael on this – the campaign is simply deluded in believing this is personal Papal political stances rather than authentic orthodox Catholic teaching – you’re not attacking the Pope – but Catholics who believe differently from you.

As someone with friends who are hiv+ I find it contemptible that even now the LGBT community is still promoting the use of condoms to ‘prevent’ hiv transmission ; that’s simply counter-productive and when it comes to the facts – condoms don’t prevent hiv transmission – they enforce the fundamental lie that condoms protect and can stop hiv – they don’t ; if anything they promote sexual activity with a deadly false security grounded in an ideology which won’t accept that people with hiv MUST STOP HAVING SEX – anything else is tantamount to deadly assault.

Would we advise skydivers to jump out a plane if the parachute only had an 85% chance [UN statistics on condoms!] of opening ?
You’re playing russian roulette with people’s lives by promoting condoms.

Ask yourselves – what do you think of someone who’s hiv+ having unprotected sex ? is it a violation ? aggravated assault ? attempted murder ? at least it should be a criminal offence – and there have indeed been prosecutions – I’m sure most of you would agree that anyone who did anything so despicable should be locked up and they should throw away the key ?

So how can you justify anyone hiv+ having sex when the only ‘preventative’ measure is a condom which isn’t 100% safe ?
a deadly risk !

If you say that anyone who’s hiv+ can have sex with a condom – you’re conspiring in their inevitably infecting another – you’re promoting the continuance of the spread of hiv.

…and that’s all the Pope is saying – that oh so hated man -who’s stating his position to try and save lives – and guess what ? The chief medical officer of Harvard , a UN adviser on hiv transmission ,agrees with him !!!
Check the statistics : Uganda and the Phillipines had the worst amount of hiv cases in the early days – their governments exacted abstinence and fidelity promotion advice and infections have drastically fallen ; in Botswana and Thailand they issued millions of condoms – and infections increased geometrically ! because people were being told this magic bit of rubber protected them !

- and you’re still giving out that same message ? You sicken me !
How many millions in Africa ? How many straight and gay men and women in the west are now enduring the infection and possible death ?
…all because you told them condoms were safe ?

and now in your hypocrisy – you’re condemning the Pope and the Catholic Church for telling the truth about condoms ? for telling people with hiv+ that they must never risk anyone’s life by having sex again ? for telling them something which might stop them killing someone they love ?

but what difference does it make anyway ?

Catholics defend life from conception to natural death – because they believe that everyone has a right to live – and not be aborted, dissected under a microscope, eugenicised or euthanised or be decimated under state-decreed population control measures….

You don’t !

So Paul you do not believe that the individual Pope’s approach, style and beliefs influence perceptions of the Church and to a degree, the arc of its policy?

I think it is you that is deluded.

As for your rant about AIDS, that is quite beside the point, what is on topic is that you confuse disagreeing with Catholic values and belief systems with attacking.

Just because it happens to be a religion that holds backward views, that doesn’t stop people from attacking them as backward does it? Religion is not immune from disagreement, it has no, forgive the pun, divine right to the truth.

Just threw up in my mouth after reading what the godbot Paul wrote.

No one said that condoms are 100% effective. They are highly effective. Not having sex sounds dandy on paper, but if the ‘patient’ does not comply, than it is an useless tactic. You are intellectually dishonest and worse that you do not have the clarity of mind and integrity not to recognize you own strawman (that is, that condoms are 100% effective). You do not care if people are humans and have sex. You don’t want them to have sex. Well then why don’t you stand over the beds of African wives and tell them to refuse sex to their unfaithful husbands. She should die because you and your immoral criminal Catholic don’t get it?

I am not a bigot when I deservedly point out the unethical truth about the Catholic Church. And as for not informing Catholics what to believe, there are zillions of ex-Catholics and they know only well what Catholics believe. So don’t play that card.

Michelle, you’re still generalizing the entire Catholic Church.

about me, I’m a life long Catholic (not that I’ve been alive that long), and I’m going to join the priesthood, and I’m very well aware of what the Catholic Church Teaches.

IF people don’t believe what the Church says, then they don’t have to believe it.
THAT doesn’t mean that they should then go and slander and insult the Church! And that’s EXACTLY what you are doing.

If you don’t agree, then simply disagree, but saying the church is unethical and criminal is rude and insulting.

Not that there aren’t rude Catholics, but two wrongs don’t make a right now do they?

The Church Hierarchy is full of people who have lived their lives following what they believe with their whole heart and soul. The Church follows God, and God is Love.
Love is the basis for all my researches and papers I’ve written on how Love is the basis of all Joy, and sex is one of the most sacred parts of Catholicism. Thus it is so important.

Bigotry starts with broad generalizations.

Patrick:

Many of us here are of the opinion that just because ideas and thoughts come from a particular religion, their being religious ideas does not make them immune from criticism and if need be, if they are anti-human, attack and protest; just s dangerous non-religious concepts would deserve the same treatment.

A bad idea is a bad idea, whether it occurs in a religious context or not does not immediately give it merit or sanctity from rigorous interrogation.

With all these virulent pandemics around and the natural disasters, is there any prospect of the Pope telling how and why Intelligent Design is so flawed?

So the well documented, decades long, abuse of children in Ireland, not to mention the USA, Australia, Great Britain and who knows wherever else, has done nothing to dent the moral standing of the Catholic Church. Or so people on here would have you believe. That Ratsinger colluded in the cover up of this abuse further damages any, ANY, credibility when it comes to this man making moral pronouncements.

Is it morally right that, at a time when public bodies are being forced to cut back on services for the poorest in our society, we are expected to spend £20 million for this man, whose organisation has much more than that in assets, can preach to a small minority of people that are left in it’s actual membership.

The truth about the Roman Catholic Church, and it’s abuse of humanity, has been documented over the years. Why Ratsinger is not classified in the same way as Abu Hansa and Fred Phelps, and banned from this country, is beyond me.

is there any prospect of the Pope telling how and why Intelligent Design is so flawed?

Already done it:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/02/11/vatican_on_darwin/