Secular Society Threatened?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I shall have to rectify my post:






(There are pictures of Ratzinger were he does present the nazi salute. Considering that both Nazism and the Vatican are the two top subjects of consipracy theories, I am not sure credible these pictures are. I've been had with the picture above already.
As a general statement: it is neither pictures withput context, nor Ratzinger's actions as a young man (a long time ago, in complicated circumstances) that lead me to conclude he harbors fascist sympathies, but his recent actions as cardinal and pope.)

Right....

I think the claim he is a facist is without any real foundation if you discount his youth. Right-Wing, yes. Conservative, definately. Willing to forgive facists, it appears so.

Unfortunately, none of this makes him a facist, which is not to say his is not unpleasent. Personally, however, I think he's just the wrong man to be Pope. He is aggressively conservative and a much more divisive spiritual figure than his predecessor. Though it must be remembered that said predecessor was also a hardline anti-Liberal and staunch traditionalist who voted against most of Vatican II.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I think he's just the wrong man to be Pope. He is aggressively conservative and a much more divisive spiritual figure than his predecessor.

This is why JP2 will be welcomed back from the dead by Catholics to be the next Pope when he is impersonated by the devil.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

This is why JP2 will be welcomed back from the dead by Catholics to be the next Pope when he is impersonated by the devil.

Um, "lol"?

[Megas Methuselah]

Um, "lol"?

I actually read that whole thing. Pretty funny.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Um, "lol"?

Don't worry, that's not what I believe. It's a Seventh-Day Adventist site after all (hence all the 'enforcing the false sabbath' rubbish).

Bet I had you worried though.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Today saw a big manifestation in Beirut for laïcité. Against sectarianism, in favour of civic rights!






That's the way, ah-ha ah-ha, I laïc it, ah-ha ah-ha!
(Sung to the tune of KC and the Sunshine Band)

[Rhyfelwyr]

The video's not working for me there Louis.

In any case, French laicite is doomed. Within the EU megastructure, secularism will never be promoted as superior as it is in France, it is just another ideology codified in with the rest. Even the Belgae aren't secular, simply pluralistic, don't they call humanism the "seventh organised religion" over there? Elsewhere on the continent, the EU itself is seen as a product of Christianity, and political Catholicism in particular, hardly suprising given role of the Christian Democractic parties in promoting European integration.

Doesn't article 16C of the Lisbon Treaty call for "open, transparent, and regular dialogue" with churches? The "laicite of recognition" as Leustean & Madeley put it. That's all that will be left of your vision of freedom from religion, integration isn't proving quite so one way anymore, no more exporting the enlightenment.

And who will head this theocratic European state?

This Babel?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

This beast?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Could it be...

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[Louis VI the Fat]

A senior judge has launched a dramatic assault on religious faith, dismissing it as “subjective” with no basis in fact.



Lord Justice Laws condemned any attempt to protect believers who take a stand on matters of conscience under the law as “irrational” and “capricious”.
In comments likely to set the church on a collision course with the courts, he claimed that doing so could set Britain on the road to a “theocracy”, or religious rule.

His comments came as he dismissed a legal challenge by a Christian relationship counsellor who was sacked after refusing to offer sex therapy sessions to homosexual couples because it was against his beliefs.
Gary McFarlane, 48, challenged his dismissal at the Court of Appeal, arguing that forcing him to go against what he sees as the Bible’s teaching represented religious discrimination.
He was supported in his case by a highly unusual direct intervention Lord Carey, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, who wrote to the judge warning of a tide of discrimination against Christians that threatened “civil unrest”.

[...]

While acknowledging the profound influence of Judeo-Christian traditions over many centuries, he insisted that no religious belief itself could be protected under the law “however long its tradition, however rich its culture”.
“The promulgation of law for the protection of a position held purely on religious grounds cannot therefore be justified,” he said.



“It is irrational, as preferring the subjective over the objective. But it is also divisive, capricious and arbitrary.”
He added: “If they did … our constitution would be on the road to a theocracy, which is of necessity autocratic.”

[...]

Andrea Williams, director of the Christian Legal Centre, which supported Mr McFarlane, described the depiction of traditional religious views on marriage as subjective as an “alarming” development.
“In effect it seeks to rule out Christian principles of morality from the public square,” she said.
“It seems that a religious bar to office has been created, whereby a Christian who wishes to act on their Christian beliefs on marriage will no longer be able to work in a great number of environments.”


But Terry Sanderson, president of the National Secular Society, hailed the judgment as a defeat for “fundamentalism”.
“The law must be clear that anti-discrimination laws exist to protect people, not beliefs,” he said.
“The right to follow a religious belief is a qualified right and it must not be used to legitimise discrimination against gay people who are legally entitled to protection against bigotry and persecution.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...pist-case.html