http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/09/18/uk.pope.threat/index.html?hpt=T2
Of course they were released. I highly doubt they had any real evidence against them. Christians are the ones who react to their opponents with violence, if anything atheists put up with too much shit without doing anything about it. They just wanted as much as possible to keep those who would protest the Pope off the street. They obviously can't arrest Hitchens or Dawkins so they targeted the less visible enemies of Ratzinger.
They were arrested under the Terrorism Act 2000, which allows police to hold them without charge for 28 days.
This is a really scary sentence. I imagine if Ratzinger had his way they'd have arrested every atheist in England and held them for 28 days.
Sunday, September 19, 2010
Friday, September 17, 2010
Pope travels in Britain to stick finger in eye of Anglican Church...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/13/AR2010091301631.html?tid=nn_twitter
Why not, he's broken everyone else's rules. Why not break his own?
It's the first time Benedict will celebrate a beatification; under his own rules popes don't beatify, only canonize.
I don't think Benedict cares about the rules. All he cares about is doing what makes him feel good at the time and smiting his enemies.
"His personality and teachings could be a source of inspiration for ecumenism in our times from which all of us can draw,"
Remember, he said it. This is his model for ecumenism. Not common transformation or melding of traditions. Newman converted fully to Catholicism. When the Pope speaks of ecumenism this is what he means. He wants non-Catholics to convert to Catholicism. He wants them to abandon their own traditions. Why anyone outside Catholicism would find that positive or attractive is beyond me.
For many Anglicans, the sight of the pope traveling to Britain with the express aim of beatifying a figure who turned his back on their church will be a bitter one.
That was always Benedict's intention, to stick a finger in the eye of the Anglicans and the English. He has always held a special hatred in his heart for England. First off, it's the home of an offshoot religion that was a thorn in the side of past Popes. Second, it's the current home of many of the leading lights in the atheist movement and also those who have tried to fight his dangerous and murderous actions in the world.
"For him, becoming a Catholic was to become a pariah, to give up all his friends, all his jobs, possessions, and do something that was really difficult," said Jack Valero, the spokesman for Newman's beatification cause. "But he did that because he wanted to follow the truth."
The Church has significant resources and he knew that. He knew they'd take care of him since his conversion served as such a public insult to the Anglican Church. He seems to have done pretty well for himself after his conversion.
"Perhaps Benedict is thinking that Newman is the vehicle that he can use to push the evangelization of the old Europe," said Valero.
"Old Europe" has seen the hateful, outdated lies of Christianity. They've already rejected them. They're not going to suddenly resolve themselves to the slavery of the church just because Benedict digs up some old dead idiot.
But the beatification is controversial, not least because Newman's defection still rankles in the Church of England, a betrayal that represents current and centuries-old fears about Rome.
That's the intention. It's nothing less than a shot across the bow of the Anglican Church. A clear statement that "we're coming to destroy you". The Church of England has every reason to be scared of Rome, they will not be happy until they've completely eradicated the Anglican Church and converted every single Anglican to Catholicism. Any hollow claims of ecumenism are pointed towards this goal.
Why not, he's broken everyone else's rules. Why not break his own?
It's the first time Benedict will celebrate a beatification; under his own rules popes don't beatify, only canonize.
I don't think Benedict cares about the rules. All he cares about is doing what makes him feel good at the time and smiting his enemies.
"His personality and teachings could be a source of inspiration for ecumenism in our times from which all of us can draw,"
Remember, he said it. This is his model for ecumenism. Not common transformation or melding of traditions. Newman converted fully to Catholicism. When the Pope speaks of ecumenism this is what he means. He wants non-Catholics to convert to Catholicism. He wants them to abandon their own traditions. Why anyone outside Catholicism would find that positive or attractive is beyond me.
For many Anglicans, the sight of the pope traveling to Britain with the express aim of beatifying a figure who turned his back on their church will be a bitter one.
That was always Benedict's intention, to stick a finger in the eye of the Anglicans and the English. He has always held a special hatred in his heart for England. First off, it's the home of an offshoot religion that was a thorn in the side of past Popes. Second, it's the current home of many of the leading lights in the atheist movement and also those who have tried to fight his dangerous and murderous actions in the world.
"For him, becoming a Catholic was to become a pariah, to give up all his friends, all his jobs, possessions, and do something that was really difficult," said Jack Valero, the spokesman for Newman's beatification cause. "But he did that because he wanted to follow the truth."
The Church has significant resources and he knew that. He knew they'd take care of him since his conversion served as such a public insult to the Anglican Church. He seems to have done pretty well for himself after his conversion.
"Perhaps Benedict is thinking that Newman is the vehicle that he can use to push the evangelization of the old Europe," said Valero.
"Old Europe" has seen the hateful, outdated lies of Christianity. They've already rejected them. They're not going to suddenly resolve themselves to the slavery of the church just because Benedict digs up some old dead idiot.
But the beatification is controversial, not least because Newman's defection still rankles in the Church of England, a betrayal that represents current and centuries-old fears about Rome.
That's the intention. It's nothing less than a shot across the bow of the Anglican Church. A clear statement that "we're coming to destroy you". The Church of England has every reason to be scared of Rome, they will not be happy until they've completely eradicated the Anglican Church and converted every single Anglican to Catholicism. Any hollow claims of ecumenism are pointed towards this goal.
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
Thank you Tea Party for your help in November...
I wonder if the teabaggers realize that they're handing several states to the Dems in November? They're riding high on their victories last night, ignorant of the fact that primaries are always a contest of who can pander the most to their fringe followers (something the tea party candidates excel at). They don't seem to realize that last night wasn't the general election.
Extremists are always rewarded in party primaries since extremists show up far more for primaries/caucuses. The real test will be in November.
Normally, candidates will run to the fringe for the primary and then immediately run to the center for the general election. This is hard enough for a regular candidate, it's going to be nearly impossible for the teapartiers. If you want an example just ask Sharron Angle. She tried to disown some of her more extreme statements from the primary but there's video and screencaps of her website.
Tea party candidates are not able to run to the center like other Republicans do. They owe their entire existence to those extremists, they can't just disown them now that they're the nominees. I personally think they're going to find November isn't nearly as forgiving as the summer was.
They could very well have handed several seats to the Democrats (Nevada, Alaska, Delaware, NY Governor, etc...) that would have otherwise been easy Republican wins. The Nevada Senate seat was all but ripe for the Republicans to take. Harry Reid is hardly popular among the conservative population of Nevada. He was losing to generic Republican candidate in polls. Now that Angle is there, he's suddenly looking a lot safer for reelection. Same thing in Delaware. Mike Castle would have coasted to victory easily, now the Republicans have all but conceded the seat since O'Donnell has no chance of winning (Delaware isn't Alaska and it's not Alabama). Alaska may still go Republican despite the lunatic they've put forward as their nominee for the Senate (they did elect Palin after all) but it's far less likely than it would have been if the incumbent had won the primary.
Republicans love the tea parties because they think it's a way to excite their base and win elections, they may find that the power displayed in the primaries doesn't hold up when every American gets to vote.
Extremists are always rewarded in party primaries since extremists show up far more for primaries/caucuses. The real test will be in November.
Normally, candidates will run to the fringe for the primary and then immediately run to the center for the general election. This is hard enough for a regular candidate, it's going to be nearly impossible for the teapartiers. If you want an example just ask Sharron Angle. She tried to disown some of her more extreme statements from the primary but there's video and screencaps of her website.
Tea party candidates are not able to run to the center like other Republicans do. They owe their entire existence to those extremists, they can't just disown them now that they're the nominees. I personally think they're going to find November isn't nearly as forgiving as the summer was.
They could very well have handed several seats to the Democrats (Nevada, Alaska, Delaware, NY Governor, etc...) that would have otherwise been easy Republican wins. The Nevada Senate seat was all but ripe for the Republicans to take. Harry Reid is hardly popular among the conservative population of Nevada. He was losing to generic Republican candidate in polls. Now that Angle is there, he's suddenly looking a lot safer for reelection. Same thing in Delaware. Mike Castle would have coasted to victory easily, now the Republicans have all but conceded the seat since O'Donnell has no chance of winning (Delaware isn't Alaska and it's not Alabama). Alaska may still go Republican despite the lunatic they've put forward as their nominee for the Senate (they did elect Palin after all) but it's far less likely than it would have been if the incumbent had won the primary.
Republicans love the tea parties because they think it's a way to excite their base and win elections, they may find that the power displayed in the primaries doesn't hold up when every American gets to vote.
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Bigotry...
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/07/28/court-university-expel-student-opposes-homosexuality/
I can see both sides of this argument. That being said, I absolutely agree with this decision. The school years are a fragile period in any child's life, even more so for a child who is or thinks they might be gay. The last thing a kid who is questioning his sexuality needs is a counselor who is anything but supportive and non-judgmental. Having a counselor tell a kid in this state that he's a sinner and is going to hell could very well lead to serious consequences for the child including suicide.
Not that any of this matters since we all know the Supremes will take up this case and they will overturn the ruling.
I can see both sides of this argument. That being said, I absolutely agree with this decision. The school years are a fragile period in any child's life, even more so for a child who is or thinks they might be gay. The last thing a kid who is questioning his sexuality needs is a counselor who is anything but supportive and non-judgmental. Having a counselor tell a kid in this state that he's a sinner and is going to hell could very well lead to serious consequences for the child including suicide.
Not that any of this matters since we all know the Supremes will take up this case and they will overturn the ruling.
Thursday, April 29, 2010
Abortion...
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/28/us/28abortion.html?src=twt&twt=nytimes
It's unfortunate that in this country, a country where abortion is supposed to be legal, so many states seem to think they can restrict that right with impunity. I wonder how many women sit in the Oklahoma Legislature, I'd bet not too many. Most of the idiots so adamant about this bill will never have to worry about having an abortion. They'll never have to worry about being raped and then having to sit through a lecture from a male gynecologist telling them about the fetus' legs and arms while their rapist is essentially allowed to abuse them again by proxy. This is nothing but state sponsored abuse of women designed to guilt them into making a decision that is against their own interest. It's disgusting.
The second part is equally bad. Not only is a woman forced to endure a anti-choice lecture from a doctor before exercising her rights, she also can be lied to by her own doctor if that doctor doesn't agree with her rights. This is unimaginable in any other context but somehow anti-choice zealots feel they can do this to women. I would like to think that this law will be easily struck down the second it reaches the Supreme Court, it is unconstitutional after all by any measure of precedent, but I know better than that. There are enough right-wingers on the Court, with enough disdain for the Constitution and precedent, that I think it far more likely it'll be upheld.
I guess the moral of this story is that any woman of child bearing age better choose her gynecologist well and make sure that you know exactly how he feels about your rights because otherwise you might find him making decisions for you that you can't live with.
It's unfortunate that in this country, a country where abortion is supposed to be legal, so many states seem to think they can restrict that right with impunity. I wonder how many women sit in the Oklahoma Legislature, I'd bet not too many. Most of the idiots so adamant about this bill will never have to worry about having an abortion. They'll never have to worry about being raped and then having to sit through a lecture from a male gynecologist telling them about the fetus' legs and arms while their rapist is essentially allowed to abuse them again by proxy. This is nothing but state sponsored abuse of women designed to guilt them into making a decision that is against their own interest. It's disgusting.
The second part is equally bad. Not only is a woman forced to endure a anti-choice lecture from a doctor before exercising her rights, she also can be lied to by her own doctor if that doctor doesn't agree with her rights. This is unimaginable in any other context but somehow anti-choice zealots feel they can do this to women. I would like to think that this law will be easily struck down the second it reaches the Supreme Court, it is unconstitutional after all by any measure of precedent, but I know better than that. There are enough right-wingers on the Court, with enough disdain for the Constitution and precedent, that I think it far more likely it'll be upheld.
I guess the moral of this story is that any woman of child bearing age better choose her gynecologist well and make sure that you know exactly how he feels about your rights because otherwise you might find him making decisions for you that you can't live with.
Saturday, April 24, 2010
Keep Him Busy...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/23/glenn-beck-liberty_n_549723.html
Good, I for one think it's a great idea for him to give the speech there. Anyone who goes to Liberty University is already so far gone that one speech from Glenn Beck isn't going to change their opinions one bit, he's preaching to the choir, they already drank the kool-aid as it were. This provides one less opportunity for him to preach his gospel of hatred to those who are still capable of being saved from right-wing ideology. One less opportunity for him to corrupt someone on the fence. Glenn Beck's speech at Liberty will not change anyone's mind and will not create one more right-wing lunatic teabagger, of that we should be happy.
Good, I for one think it's a great idea for him to give the speech there. Anyone who goes to Liberty University is already so far gone that one speech from Glenn Beck isn't going to change their opinions one bit, he's preaching to the choir, they already drank the kool-aid as it were. This provides one less opportunity for him to preach his gospel of hatred to those who are still capable of being saved from right-wing ideology. One less opportunity for him to corrupt someone on the fence. Glenn Beck's speech at Liberty will not change anyone's mind and will not create one more right-wing lunatic teabagger, of that we should be happy.
Monday, April 19, 2010
Crocodile Tears...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8628244.stm
Evidently Ratzinger thinks he can get out of this with a few fake tears for the victims and some pretend empathy. I really hope he's wrong but he's gotten out of scandals before.
Evidently Ratzinger thinks he can get out of this with a few fake tears for the victims and some pretend empathy. I really hope he's wrong but he's gotten out of scandals before.
Subscribe to:
Comment Feed (RSS)