Ted wrote: katy:-6
I cannot agree that the screptures are outdated. We ought to be paying attention to the wisdom of the past 3000 or so years. The relavence of the wisdom has not become outdated. What has become outdated is the literal interpretation of the scriptures.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Yessss:-6
Pope steps in dodo
Pope steps in dodo
miriam:yh_flower
Making the simple complicated is commonplace; making the complicated simple, awesomely simple, that's creativity.
.................Charles Mingus
http://www.gratefulness.org/candles/enter.cfm?
Making the simple complicated is commonplace; making the complicated simple, awesomely simple, that's creativity.
.................Charles Mingus
http://www.gratefulness.org/candles/enter.cfm?
Pope steps in dodo
Ted wrote: katy:-6
I cannot agree that the screptures are outdated. We ought to be paying attention to the wisdom of the past 3000 or so years. The relavence of the wisdom has not become outdated. What has become outdated is the literal interpretation of the scriptures.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Ted,
I agree that we should learn from history and that the Bible/Qu'ran etc. have great allegories (so does many of Shakespeare's and Aristophanes plays to name a couple) in them but IMO that's what they should stay. There is also a lot of irrelevance in these books in similar measure though, based on ideas that we as a more civilised world have to reasonably cast aside; but these are often the words and detail that are quoted as ammunition to intolerance and hatred.
I'm having one of those 'bad wording' days so apologies if I haven't made myself clear!!
Katy:)
I cannot agree that the screptures are outdated. We ought to be paying attention to the wisdom of the past 3000 or so years. The relavence of the wisdom has not become outdated. What has become outdated is the literal interpretation of the scriptures.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Ted,
I agree that we should learn from history and that the Bible/Qu'ran etc. have great allegories (so does many of Shakespeare's and Aristophanes plays to name a couple) in them but IMO that's what they should stay. There is also a lot of irrelevance in these books in similar measure though, based on ideas that we as a more civilised world have to reasonably cast aside; but these are often the words and detail that are quoted as ammunition to intolerance and hatred.
I'm having one of those 'bad wording' days so apologies if I haven't made myself clear!!
Katy:)
Pope steps in dodo
Ted wrote: katy:-6
I cannot agree that the screptures are outdated. We ought to be paying attention to the wisdom of the past 3000 or so years. The relavence of the wisdom has not become outdated. What has become outdated is the literal interpretation of the scriptures.
Shalom
Ted:-6
The problem is sorting out the wisdom from the biogtry, sexism, fantasy, condemnation and myth..This requires interpratation to be loving and useful, they are unclear and often contradictory. I'll find something else..
I cannot agree that the screptures are outdated. We ought to be paying attention to the wisdom of the past 3000 or so years. The relavence of the wisdom has not become outdated. What has become outdated is the literal interpretation of the scriptures.
Shalom
Ted:-6
The problem is sorting out the wisdom from the biogtry, sexism, fantasy, condemnation and myth..This requires interpratation to be loving and useful, they are unclear and often contradictory. I'll find something else..
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be misquoted, then used against you.
Pope steps in dodo
zinkyusa wrote: The problem is sorting out the wisdom from the biogtry, sexism, fantasy, condemnation and myth..This requires interpratation to be loving and useful, they are unclear and often contradictory. I'll find something else..
Indeed Zinky, you said what I was trying to without being so long winded!
:yh_clap
Katy
Indeed Zinky, you said what I was trying to without being so long winded!
:yh_clap
Katy
Pope steps in dodo
Katy1 wrote: Indeed Zinky, you said what I was trying to without being so long winded!
:yh_clap
Katy
I'm just lazier than you Katy;)
:yh_clap
Katy
I'm just lazier than you Katy;)
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be misquoted, then used against you.
Pope steps in dodo
ZINKY "The problem is sorting out the wisdom from the biogtry, sexism, fantasy, condemnation and myth..This requires interpratation to be loving and useful, they are unclear and often contradictory. I'll find something else.."
+++++++++++ I'll create a code of decency for myself, thanks. Just because myths contain a few gems of wisdom doesn't mean we need to buy into all the other (see above.)
+++++++++++ I'll create a code of decency for myself, thanks. Just because myths contain a few gems of wisdom doesn't mean we need to buy into all the other (see above.)
My candle's burning at both ends, it will not last the night. But ah, my foes, and oh, my friends--It gives a lovely light!--Edna St. Vincent Millay
Pope steps in dodo
What I see is folks who are condemning or at least ignoring the wisdom of the ages because they do not understand the sacred writings and how they were written. Basically there is little problem in sorting out most of the wheat from the chaff.
It is interesting that scholarship does not take the same point of view.
Of course there are a few issues that create debate but that is as it should be.
The Bible is not a history book. It is primarily a religious book and was never meant to be taken literally. There are some kernels of history spread throughout the Bible.
Any way I have no problem with those who think it useless or at best somewhat useful. We must each walk our own path.
Shalom
Ted:-6
It is interesting that scholarship does not take the same point of view.
Of course there are a few issues that create debate but that is as it should be.
The Bible is not a history book. It is primarily a religious book and was never meant to be taken literally. There are some kernels of history spread throughout the Bible.
Any way I have no problem with those who think it useless or at best somewhat useful. We must each walk our own path.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Pope steps in dodo
There is nothing wrong with followers of a religion believing that their faith is the only true one. Otherwise, there seems to be no point in choosing a particular religion - anything else would do. From this regard, I can find no fault with Christians rejecting the teachings of Islam or viceversa. I can also find no reason why a Christian should refer to the Prophet in terms preferred by the Muslims or, conversely, why a Muslim should refer to Christ as "Our Lord and Our God" or "Our King and Our God" or "Our Saviour."
However, from what I see in the media, it is always Muslim fundamentalists demanding the rest of the world to follow their rules regarding the way the Prophet should be referred to, represented, or discusssed. There is no rational reason for this, not even one covered by the modicum of respect we owe other religions. If someone is not a follower, s/he is not bound by those particular rules and to demand adherence from non-adherents is basically a breach of freedom of speech.
On the other hand, we do owe each other the aforementioned modicum of respect. The Pope did not make injurious remarks about Islam or Mohammed, but included a citation which supported his point that violence and religion should not be combined. He did not use invectives to refer to Mohammed or to any Muslim cleric. However, in the wake of the mass hysteria created by the misrepresentation of his words, Muslim fundamentalists have called the Pope "the dog in Rome" and "stupid pig" . I am not Roman-Catholic, and therefore feel no obligation to refer to the Pope as "The Holy Father," nor do I think any non-Catholic should feel compelled to use the honorific. At the same time, I do think that the neutral "The Pope" or "Benedict XVI" are in order. It strikes me as a gigantic sign of hypocrisy that particularly those who demand others to use honorifics when referring to Muslim key-figures are also the first to use incredibly low epithets when referring to Christian key-figures.
The hypocrisy does not stop here. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has sponsored the Tehran exhibit ridiculing the Holocaust and has called for Israel to be "wiped off the map . Christians are openly persecuted in Iran (although perhaps not as much yet as the Ba'hai) and in Afghanistan - the case of Abdul Rahman, who received a death sentence for converting to Christianity - has been in the news for a while. After the Pope's speech, churches were burned and a nun shot in Somalia. How does this show, again, that modicum of respect? As far as I know, there have been no uprisings, no mosques burned, no Muslims executed, and no demands for apologies, "or else ..." coming from Jewish or Christian authorities. This may be, perhaps, that the West, with all its sins, understands the concept of free speech. Germany, in particular, has made statements condemning the Holocaust exhibit, but addressed the issue in a civilized manner: not by burning mosques, but by publishing counter-statements.
The last bit of hypocrisy, as pointed out by others, lies in the tremendous irony of answering accusations of violence with, of course, violence. Do extremist Muslims fail to see that their acts and words are violent? Do they not make the connection? I would have had more respect for them if they acknowledged that violence is part of their understanding of Islam. At least no one can contest a conviction, no matter how much we may disagree with it.
Lastly, I have two more things to say.
One is that moderate Muslims have been slow in condemning those who affect the image of their religion and have not gone to any lengths to distance themselves from these acts of inhumanity. I know parallels have been drawn between extremist Muslims and extremist Christians, but it is difficult to see the similarities, other than the fundamentalist interpretation of the texts: as annoying as the Jehovah's Witnesses may be, they do not shoot or decapitate anyone. Nor do they burn others' places of worship or hold violent rallies. The only similarities I can think of are the attacks against Planned Parenthood clinics and the executions of doctors who perform abortions. However, our media has been quick in denouncing these acts as unacceptable and the vast majority of Christians distance themselves from such atrocities. I have not seen moderate Muslims being quite as vocal.
The second is that the West, in its soft, freedom-of-speech upholding way, has not provided an appropriate response to the mass hysteria following the Pope's speech. I am not arguing that we should start burning mosques in response, but I believe that a statement should be made pointing out that we take an equal offense to the violent reaction and that we expect an apology for the desecrations and the murders. Statements should be answered with statements, and no one would have objected to a peaceful protest. However, by not condemning the violence, we send the message that it is acceptable for extremist Muslim groups to place limitations on freedom of speech and to perpetrate acts of violence against innocents.
That said, I do think the Pope made a tactical error by not remembering that he is not only a scholar, but also a key political figure. However, by insisting that he should censor himself lest Muslim fundamentalists unleash violence in response, we allow the extremists to impose their limitations on our culture, which is defined by civil liberties. And that is NOT acceptable. Before Muslims protest a statement taken out of context, they should perhaps take a hard look at the way religious minorities in their own countries are oppressed and persecuted.
However, from what I see in the media, it is always Muslim fundamentalists demanding the rest of the world to follow their rules regarding the way the Prophet should be referred to, represented, or discusssed. There is no rational reason for this, not even one covered by the modicum of respect we owe other religions. If someone is not a follower, s/he is not bound by those particular rules and to demand adherence from non-adherents is basically a breach of freedom of speech.
On the other hand, we do owe each other the aforementioned modicum of respect. The Pope did not make injurious remarks about Islam or Mohammed, but included a citation which supported his point that violence and religion should not be combined. He did not use invectives to refer to Mohammed or to any Muslim cleric. However, in the wake of the mass hysteria created by the misrepresentation of his words, Muslim fundamentalists have called the Pope "the dog in Rome" and "stupid pig" . I am not Roman-Catholic, and therefore feel no obligation to refer to the Pope as "The Holy Father," nor do I think any non-Catholic should feel compelled to use the honorific. At the same time, I do think that the neutral "The Pope" or "Benedict XVI" are in order. It strikes me as a gigantic sign of hypocrisy that particularly those who demand others to use honorifics when referring to Muslim key-figures are also the first to use incredibly low epithets when referring to Christian key-figures.
The hypocrisy does not stop here. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has sponsored the Tehran exhibit ridiculing the Holocaust and has called for Israel to be "wiped off the map . Christians are openly persecuted in Iran (although perhaps not as much yet as the Ba'hai) and in Afghanistan - the case of Abdul Rahman, who received a death sentence for converting to Christianity - has been in the news for a while. After the Pope's speech, churches were burned and a nun shot in Somalia. How does this show, again, that modicum of respect? As far as I know, there have been no uprisings, no mosques burned, no Muslims executed, and no demands for apologies, "or else ..." coming from Jewish or Christian authorities. This may be, perhaps, that the West, with all its sins, understands the concept of free speech. Germany, in particular, has made statements condemning the Holocaust exhibit, but addressed the issue in a civilized manner: not by burning mosques, but by publishing counter-statements.
The last bit of hypocrisy, as pointed out by others, lies in the tremendous irony of answering accusations of violence with, of course, violence. Do extremist Muslims fail to see that their acts and words are violent? Do they not make the connection? I would have had more respect for them if they acknowledged that violence is part of their understanding of Islam. At least no one can contest a conviction, no matter how much we may disagree with it.
Lastly, I have two more things to say.
One is that moderate Muslims have been slow in condemning those who affect the image of their religion and have not gone to any lengths to distance themselves from these acts of inhumanity. I know parallels have been drawn between extremist Muslims and extremist Christians, but it is difficult to see the similarities, other than the fundamentalist interpretation of the texts: as annoying as the Jehovah's Witnesses may be, they do not shoot or decapitate anyone. Nor do they burn others' places of worship or hold violent rallies. The only similarities I can think of are the attacks against Planned Parenthood clinics and the executions of doctors who perform abortions. However, our media has been quick in denouncing these acts as unacceptable and the vast majority of Christians distance themselves from such atrocities. I have not seen moderate Muslims being quite as vocal.
The second is that the West, in its soft, freedom-of-speech upholding way, has not provided an appropriate response to the mass hysteria following the Pope's speech. I am not arguing that we should start burning mosques in response, but I believe that a statement should be made pointing out that we take an equal offense to the violent reaction and that we expect an apology for the desecrations and the murders. Statements should be answered with statements, and no one would have objected to a peaceful protest. However, by not condemning the violence, we send the message that it is acceptable for extremist Muslim groups to place limitations on freedom of speech and to perpetrate acts of violence against innocents.
That said, I do think the Pope made a tactical error by not remembering that he is not only a scholar, but also a key political figure. However, by insisting that he should censor himself lest Muslim fundamentalists unleash violence in response, we allow the extremists to impose their limitations on our culture, which is defined by civil liberties. And that is NOT acceptable. Before Muslims protest a statement taken out of context, they should perhaps take a hard look at the way religious minorities in their own countries are oppressed and persecuted.
The power of MEOW
Pope steps in dodo
I have a few problems with the first paragraph but that is an whole other issue. The rest of the post is excellent. Some very good questions and thoughts.
It is interesting when people claim not to be violent but respond, to some presumed slight, with violence. I too fail to understand.
At least our govt. does prevent extremists from comming into our country to spread their hatred in speeches as was done awhile ago to some bloke who wanted to speak in Montreal, I believe.
At the same time I do wish immigrants to our oountry would leave their political baggage at home: killing East Indians because of their political stand or blowing up aircraft or raising funds for the Tamils.
Shalom
Ted:-6
It is interesting when people claim not to be violent but respond, to some presumed slight, with violence. I too fail to understand.
At least our govt. does prevent extremists from comming into our country to spread their hatred in speeches as was done awhile ago to some bloke who wanted to speak in Montreal, I believe.
At the same time I do wish immigrants to our oountry would leave their political baggage at home: killing East Indians because of their political stand or blowing up aircraft or raising funds for the Tamils.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Pope steps in dodo
Felinessa wrote: If someone is not a follower, s/he is not bound by those particular rules and to demand adherence from non-adherents is basically a breach of freedom of speech.On the contrary, s/he is. Perhaps you've never heard of blasphemy as a criminal charge? It's been against the law in England for at leat the last four hundred years:All blasphemies against God, including denying His being or providence, all contumelious reproaches of Jesus Christ, all profane scoffing at the Holy Scriptures, and exposing any part thereof to contempt or ridicule, were punishable by the temporal courts with fine, imprisonment, and corporal punishment. In 1656, the Quaker James Naylor suffered flogging, branding and the piercing of his tongue by a red-hot poker.A blasphemy prosecution case is currently being threatened against the BBC for broadcasting "Jerry Springer: The Opera".
Now, if we do that in England, why is a nation whose constitution establishes the state religion to be Islam obliged to permit outrages against the name of their Prophet?
Now, if we do that in England, why is a nation whose constitution establishes the state religion to be Islam obliged to permit outrages against the name of their Prophet?
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Pope steps in dodo
I wonder how many other ridiculous laws are on the English books.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Shalom
Ted:-6
Pope steps in dodo
Good grief I could be in trouble if I went to England with my modern interpretation of the scriptures. They might spank my butt. LOL
I know some Anglican priests and bishops that could be in trouble as well. oooo that smarts.
Shalom
Ted:-6
I know some Anglican priests and bishops that could be in trouble as well. oooo that smarts.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Pope steps in dodo
Yah, but England isn't one of those countries centered around civil rights. As long as the Queen is also the Head of the Church of England, England is theoretically a theocracy (although it may not be enforced).
Does this justify the Muslim reaction? On the contrary, it just shows English laws are just as antiquated.
Does this justify the Muslim reaction? On the contrary, it just shows English laws are just as antiquated.
The power of MEOW
Pope steps in dodo
spot wrote: A blasphemy prosecution case is currently being threatened against the BBC for broadcasting "Jerry Springer: The Opera".
:yh_rotfl
Do we really need Jerry? Should we protest?
:yh_rotfl
Do we really need Jerry? Should we protest?
Pope steps in dodo
Felinessa wrote: Yah, but England isn't one of those countries centered around civil rights. As long as the Queen is also the Head of the Church of England, England is theoretically a theocracy (although it may not be enforced).
Does this justify the Muslim reaction? On the contrary, it just shows English laws are just as antiquated.
I didn't offer it as justification, I offered it as established and ongoing precedent.
We're a Constitutional Monarchy, not a Theocracy.
Does this justify the Muslim reaction? On the contrary, it just shows English laws are just as antiquated.
I didn't offer it as justification, I offered it as established and ongoing precedent.
We're a Constitutional Monarchy, not a Theocracy.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Pope steps in dodo
But what else is a state where the head of the state is also the head of the church?
The power of MEOW
Pope steps in dodo
Felinessa wrote: But what else is a state where the head of the state is also the head of the church?
In this case, a Constitutional Monarchy. There are textbooks on the subject.
In this case, a Constitutional Monarchy. There are textbooks on the subject.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Pope steps in dodo
Felinessa in her intro thread wrote: But on my last forum, posts condoning rape were permitted, while I was banned for 2 years for telling someone that the Bible has multiple versions and a long textual history
I'm surprised you're surprised about religion and its tendency to react strongly to criticism.
I'm surprised you're surprised about religion and its tendency to react strongly to criticism.
Pope steps in dodo
You're beating about the bush, Spot. A theocracy does not need to be proclaimed officially in order to exist. Of course, I don't believe England is a true theocracy, but I do find it unsettling that the separation between church and state is blurry.
The power of MEOW
Pope steps in dodo
koan wrote: :yh_rotfl
Do we really need Jerry? Should we protest?I think he should go back into politics myself. He'd be an ideal independent-ticket president of the USA.
Do we really need Jerry? Should we protest?I think he should go back into politics myself. He'd be an ideal independent-ticket president of the USA.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Pope steps in dodo
Felinessa wrote: You're beating about the bush, Spot. A theocracy does not need to be proclaimed officially in order to exist. Of course, I don't believe England is a true theocracy, but I do find it unsettling that the separation between church and state is blurry.
It isn't blurry at all, the official word for it is Established. We rather revel in that. She's head of the Armed Forces and the Judiciary as well as the person who permits Parliament to sit for each session, too. That's what Monarchies are for.
It isn't blurry at all, the official word for it is Established. We rather revel in that. She's head of the Armed Forces and the Judiciary as well as the person who permits Parliament to sit for each session, too. That's what Monarchies are for.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Pope steps in dodo
spot wrote: I think he should go back into politics myself. He'd be an ideal independent-ticket president of the USA.
I'd like to see all the world leaders on a Jerry Springer show. Can that be arranged?
I'd like to see all the world leaders on a Jerry Springer show. Can that be arranged?
Pope steps in dodo
Felinessa wrote: You're beating about the bush, Spot. A theocracy does not need to be proclaimed officially in order to exist. Of course, I don't believe England is a true theocracy, but I do find it unsettling that the separation between church and state is blurry.
It's blurry because we like it that way. It's amazing how much people can argue about what exactly the words mean in a constitution. much better to keep things blurryu and open to change, we keep re-writih ours but without having to tear one up first. The last time a monarch tried to make everybody follow his religon he got his head chopped off. You will note she is not head of the church of scotland.
The queen is also head of state but has no real political power, we only keep her for the tourists and because someone has to get the back of their head licked on postage stamps.
It's blurry because we like it that way. It's amazing how much people can argue about what exactly the words mean in a constitution. much better to keep things blurryu and open to change, we keep re-writih ours but without having to tear one up first. The last time a monarch tried to make everybody follow his religon he got his head chopped off. You will note she is not head of the church of scotland.
The queen is also head of state but has no real political power, we only keep her for the tourists and because someone has to get the back of their head licked on postage stamps.
Pope steps in dodo
Well, she's a snippy sort, your Queen. She's never ONCE invited me in for tea! (I'd love to try on her jewelry.....)
My candle's burning at both ends, it will not last the night. But ah, my foes, and oh, my friends--It gives a lovely light!--Edna St. Vincent Millay
Pope steps in dodo
Elizabeth R is also the queen of Canada.
I have no objections to the monarchy. The queen or king is a titular leader but is important. It has grown out of history and like the bow on a shoe lace which really has no holding power but keeps the whole thing together so it is with the monarchy.
Shalom
Ted:-6
I have no objections to the monarchy. The queen or king is a titular leader but is important. It has grown out of history and like the bow on a shoe lace which really has no holding power but keeps the whole thing together so it is with the monarchy.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Pope steps in dodo
Ted wrote: Elizabeth R is also the queen of Canada.
I have no objections to the monarchy. The queen or king is a titular leader but is important. It has grown out of history and like the bow on a shoe lace which really has no holding power but keeps the whole thing together so it is with the monarchy.
Shalom
Ted:-6
I must admit to a lot of ambivalence. If the alternative was a president Tony Blair I'd be inclined to keep the status quo. Parliament is sovereign, pity they have forgotten who rules and let TB away with it. Dear old Oliver would be birling in his grave.
On the other hand I keep hoping they will offer me a knighthood so I can tell her where to stick it but sadly I don't have enough money to bribe Tony.:sneaky:
I have no objections to the monarchy. The queen or king is a titular leader but is important. It has grown out of history and like the bow on a shoe lace which really has no holding power but keeps the whole thing together so it is with the monarchy.
Shalom
Ted:-6
I must admit to a lot of ambivalence. If the alternative was a president Tony Blair I'd be inclined to keep the status quo. Parliament is sovereign, pity they have forgotten who rules and let TB away with it. Dear old Oliver would be birling in his grave.
On the other hand I keep hoping they will offer me a knighthood so I can tell her where to stick it but sadly I don't have enough money to bribe Tony.:sneaky:
Pope steps in dodo
Canada's Maclean's magasine had this headline today
A POPE UNLEASHED
First he scolded godless Canadians. Then he took on militant Islam. Benedict XVI is just getting started. P.30
:wah:
A POPE UNLEASHED
First he scolded godless Canadians. Then he took on militant Islam. Benedict XVI is just getting started. P.30
:wah:
Pope steps in dodo
woppy71 wrote: Thats exactly what worries me, that pakistan and india are going to go to war, with the possibility of it escallating into annihilation. I think we should be keeping a close eye on these two, rather than on north korea.
just so long as they don't bring the war here who cares all those call centre jobs will come back phones don't work to well in nuclear explosions.
just so long as they don't bring the war here who cares all those call centre jobs will come back phones don't work to well in nuclear explosions.
Pope steps in dodo
gmc wrote: It's blurry because we like it that way. It's amazing how much people can argue about what exactly the words mean in a constitution. much better to keep things blurryu and open to change, we keep re-writih ours but without having to tear one up first. The last time a monarch tried to make everybody follow his religon he got his head chopped off. You will note she is not head of the church of scotland.
The queen is also head of state but has no real political power, we only keep her for the tourists and because someone has to get the back of their head licked on postage stamps.
the last monarch who tried to force his religion on England was James the 2nd he had one thing in common with KING CHARLES OF LOST HEAD FAME THEY WERE BOTH stuarts and Scotish. James fled the country and Prince William of Orange sent to every borough in England to ask for elections to a convention at which he wished to be told by the people how the English wished to be ruled(what a wonderful idea) no one asked before and no one has asked since, the result was the 1689 declaration of rights passed by parliament as the bill of rights 1689 a law which parliament cannot change or dispose of and which is for all time, because parliaments employer the people of England made it and not parliament.
The queen is also head of state but has no real political power, we only keep her for the tourists and because someone has to get the back of their head licked on postage stamps.
the last monarch who tried to force his religion on England was James the 2nd he had one thing in common with KING CHARLES OF LOST HEAD FAME THEY WERE BOTH stuarts and Scotish. James fled the country and Prince William of Orange sent to every borough in England to ask for elections to a convention at which he wished to be told by the people how the English wished to be ruled(what a wonderful idea) no one asked before and no one has asked since, the result was the 1689 declaration of rights passed by parliament as the bill of rights 1689 a law which parliament cannot change or dispose of and which is for all time, because parliaments employer the people of England made it and not parliament.
Pope steps in dodo
Every time I see this thread the same image goes through my head
Attached files
Attached files
Pope steps in dodo
Ted wrote: Elizabeth R is also the queen of Canada.
I have no objections to the monarchy. The queen or king is a titular leader but is important. It has grown out of history and like the bow on a shoe lace which really has no holding power but keeps the whole thing together so it is with the monarchy.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Ted, 'titular' what a fantastic word!! I must use it more in conversation
I have no objections to the monarchy. The queen or king is a titular leader but is important. It has grown out of history and like the bow on a shoe lace which really has no holding power but keeps the whole thing together so it is with the monarchy.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Ted, 'titular' what a fantastic word!! I must use it more in conversation
Pope steps in dodo
As in titular tutor, titular head or titular president? :wah:
My candle's burning at both ends, it will not last the night. But ah, my foes, and oh, my friends--It gives a lovely light!--Edna St. Vincent Millay