I am not a religous man but recognise that other people have faith. Why oh why though do we have to have such incessant News coverage about his state visit?

I turned on the TV this morning and the press were outside his residence and what do we get.. 'yes I'm hearing it now... the pope is out of bed'. We'll have papal Loo cam next for petes sake...

It's better than hearing some nonsense about an alleged footballer scandal!

It's mainly got a lot of attention because it is the first ever official visit to the UK.

Pope John Paul II did visit the UK in 1982 but that was a 'pastoral' visit. This is an official state visit.

But it shouldn't be - that's what all the fuss is about. The Vatican is not a proper state.

See Stephen Fry: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11316476

The coverage of this visit is excessive, to say the least.

I do not have a problem with the visit, but agree he is not a head of state, therefore cannot be state visit, ergo we should not pay for it. The church is a wealthy institution who can well afford to put it's hand in its pocket, especially when it refers to us a 'third world country'. The creed is give to the poor, not take. How many schools would this money have paid for?

This is a state that employ mercenaries....

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xbvr0m_shortfilms - you can skip the annoying ad

Ah, but it is a state whether you or I agree or not. It's a fact. Nobody can change that fact unless they invent time travel. Historically it's one of the very oldest sovereign states.



It would have possibly paid to upgrade the schools and universities the Catholic Church originally started. They have a long history of supporting education and the dire state of the economy and education in this country is not the Pope's fault.

Your blame on the cost issue is mis-guided. It was not the Pope who chose to visit England on a State Visit. The invitation was granted by previous governments after years of requests and signed off by the Queen no less. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office sanctioned the visit and therefore you comment on creed taking from the poor is a misrepresentation. The angst on cost is a responsibility for the government and queen to carry.



I like Stephen Fry. He is an extremely intelligent chap and a British stalwart. Unfortunately he does not necessarily speak from a position of impartiality. He has a clear reason to discredit religion. Simply listing one after another the wicked things that have been done in the Church’s name over the centuries is not an argument and I would have expected more from him to be honest.

He failed to mention or list the fact that for nearly three centuries after the Reformation, Catholicism was outlawed in England. An odd thing to miss out given the fact that he advocates an open view to society and each should be allowed to practice faith by any means. He also failed to mention the various post-Reformation laws that barred Catholics from entering London, traveling more than 10 miles home or owning horses worth more than 10 pounds. Equally he fails to mention that the Pope will visit Westminster Hall, the medieval chamber within the Houses of Parliament where the Catholic Thomas More was tried and convicted of treason in 1535. More refused to swear an oath accepting the annulment of King Henry's marriage.

I could quite easily list thousands of historical events which are evil in nature. Each person, country or religion has skeletons in the closet but to bash historical facts is not an argument, it is more an attack.

Thus my points are summarised as:

1) it's a state visit which has been requested and arranged by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the blame for the £12m cost is not something which can be questioned of the Pope.

2) The television coverage and extreme media is not focused on the visit itself. It's more a focus on the recent spate of sex abuse claims within the Catholic Church.

The crimes committed are heinous and those guilty should be punished severely in my view. The head of the Catholic Church has apologised for these cases and has begged forgiveness from God and "from the persons involved, while promising to do everything possible to ensure that such abuse will never occur again."


All of the above is probably moot anyway. Today's news is tomorrow's bin lining....

I'm sure next week we will be back to debating whether Coleen Rooney should forgive Wayne or we'll be watching Raul Moat style live tv-coverage of another horrific incident.

Basing that question upon how much it's costing to rebuild St Barts, about a quarter of a school, maybe a third if lucky!

Taking from Ozzy's post, who seems to know what he/she is talking about, the Pope's visit is costing 12M. That means St Barts is going to cost 30-40M? Is this really the case? Dont take a lot of notice about schools, not having school age children.

I agree, good post Ozzy.

I agree, good post Ozzy.

I wonder what Jesus thinks about all this. I wonder what he thinks about the wealth many Churches harbour while his flock suffers, and not to mention: dwindle in interest. Meanwhile; Islam is a growing faith I understand.

I think this 'choice' of Pope has been a disastrous one for Christianity, let alone Catholicism.

There are those who, like myself think the whole christianity/islam thing is utter BS. All designed by the few clever ones at the time to enable them to control the illiterate majority.

Why on earth do we need some organisation who take it upon themselves to say what is right or wrong? I know the difference between right and wrong without intervention from some crackpot team of idiots who think they know best and really think that fairies exist.
Ok, so we all have the right to believe what we wish but why oh why are such stupid ideas allowed to have such an influence on our society?. Why is it so important that prime ministers/presidents have to go to church and declare they are religious in order to have credence? Give me proof, show me a bloke who can feed a starving mass with a few fish when whole countries aid budgets can't do it. Convince me that an individual from the year dot has an intellectual advantage over a five year old of the twenty first century.

The good news, which was pointed out, is that we are becoming less religious country. We need to shrug of this mythology. We are free thinking people that must learn to stand on our own feet. Not be guided my something that was started out as a figment of somebody's imagination.

Yes that is the case - £30 million or so in a government grant and the rest raised locally - principally by selling off the Wormstall site (inlcuding playing fields) for housing.

I have to admit that I am amazed they couldn't build a very good school for the £30 million.

How is that good news? With the lack of religion and spiritual guidance comes a lack of basic morals and decency. We now have a society that worships prostitutes, thinks cheating is par for the course and drugs are readily accepted. Teenage pregnancy is through the roof as is crime, and the ideals of celebrity at any cost are what our children aspire to. Whilst religion is not without fault, it gives people a sense of belonging, wellbeing and good moral guidance for families and individuals.

Although a little more "Do as I preach and not as I do" wouldn't go amiss.

It clearly hasn't worked then!

That is rubbish; I am not religious nor are my kids; be we/ they have morals and are decent and respect others. There are hell of a lot of people out there who pray to God/ go to church every Sunday but you couldn't call them either decent or that they have morals. Most drug dealers or prostitutes are very religious. Morals and decency comes from with-inside, nothing to do with religion. The Christian history littered with indecency, hatred, wars, control, manipulation and hurt. How did a 'moral,' 'decent' and Christian upbringing help those kids that were abused by, no less, than those that dish out, or supposed to dish, your so-called Christian morals and decency?

Pay people who can kick a ball a fortune
Let half the World starve
Sell our industrial base to our competitors
Think British TV is the best
etc. etc.

No, we are still sheep, its just a different dog.

Are they?? Care to back this wild claim up before we go any further?

Interesting you mention teenage pregnancy, given the Vatican's view on contraception.

In Benedict XVI we have someone who publicly stated that condoms actually increase the spread of HIV/AIDS, contrary to what all other studies (and common sense) show.

Of course the Catholic Church have good reason is discourage any form of contraception. Like any religion or god, they need follower now, and in the future otherwise they will cease to exist (and arguably, so will their god). To make sure of this, it is held that using any form of contraception is a mortal sin and the punishment for such a sin is eternal damnation. That's a pretty big stick to threaten someone with.

'Wild claim'? Are you telling me that not a single drug dealer or prostitute is religious? Can you back this wild claim up? But we can put that to one side if you like; what about the IRA? Or are you suggesting that this is also a wild claim? Many of the Nazi's were religious and devoted catholics? What about the Crusaders who did it in the name of religion? They didn't just kill their enemies but also butchered them. And I can go on if you like; where were their morals and decency towards their enemies? We learn decency and morals from decent people and from ourselves, not from some religious fanatic who has an axe to grind.

The sheep are the followers. Not only to the things you pointed out above, but also religious artifacts and people.

No, but that is not what you said. You said most are, which could well be true - I don't know but to me it seems unlikely.

You are playing semantics here; you get my point. You were saying that we needed religion for decency and morals and I am saying we don't. Some of the most decent people are atheist, some of the nastiest people in the world belong to religious groups.

How is he playing semantics, when you said two totally different things?

Except when it is a point of view you don't share?

Because he was trying to narrow the debate to one specific thing rather than look at the bigger picture; i.e. is religion good for our morals etc?

And what has that got to do with morals and decency by the church? Disagreeing is healthy.

You argued that you didn't need religion to teach you how to be respectful. It is just regrettable that your post opened with "That is rubbish". In my view, that is rather disrespectful and ill-mannered way to reply. Indeed, I don't think what Strafin was saying is rubbish, although I agree with you as well; albeit I think you are arguing the case in a rather ham-fisted way.

I agree that I shouldn't have said 'rubbish' but I disagree that I argued it in a ham fisted way (that is just your interpretation). Morals and decency are taught by decent people; whatever they believe. People shouldn't think that you need religion to create a better and/ or moral society. That comes from within; whatever ones beliefs or not.

It is my opinion that religion provides for a lot of people, a moral compass and spiritual guidance in times of difficulty. I know that it is not for everyone, I know that it is not necessarily true what people believe. However I do notice that standards of social grace in this country are fast declining, and if you want to draw a parralell you could easily lump these two thoughts together. Not everyone is strong all the time, we all face temptation in the best and worst of times. If you are in a bad place with no family or friends around you sometimes looking for something else is the only way to try and stop making bad decisions.

QUOTE (Strafin @ Sep 19 2010, 09:51 PM)

It is my opinion that religion provides for a lot of people, a moral compass and spiritual guidance in times of difficulty.

I totally agree with you. People do find a moral compass and spiritual guidance in religion. In fact people find those things in all sorts of different things. So I wouldn't argue there. But the question is would they become less moral or decent if they never had religion to clutch to? I don't think so. Yes, they might find their existence emptier without religion in their lives, but not less moral or decent.

QUOTE

I know that it is not for everyone, I know that it is not necessarily true what people believe. However I do notice that standards of social grace in this country are fast declining, and if you want to draw a parralell you could easily lump these two thoughts together. Not everyone is strong all the time, we all face temptation in the best and worst of times. If you are in a bad place with no family or friends around you sometimes looking for something else is the only way to try and stop making bad decisions.

I also agree with you about standards have dropped, but a lot of those people are still religious or believe in God. And I think it is a poor excuse to say I haven't got god in my life so that is why I am a nasty piece of work. What do people say when they do have religion in their lives and still do bad things? "It was god that made me do it?" We all must take responsibility for our actions and not blame it on convenient things.

So what is Christian morality? Be holy? Actually that's more of a Jewish idea. The Christian version is that it really doesn't matter what you get up to as long as you say sorry. That just seems rather unsatisfactory. And you don't have to get right with your victims either like you had to previously, Christians just have to say sorry to Himself. That lack of basic accountability right at the heart of Christianity is very unsatisfactory.

Actually it's difficult to get at what Jesus was about because there's little left once you strip away the preposterous magical nonsense. In any event Christianity was largely fashioned by the early church, and that mostly by Paul, not Peter, and frankly I don't agree with his morality at all. And pretty soon it wasn't about redemption as much as it was about power.

That said I do feel that the church in England has for 1500 years been the glue that holds society together and the demise of the church has left society rather too losely bound. But I don't agree that religion is necessary for a moral society, and I particularly don't like the pope's flavour of morality.

It would be, but I have to say I don't agree with you. It is Christian to say you are sorry, but it must be meant. It is also Christian to behave in a number of other ways as well: like turning the other cheek, and how to treat your enemies as friends, he who is without sin cast the first stone, etc...


It might be preposterous if you take the events literally, but not so if you take them metaphorically, but let's look at some of the 'non-magic'

To paraphrase a few quotes from Jesus...

"Greater is He that is in you, than he that is in the world."

"What shall it profit a man if he gains the whole world but loses his soul."

"Let him who is without sin cast the first stone."

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

“So don’t worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will bring its own worries."

I see this as a reasonable basis from which to form a community and I'm sure Jesus's attitude to the money lenders in a house of worship chimes a few bells with today!


I agree, but I am unsure of how Christian some of the motives are surrounding many Churches.

I see that right now, on the BBC News website, under Most Popular Watched/Listened, no. 9 is "Pope's visit to the UK: Live coverage". Excuse me? A day after he flew back to the Vatican?

Other than the Golden Rule (which is hardly uniquely Christian) these aren't much of a foundation. There are good reasons not to be avaricious, but artificially constructing the notion of a supernatural soul just to hold it ransom to your good behaviour on pain of eternal damnation is very grubby. It's not that Christianity doesn't have some good ideas, but I don't agree that religion is the only source of morality. Well, actually I think it's a bit more involved than that because you can't ignore the fact that religion of some sort or another appears to have been practiced since we came down from the trees so while I find the notion of a supernatural deity unacceptable, I kind of feel that myth and ritual have an important role in society, like easops fables, or for that matter Watership Down.

That tends to be Old Testament, or in other words, a kind of pre-Jesus. The Old Testament tends to say love God or be damned, but the New Testament tends to be more: love God and see all the good it can do you and your fellow man.


I'm not sure that anyone is saying that, but in any case: morality comes from Man and religion is an example of its implementation.


That is kind of how I feel about it. Although I have to say you are starting to send out mixed messages.

Just a thought, the bible is a very good read if you treat it as a fantasy novel. Maybe in another two thousand years the human race may just refer to Harry Potter or Star Wars in the same way, they both contain very similar elements i.e magic, myths and a certain code of conduct, believe and a "supreme" being.

Or with any luck people who have these faiths will stop believing in fairy tales and realise we are a very small people, on a very small planet in a very large universe.

Surprisingly, my understanding is that 'faith' is a 'growth market'.

Yes, and? Things come, things go - take the ancient Egyptians and their many "Gods" who are now all but dismissed after being pretty much the only believe back then.

So in another two thousand years anything could happen - not that we need to worry to much about it!

P.T.Barnum said "There is a sucker born every minute."

It's disputed that Barnum actually said that. It was more likely to be "There's a customer born every minute".

It is attributed to a rival who said it in an attempt to discredit him.

*Today's useless fact was brought you by the letters P. T and B*

I thought GMR said (well typed) it

Yes and; what? I posted a comment, this is what this forum is for.


Yes, and replaced by another belief system...it would seem.


Who's worried, I'm just surprised that in an age of scientific enlightenment, that faith systems are still overwhelmingly popular, if what I have read is true.

It suggests there is more to this than simple belief in God(s), etc.

As for the 'one born every minute' related quote; that is an ignorant thing to say, bordering on arrogant when attributed to this discussion (although I'd like to think it was meant tongue in cheek). Watching bits of the Papal visit, I heard myself thinking the same thing, then I had to ask myself: who am I to judge!

Yep, that was exactly my point

Yes, in principle, I'm with you in all this religion stuff, but I accept that there must be other factors involved that I am ignorant of.

Yes, I've been challenged by this in the same way. I felt indignant that the pope should be complaining about agressive atheism, and I still think he'd do well to wind his neck in, but I'm appalled at the arrogance of Dawkins riding Science to attack religion, not least because of the obvious problem that science is entirely neutral on issues of faith, spirituality, and morality, though to be fair it would help if religion didn't try and peddle myth and magic as literal fact. We're familiar enough with the atrocities committed in the name of religion, but it was scientists, mathematicians, and engineers that enthusiastically enabled it, and it's difficult to escape that opposition was often inspired by a religious conviction, the quakers for just one example.

Don't get me wrong, there's definitely a place for ridiculing religion, be it Python, flying spaghetti monster, or Father Ted, but a crusade is just arrogant.

but it was scientists, mathematicians, and engineers that enthusiastically enabled it, and it's difficult to escape that opposition was often inspired by a religious conviction, the quakers for just one example.

[/quote]

Enthusiastically, some yes but also some would have had a gun to thier head

If the Church was to be believed, the earth is at the centre of the universe and our sun orbits the earth, which is of course flat and created along with everything on it a mere 4-5 thousand years ago.