... 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 )

Like I get offended when people imply that only people of faith have morals. I get pretty narked off about that.

"I've made my point several times here, but just for you I'll spell it out again. If Ratzinger wants to challenge secularism, then the defence that we must respect the right to faith cannot be used. you can't have it both ways."

I agree but secularism has been made a faith and it is probably the vocal and powerful at the moment.

I personally have vague faith - I believe in something - but I don't know what as I was bought up in multifaith.

I have no issue with the Pope being here but I'm not very interested in him.

But as we live in a multicultural and multifaith society I do not see the problem with the catholics of our country (and I'm not one and I've ensured my ds is not baptised even though my dh is one - and believe me, I've been vilified for it) who think the pope is a spiritual person who gives them something, to come here.

We allow pretty much everyone else. And the costs are minimal in respect of our deficit.

I personally prefer the voice of catholics who either think he's great or representative of hypocracy and evil to have their voice via protest than someone like me who has a connection but who's life is not dominated by this faith.

Tinnitus - Faith schools - fine. Freedom of religion and all that. I don't see how you can ban them without being massively oppressive. State funded faith schools - not fine. Don't pass a cost/benefit analysis.

I'm not having this debate again now though, we did this for about a week up to few days ago. I need at least a month before I can go over it all again.

"to demand I accord it a special privilege was always a nonsense."
What special privilege have you been demanded to accord it?
"painting the secular movement as aggressive is grand hypocrisy"
He warned against "aggressive" forms of secularism. As we have discussed, aggressive forms of anything should be resisted.

Dione - Come on - that's a little disingenuous. The language used was clearly an attempt to define criticism of the church and the position of faith in general as 'aggressive secularism' - so that it can then be dismissed as coming from a bunch of wack jobs.

Faith has special consideration in Law, in the legislative process and in almost all areas of life.

I disagree TCNY. I have been on the receiving end of 'aggressive secularism' (accused of being an apologist for paedophiles and canibalism ). The quote regarding 'for good men to do bad things takes religion' is another example. As is talking of rooting out and deprogramming. These are things which I never heard of in secularism until recently and I do find them aggressive, hostile and a little alarming. As I find most evangelical fundamentalists of any faith and none.

Dione

I can only repeat what TCNY said. This childish misinterpretation of a discussion is pretty low. You cannot win a debate through word play.

TCNY

I quite agree. I can't be arsed to debate faith schools either.

I am sorry if you find it uncomfortable, but I think I would espouse all three of those views. Given the task before us, It is going to take some aggression and some discomfort before we see a secular world, and I make no apology for that.

Almost every religion wants global adherence. to set my sights any lower would be a mistake.

I actually think you are quite mad and actually a bit frightening.

So where do people with faith fit into your secular world?

"I actually think you are quite mad and actually a bit frightening"

Why, we are discussing the visit of a man who heads an organisation that has global dominance not just as a stated aim, but as a mater of accepted fact. they are the supreme authority on earth and they are proud of it. Yet I haven't found the posting where you describe them as "quite mad and actually a bit frightening." so now your double standards are out in the open we can have a more honest debate.

"So where do people with faith fit into your secular world?"

Lets be honest, They don't. but at least I know that my goal is only an aspiration and not something I can demand by dictate and dogma, or enforce through bloodshed and oppression.

It's your talk of world domination I find scary irrespective of your views on religion that and your comment about what it's like to be married to you.

You are freaky Tinnitus. I'll pray for you though.

hobnobsaremyfave

I desire a secular world and you talk like I'm Blowfelt. It's all a bit sad. and your re-contextualizing of my marriage statement is just dumb.

curryfreak

Thank you, I'm sure that is well intentioned but quite unnecessary.

Tinnitus you have no idea about me and my religious (or not ) beliefs but I still find your way of speaking scary. Secular or not you really have some weird ideas.

By the way I am very stupid...who is Blowfelt???

I don't get it Tinnitus, in one post you say that the pope's statement about "guarding against aggressive secularism" made you feel under attack. Then you say that it is right to guard against any hostility. Well which one is it?

"Given the task before us, It is going to take some aggression and some discomfort before we see a secular world, and I make no apology for that." Is that what you meant when you talked of rooting out people of faith and deprogramming them?

You speak of wanting a world that has no place for people whose views differ from yours. Yet you condemn others for having double standards when discussing a pope who is making ecumenical history in this country and has spoken about the dangers of losing the ability to see the humanity in all people.

You are not making any sense mate.

Dione - re 17:19 I don't think those are secularist attitudes, so that can't really be described as aggressive secularism. It's just plain anti-catholicism.

Tinnitus - A secular world is not one without faith.

From the wiki article "In one sense, secularism may assert the right to be free from religious rule and teachings, and the right to freedom from governmental imposition of religion upon the people within a state that is neutral on matters of belief. (See also Separation of church and state and Laïcité.) In another sense, it refers to the view that human activities and decisions, especially political ones, should be based on evidence and fact unbiased by religious influence.[1] (See also public reason.)"

Secularism is about creating frameworks and society's in which all faiths and non-faiths are equal.

TCNY, those who have espoused them (not only Tinnitus) call themselves secularists. Perhaps aggressive athiesm would be a better term. BTW I totally agree with you on the separation of church and state.

Jenny60 if you're still out there (!) it would be great to meet up at the demo, CAT me if you get this as your settings don't allow me to CAT you...

And of course anyone else who will be there tomorrow....

Jenny60, be sure to make your voice heard at the demo - give me a wave:)

Ok. Having spoken to DW about this I am prepared to concede that I have pushed the limits of a limited medium to breaking point and have appeared overly aggressive. The level of vitriol expressed does me no favours and is damaging my point. so to any one who has felt a personal slight in what I have previously posted, I apologise, that was certainly not my intention.

hobnobsaremyfave

Not sure where I made an assumption about your beliefs. and Blowfelt was a bond villain.

Dione

when Ratzinger made those remarks I felt my beliefs were under attack, and that it is ok to guard against attack. the only other cohesive point you made was about the loss of humanity in society and I personally feel he is the very last man on earth qualified to make that point.

TheCoalitionNeedsYou

Sorry but I may have failed to make my self clear, I am an anti theist, not limiting myself to any particular group, but in fairness we are discussing the visit of Mr. Ratzinger and having a pop at the Taliban seemed curiously out of place.
Although I rarely put Wikipedia in my bibliography, I agree with your definition about a secular world. any state enforced denial of the right to faith would be totalitarian and I just want it back in its box and out of my sight.

Tinnitus I have respect for you and the fact that you came back to post your thoughts.
Odd as it may seem there are people of faith who would also welcome a secular society. One where religion is not entwined with monarchy or government. We do now have two out of three party leaders who are either atheist or not of faith as the news pointed out this morning.

I just can't believe this male chauvanist, power mad, ritualistic shite is being broadcast on the BBC.

Wish I'd gone to the protests now.