Muslims urged to speak up for Christians

#1
Be interesting to see what type of reaction from 'muslim community leaders' will be issued?

LONDON (Reuters) - The main barrier to dialogue between Christians and Muslims is the failure of some countries in the Islamic world to respect freedom of worship, the country's leading Roman Catholic said on Tuesday.

When Christians are persecuted in those countries, Muslims in Britain have a duty to speak up in their defence, said Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, leader of the Catholic Church in England and Wales.

"Dialogue will be impossible as long as minds are closed, as long as adherents of either faith believe that we have nothing to learn from the other," the cardinal said in a speech to the Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies.

"The main obstacle to that dialogue is the failure, in a number of Muslim countries, to uphold the principle of religious freedom."Tensions between Britain's Muslim and non-Muslim populations were exacerbated by last year's July 7 bombings in London, which killed 52 people and were carried out by four British Islamist extremists.

Christians and non-believers alike urged Britain's 2.7 million Muslims to condemn the bombings, and the vast majority did. Some Christians have also urged Muslims to be more vocal in their condemnation of abuses in Islamic countries abroad.

"Where Christians are being denied their rights, or are subject to sharia law, that is not a matter on which Muslims in Britain should remain silent," said Murphy-O'Connor, who speaks for around 4 million Catholics in Britain.

He said there were "rising tensions" in the British Muslim community "which are spilling out on the edges of that community in an adherence to fundamentalist or nostalgic doctrines which approve violence".

The cardinal drew a parallel between the experience of Muslims in Britain now -- many of whom complain of Islamophobia -- and that of Catholics in Britain in the 1970s, when sectarian violence in the British-controlled province in Northern Ireland was at its height.

"There is much in our Catholic experience -- when being Catholic and Irish in the 1970s was to be equated in the minds of some with terrorism -- that must surely lead us to sympathise," he said.
Link
 
#2
"Dialogue will be impossible as long as minds are closed, as long as adherents of either faith believe that we have nothing to learn from the other,"
Thats rich coming from a Catholic minister, hopefully they have learnt from past experience :?:
 
#3
And I bet there has been a wildly enthusiastic response from the Grand Imam and all his followers, hasn't there........
 
#4
rickshaw said:
And I bet there has been a wildly enthusiastic response from the Grand Imam and all his followers, hasn't there........
Quiet isn't it.......................................................
 
B

benjaminw1

Guest
#5
slick said:
"Dialogue will be impossible as long as minds are closed, as long as adherents of either faith believe that we have nothing to learn from the other,"
Thats rich coming from a Catholic minister, hopefully they have learnt from past experience :?:
Thats an oxymoron :D
 
#6
Believe me Bag Charge, I wasn't holding my breath on this one. Thinking about it, the whole thing has a smack of the Monty Python's about it..... rather along the lines of the Spanish Inquisition sketch.... "nobody expects the Muslims to love us so, Cardinal Fang, administer the comfy armchair to the Mullah!" "NO! Not the comfy armchair bismallah!"
 
#7
Hat20 said:
Be interesting to see what type of reaction from 'muslim community leaders' will be issued?

LONDON (Reuters) -
"Dialogue will be impossible as long as minds are closed, as long as adherents of either faith believe that we have nothing to learn from the other," the cardinal said in a speech to the Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies.

Tensions between Britain's Muslim and non-Muslim populations were exacerbated by last year's July 7 bombings in London, which killed 52 people and were carried out by four British Islamist extremists.

"an adherence to fundamentalist or nostalgic doctrines which approve violence".

The cardinal drew a parallel between the experience of Muslims in Britain now -- many of whom complain of Islamophobia -- and that of Catholics in Britain in the 1970s, when sectarian violence in the British-controlled province in Northern Ireland was at its height.

"There is much in our Catholic experience -- when being Catholic and Irish in the 1970s was to be equated in the minds of some with terrorism -- that must surely lead us to sympathise," he said.
Link
Hmm, a member of the ruling class of the RCs moaning about closed minds and adherence to fundamentalist or nostalgic doctrines, pot/kettle methinks.

Another example of why we must endavour to keep the secular mainstream world away from the kiddy-fiddling, racist, homophobic, fundamentalist, mentally-impaired, women-hating and power-hungry members of all religions.

Plus, that last comment is just a load of balls. Northern Ireland is a part of the United Kingdom and whilst a majority of its denizens want it to be, should remain so.

Though, I have to say, there is much in my protestant (not religious, but as I am percieved to be, as a HR bod would put it) experience of 70s and 80s Belfast, that would surely lead me to sympathise with innocent people murdered at the supposed behest of a religion that fails to condemn such actions adequately.
 
#9
NotyouAgain said:
Just catholics? what about the hindu's, athiests, bhuddists, jews, etc etc etc etc.
My thoughts exactly, as I'm sure many are aware, it's illegal to even take a bible into some countries (Saudi for one). To me that's a little like a small child with his fingers in his ears so he can't hear you when you say "There are religions other that Islam". I acknowledge the Muslim argument that as the country containing Islam's two Holiest Shrines, the Saudis don't want it contaminated by anything non-muslim, but I don't agree with it. The Vatican city could well take the same approach and forbid someone in Muslim dress visiting St Peter's but they don't. It's denial in an almost childlike form. I fully support religious tolerance, and find any kind of bigotry repulsive, but tolerance has to go both ways in order to really work, and in this day and age, it sadly doesn't.
 
#10
Cuchulainn said:
Hat20 said:
Be interesting to see what type of reaction from 'muslim community leaders' will be issued?

LONDON (Reuters) -
"Dialogue will be impossible as long as minds are closed, as long as adherents of either faith believe that we have nothing to learn from the other," the cardinal said in a speech to the Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies.

Tensions between Britain's Muslim and non-Muslim populations were exacerbated by last year's July 7 bombings in London, which killed 52 people and were carried out by four British Islamist extremists.

"an adherence to fundamentalist or nostalgic doctrines which approve violence".

The cardinal drew a parallel between the experience of Muslims in Britain now -- many of whom complain of Islamophobia -- and that of Catholics in Britain in the 1970s, when sectarian violence in the British-controlled province in Northern Ireland was at its height.

"There is much in our Catholic experience -- when being Catholic and Irish in the 1970s was to be equated in the minds of some with terrorism -- that must surely lead us to sympathise," he said.
Link
Hmm, a member of the ruling class of the RCs moaning about closed minds and adherence to fundamentalist or nostalgic doctrines, pot/kettle methinks.

Another example of why we must endavour to keep the secular mainstream world away from the kiddy-fiddling, racist, homophobic, fundamentalist, mentally-impaired, women-hating and power-hungry members of all religions.

Plus, that last comment is just a load of balls. Northern Ireland is a part of the United Kingdom and whilst a majority of its denizens want it to be, should remain so.

Though, I have to say, there is much in my protestant (not religious, but as I am percieved to be, as a HR bod would put it) experience of 70s and 80s Belfast, that would surely lead me to sympathise with innocent people murdered at the supposed behest of a religion that fails to condemn such actions adequately.


Excellent point and very well put. Get your own house in order before trying to sort out somebody else's.
 
#11
slick said:
"Dialogue will be impossible as long as minds are closed, as long as adherents of either faith believe that we have nothing to learn from the other,"
Thats rich coming from a Catholic minister, hopefully they have learnt from past experience :?:
Can someone enlighten me to the reasoning behind Catholic bashing on this thread (not that I'm whining after all it's your board and I'm a guest)? Ties to the IRA correct?
 
#12
"Can someone enlighten me to the reasoning behind Catholic bashing on this thread (not that I'm whining after all it's your board and I'm a guest)? Ties to the IRA correct? "

Sod all to do with PIRA all to do with whom the quote below came from: The Head of the Catholic Church in England and Wales.


"LONDON (Reuters) - The main barrier to dialogue between Christians and Muslims is the failure of some countries in the Islamic world to respect freedom of worship, the country's leading Roman Catholic said on Tuesday"

You Catholics are so sensitive.
 
#13
Virgil said:
Can someone enlighten me to the reasoning behind Catholic bashing on this thread (not that I'm whining after all it's your board and I'm a guest)? Ties to the IRA correct?
Because some people seem to have the following fixation in their minds:

Catholic = IRA

This lazy equation displays a fundamental misunderstanding of both Catholicsm and the IRA.

However, sticking with this is easier than making any attempt to actually understand the situation. It amuses me to see how so many are so quick to dismiss Northern Ireland as a religious problem, when in fact the issue of religion is merely the easiest way of defining which 'tribe' one comes from - it is a means of identification, and has precious little to do with whether one recognises Papal authority or not. I am of the opinion that the ready dismissal of Northern Ireland and elsewhere as being the 'fault of 'religious nutters' is merely a lazy way of avoiding any real analysis of these problems.
 
#14
Master-Sniper said:
"Can someone enlighten me to the reasoning behind Catholic bashing on this thread (not that I'm whining after all it's your board and I'm a guest)? Ties to the IRA correct? "

Sod all to do with PIRA all to do with whom the quote below came from: The Head of the Catholic Church in England and Wales.


"LONDON (Reuters) - The main barrier to dialogue between Christians and Muslims is the failure of some countries in the Islamic world to respect freedom of worship, the country's leading Roman Catholic said on Tuesday"

You Catholics are so sensitive.
Not sensitive, just curious.
 
#16
BagCharge said:
rickshaw said:
And I bet there has been a wildly enthusiastic response from the Grand Imam and all his followers, hasn't there........
Quiet isn't it.......................................................
The sound of silence is deafening.I don't like "British controlled province" bit ,Northern Ireland is British because a majority there want it that way
the only people who control the Northern Irish are themselves they are all as stubborn( to quote my father) as a "Donegal Donkey"
 
#17
gallowglass said:
Virgil said:
Can someone enlighten me to the reasoning behind Catholic bashing on this thread (not that I'm whining after all it's your board and I'm a guest)? Ties to the IRA correct?
Because some people seem to have the following fixation in their minds:

Catholic = IRA

This lazy equation displays a fundamental misunderstanding of both Catholicsm and the IRA.

However, sticking with this is easier than making any attempt to actually understand the situation. It amuses me to see how so many are so quick to dismiss Northern Ireland as a religious problem, when in fact the issue of religion is merely the easiest way of defining which 'tribe' one comes from - it is a means of identification, and has precious little to do with whether one recognises Papal authority or not. I am of the opinion that the ready dismissal of Northern Ireland and elsewhere as being the 'fault of 'religious nutters' is merely a lazy way of avoiding any real analysis of these problems.

ref. my earlier post.

Also, it really pisses me off when some mong says that we should pursue "peace" in NI so as to bring ourselves to the level of our mainland counterparts (i.e. significantly increasing the murder and serious violent crime rates beyond those of the 70-80s) and we should welcome into a democratic government a disparate group of commies, drug-dealers and mass-murdering terrorists wanting to "unite" Ireland, turn it into a socialist state with links to their great friends the Libyans, Cubans, Palestineans, Cloumbian drug-dealers and of course Al-Qaida, who are immune from prosecution for the most heinous of crimes in case they may blow up a bit of London. Especially during a so-called "war" on Terror.

Just a little trivia for you, back a few years some girl from Belfast was kidnapped in Afghanistan and it was the first of those kidnappings were the government didnt say "We dont deal with terrorists" as there was over 1.5 million people held to ransom by a couple of hundred who knew full well that was a load of bollocks.

Northern Ireland, one of the lowest crime rates in the world, and the most famous criminals.

However, I do believe the majority of the worlds ills are directly related to religion. For a comparison take the, nowadays, secular western world, and compare it to theocratic states, i.e. Taliban-era Afghanistan, which is better to live in? Religion is a method for power hungry individuals to control the masses. There is no difference between Islam and Catholicism or Catholicism and Hitlers Reich. They are all the same. "we are better than everyone else and everyone must do what we say or be punished!".
Second in the causes of problems is the level of contentment of a people, i.e. do they have jobs, their health, etc. Funny thing is those countries that are more religious are those with more problems in these areas to. Funny that.

And yes, the Catholic church turned a blind eye to its priests who supported and who were active in PIRA, just as they were with the paedo priests, and of course to the holocaust (until it was their turn of course).

As a certain Pope once said, "It has served us well, this myth of Christ", and he should know!
 
#18
Cuchulainn said:
ref. my earlier post.

Also, it really pisses me off when some mong says that we should pursue "peace" in NI so as to bring ourselves to the level of our mainland counterparts (i.e. significantly increasing the murder and serious violent crime rates beyond those of the 70-80s) and we should welcome into a democratic government a disparate group of commies, drug-dealers and mass-murdering terrorists wanting to "unite" Ireland, turn it into a socialist state with links to their great friends the Libyans, Cubans, Palestineans, Cloumbian drug-dealers and of course Al-Qaida, who are immune from prosecution for the most heinous of crimes in case they may blow up a bit of London. Especially during a so-called "war" on Terror.

Just a little trivia for you, back a few years some girl from Belfast was kidnapped in Afghanistan and it was the first of those kidnappings were the government didnt say "We dont deal with terrorists" as there was over 1.5 million people held to ransom by a couple of hundred who knew full well that was a load of balls.

Northern Ireland, one of the lowest crime rates in the world, and the most famous criminals.

However, I do believe the majority of the worlds ills are directly related to religion. For a comparison take the, nowadays, secular western world, and compare it to theocratic states, i.e. Taliban-era Afghanistan, which is better to live in? Religion is a method for power hungry individuals to control the masses. There is no difference between Islam and Catholicism or Catholicism and Hitlers Reich. They are all the same. "we are better than everyone else and everyone must do what we say or be punished!".
Second in the causes of problems is the level of contentment of a people, i.e. do they have jobs, their health, etc. Funny thing is those countries that are more religious are those with more problems in these areas to. Funny that.

And yes, the Catholic church turned a blind eye to its priests who supported and who were active in PIRA, just as they were with the paedo priests, and of course to the holocaust (until it was their turn of course).

As a certain Pope once said, "It has served us well, this myth of Christ", and he should know!
An interesting post Cuchulainn.

However, I think that you are being a little 'scatter gun' in your approach to this subject. It would be both inaccurate and wrong to pretend that religion - or more correctly religious people (not quite the same thing) - were not behind many of the worlds ills. However, I believe that too many people are all too willing to bandy about the "it's all the fault of religion" one-size-fits-all answer. I have to take issue with you when you say:

There is no difference between Islam and Catholicism or Catholicism and Hitlers Reich. They are all the same. "we are better than everyone else and everyone must do what we say or be punished!".
Firstly, you are bringing Nazism - a secular religion at best, and that's stretching a point - into the equation, when really, like Communism (in all its flavours), it clouds the issue and has no real place in the discussion. Furthermore, its inclusion falls flat when one recalls that many of the most vociferous and martyred opponents of Nazism (and Communism) were Catholic (and other denominations). Here is not the place to discuss this, but the 'popular' notion that the Catholic Church, and Pius XII in particular, effectively sat on its hands and either tacitly or actively acquiesed as the Holocaust took place about it, is not surported by historical fact. On this point I will finish by saying that an insidious but effective hatchet-job has been done on the Catholic Church and Pius XII since 1945 (and is now being written about), and for comparative purposes I will tentatively compare 'popular' opinions and attitudes on this particular matter with the all too eager willingness of people - who really should know better - to unquestioningly embrace the nonsense put forward in such works as The Da Vinci Code. It is often tempting to adopt the 'a plague on all their houses' default response to matters religious, but rarely correct.

Even the most cursory look at the recent or more distant history of Islam and Catholicsm clearly shows that they are in many respects fundamentally different; on a simple point both have been at odds with one another for centuries, often at the point of a sword. One can of course select at random a particular point in history - say the Inquisition - and say that Catholicsm was 'as bad' as fundamentalist Islam, but that is nothing more than lazy moral relativsm and equivalance. The comparison between the 'secular' West and Taliban-era Afghanistan is easy to make, but misses the point that the Taliban were exercising political and social control through the medium of an extremist and fundamentalist version of Islam; at the risk being guilty myself of equivalance, I would suggest that a more accurate comparison is 'Christian' Europe c.1680-1780, and Taliban-era Afghanistan - which would be better to live in?

In terms of the IRA and paedophile clergy, the Catholic Church did fall down, or rather senior elements within the Church simply failed to do their duty; however, in these cases I feel that a lack of character or more bluntly cowardice are to blame, and that to point to religion itself as being to blame is missing the point and effectively removing responsibility from both the perpetrators and those who either through accident or design allowed these crimes to occur. Also, in terms of numbers, the actual percentage of 'IRA priests' and those engaging in various forms of child abuse was small. Does this lessen the crimes - no - but it does, I feel, at least call for a pause for thought from those so ready to string up all clergy and damn all religion.

As regards your take on Northern Ireland and the 'Peace Process', I am broadly in agreement with what you say.
 
#19
gallowglass said:
Firstly, you are bringing Nazism - a secular religion at best, and that's stretching a point - into the equation, when really, like Communism (in all its flavours), it clouds the issue and has no real place in the discussion. Furthermore, its inclusion falls flat when one recalls that many of the most vociferous and martyred opponents of Nazism (and Communism) were Catholic (and other denominations). Here is not the place to discuss this, but the 'popular' notion that the Catholic Church, and Pius XII in particular, effectively sat on its hands and either tacitly or actively acquiesed as the Holocaust took place about it, is not surported by historical fact. On this point I will finish by saying that an insidious but effective hatchet-job has been done on the Catholic Church and Pius XII since 1945 (and is now being written about), and for comparative purposes I will tentatively compare 'popular' opinions and attitudes on this particular matter with the all too eager willingness of people - who really should know better - to unquestioningly embrace the nonsense put forward in such works as The Da Vinci Code. It is often tempting to adopt the 'a plague on all their houses' default response to matters religious, but rarely correct.

Even the most cursory look at the recent or more distant history of Islam and Catholicsm clearly shows that they are in many respects fundamentally different; on a simple point both have been at odds with one another for centuries, often at the point of a sword. One can of course select at random a particular point in history - say the Inquisition - and say that Catholicsm was 'as bad' as fundamentalist Islam, but that is nothing more than lazy moral relativsm and equivalance. The comparison between the 'secular' West and Taliban-era Afghanistan is easy to make, but misses the point that the Taliban were exercising political and social control through the medium of an extremist and fundamentalist version of Islam; at the risk being guilty myself of equivalance, I would suggest that a more accurate comparison is 'Christian' Europe c.1680-1780, and Taliban-era Afghanistan - which would be better to live in?

In terms of the IRA and paedophile clergy, the Catholic Church did fall down, or rather senior elements within the Church simply failed to do their duty; however, in these cases I feel that a lack of character or more bluntly cowardice are to blame, and that to point to religion itself as being to blame is missing the point and effectively removing responsibility from both the perpetrators and those who either through accident or design allowed these crimes to occur. Also, in terms of numbers, the actual percentage of 'IRA priests' and those engaging in various forms of child abuse was small. Does this lessen the crimes - no - but it does, I feel, at least call for a pause for thought from those so ready to string up all clergy and damn all religion.

As regards your take on Northern Ireland and the 'Peace Process', I am broadly in agreement with what you say.
Well spoken gallowglass, you've articulated my own approach towards Islam vis-a-vis Catholicism (or Christianity in general) perfectly.
 
#20
gallowglass said:
Cuchulainn said:
ref. my earlier post.

Also, it really pisses me off when some mong says that we should pursue "peace" in NI so as to bring ourselves to the level of our mainland counterparts (i.e. significantly increasing the murder and serious violent crime rates beyond those of the 70-80s) and we should welcome into a democratic government a disparate group of commies, drug-dealers and mass-murdering terrorists wanting to "unite" Ireland, turn it into a socialist state with links to their great friends the Libyans, Cubans, Palestineans, Cloumbian drug-dealers and of course Al-Qaida, who are immune from prosecution for the most heinous of crimes in case they may blow up a bit of London. Especially during a so-called "war" on Terror.

Just a little trivia for you, back a few years some girl from Belfast was kidnapped in Afghanistan and it was the first of those kidnappings were the government didnt say "We dont deal with terrorists" as there was over 1.5 million people held to ransom by a couple of hundred who knew full well that was a load of balls.

Northern Ireland, one of the lowest crime rates in the world, and the most famous criminals.

However, I do believe the majority of the worlds ills are directly related to religion. For a comparison take the, nowadays, secular western world, and compare it to theocratic states, i.e. Taliban-era Afghanistan, which is better to live in? Religion is a method for power hungry individuals to control the masses. There is no difference between Islam and Catholicism or Catholicism and Hitlers Reich. They are all the same. "we are better than everyone else and everyone must do what we say or be punished!".
Second in the causes of problems is the level of contentment of a people, i.e. do they have jobs, their health, etc. Funny thing is those countries that are more religious are those with more problems in these areas to. Funny that.

And yes, the Catholic church turned a blind eye to its priests who supported and who were active in PIRA, just as they were with the paedo priests, and of course to the holocaust (until it was their turn of course).

As a certain Pope once said, "It has served us well, this myth of Christ", and he should know!
An interesting post Cuchulainn.

However, I think that you are being a little 'scatter gun' in your approach to this subject. It would be both inaccurate and wrong to pretend that religion - or more correctly religious people (not quite the same thing) - were not behind many of the worlds ills. However, I believe that too many people are all too willing to bandy about the "it's all the fault of religion" one-size-fits-all answer. I have to take issue with you when you say:

There is no difference between Islam and Catholicism or Catholicism and Hitlers Reich. They are all the same. "we are better than everyone else and everyone must do what we say or be punished!".
Firstly, you are bringing Nazism - a secular religion at best, and that's stretching a point - into the equation, when really, like Communism (in all its flavours), it clouds the issue and has no real place in the discussion. Furthermore, its inclusion falls flat when one recalls that many of the most vociferous and martyred opponents of Nazism (and Communism) were Catholic (and other denominations). Here is not the place to discuss this, but the 'popular' notion that the Catholic Church, and Pius XII in particular, effectively sat on its hands and either tacitly or actively acquiesed as the Holocaust took place about it, is not surported by historical fact. On this point I will finish by saying that an insidious but effective hatchet-job has been done on the Catholic Church and Pius XII since 1945 (and is now being written about), and for comparative purposes I will tentatively compare 'popular' opinions and attitudes on this particular matter with the all too eager willingness of people - who really should know better - to unquestioningly embrace the nonsense put forward in such works as The Da Vinci Code. It is often tempting to adopt the 'a plague on all their houses' default response to matters religious, but rarely correct.

Even the most cursory look at the recent or more distant history of Islam and Catholicsm clearly shows that they are in many respects fundamentally different; on a simple point both have been at odds with one another for centuries, often at the point of a sword. One can of course select at random a particular point in history - say the Inquisition - and say that Catholicsm was 'as bad' as fundamentalist Islam, but that is nothing more than lazy moral relativsm and equivalance. The comparison between the 'secular' West and Taliban-era Afghanistan is easy to make, but misses the point that the Taliban were exercising political and social control through the medium of an extremist and fundamentalist version of Islam; at the risk being guilty myself of equivalance, I would suggest that a more accurate comparison is 'Christian' Europe c.1680-1780, and Taliban-era Afghanistan - which would be better to live in?

In terms of the IRA and paedophile clergy, the Catholic Church did fall down, or rather senior elements within the Church simply failed to do their duty; however, in these cases I feel that a lack of character or more bluntly cowardice are to blame, and that to point to religion itself as being to blame is missing the point and effectively removing responsibility from both the perpetrators and those who either through accident or design allowed these crimes to occur. Also, in terms of numbers, the actual percentage of 'IRA priests' and those engaging in various forms of child abuse was small. Does this lessen the crimes - no - but it does, I feel, at least call for a pause for thought from those so ready to string up all clergy and damn all religion.

As regards your take on Northern Ireland and the 'Peace Process', I am broadly in agreement with what you say.
Cheers, i'll try to be succint here (though tbh my real feelings are a little obscured above due to the brevity of my post).

In essence, I believe that religion is a good thing, i.e. a code that teaches you to treat others well.

However, like everything else, any position of power will attract those who abuse. An good example of this is politics. Politicians are probably the least effective and least appropriate people to be running a country. Powers corrupts etc etc. As religions have been around a LONG time the corruption within them has become deeply rooted.

There are a lot of people, who are religious, who are thouroughly decent, however, it is usually the "in your face" ones you encounter causing a colouring of your views. I have the greatest respect, for example, for those who go to deprived areas of the world and bring their expertise to benefit the people there. However, I find it distasteful and somewhat troubling when a "religious" person does the same but ALSO has the plan of converting those people who need help to their religion.

I could go on and on about this, but as above, Power Corrupts.

On the Da Vinci code, I am glad you brought that up. Last year I read one of Dan Browns books and I thought it was the biggest load of sh1te I have ever read. I am somewhat of an informal authority of the written word. I generally consume 4 novel sized publications (not Harry Potter or another kids book that mong adults read!) per week on top of my daily porn supply :oops: So a couple of months ago I eventually bought the Da Vinci code and read it.

An even bigger pile of sh1te. It is basically written for the lowest common denominator of American society. The long passages describing where Paris is gave that away! I alreadyhad a passing knowledge of the stuff in it (religious family- therefore I decided to actually learn about this religion crap a bit). To me it read as if a person of lower than average education had absorbed a few Templar, Vatican, and so on conspiracies and then just vomited them on a page.

For historical stuff that is more factual try -
Conn Igguldens books about Caesar
or for more fun
any Bill Napier novel, though Atlantis is pretty good.
or full on adrenaline
Matthew Reilly's Seven ancient Wonders or Temple (in case you think im a boring closeted academic!)

Back on topic, my main problem with religion is people using it to justify what they do, and why is it OK for some to do that and not others.
i.e. Why can Tony Blair go to war because God told him to when David Koresh cant feck children and go to war against america because god told him to?

I think society would be much better of if the religious was kept totally separate from the secular, i.e. RE in schools but no services (or mutli-denominational services at the most) and no faith schools.
Or no members of fundamentalist sects such as Opus Dei in Government!

I just feel trepidation when the secualr and the religious mix.

On the NI issue, just give me control of UKSF and the IrishDF's Sciathán Fianóglach an Airm and I guarantee no more "Troubles". No more terrorists on any side means no more terror. If the yanks bleat and moan Ill just say "War on Terror, Georgy, keep funding them and we may have to do a new regime change!"

Hope that clarifies my standing, religion = good idea, religious people = bad :cry:

Personally im areligious (i.e. religion plays no part in my life as I am reasonably happy and content and have no voids to fill), I dont particularly care one way or the other about religion, I life a good life, treat others with courtesy and kindness, return aggression and violence in kind, but not overly, if I die and god says "you werent in my real religion, go to hell!" I will say "Up yours then, the birds are more fun down there!"

Though I still think it is a bit rich a catholic priest talking about other peoples fundamentalism and following ancient rules. Nearly as bad as a catholic preist comparing everyone in another christian sect to Nazis for having the temerity to defend themselves against aggressors (if you know to what im referring, that got my blood up.).

Rambled a bit, but Im a bit woobly as I just fell of my exercise bike while laughing at the TV and managed to bust my head on a Lucozade bottle :crash: :headbang: , does that clarify as an accident related injury? Maybe I can sue myself, if I cant pay maybe the gubmint will give me a handout!
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top