the pope's visit to the UK?

I know this is not exactly the place for this but I couldn't resist...

AN ATHEIST IN THE WOODS

An atheist was walking through the woods.

"What majestic trees!"
"What powerful rivers!"
"What beautiful animals!"
He said to himself.

As he was walking alongside the river,he heard a rustling in the bushes behind him.

He turned to look. He saw a 7-foot grizzly bear charge towards him.

He ran as fast as he could up the path. He looked over his shoulder & saw that the bear was closing in on him..

He looked over his shoulder again, & the bear was even closer.

He tripped & fell on the ground.

He rolled over to pick himself up but saw that the bear was right on top of him, reaching for him with his left paw & raising his right paw to strike him.

At that instant the Atheist cried out, "Oh my God!"

Time Stopped.
The bear froze.
The forest was silent.

As a bright light shone upon the man, a voice came out of the sky..

"You deny my existence for all these years, teach others I don't exist and even credit creation to cosmic accident. Do you expect me to help you out of this predicament? Am I to count you as a believer?"

The atheist looked directly into the light, 'It would be hypocritical of me to suddenly ask you to treat me as a Christian now, but perhaps you could make the BEAR a Christian?"

'Very well,' said the voice.

The light went out. The sounds of the forest resumed. And the bear dropped his right paw, brought both paws together, bowed his head & spoke:

"'Lord bless this food, which I am about to receive from thy bounty through Christ our Lord, Amen."

:-)

Im not devoted to anything (apart from Queen!) i believe in myself and thats good enough for me

plumrach wrote: Im not devoted to anything (apart from Queen!) i believe in myself and thats good enough for me
===

I was commenting on the irony of referring to oneself as a devout atheist.

i hope the BBC spend as much money and send as many people to cover the event when the head of the Jedi Council comes on a state visit to the UK...

THE POPE HAS FUCKED OFF BACK TO HOLY LAND!!!!!!! WOOOOOOOOOO

YourValentine wrote:

[QUOTE]Even if the child abuse cases were not so frequent, the outcry about priests abusing children would be still much louder than in other cases because of the presumed moral authority of a priest.[/QUOTE]

+1

magicalfreddiemercury wrote:

[QUOTE]People like those in my family feel more protective of the pope and the catholic church now with all the scandals as if he and the church were separate from the abuse.  They're apologists, blind followers and faithful servants of their god no matter what representatives of their god might do.[/QUOTE]

-1

Personally,
I don't give a flying fuck about the pope because he represents mental slavery...*cough* *cough* organized religion.

I should of just said im an athiest rather than a devout one

I respect peoples choice to be religious and i wouldnt mock them over their choice as that would be disrespectful

plumrach wrote: I should of just said im an athiest rather than a devout one

=====

Well, it's all a matter of semantics - what words mean. It is perfectly conceivable that an atheist might consider him/herself 'devout', but the question remains, as a subject cannot be devout without an object to be devoted to. This is a matter of grammar and pure logic.

The bottom line is that I took your example because it is so nice and clear, but people in general should pay more attention to the exact wording of their remarks - increasingly, conflicts arise because people don't (or even refuse to) use words in their correct meaning, or take notice of the implications of the words they use. This is part and parcel to the ever more aggressive and anti-social attitude of society the last decade or so.

lifetimefanofqueen wrote:
and i have tryed to get along with EVERYONE on Queenzone

and some people on here have become my bestest friends, some on here are just total dick heads and spend all their time putting people down and makeing them feel even worse than they already are.
Lmao are you serious? Bestest friends? Like who? This sounds amusing.

Sir GH wrote: You can't possibly speak for every single family and know unequivocally that there still aren't pious parents who reject their kids' horror stories out of blind faith.  From personal experience, I know they still exist. I wasn't purporting to speak for every single family. I was objecting to the use of your word 'many', like it was a known, troubling and widespread phenomenon somehow reflective of the church or it's adherents. I'm afraid you'll need evidence for that.  Otherwise, it's fair for me to assume you're making it up.  The conversation would have been different if you had spoken of the children in your family, on which you absolutely do have authority.  If you had, I would have (and do now) expressed my sympathy and reminded you that with the knowledge of other family members there is no need for these children to go unprotected. The police, society, and in theory the church, are as prepared to deal with this kind of harm as they've ever been.   To me it sounds like you're saying "I used to be catholic," or "I used to do catholic things."  Thus it definitely isn't a crutch for you.  If I stopped playing baseball 15 years ago, I wouldn't call myself a baseball player.  But hey, to each their own. I can see how my words would have left that impression.  What I meant to express was that I don't go to church regularly at this time.   Sporadic attendance is the reality of many, many Catholic families.  Only about 20% of children enrolled in Catholic schools attend mass regularly.  As such, the responsibility for religious education and engagement is in large part downloaded to the Catholic schools in this province.  So many families do indeed do 'Catholic things', but in less traditional settings, like schools and  the community rather than through regular mass attendance.  Attendance for the 'big ones' - Christmas, Easter etc. is still high.  Essentially, people have taken the modernization of Catholocism into their own hands to a degree.  These patterns of engagement are part of that.  I may not be an expert, but I certainly do know a thing or two about the psychology of belief vs evidence.  Most people feel the need to believe in something outside of themselves, and most of them grab onto a religion, usually because they were raised to.  One cannot deny that most religious people rely on something outside of themselves to provide answers to questions or solutions to situations they feel they cannot create themselves.  To me, the opposite of self-sufficiency is a crutch.  If anyone wants to attach positive or negative connotations to either term, that's their choice.  I'm just defining the two styles of thinking without pledging allegiance or having any emotional connection to either side. Claiming you have no 'emotional connection to either side' is not that believable. You pretty clearly have an opinion on which is the superior path through life, which is fine.  I just find worth and wisdom in either or both.   As for your other points, I wasn't suggesting that child abuse didn't occur in other faiths, nor did I suggest that child abuse only occurred in churches.  Not sure why you felt the need to get so defensive.. It seems to me though that you remain willing to support, at least by proxy,  the notion that Catholic children are at greater risk for abuse than children in other settings.  I find that irresponsible and unjust as there is simply no evidence of that.  What evidence there is points firmly in the other direction.  The failure of the church is not in breeding a special culture of abuse, but a destructive culture of secrecy and a misguided tendency to advocate for victimizers rather than victims.  To solve a problem, or to comment on it for that matter, it's best to be in firm possession of the best facts available.

Sir GH wrote: GratefulFan wrote: Perhaps it's a little more 'misogynistic' to feel women are in need of your rescue when in fact most are exercising choice and seeking out roles that are fulfilling to them. I'm not trying to rescue anyone.  If women are happy going to churches where men hold all the major positions and make all the major decisions, then great - everybody wins.  But in the interest of equality, I feel that's wrong.  To suggest I may have misogynistic tendencies for that reason is a bit of a stretch.  In other words, I'm not a misogynist if I agree with the notion that a woman has the right to choose to be subservient to men?  I think my brain just exploded. I like listening to men.  I like listening to them speak and sing and be good at what they do. I like looking at them.  I find men inspiring, and though they sure can gut you one on one in love, they're an awesome gender overall.  Is that OK with you Bob, or do I need to be wrestling men for some pulpit or big leather chair to be equal? Naturally equality is relative to one's own ideas and comfort levels.  If you feel equal or at ease in this way, then great.  But there are plenty of women who say, "Eve took the apple, so we ladies are the ones who messed everything up," or "a woman's job is to have babies and raise the family while the men do all the work"  It's that kind of mentality that I'm referring to.  It is still out there and rampant, and of course not just in churches.  I grew up watching it in action. If a priest or a cardinal said, "I like listening to women.  I like listening to them speak and sing and be good at what they do.  I like looking at them.  I find women inspiring," then we'd have equality.  If a pope said it, then hell would freeze over.    ========================== Of course I don't actually think you or your position is misogynistic.  I specifically gave the word the '  ' treatment so I could take it back later, which is now.  :)   But given the voluntary nature of organized religion in the modern age can you not also see how it's a bit insulting to say that women who choose to be involved in Catholocism are hated in their parishes? And again, if you object to a lack of opportunity for women in religion, Catholics most certainly don't stand alone in this. There are several other churches as well.  Hell, the Old and New Testaments in general can easily be read as tools of female supression. It's a mistake to think I'm talking about subservience.  Not at all, though that is a valid choice as well I suppose. Some couples are genuinely fulfilled like this, and as long as there is love and respect and happiness I suppose they can carry on without our help.  Some women really do embrace traditional gender roles with relish, and I do think that shouldn't be diminished as a valid choice.  It wouldn't be my choice however, and that's probably true of the majority of women. What I'm really talking about is the fact that it's a victory of equality - kind of a post feminist movement triumph - when we realize that to be equal things don't have to be even all the time. With freedom and opportunity and choice mostly embedded in society it's okay to step back and appreciate people for their relative strengths, which in some very general and broad ways do shake out along gender lines, like it or not.  Though of course anybody can be good at anything, men and women *are* different and that's something to be appreciated and admired and accommodated, not lost in honourable intentions. There are 14 people in my department at work, and only three of us are female.  Of the three, only one - me - is a senior technical person.  I have no desire to be my boss.   I can't begin to express just how unappealing the idea of going to meetings all day and dealing with other people's crap is to me.  But that doesn't mean I'm not ambitious and don't have influence - I am, and I do.  But it's a very particularly female ambition and influence, and there's no more perfect place to see that than when you're working in a department dominated by males. My ambition, in short, is to make everybody I deal with feel happy, competent and empowered. I spend about 10% of my day dealing directly with people who are calling me with problems.  My actual job is to solve those problems.  But I make it my job to be keenly aware of the whole needs of the people on the other end of the phone.  I don't want to make them wait, I want them to feel heard, I don't want them for a second to feel stupid, though Lord Jesus Christ are they stupid sometimes.  I don't want them to suffer a moment's unnecessary frustration or self doubt relating to their competence on the systems I design and/or support.  Everybody gets a custom job from me tailored for who they are and what they need. One of my jobs it to supply random passwords for things, and if I know someone needs a boost or there is something special going on in their life I'll work some little word into the password that I think will make them smile somehow.  They usually don't know I've done it deliberately, which is that much more fun for me.  I get to make people feel lucky or blessed just for a moment.  Today I assigned this kid who I know as a friend of my son's before he moved to a different neighbourhood a password based on the name and number of the captain of the Detroit Red Wings - his idol.  He will have no clue this came from anywhere but heaven itself and I know this kid - it will make him happy for like ever.  Sometimes I deal with randomly generated passwords for kids.  And I comb through them carefully to pull or edit any with unfortunate combinations of letters - lazy, cow, fat, die etc. - because you don't know who is on the other end of those passwords or how they might hurt. To me, that's real power, of the sort I want in my job and my life.   I know I make a difference in these people's lives, because many of them eventually get around to telling me so.   I'll likely never be anybody's boss, and I don't care. Now those last two paragraphs of female nonsense?  I can't begin to tell you how not on the radar any of that stuff is for the guys I work with.  The one I'm closest with - the guy who gave me the Queen guitar for my son - really couldn't suck bananas any more than he does at client service.  He simply can't deal well with client complaints or requests because they somehow  hit him in the ego, like his competence is being questioned. That's a really guy thing that's just not even going to occur to me to feel.  I usually try to run interference on his calls when I can because he's just so terrible at taking care of these people's needs. He'll just reject it as his problem, or ignore them for ages, leave them in limbo, talk to them like it's their fault etc.  But he's a great guy!  A wonderful father and husband, and a kind and generous friend.  He's good at his technical work, and he plays a mean air guitar. I appreciate him for who he is and what he's good at, and that fact that each of us leaves space for each other to shine where we're meant to.  We're not even, but we're equal. Well, this went on a great deal longer than I intended and I'm not even confident I've communicated what I wanted to.  Mostly I want you to know that I wasn't talking about subservience and that it of course is valuable to remain a vigilant change agent where equal opportunity doesn't yet exist, like in some churches.  But to take swipes at the church without noticing that women do indeed enrich their parish communities in meaningful ways that absolutely are acknowledged, respected and appreciated by priests and and the church heirarchy is selling women short.  And expecting all cardinals, or all men, to list among his things he most loves about the women in his life is that 'he loves listening to them speak' is a bit optimistic I think. :)  My whole point is that we're different, and that's OK.

Sergei. wrote: lifetimefanofqueen wrote:
and i have tryed to get along with EVERYONE on Queenzone

and some people on here have become my bestest friends, some on here are just total dick heads and spend all their time putting people down and makeing them feel even worse than they already are.
Lmao are you serious? Bestest friends? Like who? This sounds amusing.

like loads of people, mercedes, ashlyn, jacob, etc......

btw you are a total dick head, i hope you know that! go pick on someone else and leave me the fuck alone! ive got nough troubles as it is and u are just being a fucking wanker,

as i said, i try to get along with everyone but personaly i think your a total dick head, go fuck urself and stop picking on people who have done fucking nothing to you

Okay so all this bullshit come down to is:

1.  The Pope is responsible for all the child abuse that's ever happened involving members of the Catholic Church

2.  The Pope is responsible for women not being priests, cardinals, or popes.

That pretty much shows how uninformed most in this thread seem to be.

I went to church Sunday and was administered communion BY A WOMAN.  Oh my God!!!  Life seemed so much better after that.  The grass was greener, the sky was a lighter hue of blue.  Terrorists laid down their rifles.

Then, as I sat with my daughter, we watched as NO ONE was buggered on the way out.

Yes, this was a Catholic service.  Can you believe it?

What about the Church of England and all their women priests? 
How about those bhuddist monks?  Are there really boobs hiding beneath those robes?
Let's not forget the long line of English and French kings, who made a practice of banging young pages?

You're pissed off at the Pope for something that happens in everyday society, not just the Catholic church.

Yet, I bet you're all big fans of Bill Clinton.  Yeah, the guy that spurned his wife and shagged a young intern in the oval office.  So when he visits England, I'm sure Bob, TQ, Barb, and everyone else will condemn his visit, too.

Hipocracy is alive and well on Queenzone.