Why Religion Is For Big Infants

[hoppy]

:-2:-3:wah::yh_rotfl

[Amythest]

Glaswegian;1299733 wrote: In 1972 the United States Tourist Office issued a film which highlights the dangers which might befall a civilized person who leaves any of America's few Zones of Enlightenment and ventures into one of its many Hayseed Zones, such as the one inhabited by hoppy. The Tourist Office's film is most informative and I strongly recommend it. For those of you who are interested in seeing this film it is called: Deliverance.


I'm pretty sure Burt or John Voight weren't playing "Hoppy's" role.

Hoppy. Google Boadicea..uh let me help.

Boudica - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Coom by yaup yours :yh_rotfl

[LarsMac]

Amythest;1299880 wrote: I'm pretty sure Burt or John Voight weren't playing "Hoppy's" role.

:yh_rotfl


Nor was Ned Beatty, I reckon.

[hoppy]

Amythest;1299880 wrote: I'm pretty sure Burt or John Voight weren't playing "Hoppy's" role.

Hoppy. Google Boadicea..uh let me help.

Boudica - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Coom by yaup yours :yh_rotfl


Yabut, the broad got hers though.

[gmc]

hoppy;1299864 wrote: You should be thankful for all the religious wars and persecutions of the past. Had it not been for them, the world may have lapsed into a very long lasting peace that would have destroyed the world many hundreds of years ago.

Think about it. Everybody at peace with everybody, sitting around their fires at night, holding hands and singing "cum-by ya". Pumping out kids in wholesale lots, eventually causing overcrowding, food shortages, starvation, the whole landscape littered with sick, fly covered people.

Atheism is for whiners and crybabies. :p


You're a practising pillock aren't you?:sneaky:

[hoppy]

Amythest;1299880 wrote: I'm pretty sure Burt or John Voight weren't playing "Hoppy's" role.

Hoppy. Google Boadicea..uh let me help.

Boudica - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Coom by yaup yours :yh_rotfl


The Roman legions brought law and order and civilization to unruly mobs of savages. When you kicked out the Romans, just look at yourselves to see how that went. You reverted back to fighting and constant wars. AND YOU'RE STILL AT IT, more or less. So YOU think blaming Christians is the answer. HAH!:p

[hoppy]

gmc;1299922 wrote: You're a practising pillock aren't you?:sneaky:


Well, GMC, since I've been posting here I've been called a coward, a nazi and now a pillock. The name calling doesn't bother me. I just step back and take a good look at those involved. I don't look at you in hate so much as in pity.

[Glaswegian]

Amythest;1299880 wrote: I'm pretty sure Burt or John Voight weren't playing "Hoppy's" role.
LarsMac wrote: Nor was Ned Beatty, I reckon
But hoppy is only too glad to play Ned Beatty's role with wild pigs, LarsMac.

[gmc]

hoppy;1299926 wrote: The Roman legions brought law and order and civilization to unruly mobs of savages. When you kicked out the Romans, just look at yourselves to see how that went. You reverted back to fighting and constant wars. AND YOU'RE STILL AT IT, more or less. So YOU think blaming Christians is the answer. HAH!:p


Actually we didn't kick them out they left because the barbarians were at the gates and their empire was over. The OP was about religion per se not just Christianity. That just happens to be the one we are all familiar with.

Well, GMC, since I've been posting here I've been called a coward, a nazi and now a pillock. The name calling doesn't bother me. I just step back and take a good look at those involved. I don't look at you in hate so much as in pity.




Didn't think you were such a sensitive soul.

You know who are the most successful political group on the planet? liberals and liberal philosophy and also the secularists. You live and breathe their ideas it but just don't realise it.

Since you live in a liberal democracy thank the liberals who through all these years have fought for freedom and not the right wing politicians that are trying to turn back the tide of change and have you convinced that you should have no say in how your country is run. When scared they always turn to fear and intimidation.

Know who won all the religious wars? Secularists, of whom atheists are just a a small group, that's why in the states you have a separation of church and state. But the religious right want to turn back the clock and have a religious dictatorship again.

Democracy, republic, liberty, all the concepts that define your freedoms are pagan in origin and owe nothing to monotheism which by it very hierarchical nature nature meant it could be used as a means of control, god made man, god made kings and emperors to rule over their fellows you can see why it would appeal to the ruling class of a fading empire, conning people in to believing you have a right to rule that comes from god is so much easier than persuading them to let you rule.

At heart hoppy you are a liberal and a socialist you just don't know it.

[hoppy]

Glaswegian;1299937 wrote: But hoppy is only too glad to play Ned Beatty's role with wild pigs, LarsMac.


Since you brought up wild pigs, how's your wife?:yh_rotfl

[Amythest]

hoppy;1299940 wrote: Since you brought up wild pigs, how's your wife?:yh_rotfl


How are your relationships? Have any that bring you joy and comfort?:-6

BTW. The Roman legions conquered societies that already had law and order. Your view is propagandized BS.

These societies thrived so well the Romans wanted it ALL for themselves.

Just like the Re_pube_Low_Cons you love so much, are duping the masses into selling off their rights, freedoms and reducing their labour to a bowl of Sugar Pops at the end of the Day.

Enjoy yer bowl of cereal alone maaaaaaaaaaaan.:-6

[hoppy]

Amythest;1299960 wrote: How are your relationships? Have any that bring you joy and comfort?:-6

BTW. The Roman legions conquered societies that already had law and order. Your view is propagandized BS.

These societies thrived so well the Romans wanted it ALL for themselves.

Just like the Re_pube_Low_Cons you love so much, are duping the masses into selling off their rights, freedoms and reducing their labour to a bowl of Sugar Pops at the end of the Day.

Enjoy yer bowl of cereal alone maaaaaaaaaaaan.:-6


Why are you concerned about my relationships? You shopping around or something? Sorry, not interested in libs.:wah:

[Amythest]

hoppy;1299962 wrote: Why are you concerned about my relationships? You shopping around or something? Sorry, not interested in libs.:wah:


U sure like to flatter yourself. :yh_rotfl

I'm not for any of the "parties".

They're all partying at our expense. I guess you could call me "Secular".

I want the empire to fall so people can start over.

Time to enjoy my weekend. Have a good one yourself!:yh_bigsmi

[The Rob]

I'm appalled to find that a philosophical debate has devolved into likening a poster's mate with a farm animal. Shame!

[hoppy]

The Rob;1299972 wrote: I'm appalled to find that a philosophical debate has devolved into likening a poster's mate with a farm animal. Shame!


Maybe you should get off your high horse and read the whole thread. I didn't start name calling and animal BS. Your liberal pals did that.

If the board a$$holes want to engage in name calling and snide remarks, I can do that.:p

[The Rob]

My high horse suits me just fine, thanks. It's the best position from which to observe, although the conversation has sunk so low I'll need binoculars. I'll shut up and leave you to it.

[Bevdee]

Where are the Enlightened Zones in the US?

[AussiePam]

The Rob;1299972 wrote: I'm appalled to find that a philosophical debate has devolved into likening a poster's mate with a farm animal. Shame!


This was never a philosophical debate. It's just another typical hate filled rant.

[gmc]

AussiePam;1300027 wrote: This was never a philosophical debate. It's just another typical hate filled rant.


Why do you say that? I have a perception that some religious people are incapable of accepting that many do not share their religious beliefs. Rather than engaging they dismiss it out of hand as a hate filled rant, which is what you seem to be doing. Please correct me if I am wrong. Religion is, imo, an incredibly destructive force in human society. The many religious people who perhaps do much good are overwhelmed by the minority bent on death and destruction. That's not a hate filled rant that;s a sad reality.

Posted by rob

I'm appalled to find that a philosophical debate has devolved into likening a poster's mate with a farm animal. Shame!


That's the religious right for you. All you can do is try and enlighten them.

[AussiePam]

gmc;1300029 wrote: Why do you say that? I have a perception that some religious people are incapable of accepting that many do not share their religious beliefs.


gmc - This thread was started by glaswegian. Go and read any of his posts and why I said what I said should be abundantly clear.

I do have a perception that some religious people are incapable of accepting that many do not share their religious beliefs. I have said many times on FG that it is my opinion that religion is a man-made construct, and has been / is used to further tribal and other power agendas. Where we disagree is that I am happy to throw out the bathwater, but wish to keep the baby. The fact that religion is flawed, that humans are flawed and have recreated God in their own small, often nasty, self-serving image, does not prove the non-existence of God.

I also have a perception that some non-religious people are incapable of accepting that many do not share their non-religious beliefs.

[Glaswegian]

Bevdee;1299983 wrote: Where are the Enlightened Zones in the US?
Sadly, Bevdee, the White House isn't one of them.

If there is one place where the Enlightenment values of rationality and evidenced-based thinking should reign supreme it is in the White House. In fact, they ought to be de rigueur in that place. After all, the fate of billions of people on this planet gets decided there every day. However, irrationality has been rampant in the White House for several decades now as the following examples demonstrate:

The primary advisor whom Ronald Reagan relied on to guide him in the running of his country and the world was his wife's astrologer, Joan Quigley. According to former White House chief of staff, Donald Regan: 'Virtually every major move and decision the Reagans made during my time in the White House was cleared in advance by Joan Quigley.'

Ronald Reagan perceived the conflict in the Middle East through the lens of Biblical prophecy. He was regularly updated with Apocalyptic interpretations of developments in that part of the world by mogul evangelists Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson. Reagan even included both men in his National Security Briefings. Reagan went so far as 'to invite Armageddon-enthusiast, Hal Lindsey, to give a talk on nuclear war with Russia to top Pentagon strategists.' (At a 1971 dinner, Reagan told California legislator, James Mills, that 'everything is in place for the Battle of Armageddon and the Second Coming of Christ'.)

During a break in his discussions with Tony Blair over Britain's joining with the U.S. in a war against Iraq, George W. Bush was seen reading the following book by Deepak Chopra: 'Golf for Enlightenment: Playing the Game in the Garden of Eden'. Like Reagan, Bush was also regularly updated with Apocalyptic interpretations of developments in the Middle East by Pat Robertson. When asked whether he thought the world was less than ten thousand years old, Bush replied: 'The jury's still out on that one'.

After the failure of her plan to reform the nation's health care, Hillary Clinton sought the aid of Jean Houston, a 'psychic' and 'sacred psychologist'. Seated together at a table in the White House solarium, Houston channelled the 'spirits' of Eleanor Roosevelt and Mahatma Gandhi to guide Hillary. When Houston offered to channel Jesus for her, Hillary declined, saying: 'That would be just too personal'.

~o0o~


Bevdee wrote: Where are the Enlightened Zones in the US?


I'll have to think about that one, Bevdee. Can I get back to you in about fifty years?

[LarsMac]

The Rob;1299972 wrote: I'm appalled to find that a philosophical debate has devolved into likening a poster's mate with a farm animal. Shame!


AussiePam;1300027 wrote: This was never a philosophical debate. It's just another typical hate filled rant.


gmc;1300029 wrote: Why do you say that? I have a perception that some religious people are incapable of accepting that many do not share their religious beliefs. Rather than engaging they dismiss it out of hand as a hate filled rant, which is what you seem to be doing. Please correct me if I am wrong. Religion is, imo, an incredibly destructive force in human society. The many religious people who perhaps do much good are overwhelmed by the minority bent on death and destruction. That's not a hate filled rant that;s a sad reality.

That's the religious right for you. All you can do is try and enlighten them.


To enlighten anyone, you must, yourself, be enlightened.

And calling folks names as you have suggests that you have a way to go.

Tend to your own enlightenment before worrying about the rest of us.

[hoppy]

The Rob;1299972 wrote: I'm appalled to find that a philosophical debate has devolved into likening a poster's mate with a farm animal. Shame!


Gee Rob, I didn't think anyone here was so sensitive. Seems I heard that somewhere today.

[gmc]

AussiePam;1300033 wrote: gmc - This thread was started by glaswegian. Go and read any of his posts and why I said what I said should be abundantly clear.

I do have a perception that some religious people are incapable of accepting that many do not share their religious beliefs. I have said many times on FG that it is my opinion that religion is a man-made construct, and has been / is used to further tribal and other power agendas. Where we disagree is that I am happy to throw out the bathwater, but wish to keep the baby. The fact that religion is flawed, that humans are flawed and have recreated God in their own small, often nasty, self-serving image, does not prove the non-existence of God.

I also have a perception that some non-religious people are incapable of accepting that many do not share their non-religious beliefs.


I have read his posts and I don't see them as hate filled rants. It seems any criticism of religion is taken as a personal assault on those who are religious, who usually agree with most of the criticism but nevertheless still seem to think such criticisms shouldn't be made. It seems impossible to say anything with out someone finding it personally offensive. That is an absurd position to take on a forum like this where no one actually know the person doing the posting. How can you offend someone or be offended by a total stranger|?

On the other hand glaswegian and I have a culture in common so I understand where he is coming from.

It is a serious matter when you take children, separate them by faith and put them in to different schools and encourage them not to mix with those of different faith. To lament the sectarian violence in our society and not address the main cause of it is ludicrous. Most people in scotland find it ridiculous but because of "religion" we seem incapable of change. It's not the children that cause the problem it's adults. There is a proposal to have a joint primary school in lanarkshire-Catholics and protestants in the same classes but separate for religious education - it fell apart over the issue of whether there should be separate entrances for each religion. It is ludicrous but somehow if you point this it you are being anti-religious? OK I'll come out the closet I really am anti-religious. I can respect somebody's belief but am getting really tired of being told you shouldn't criticise the stupidity of it all.

Everyone wants the schools but the devil is in the detail Story of the week Plans for shared campuses between Catholic and non-denominational schools in North Lanarkshire are bogged down in controversy. Lucy Bannerman and Abigail Wild seek some stra

These are the same idiots that claim the right to lecture us all on the moral decline of society and condemn the outbreak of tolerance accepting homosexuality represents. It's institutionalised stupidity and bigotry on a grand scale. It doesn't take much research to find similar instances of stupidity and hatred from around the globe. Tony Blair made things worse by encouraging more faith schools in england I find it appalling in this day and age we allow such divisive institutions.

from the article

Opinion has been divided over how far religious tolerance should go. Does it mean that all faiths should have the right to protect their own institutions? Or does it simply lead to one section of society being tolerant of another religious group's intolerance towards them?




It's a good question. I know people who were ostracised by their family for marrying outside their faith. In some muslim society it seems acceptable to kill someone who does it or even contemplates it but we turn a blind eye to it for the sake of religious tolerance. Yet if the obvious solution - ban religious schools altogether - is suggested all faiths circle the wagons to defend the right to indoctrinate their children. For the good of society as a whole should we allow it to continue?

posted by larsmac

To enlighten anyone, you must, yourself, be enlightened.

And calling folks names as you have suggests that you have a way to go.

Tend to your own enlightenment before worrying about the rest of us.


Even the most enlightened and tolerant of people get annoyed sometimes. OK I shouldn't have called hoppy a pillock as it bringing myself down to his level so apologise. In my defence in the UK pillock is a very mild insult and is merely badinage rather than with serious intent.

[Glaswegian]

Glaswegian;1299437 wrote: I guaged the strength of the Pope's religious beliefs at 35 because of the personal qualities which I think a man must possess to become leader of the Catholic Church. Such a man must be shrewd and devious to a remarkable degree in order to successfully ascend through all the ranks of that organization of vipers. For example, he must have a great capacity for intrigue; he must be an expert at dissimulation; he must have the ability to make deals and compromise in a thousand ways; and he must be extremely attuned to the crafty chemistry which operates between priests of every rank. I think such a man is too clever by far to take his religion all that seriously. He will necessarily look upon it with a Machiavellian eye.
I think I have been far too generous in my assessment of the strength of the Pope's religious beliefs.

The BBC reported a couple of days ago that Pope Benedict XVI has been heavily criticised for his failure to act over complaints about a priest, Father Lawrence Murphy, who sexually assaulted some two hundred boys at St John's School for the Deaf in Wisconsin between 1950 and 1974. As head of the Vatican office dealing with child sexual abuse by priests, the Pope - the then Cardinal Ratzinger - did not respond to letters from American archbishops warning him about Lawrence. Furthermore, when the Catholic Church was finally forced to bring Lawrence to trial, Ratzinger - who oversaw this canonical trial - had it terminated when the priest claimed ill-health.

To my mind, the Pope's behaviour in this sordid affair indicates that he does not take his religion very seriously at all. For one of the direst warnings given out by the founder of that religion holds that anyone who so much as harms a hair on the head of a child can expect to face the most terrible consequences. The Pope's laxity in dealing with a fiend like Lawrence reveals the utter indifference with which he views this warning.

[hoppy]

gmc;1300171 wrote: I have read his posts and I don't see them as hate filled rants. It seems any criticism of religion is taken as a personal assault on those who are religious, who usually agree with most of the criticism but nevertheless still seem to think such criticisms shouldn't be made. It seems impossible to say anything with out someone finding it personally offensive. That is an absurd position to take on a forum like this where no one actually know the person doing the posting. How can you offend someone or be offended by a total stranger|?

On the other hand glaswegian and I have a culture in common so I understand where he is coming from.

It is a serious matter when you take children, separate them by faith and put them in to different schools and encourage them not to mix with those of different faith. To lament the sectarian violence in our society and not address the main cause of it is ludicrous. Most people in scotland find it ridiculous but because of "religion" we seem incapable of change. It's not the children that cause the problem it's adults. There is a proposal to have a joint primary school in lanarkshire-Catholics and protestants in the same classes but separate for religious education - it fell apart over the issue of whether there should be separate entrances for each religion. It is ludicrous but somehow if you point this it you are being anti-religious? OK I'll come out the closet I really am anti-religious. I can respect somebody's belief but am getting really tired of being told you shouldn't criticise the stupidity of it all.

Everyone wants the schools but the devil is in the detail Story of the week Plans for shared campuses between Catholic and non-denominational schools in North Lanarkshire are bogged down in controversy. Lucy Bannerman and Abigail Wild seek some stra

These are the same idiots that claim the right to lecture us all on the moral decline of society and condemn the outbreak of tolerance accepting homosexuality represents. It's institutionalised stupidity and bigotry on a grand scale. It doesn't take much research to find similar instances of stupidity and hatred from around the globe. Tony Blair made things worse by encouraging more faith schools in england I find it appalling in this day and age we allow such divisive institutions.

from the article



It's a good question. I know people who were ostracised by their family for marrying outside their faith. In some muslim society it seems acceptable to kill someone who does it or even contemplates it but we turn a blind eye to it for the sake of religious tolerance. Yet if the obvious solution - ban religious schools altogether - is suggested all faiths circle the wagons to defend the right to indoctrinate their children. For the good of society as a whole should we allow it to continue?

posted by larsmac



Even the most enlightened and tolerant of people get annoyed sometimes. OK I shouldn't have called hoppy a pillock as it bringing myself down to his level so apologise. In my defence in the UK pillock is a very mild insult and is merely badinage rather than with serious intent.


I'm so happy you are keeping yourself above my level. It must be very lonely way up there.:yh_rotfl

My impression of you is, you seem to think you are quite the intellectual. Maybe over there you are thought of in that way by a few. But, I doubt it. Over here you would be thought of as just another loudmouth and probably have to fight a lot, or hide. So, you see where my confusion lies? I'm seeing you through American eyes. Obviously, you see yourself some other distorted way.

[Glaswegian]

Glaswegian;1300176 wrote: The BBC reported a couple of days ago that Pope Benedict XVI has been heavily criticised for his failure to act over complaints about a priest, Father Lawrence Murphy, who sexually assaulted some two hundred boys at St John's School for the Deaf in Wisconsin between 1950 and 1974.
Regarding the question as to why sexual abuse of children by Catholic priests is so rife around the world, the journalist and writer Kevin Myers commented in the Spectator magazine:

'Celibacy is what makes the Catholic priesthood the hardest of callings. The Catholic priest - celibate, emotionally isolated, physically untouched through the decades of manhood - is prey to unrequitable sexual urges.'

Myers, an Irishman, also noted the immaturity which tends to characterise priests' attitudes about sex. He writes:

'Many Irish priests still seem frozen in a state of adolescence. They giggle easily. They love lavatory jokes. A joke with the word 'f**k' in it will reduce them to hysteria.'

In general it can be said that the more sexually repressive an institution is, the greater is the likelihood it will give rise to sexual deviance. And this is all too evident in the case of the Catholic Church whose ranks are filled with priests who have committed acts of sexual depravity against countless children. The Catholic Church has been rightly described as 'a haven for homosexual paedophiles' because its priests have buggered young boys across the globe. For example, with regard to Ireland, Myers writes:

'A Norbertine priest, Brendan Smyth, was imprisoned in Northern Ireland after a horrifying career of pederasty reaching back into the 1940's, much of it in the Republic and involving scores of children...This was only the start of the horror show. Dog-collar after dog-collar appeared sheepishly over the dock as their owners were charged with sodomising young boys, though the courts in Ireland still tended to protect the Church as much as they could. One court ordered the press to name neither a priest who buggered a dozen young boys, nor his religious order. Many other child abuse stories still wait to be processed.'

One would be naive to think that the explosion in sexual crimes committed against children by the 'holy men' of the Catholic Church is a recent phenomenon, that its creatures have only decided to commit acts of paedophilic depravity during the last few decades or so. In actual fact, the Catholic Church has been in the business of sexually abusing minors for centuries. For example, history records that some popes slept with children as a matter of course - and this included their own children. For example, one pope enjoyed sodomising his own young son. This despicable behaviour was known to the Catholic Church hierarchy. But pederasty was - and clearly still is - the done thing in that organisation, a 'normal activity', and the pope in question was quite shameless about it.

Sodomy, fornication and incest were not unknown to other popes. The eminent English historian, Edward Gibbon, wrote of one - John XXIII (1410-1415) - as follows:

'The most scandalous charges against him were suppressed. The Vicar of Christ was only accused of piracy, murder, rape, sodomy and incest.'

[hoppy]

BRITAIN

Early British kings are also thought to be gay: King Richard I the Lion-hearted (1157-1199) and Phillip II (1165-1223) during their adventures on the Third Crusade. There was also King Edward II (1284-1327) and Piers Gaveston who were best of friends, to the point of intimacy.

Even the great William Shakespeare (1564-1616) and the composer Ludwig von Beethoven (1770-1827) are said to be gay.

A

Charles Allen (businessman)

B

John Barrowman

Rodney Berman

Robert Boothby, Baron Boothby

C

Rhona Cameron

Ian Charleson

Robert Colquhoun

D

Karen Dunbar

F

Joe FitzPatrick

Joseph Fitzpatrick

Sir Ewan Forbes, 11th Baronet

Jackie Forster

John Fraser (actor)

G

Duncan Grant

H

Archibald Hall

Jan Hamilton

Patrick Harvie

Nick Henderson

Horse (musician)

K

Bryan Kirkwood (producer)

L

Billy Lyall

M

Colin McAllister and Justin Ryan

Robert MacBryde

Hector MacDonald

Les McKeown

David McVicar

Eddie Mair

Norrie May-Welby

N

John Nicolson (journalist)

Dennis Nilsen

Colin Norris

P

David Paisley

Tam Paton

Steven Purcell

S

Iain Smith (Scottish politician)

Margaret Smith (politician)

Jimmy Somerville

Andrew Stimpson

Zoë Strachan

W

Richard Wilson (Scottish actor)





You guys should be ok with the pope then.:yh_rotfl

[Betty Boop]

hoppy;1300189 wrote: BRITAIN

Early British kings are also thought to be gay: King Richard I the Lion-hearted (1157-1199) and Phillip II (1165-1223) during their adventures on the Third Crusade. There was also King Edward II (1284-1327) and Piers Gaveston who were best of friends, to the point of intimacy.

Even the great William Shakespeare (1564-1616) and the composer Ludwig von Beethoven (1770-1827) are said to be gay.

A

Charles Allen (businessman)

B

John Barrowman

Rodney Berman

Robert Boothby, Baron Boothby

C

Rhona Cameron

Ian Charleson

Robert Colquhoun

D

Karen Dunbar

F

Joe FitzPatrick

Joseph Fitzpatrick

Sir Ewan Forbes, 11th Baronet

Jackie Forster

John Fraser (actor)

G

Duncan Grant

H

Archibald Hall

Jan Hamilton

Patrick Harvie

Nick Henderson

Horse (musician)

K

Bryan Kirkwood (producer)

L

Billy Lyall

M

Colin McAllister and Justin Ryan

Robert MacBryde

Hector MacDonald

Les McKeown

David McVicar

Eddie Mair

Norrie May-Welby

N

John Nicolson (journalist)

Dennis Nilsen

Colin Norris

P

David Paisley

Tam Paton

Steven Purcell

S

Iain Smith (Scottish politician)

Margaret Smith (politician)

Jimmy Somerville

Andrew Stimpson

Zoë Strachan

W

Richard Wilson (Scottish actor)





You guys should be ok with the pope then.:yh_rotfl


What the hell does being gay have to do with child abuse? I think we Brits can safely say we are quite comfortable with the gays around us, you obviously are not otherwise you wouldn't spout such bigoted claptrap! :rolleyes:

[Snowfire]

Only you Hoppy, could equate paedophilia with homosexuality. Hows that for adult joined up thinking.

[Snowfire]

hoppy;1300189 wrote: BRITAIN

Early British kings are also thought to be gay: King Richard I the Lion-hearted (1157-1199) and Phillip II (1165-1223) during their adventures on the Third Crusade. There was also King Edward II (1284-1327) and Piers Gaveston who were best of friends, to the point of intimacy.

Even the great William Shakespeare (1564-1616) and the composer Ludwig von Beethoven (1770-1827) are said to be gay.

A

Charles Allen (businessman)

B

John Barrowman

Rodney Berman

Robert Boothby, Baron Boothby

C

Rhona Cameron

Ian Charleson

Robert Colquhoun

D

Karen Dunbar

F

Joe FitzPatrick

Joseph Fitzpatrick

Sir Ewan Forbes, 11th Baronet

Jackie Forster

John Fraser (actor)

G

Duncan Grant

H

Archibald Hall

Jan Hamilton

Patrick Harvie

Nick Henderson

Horse (musician)

K

Bryan Kirkwood (producer)

L

Billy Lyall

M

Colin McAllister and Justin Ryan

Robert MacBryde

Hector MacDonald

Les McKeown

David McVicar

Eddie Mair

Norrie May-Welby

N

John Nicolson (journalist)

Dennis Nilsen

Colin Norris

P

David Paisley

Tam Paton

Steven Purcell

S

Iain Smith (Scottish politician)

Margaret Smith (politician)

Jimmy Somerville

Andrew Stimpson

Zoë Strachan

W

Richard Wilson (Scottish actor)





You guys should be ok with the pope then.:yh_rotfl


WOW What a comprehensive list. Congratulations Hoppy on compiling such a compelling "gay British history in a nutshell"

BTW Last time I looked Beethoven wasnt even a little bit British but hey lets not sully the issue with facts :rolleyes:

[hoppy]

Snowfire;1300192 wrote: Only you Hoppy, could equate paedophilia with homosexuality. Hows that for adult joined up thinking.


Just as there are straights who like sex with young female children, I think it's safe to say there are gay men who like sex with young boys. What? You thought Catholic priests had a corner on child molestation? Silly people.:yh_rotfl

[Snowfire]

hoppy;1300195 wrote: Just as there are straights who like sex with young female children, I think it's safe to say there are gay men who like sex with young boys. What? You thought Catholic priests had a corner on child molestation? Silly people.:yh_rotfl


I cant recount any other incident but within the religious institutions that would allow its priests/vicars, whoever, to abuse, molest and rape, children and adolescents. In no other walk of life would this level of complicity and cover up take place. You should not be defending the Vatican, especially by comparing homosexuality with paedophilia.

[hoppy]

Snowfire;1300196 wrote: I cant recount any other incident but within the religious institutions that would allow its priests/vicars, whoever, to abuse, molest and rape, children and adolescents. In no other walk of life would this level of complicity and cover up take place. You should not be defending the Vatican, especially by comparing homosexuality with paedophilia.


I hate it too and am not defending what is wrong. I'm just pointing out that kind of abuse is not just a Catholic thing. It goes on among gays too. And, I'm sure, other churches and institutions as well. They will never get the publicity the Catholic church does though.

The Catholic church is a big target. No hate mongering bigot can resist taking their cheap shots.

[LarsMac]

We hear about a lot of teachers abusing children, as well.

Does that make education evil?

[Snowfire]

hoppy;1300198 wrote: I hate it too and am not defending what is wrong. I'm just pointing out that kind of abuse is not just a Catholic thing. It goes on among gays too. And, I'm sure, other churches and institutions as well. They will never get the publicity the Catholic church does though.

The Catholic church is a big target. No hate mongering bigot can resist taking their cheap shots.


We're talking about the amount of abuse and the extraordinary complicity by the Vatican. It was coverd up to the extent that preists were allowed to continue molesting, virtually their whole career. That the Pope(s) knew about it and did nothing is the disgrace. Not very "christian" to know that a child is suffering abuse and do nothing about it.

It aint about cheap shots and it aint bigotry to detest what has gone on - and its ensuing cover up - within the Catholic ( and many other) institutions

[Glaswegian]

Snowfire;1300207 wrote: We're talking about the amount of abuse and the extraordinary complicity by the Vatican. It was coverd up to the extent that preists were allowed to continue molesting, virtually their whole career. That the Pope(s) knew about it and did nothing is the disgrace. Not very "christian" to know that a child is suffering abuse and do nothing about it.
In light of the fact that the systematic child sex abuse carried out by the priests of the Catholic Church is on an unprecedented scale, Christopher Hitchens has suggested that the Catholic credo 'No child left behind' should be changed to 'No child's behind left'.

[LarsMac]

Snowfire;1300207 wrote: We're talking about the amount of abuse and the extraordinary complicity by the Vatican. It was coverd up to the extent that preists were allowed to continue molesting, virtually their whole career. That the Pope(s) knew about it and did nothing is the disgrace. Not very "christian" to know that a child is suffering abuse and do nothing about it.

It aint about cheap shots and it aint bigotry to detest what has gone on - and its ensuing cover up - within the Catholic ( and many other) institutions


Glaswegian;1300209 wrote: In light of the fact that the systematic child sex abuse carried out by the priests of the Catholic Church is on an unprecedented scale, Christopher Hitchens has suggested that the Catholic credo 'No child left behind' should be changed to 'No child's behind left'.


Systematic would suggest that the organization practiced such behavior as a matter of policy.

I don't believe that to be the case. T

There were people who should not have been in positions of trust, and there were people who should have been held accountable.

So you condemn "Religion" because a particular religious organization had people within its rank that behave badly, and other people within the organization appear to have actively tried to cover up that behavior.

Gee, with that logic we can condemn Education, Capitalism, Politics, Government, Military, the movie industry, food service and hospitality industry, Communism, the Olympics, Professional Sports, Medicine, The Automobile industry, Agriculture, Mining, Logging, Shipping, Shipbuilding, ....

[LarsMac]

gmc;1300171 wrote: ...

Even the most enlightened and tolerant of people get annoyed sometimes. OK I shouldn't have called hoppy a pillock as it bringing myself down to his level so apologise. In my defence in the UK pillock is a very mild insult and is merely badinage rather than with serious intent.


Judging from your use of the word in FG(Which is actually the only place I have ever encountered it), I'd bitch-slap anyone who called me that to my face.

By the way, an apology followed by a justification is seldom considered an apology.

[Bruv]

LarsMac;1300230 wrote:

By the way, an apology followed by a justification is seldom considered an apology.


Course it is......rather than a justification it was a definition of the word.

( Thought I would join the silliness of this thread.....thats all)

[Snowfire]

LarsMac;1300219 wrote: Systematic would suggest that the organization practiced such behavior as a matter of policy.

I don't believe that to be the case. T

There were people who should not have been in positions of trust, and there were people who should have been held accountable.

So you condemn "Religion" because a particular religious organization had people within its rank that behave badly, and other people within the organization appear to have actively tried to cover up that behavior.

Gee, with that logic we can condemn Education, Capitalism, Politics, Government, Military, the movie industry, food service and hospitality industry, Communism, the Olympics, Professional Sports, Medicine, The Automobile industry, Agriculture, Mining, Logging, Shipping, Shipbuilding, ....


Your analogy is ridiculous

We're talking of the systematic abuse and rape of children for goodness sake. not accountancy issues in the logging industry

And incidentally this abuse was carried out by people who were supposed to be the moral guardians of those within its envelope. People who had apparantly given their life to God and its teachings and were given the trust accordingly. The children were rewarded not with the comfort of Christ but a lifetime of misery

[AussiePam]

If this thread is now about abuses and cover ups committed by the Catholic Church or for that matter by any Christian or other religious group, I'd fight alongside you to the last man. I don't see that there can be any question about the fact that an awful lot of bad things have always been done in the name of religion.

I would however argue that humans are supremely clever predators, and use whatever they can find or create to further their own agendas. Religion is just one, but I agree a very powerful, weapon. Politics and religion go together. You can control or kill in the name of God, or in the name of Freedom etc...

None of this has anything necessarily to do with the existence or non existence of God. It's a separate issue. And belittling and insulting individuals who do believe in God is not useful either.

The thread title is unhelpful if any real dialogue is intended.

[gmc]

hoppy;1300181 wrote: I'm so happy you are keeping yourself above my level. It must be very lonely way up there.:yh_rotfl

My impression of you is, you seem to think you are quite the intellectual. Maybe over there you are thought of in that way by a few. But, I doubt it. Over here you would be thought of as just another loudmouth and probably have to fight a lot, or hide. So, you see where my confusion lies? I'm seeing you through American eyes. Obviously, you see yourself some other distorted way.


Your impression of me is your impression of me I can't help what people think. The language I use is that I use every day if you think it sounds intellectual, well so what?

Do americans not discuss anything with each other without coming to blows? You kind of give the impression that you all just lash out at anyone that has a different opinion or try and intimidate them in to silence. In a UK context you would probably be looked at as a a right wing nutter. The left won the argument over here about healthcare and the welfare state etc etc. - we have things like universal healthcare and the only ones that want to privatise it again are the lunatic fringe of British politics. I would suggest it's your american eye that is distorted, everywhere else is not just like america but with different accents.

posted by hoppy

BRITAIN



You guys should be ok with the pope then.




Didn't know the pope was gay!

You missed the funniest one. King james the 1st and 6th - he of the king James authorised version so beloved by the bible thumpers - though they never seem to find it funny when you point it out to them. Why the bog fuss about gays. Homosexuality is something the churches seem to have a be in their bonnet about at the moment. It seems the outbreak of tolerance in society has them worried, if people can decide for themselves what is or isn't a problem in society who knows they might move away from religion altogether. Most people would consider child abuse a bigger issue.

posted by larsmac

Judging from your use of the word in FG(Which is actually the only place I have ever encountered it), I'd bitch-slap anyone who called me that to my face.

By the way, an apology followed by a justification is seldom considered an apology.


Hoppy was trying to be provocative, I allowed him to annoy me which was childish on my part. He's still a practising pillock which in the context of this thread is a fairly innocuous and humorous response. Clearly it doesn't cross the barriers of culture but in future I will try and remember that big rufty tufty americans like hoppy get upset easily.

What's a bitch slap by the way?

[hoppy]

gmc;1300268 wrote: Your impression of me is your impression of me I can't help what people think. The language I use is that I use every day if you think it sounds intellectual, well so what?

Do americans not discuss anything with each other without coming to blows? You kind of give the impression that you all just lash out at anyone that has a different opinion or try and intimidate them in to silence. In a UK context you would probably be looked at as a a right wing nutter. The left won the argument over here about healthcare and the welfare state etc etc. - we have things like universal healthcare and the only ones that want to privatise it again are the lunatic fringe of British politics. I would suggest it's your american eye that is distorted, everywhere else is not just like america but with different accents.

posted by hoppy



Didn't know the pope was gay!

You missed the funniest one. King james the 1st and 6th - he of the king James authorised version so beloved by the bible thumpers - though they never seem to find it funny when you point it out to them. Why the bog fuss about gays. Homosexuality is something the churches seem to have a be in their bonnet about at the moment. It seems the outbreak of tolerance in society has them worried, if people can decide for themselves what is or isn't a problem in society who knows they might move away from religion altogether. Most people would consider child abuse a bigger issue.

posted by larsmac



Hoppy was trying to be provocative, I allowed him to annoy me which was childish on my part. He's still a practising pillock which in the context of this thread is a fairly innocuous and humorous response. Clearly it doesn't cross the barriers of culture but in future I will try and remember that big rufty tufty americans like hoppy get upset easily.

What's a bitch slap by the way?


:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl

[LarsMac]

Originally Posted by Snowfire

Your analogy is ridiculous

We're talking of the systematic abuse and rape of children for goodness sake. not accountancy issues in the logging industry

And incidentally this abuse was carried out by people who were supposed to be the moral guardians of those within its envelope. People who had apparantly given their life to God and its teachings and were given the trust accordingly. The children were rewarded not with the comfort of Christ but a lifetime of misery




You missed the point of my analogy. You missed the point of my post, entirely, as a matter of fact.



There was nothing "systematic" about the abuse. The Pope did not lay down a fiat stating that priests and pastors were to commit child abuse, and assist in the cover-up of those abuses.

Humans did what humans do. Give in to their cravings and desires and take advantage of situations of authority, and then work to protect the organization from embarrassment and accountability.

And my point was that if you use this behavior to show how religion is terrible, you must also look at all the other activities where such behavior has been prevalent.

gmc;1300268 wrote:

... Most people would consider child abuse a bigger issue.
I certainly do.

There are a lot of things wrong with organized religion as there are a lot of things wrong with a lot of human organizations.

The failures of the Catholic Church to protect children from predatory behavior of its representatives, and the ensuing cover up attempts are not a failure of Christianity as a whole, or of religion in general, but the failures of human beings in position of authority.



gmc;1300268 wrote:

posted by larsmac



Hoppy was trying to be provocative, I allowed him to annoy me which was childish on my part. He's still a practising pillock which in the context of this thread is a fairly innocuous and humorous response. Clearly it doesn't cross the barriers of culture but in future I will try and remember that big rufty tufty americans like hoppy get upset easily.

What's a bitch slap by the way?


Bitch-slap -

An open-handed slap. Denotes disrespect for the person being bitch slapped as they are not worthy of a man sized punch.

And yes I can see where Hoppy enjoys antagonizing.

I think a like phrase in the States might be 'fool'

And lest it was in a pub where we were gathered around enjoying irritating each other for the fun of it, that term would earn a good cuffing.

[hoppy]

This always happens when I enter into these kind of "debates". From now on I'll stick to lighter topics.:p

[gmc]

hoppy;1300276 wrote: Hoppy was trying to be provocative, I allowed him to annoy me which was childish on my part. He's still a practising pillock which in the context of this thread is a fairly innocuous and humorous response. Clearly it doesn't cross the barriers of culture but in future I will try and remember that big rufty tufty americans like hoppy get upset easily.

After reading tons of your tripe on this subject, I gave in to temptation and made a simple 8 word comment. YOU and your cohorts took the ball from there, descending into typical liberal behavior including name calling. Maybe those silly skirts you guys wear caused you to freeze your balls off. Whatever.


You wouldn't mock if you saw the scottish branch of the Harley Davidson Owners Group barrelling up the A9 on their annual outing to aviemore, kilts flying in the breeze and teeth gritted against the onslaught of the midgies. For some reason someone dressed as a hells angel but wearing a kilt is indescribably funny.

posted by larsmac

And lest it was in a pub where we were gathered around enjoying irritating each other for the fun of it, that term would earn a good buffing.




Actually it would here in the right circumstances as well - well maybe not a buffing which has a slightly different meaning where I live but there are special bars where you can get one if you look nice.

posted by aussie pam

None of this has anything necessarily to do with the existence or non existence of God. It's a separate issue. And belittling and insulting individuals who do believe in God is not useful either.


You can't really discuss the existence or non existence of god can you? Neither side can prove their case conclusively and all you can do is discuss why you have come to believe there is one or why you do not. Another problem is that many will use the bible to make their case quoting scripture to prove their case. If you don't accept the bible as the unchanged word of god in the first place as an argument that it proves the existence of god it's going nowhere. If on the other hand the god believer rejects all the scientific evidence or refuses to consider it objectively or accepts it but insists it proves intelligent design when in fact it can't you end up on a circular argument and all you can do is agree to disagree. Which is all very nice and quite civilised.

But you can't even bring the subject of religion without facing a barrage of people claiming religion should not be criticised in any way. At least nowadays you can't get burned at the stake for being a heretic but you do get a sense that many wish they could just go back to the good old days when everybody was god fearing and terrified of falling foul of the church.



Pope will 'not be intimidated by petty gossip' over sex abuse scandals - Telegraph

Pope will 'not be intimidated by petty gossip' over sex abuse scandals




Most of the victims were terrified to speak out for fear of the power of the church now it is all reduced to malicious gossip. Surely even Catholics must be angry at this

Religion - News about the faiths - Religion in the news - Telegraph

Senior bishops call for end to persecution of Christians in Britain


What utter nonsense. Why should the church have the right to dictate what is taught in our schools.The simple fact is religion is a bronze age mythology we would be better off without. In the 21st century what is religion good for?

[Snowfire]

LarsMac;1300275 wrote: You missed the point of my analogy. You missed the point of my post, entirely, as a matter of fact.



There was nothing "systematic" about the abuse. The Pope did not lay down a fiat stating that priests and pastors were to commit child abuse, and assist in the cover-up of those abuses.

Humans did what humans do. Give in to their cravings and desires and take advantage of situations of authority, and then work to protect the organization from embarrassment and accountability.

And my point was that if you use this behavior to show how religion is terrible, you must also look at all the other activities where such behavior has been prevalent.




I'm sorry I cant agree. This isnt like any other institution. If any other organisation had discovered widespread abuse of children, do you think it would be hidden and suppressed as it has been for decades - if not centuries ? The scale of the abuse and its cover up we are discussing here is unprecedented, monumental, global.

The Pope, the Cardinals and all their Priests are the "carriers", the messengers of the word of God. Dont Catholics expect those members of their church to be so close to Godliness to be almost perfect, morally ? If I were a Catholic I would expect the Pope above all, as the head of that church to be pure of all sin. Its what's expected of religious leaders, at least. We arent talking about the MD of a company or multinational orginisation. We are talking about an orginisation that is believed by its adherants to be above all sinful acts.

Yes, humans do what humans do and acts of brutality and abuse are inflicted by individuals but if those actions are swept under the carpet and victims intimidated and frightened to death by the heads of church what other conclusion can we come to other than the Pope and his complicit Cardinals are as evil as the abusers they protect. If the Pope can allow the abuse to carry on, I see nothing Christian or good in him whatsoever.

[LarsMac]

I surrender.

There is no room for us all in here, with you guys all puffed up with your righteous indignation, and the discussion has deteriorated beyond reason.

I'm gonna join Hoppy for a beer or two.

Have a nice day.

[AussiePam]

gmc;1300285 wrote:

You can't really discuss the existence or non existence of god can you? Neither side can prove their case conclusively and all you can do is discuss why you have come to believe there is one or why you do not.


My point exactly. Which is why I didn't care to be cast as moronic / stupid / a big infant merely because I disagreed with you guys on this.

I absolutely agree with what you say about calling the Catholic church (and any other church or religion) to account. I do.