xotan
Full Member
Posts: 112
|
Post by xotan on Dec 12, 2011 16:03:33 GMT -5
Well, the problem could be easilysorted out by everyone wearing on their outer garment a star: green for Muslims, Gold for Christians, yellow for Jews....oh wait. That's been done before... /irony
Better to ban Christmas except in private.../sarcasm
And next we'll be arguing about how many angels dance on the head of a pin.
|
|
xotan
Full Member
Posts: 112
|
Post by xotan on Nov 5, 2011 11:03:16 GMT -5
I haven't lived in Ireland in 10 years, but I am in constant contact with family and friends there.
It seems to me, from what I am hearing, that people feel the RCC put itself above the law and lied to the state in the whole sordid child-abuse scandal. That set the ground.
Then the collapse of the so-called Celtic Tiger has meant very tight finances, with draconian fiscal measures that would be causing heart attacks in Athens. But people realised that until the books balance, nothing is going to get better. Already there are hesitant signs of growth (being mucked up by the wimping Greeks), and the country's financial standing is such that the interest rate on its borrowings has dropped from a penal 14% to about 6% - a measure of confidence by the international markets.
In the light of the above, Ireland has enought to worry about than paying for an Embassy with the Vatican that costs more than it is worth. Nugatory is a nasty word these days.
So, regarding the Embassy to the Holy(?) See, in a phrase, who gives a flying shite?
Perhaps when the global encomonic situation is better, and the Vatican has learned not to meddle in the internal affairs of a sovereign nation, it may be possible to reopen diplomatic links on a minor level, if anyone can think of a good reason to do so.
|
|
xotan
Full Member
Posts: 112
|
Post by xotan on Oct 29, 2011 10:58:16 GMT -5
The solution is in Acts.
Early Christians made a common pool of their property/money and helped each other out. It was administered by the Church, of course. Annanias and Saphira, his wife, didn't quite get the message. They kept some dosh for themselves and got blasted by the Holy Spirit. So Pat R. does seem to have Gopd on his side in this one - except that he's not helping out a needful fellow Christian.
Perhaps that woman should pray to the Holy Spirit that Pat might die/get blasted and leave her something in his will?
|
|
xotan
Full Member
Posts: 112
|
Post by xotan on Oct 29, 2011 9:48:18 GMT -5
No, Mlle Antéchrist. What this proves is that being born again is DEMONIC. Being born again is concealing the truth and living a lie so as to get away with evil without punishment for it.
That chap in the clip even looked DEMONIC. And he was prancing about like a rock star - and we all know that rock stars are DEMONIC.
Definitely Bornagainism is DEMONIC.
/sarcasm - but not at Mlle A.
|
|
xotan
Full Member
Posts: 112
|
Post by xotan on Aug 29, 2011 3:24:52 GMT -5
If this is a state school...then the Bible, the Torah, the Qur'an etc, etc, should have no influence on curriculum or what books are allowed or not. It should be purely a school/educational matter. School boards should be required to leave their religious beliefs outside the school property. When is separation of church and state not separation of church and state?
|
|
xotan
Full Member
Posts: 112
|
Post by xotan on Aug 28, 2011 12:54:27 GMT -5
Jesus needs money. Money = religion
|
|
xotan
Full Member
Posts: 112
|
Post by xotan on Aug 24, 2011 7:43:10 GMT -5
Shane, there is such a thing as the duty of care. This implies that we all have a responsibilty for not putting ourselveves or others into a state of potential danger. To fail to honour this duty means that there is negligence at work. In a legal situation this can result in personal liability.
In the case of the hitchhikers it seems that they did not observe the duty of care and were negligent of their own safety and security. This much is clearly their fault. so they they have to accept responsibility for their subsequent situation. Given US/Iran political situation, good sense alone should have warned them that they were in danger of crossing an unmarked frontier at a point that was not recognised for entry into Iran. It was entirely stupid to take the chance. But they did. And they are now paying the consequence. And even if America did have representation in Tehran, their action would cost your country a lot of money in terms of diplomatic staff's time, trying to liberate them. The Middle East is not like America or Europe. it can be a dangerous place where innocence is not presumed. If one cannot appreciate that, then one should not go there. And crossing a frontier illegally is not regarded as accidental or innocent.
Sorry. But given the bother their selfish and uncaring attitude has caused, they should face a public reprimand when they do eventually get released - whiich I hope will be soon.
|
|
xotan
Full Member
Posts: 112
|
Post by xotan on Aug 22, 2011 11:33:38 GMT -5
Yla, 1. Of course every part of the world has certain dangers. The wise traveler makes a point of knowing what those dangers are, and takes care to avoid them. Only a fool would knowlingly court danger. 2. I don't know, but would imagine because of the difficult relations between the US and Iran that the US State Department would advise US citizens not to travel there. Citizens of other countries that have normal relations with Iran do travel there and have no problems. In present circumstances this cannot happen for Americans. 3. You may be talking about hiking in northern Iraq, but the fact is that the Americans who were taken by the Iranians were close to the Iranian frontier - so close that they seem to have crossed it. Or if not, then so close that they were perceived as a threat and were snatched across it. I would make the following points - Iraq is still hardly a stable country, and not on the normal tourist itinerary. This may also be the view taken by Iran, and if so would be enough to make them suspicious.
- Iraq and Iran fought a very bitter war in the not too distant past, and are hardly friendly to each other
- In many regions of the world to approach a frontier other than at a recognized and manned crossing point is likely to be perceived as, at least, irregular. At worst an attempt at illegal entry, and possibly as spying.
|
|
xotan
Full Member
Posts: 112
|
Post by xotan on Aug 22, 2011 11:00:47 GMT -5
I agree with Norris.
The sad thing is that when your country is at the sabre-rattling level with another country, as is the case with the US and Iran, then it is highly unadvisable to even risk trespassing into that unfriendly country. Indeed, it could be that they were very close to the unmarked fronties and were taken by the Iranians just for being too close. Many (certainly not all) Americans I have met seem not to be the most savvy travelers. Their sense of geography has been a bit vague, and land frontiers seem to faze them. I suppose it is understandable as the vast land area of the US means that frontiers are not something they encounter much. But for anyone it would be the height of folly not to bone up on domestic and foreign regulations, the dos and do nots, before going abroad. The world is not an extension of America. So it is especially advisable to check what your own government's advice is regarding going into areas that are volatile. But to risk even going near an unfriendly country where your country has no diplomatic representation is such sheer lunacy that one has to wonder what they really were thinking.
However, all may not be a dark as it seems. America has friends who maintain diplomatic representation with Iran, and these countries are probably being engaged to speak to the Iranian authorities on behalf to the two prisoners. With luck that may mean a reduction of their sentence. With really good luck, they could be quietly put back across the frontier, but that is expecting perhaps too much.
|
|
xotan
Full Member
Posts: 112
|
Post by xotan on Aug 21, 2011 16:29:12 GMT -5
I think Pearl used to write to FSTD at one point.
Looking at them I was remindedof the painting of the two fogies outside a church the man with a pitchfork in hand - American Gothic.
Surely there is a case for banning the adoption of children by fundies if this is how they believe they should raise children!
And for the torturing to death of the little girl, they should have got life. Nor should Pearl be let off the hook. He is technically an accomplice before the fact.
|
|
xotan
Full Member
Posts: 112
|
Post by xotan on Aug 15, 2011 16:05:25 GMT -5
@ Distind - ref your posting 11th August
With respect, I don't believe anything I said impinges on the freedom to practice religion. As far as I am concerned, if mayhem and murder is being preached in any place of religion it is an incitement to crime. At that point the state has a duty to protect its citizens. It is beyond any doubt that some places of worship have been used for this kind of incitement. The British, notably, jailed and subsequently deported a one-handed sheikh for seditious/criminal preaching. Yet Islam is still flourishing freely and openly in Britain. So let's keep a sense of proportion. The regulation of preaching is something that needs to be looked at. But this is not in anyway forbidding the free practice of religion, anymore than the requirement for a licence forbids driving.
And lest it be thought that I am singling out Islam, let me state that I apply the same thinking to any religion. Religion occupies a privileged places in most democracies. It is not too much to expect that those who direct it - priests, bishops, rabbis, imams, sheikhs should respect the law of the land and report any breach of the law to the proper authorities. If they don't, then law enforcement becomes an active issue. But it is beyond reason to hold that the removal of a sedtious preacher from a position of great influence is in any sense the repression or persecution of a religion or the breaching of rights or the denial of religious freedoms. Nobody, under the umbrella of religion, whether in church, chapel, meetinghouse, synagogue or mosque, has the right to warp young - and not so young - minds by advocating indiscriminate murder, and justifying it in the name of a putative god. That is plain incitement to criminal action, and in most countries that is illegal. It is particularly abhorrent when youth is used to carry out such crimes, so often at the cost of suicide. Anyone who advocates such crimes, whether it be in Oklahoma, Sweden or elsewhere has blood on their hands and guilt in the hearts. And the words that lead to this end are nothing but evil. In essence, this kind of thing is not religion, nor has it anything to do with religion.
|
|
xotan
Full Member
Posts: 112
|
Post by xotan on Aug 11, 2011 5:21:49 GMT -5
The problem, in a nurshell, is not going to mosque, church or synagogue. It's what's being preached in places of worship that may warp young, malleable minds to do things which are illegal. Why is it that suicide bombers tend not to be venerable imams with long white beards?
Perhaps a way to address the problem is for the state to license every preacher, priest and rabbi, imam, and where sedition-preaching is suspected to monitor whatever place of worship comes into question; and if such sedition is found, then the preacher's licence to be revoked and have him prosecuted and the place of worship to be closed permanently on the frounds of misuse of a placed designated for one purpose but illegaly used for another. Sedition is not religion, and religions ought not to be seditious.
|
|
xotan
Full Member
Posts: 112
|
Post by xotan on Aug 9, 2011 5:22:46 GMT -5
Looking at it from the French perspective, I'd prefer absolutely no toleration of religious influence/interference in political and state (thet's 'country', lest Americans misunderstand what I mean by state) matters; and absolutely no interference by state in church matters, provided such matters are legal.
And please, can I keep my Yeti? I love it very much!
|
|
xotan
Full Member
Posts: 112
|
Post by xotan on Jul 30, 2011 11:21:52 GMT -5
What Bill O'Reilly is contending is that Breivik cannot be a Christian. The reason he is doing this, and he ought to be called on it, is because Breivik's murderous binge makes Christians and Christianity look bad. However, it doesn't alter the fact that if Breivik worships Jesus as god he is by default a Christian, regardless of what he does, who he murders. The sin of murder does not wipe out his Christianity. He might suddenly experience remorse and seek forgiveness, and Christianity, inclucing all its idiots, would have to acknowledge and accept that God Jesus would then forgive him.
|
|
xotan
Full Member
Posts: 112
|
Post by xotan on Jul 26, 2011 16:13:29 GMT -5
The Papal Nuncio to Dublin has gone back to Rome after demands that he should be sent there willy nilly.
As to the BBC and some other British organs, they still have difficulty with the idea that Irish =/= English. They don't mean any harm. I mean we share a bloody 800 year history.
|
|