... to Protest the Pope?

[stubbornhubby]

A friend of mine told me at the weekend that this will make me an extremist...anyway we had a long thread about this in July and a few people said they'd be keen, like me, to wave a banner as he parades around the country.

There's a big march in London on Sat 18th, Hyde park Corner @ 1.30pm
details here
www.protest-the-pope.org.uk/

Also, if you live in SW London, a Small demo in Strawberry Hill on Fri 17th @9am. (NB official visti website says you will not be able to see the pope arrriving/departing SMUC - I think he must be using helicopter. Or apparating )

Apology accepted

TCNY

quite.

Tinnitus, given that this situation is very difficult for you and bringing a lot of anger into your life and contradictory messages as well as anger(?) into your daughter's life, I think that if I were you I would be either taking this further or finding a new school.

Alternatively you may just tell your daughter that those people have a set of beliefs that you do not share and calmly explain why. Many schools now teach about a variety of faiths, and those of different faiths or none don't tend to see it as interference in their lives. I am unable to see why you find it such a great problem. Has your daughter expressed an interest in beoming a vicar or something?

Tinnitus - One thing I'd like to suggest. Remember when you are discussing things on popular internet forums like this one, there are probably more people reading than posting. This is for a variety of reasons, including being interested on but having no decided viewpoint on an issue. Try not to alienate them from your argument by the way you put it. They are the people most likely to be swayed by argument on here - not the rest of us who already know what we think.

Dione.

I genuinely appreciate your advice but this is way off topic.

TCNY

Thank you for your suggestion, lets hope that it doesn't stifle opinion and debate.

I don't think that it is. You have made some quite shocking comments on the grounds that religion is interfering with your life. I can see now that it is a defence against the helplessness you feel in the face of what is going on in your DD's school. I have merely suggested a better way of dealing with your personal problem than making inflammatory comments to people who have no desire to encroach on your chosen way of life but who you think should be subject to your rudeness and quite scary beliefs.

Tinnitus - Really you should take this to the Governors or the LEA if you feel faith is being imposed inappropriately.

If you like one of us can restart the thread on the school debate, but it has no bearing on the thread. My argument that the visit of Ratzinger has changed the rules in our favour, he has scored an own goal and beyond that I'v only responded to others.

If people have inferred things beyond that I can't be held accountable for that. if I didn't say it, then I didn't say it.

If people think I'm overly aggressive, just be thankful you're not married to me.

I went to a catholic school because it was the only decent primary school where i used to live, I then moved to a city and attended a single sex catholic school.. I am not catholic but I'm not even religious in the slightest.
Would you prefer the tax payers money to go to people that have been on JSA for YEARS? people that don't want to work? I helped at the local job office and a guy had been claiming for 8 years! 8 years of your hard earn cash went to him and many others like that. Now I'm not even saying the popes visit should be paid for by tax payers either but someone has to pay as we invited him (by we I mean our ruler the Queen). I am a keen protester I have been to so many (maybe over 200) from going against the government, to saving trees and even animals. This year I decided enough was enough and not to bother any more as it doesn't get you anywhere except to jail. even peaceful protest you get some moron that decides being on drugs and booze is better and totally changes what is going on in the peaceful protest and turns it to carnage. All my friends will be protesting, but why? they all claim JSA and none of them even pay tax! If you want to please go and do it, believe me its an experience but its so easy to get caught up in the bussel and end up in jail for the night and they can pin all kinds of crap on you.. Go and look and be a on looker - much much safer :)

Tinnitus, I was unaware that there was a game to start off with, so please tell me about it and its rules (inc. What is a goal? What is an own goal? How many points do you get for a goal?).

I have not yet heard the pope declare war on anyone.

"If people think I'm overly aggressive, just be thankful you're not married to me."

Debate has always followed rules and debate about religion always ends up with a demand that I respect someone's right to faith.

When a religious leader recommends that you "guard against "aggressive forms of secularism"." and asks that we "never forget how the exclusion of God, religion and virtue from public life leads ultimately to a truncated vision of man and of society and thus a reductive vision of a person and his destiny." then I feel that my right to reason is under attack.

But the grand rewriting of history was the former Hitler youth member talking about the "Nazi tyranny that wished to eradicate God from society and denied our common humanity to many, especially the Jews, who were thought unfit to live." and failing to mention Pious or the historical persecution of Jews by the Vatican.

This new technique of being so outrageously wrong that your opponents don't know where to start is interesting but doomed. the man is an intellectual lightweight with delusions of divinity. The wails are crumbling on a man who despite mass media coverage got a smaller crowd than Bruce Springsteen.

"debate about religion always ends up with a demand that I respect someone's right to faith."
So is your argument that people do not have the right to have a faith?

"guard against "aggressive forms of secularism"."
I would say that it is my right to guard against aggressive forms of anything, be it religion, atheism, socialism, conservatism. Aggression being unprovoked attack or hostile activity.

Are you saying that I have no right to my faith and should I continue to have my faith you believe that I should have to put up with unprovoked attacks and hostility?

"Nazi tyranny that wished to eradicate God from society and denied our common humanity to many, especially the Jews, who were thought unfit to live." The worst thing about this sentence is that the Nazi's WERE NOT ATHEISTS. They were more Christian than anything.

Tinnitus - What do you mean about 'right to faith'? It is very difficult to say that you ought to be able to make people stop believing something. You can't really, on a practical level, police the content of peoples heads.

What people DON'T have is the right to have opinions based on faith taken seriously purely because they are based on faith.

So people have the 'right' to HAVE a faith - essentially no on can stop them anyway. They don't have the right to have their opinions taken seriously.

Lots have faith positions also have perfectly sensible rational justifications.

None of this means you shouldn't be POLITE though.

Everybody has the right to have faith just like they have the right to not believe. It's up to the individual. However just because one has faith does not mean they have the right to rub it in people's faces! Or be rude for that matter!

The Nazis might have claimed they were Christians technically but they were acting in all their measures in ways that contradicted the teachings of Christ. Those Christians who challenged them, like Bonhoeffer, were arrested and killed.

Yes quite, though people claiming they follow a faith and then not acting in the best traditions of that faith is hardly unusual - but the point is - NOT ATHEISTS.

They were not terribly ORTHODOX Christians , what with wanting to get rid of the Jewish bits (!?) and the occultism.

But still - NOT ATHEISTS.

"So is your argument that people do not have the right to have a faith?"

No, but to demand I accord it a special privilege was always a nonsense.

Of course you are right to guard against any hostility, as would I. but if the man in a frock wants to cause division he is going the right way about it. painting the secular movement as aggressive is grand hypocrisy and every one knows it. and connecting atheism with Nazism was simply embarrassing for him.

If you have beliefs that run counter to reason or all the evidence, then in any debate you will come up against people who are hostile to your position, but outside of debate you should of course be afforded every consideration and courtesy.

What's wrong with men in frocks? Some of the nicest men I've met have worn frocks!

Tinnitus - I just question the wisdom of responding to accusations of 'aggressive secularism' with, basically, 'Come and have a go if you think your hard enough'.

I think a better response is 'that's nice dear'.

TheCoalitionNeedsYou

Funny how we can agree on all of that and still disagree at the end. Can you find a single personal insult from me to another MNR on here.

Some of them play fucking bagpipes, that's what's wrong with men in frocks.

Oh, hang on - that's skirts.

TheCoalitionNeedsYou

No, that approach got us faith schools.

I think if someone referred to all members of a group I belonged to as deluded and sad, I might take that personally.