Just a couple of days ago the Pope landed in Britain and the first thing he did is compare atheists to nazis while trying to get some British sympathy by mentioning its fight against Nazi Germany. Well, Brits could see through that and didn't buy the hateful message from one of the most powerful bigots on Earth
Crowd carries messages condemning papal stance on condoms, homosexuality, women's rights and child abuse scandal
Day three of Pope Benedict XVI's visit to Britain and it was a day for protests and anti-papists under bright blue skies in central London. Around 10,000 people took to the capital's streets for a Protest the Pope rally and march against what the organizers called "papal intolerance" and to condemn the state funding of the visit.
More than 10,000 people. That's a huge number. And those are just the ones who came out from their homes and went to London. Imagine how many repudiate the Pope and what he represents but couldn't make it to the protest.
Ratzinger represents pedophilia, homophobia, intolerance, misogyny, disregard for life, ignorance and abuse of power. And his position as head of the Catholic Church extends that to the institution. The Catholic Church is no more (if it ever was) the moral guide that people in the West looked after.
I don't think anyone has really a problem so big with a group of people believing whatever they want that they would go out and protest against it in such a strong way. People are not angry about Catholic rites, or doctrine. They are angry at the intolerance based on that doctrine and how it acts and influences on the world and on our lives.
Moreover, I would dare to say that Ratzinger's comments comparing atheists to nazis had something to do with the numbers in this protest. How dares the Pope, someone with such a record on intolerance, accuse another group of nazis with a straight face?
You need cynicism the size of the Saint Peter's Basilica to do that.
I would shake the hand of all and every person in that rally.
I really don't want to see the Pope dead (although I would lie if I said that his death would sadden me). I would just like to see him changing his views or losing enough power so that they can't harm anyone. One day, hopefully, one day.
A majority of people in Britain associate Islam with terrorism and the repression of women, a poll has shown.
The survey coincided with the launch of an advertising campaign aimed at combating negative perceptions of Muslims.
In the online poll of 2,152 UK adults, 58% of people said they associated Islam with extremism and 50% associated the world religion with terrorism.
The poll also found that 69% believe Islam encourages the repression of women.
It was organized as part of the Inspired By Muhammad campaign that will see adverts featuring pictures of Muslim professionals including TV presenter and Islam convert Kristiane Backer on the London Underground, bus stops and taxis.
Organizer the Exploring Islam Foundation said the campaign aims to highlight the Prophet Mohamed's teachings to Muslims on the importance of the environment, gender equality and social justice.
For one, this is a good campaign that aims to bring out the moderate Muslims and try to erase the image of the mad jihadist with a bomb strapped to his back. And I say "try", because it will take more than that to make that image go away.
The title of the article comes out as if it were a surprise to the readers that Islam is related with terrorism, violence and misogyny. First of all, we have to admit that there are extremists everywhere, and that no philosophy or belief is totally safe. But the problem with Islam is that it seems as if in Muslim societies, this extremism were not shunned, but condoned.
What about the Christian fundies who shoot down doctors? We can argue that’s just one of them, all the others being annoying in different levels, but more or less civilized. However, when it comes to Islam, English people might have it pretty easy relating it to terrorism and everything bad when they see this images:
Seriously, when you have a group of people demonstrating on the streets, being angry about a cartoon, or a so-called "offense", threatening with making their backwards laws the rule of the country/world, it's not just nonsensical to tolerate that, but also suicidal.
This is where liberalism fails. And just to be clear, I'm referring to the kind of liberalism that argues that every culture and human group has to be accepted, along with their practices and customs. Western society has had its flaws during the past, but along with those flaws came the idea of social justice, tolerance and human rights that most of the world share. To allow a human group that rejects and shuns those ideals is not moving forward under the idea that by allowing that culture, we are being more progressive and tolerant. On the contrary, it's moving backwards by allowing not a own group, but a foreign one hijack those ideals.
The problem is not the color of their skin, or the beards they have, or the clothes they wear. It's the divinely-inspired idea that their religion-filled culture must prevail anywhere over any other. Some Muslims might and will adapt into a society that cherishes liberal values, that's wonderful. But it is not enough.
I was tempted to just present the title without the "rather...", but even with the clarification it's still an eyebrow raiser. A priest, telling us to steal? Even if it is as he says, from big stores, it still something an intelligent person would not suggest. Yes, mugging is wrong, yes, prostitution is shameful (to some, there are others who might enjoy the money while enjoying having sex). But stealing is most likely to get you in jail and with a big fine.
I wonder what the reaction would be to "I stole it because the priest said it was ok".
This might be the case of just one crazy priest, but it is interesting how he explains that this advise does not goes against the "thou shall not steal" commandment. He says that God's love for the poor is bigger than his concern about his own commandments. I wonder how he knows. I wonder if God himself/herself/itself came down to tell him so. And in the same way many other church leaders give their own interpretation about what god supposedly wants, which of course, coincides with their own views. Whether it is hatred against gays, disregard for women's rights or contempt for science, it is not uncommon to see church leaders talking, god's name is always used, and those who use it are always regarded as respectable men and women in our society.
The title of the article says "Our human rights culture has now become a tyranny". Oh, really? What is the case first? There is a Jewish school. There is a mother who wants her son in that school. There is a 3500 year-old law that says that because the mother of the kid is not a Jew, the kid is not a Jew.
First flag: Discrimination based on thousand years old laws.
Then there is the supreme court decision that says the kid was excluded on racial grounds. And then there is the ranting of the article, which argues that the "human rights culture" we live in nowadays is looking like a tyranny because it prohibits certain groups from discriminating against others. According the the author, it is wrong and outrageous to seek a society in which everyone has the same rights, because there are groups who value discrimination of others among their beliefs.
In this case, the irony is tremendous, since it's the Jews, a group that has been mistreated through history, the one who demands its right to discriminate.
“The Taliban can perhaps be admired for their conviction to their faith and their sense of loyalty to each other.”
How religiously stupid can a bishop, not just a person, but a bishop, a catholic leader, be? Is this what it takes to be admired by religious leaders? Blind faith? Being so convinced of one’s faith that a person can blow himself away, beat women, kill “infidels” and, in few words, be a fundamentalist? Is it any wonder that this is what religions ultimately want, total conviction to the faith? Of course not, this has always been the objective. It’s just that now the evidence that points out how nonsensical faith in sacred texts can be, is so overwhelming that it’s harder to be a blind believer than it was before.
Fortunately the bishop noticed his error and quickly apologized. Yet, I wonder if he apologized because he really noticed that he was admiring mindless religious zombies, or because of the pressure around and the feeling that he was going against the armed forces from his country. What do you think?
Catholics, catholics… why is so easy for them to talk nonsense or be in the eye of the storm, but then demand respect? Whether it’s the Pope, a bishop or a group of peasants who saw the virgin in bird droppings, it’s so hard not to ridicule them.
A former priest has been sentenced to 90 days in prison and three years probation for his guilty plea to a sex charge alleging he had sexual contact with a teenage boy 12 years ago.
There is something really wrong here. Only three months? This guy should be in jail for a much longer time, not just three months, especially after waiting for so long. Unfortunately there aren’t many details about the story and it’s not correct to figure them out. Yet, is it of any surprise that a catholic priest was the accused?
Seriously, I try not to generalize or show disrespect to the catholic faith. But stuff like these make it very hard to do.
Christianity might disgust me because of its demands of blind obedience and submission, and its disdain for people who are not contemplated in ”god’s plan”, or if they are, are seen condescendingly and over the shoulder. However, I have to admit none of the abuses of Christianity hold no sway over those of the “religion of peace”, the Islam
In broad terms, it can be said that Islam is similar to Christianity in terms of doctrine. Both require obedience to a god, who has revealed to his followers through “sacred texts” that are “his word”, which is interpreted by spiritual leaders and given to the people for they to comply with it, unless they want to suffer horrible torments through eternity.
The problem with Islam is that its sacred texts’ interpretation is done with a much more totalitarian mentality than the one that is done with Christianity. Because of the enlightenment and secular and scientific advancement, the christian church and its power have had to retreat to live room for positions that give priority to people’s rights and liberties, science and knowledge. But apparently that didn’t happened with Islam. Islam remained in some kind of obscurantism that his shocking to find in the XXI century. The cases of human rights violation in Islamic societies are many in all levels of that society. Its followers’ fanatism is outrageous because of how extreme it is.
Christianity is not free from fanatics, but these fanatics usually are reduced to particular people, and sometimes groups of people that hardly do something else that protesting against whatever the think is wrong or trying to push religion in legislature. However, islamic fanatics go much further. From the husband who kills his wife or any woman relative for “dishonoring the family”, to the government that retaliates with massive force against its own citizens who protest, Islamic countries don’t seem to care about their citizens, but only compliance of its laws. In other words, the state does not serve the people, but the people serve the state, which is a definition very similar to that of totalitarism. And yet, Islam hypocritically presents itself as “the religion of peace”. And maybe the worst thing of the issue is that occidental liberalism, which fought for people’s rights and liberties, usually tries to forgive the crimes and abuses committed in the name of “the religion of peace”
The XX chromosome curse Maybe the most remarkable thing about Islam is the oppresion against women. This goes from the mandatory use of the burqa and other clothes that cover the woman’s entire body, to the laws that condone the assassination of women only for dating people of different faith
In Islam, the segregation of genders is seen normally, but the treatment of women as a second-class citizen doesn’t end there. In Islamic societies it’s normal for a man to hit his wife for disobeying them. The man can get a divorce whenever he wants it, while women don’t have that same right. Often women cannot choose who to get married, which is pretty much what used to happen in western society just 100 years ago, but at least western society evolved. And a couple of things that outrage me are, if a woman is raped, she needs to have 4 male witnesses to corroborate her testimony. Otherwise, she might end in jail or stoned to death; and allowing men to marry underage girls as young as nine years old, with all the freedom to have sex with them. And I don’t think there is anything worse than female circumcision.
These are only some of the characteristics Islam has regarding women. Such practices are usually found in the politically incorrect media that is able to criticize Islam. There is where the left, specially the European left, fails, that left that once fought for the people’s rights and liberties, but now allows those concepts to be stepped on by a religion’s rights and liberties that are no more than going back to the medieval ages.
Unfortunately these cases are extending not only to Europe, which is where muslim immigrants usually land, but to the USA and Canada.
Woman before being stoned to death after been found guilty of adultery under Islamic Law.
Christians and other religions Different religions usually are incompatible with each other, but most of them don’t go to the extreme to insult or call for the destruction of the others, which is the best example of pots accusing pans. Christianity can be pretty nonsensical, but gets allong very well with the Jewish community and often tries to get along with other religions (except wicca) and even Islam (well, excepting the invasion to the middle east by the United States, which had many other motivations). Muslims, on the other hand, don’t seem to perceive anything wrong in murdering or jailing other religion’s members, which is unthinkable in western societies. But this intolerance is not limited to that. There are many cases of muslims attacking christian churches. I have no sympathy for churches, but destroying them is not a solution in any case in a modern society.
A particular group that has been under attack are the Bahá'í, a young religion born not very long ago and that preaches unity among religions. So far, it seems like a peaceful religion that doesn't get into anyboy else's life (you don't hear about baha'i knocking at your door trying to convert you, shooting down doctors who perform abortions, or flying into buldings). Predictably, the "religion of peace" could not leave them alone. The bahai have faced persecution, specially in Iran, for being considerated apostates of Islam. Up to this day, the persecution against the Bahai continues by the "religion of peace".
Homosexuals Just like in christianity, Islam is very intolerant to homosexual. If they treat their women as second class citizens, what is to expect for homosexuals? Maybe the most famous case was the hanging of two young homosexual guys in Iran. In the United States the bigotry against homosexuals usually is limited to forbidding them to marry each other, but in a country which president affirms there are no homosexuals, it’s hard that there were limits for the hatred against homosexuals, who already have a very difficult life.
Violence Maybe the relationship between violence and Islam is the most difficult to address given that it’s easy to fall in which might seem as arguing that every muslim is violent, which is in no way true. But it’s hard to forget the uproar that the uproar that was caused by the publication of a Mohammed cartoon in a Danish newspaper. This started a series of protests that had as a consequence the burning of different European countries’ flags, attacks to european buildings and even the burning of Danish embasies in Iran, Syria and Lebanon.
I don’t want to think I have a too high standard for human beings in general, but I believe that no rational person commits such acts of violence just because of a cartoon. I can understand pacific protests, boycotts to the institution that allowed such cartoons and maybe the burning of flags. Burning down an embassy is too much. And that’s even worse when muslim religious leaders were encouraging such behavior, which shows hot official and accepted violence can be
As with christianity and judaism, Islam contains lots of nonsense in its doctrine. However, the zeal that demands from its followers, the fundamentalism in which what they consider the message of god is taught and the strong relationship between Islam and politics in the countries with a majority of muslims, make this belief alarming for the rest of citizens and shouldn’t be accepted in these times.
There is a saying in the rural part of my country that goes like this: "A priest is a person who everybody calls "father", except his children, who call him "godfather". While being able to get a couple of chuckles from us, it also points out a couple of things: First: Priests, even though they have made a “celibacy” vote, often have children, and that’s is widely known; Second: People still call him “father” with respect, as if breaking that celibacy vote shows how hypocritical they can be.
This isn’t an issue that people talk much about. As far as I remember, when my relatives from rural town commented on that, they did it as if it were something natural. Now it’s hard for me to understand how they can still revere a priest even though they know he is not what he actually says he is. But nowadays it seems that people are more open to this, and maybe more critical, especially in more “civilized” places, like England:
Catholic priest quits church as he admits fathering child Father Peter McDonough, a Catholic priest, confessed from the pulpit of his church in Manchester that he was the father of a four-year-old boy - and then quit the church.
It must have been a blast, something like those pranks in which a person think he or she has something big and then, bam! It was all a joke.
At least McDonough had the decency of outing himself instead of letting the issue being known by other means and bring more shame to him and to the church. That’s right, he chose what was better and easier, great decency is that.
James Kenny, 85, who has lived near St Patrick's church for 52 years, said: "This will come as a big shock to everyone. He's let down the Catholic community.
"People are confessing to him - I've confessed to him - and he's been carrying this big secret. What faith can you have in someone like that when it's not say as I do but do as I say?
This man almost gets it right. Almost. He does the right thing in questioning how can people have faith in such a person, when he does not do as he says? Well, it’s exactly the same thing with the whole catholic church. What faith can the people have in an institution that preaches love as god’s word, when this “love” is usually hatred, discrimination and anti-scientific baloney? What faith can people have on a church that preaches sexual restraint, but does few or nothing to punish or prevent priests to rape children?
While there are many reasons, I think this, the hypocrisy, is the main one that makes me see the catholic church as a despicable and wretched institution.
I’m not very knowledgeable of art, specially when it comes to paintings or different forms of “modern art” particularly when it comes to something or some action that supposedly represents something, which may include empty paintings, “artists" who leave the water tap running and gerbils that chew on encyclopedias.
The art of these action is invisible to my eyes, maybe because I’m not very literate when it comes to art, or maybe because these are just non-senses. But when something religious is involved, the controversy is increased tenfold. Like in the case of this “artistic expression”.
Christians voiced anger and dismay on Tuesday (local time) after a Bible, which was part of an exhibition inviting viewers to add their reflections, was defaced with offensive, foul-mouthed scrawl.
Glasgow's Gallery of Modern Art has decided to put the Bible in a glass case after the exhibit - called Untitled 2009 and part of a show entitled Made In God's Image - was vandalised.
Artist Jane Clarke, a minister at the Metropolitan Community Church, asked visitors to annotate the Bible with stories and reflections, as a way of making it more inclusive.
But visitors to the gallery took the invitation a bit further than she had anticipated.
First of all, I don’t see how this idea is artistic. It would be better as part of a protest against religious discrimination in general (in which case, a Koran should have been included). But as part of an artistic exhibition? Second, it was obvious that the church was going to complain about it. What wasn’t very obvious was that the Pope was going to take the issue into account.
The adviser to the head of the Catholic Church said the project was "disgusting and offensive".
Even though I see different religions as superstitious nonsense that should be acknowledged as that, I don’t think as correct protesting by insulting symbols just to piss off believers. Of course, many times religions are so ridiculous it’s hard not to laugh at them.
But, in based on what does the pope qualifies the exhibition as “disgusting”? Some comments justify that reaction, such as
Some remarks were simply offensive, with one person writing "---- the Bible".
I assume thos spaces mean “fuck”, Other writings just are joking:
"Mick Jagger and David Bowie belong in here,"
But some others are right or at least have a point to take into consideration
I am Bi, Female & Proud. I want no god who is disappointed in this
“This is all sexist pish, so disregard it all
the biggest lie in human history
That bisexual and proud woman expresses clearly her rejection against a god that is presented as “disappointed” for her being who she is, even though that God, if it exists, is the one who created her that way. The sexism in the bible is undeniable, but that doesn’t mean everything is wrong; we have to acknowledge there are some pieces worth reading, few, but there are. Regarding the biggest lie, certainly, as all myths with which the old civilizations have wanted to explain its origins, it’s a lie, or at least, a very decorated and manipulated reality.
But I don’t think the Vatican limited its comments to the offensive phrases. The behavior that the Catholic Church (and many other Christian denominations) has shown to us usually takes criticism as an offense, especially when its symbols are taken. Vandalizing the bible, which supposedly is the word of god, is unacceptable for the believer, who sees his or her beliefs “insulted”. But these are the same beliefs that “vandalize” the rights and dignity of women, homosexuals, people of different faith, poor people exposed to illnesses, nonbelievers, among others. Apparently, for the catholic church, that is the correct vandalism
