Pope

[nichomach]

I have to say for the people that dont give a ****, the news has been a bit over the top for this.
I understand it affects a lot of people, but I hate it when any subject takes up a whole news broadcast in place of other equally important (to different people) stories.

Well, I'm Anglican, so it's not directly relevant to me, except in the sense that as the Pope is the leader of the largest Christian denomination then it is (or should be) at least of moderate interest to any Christian. That said, we're talking about the spiritual leader of about 1.1 BILLION people, globally. He'll have a huge influence on that population, and a necessary corollary of that is that he'll affect, directly or indirectly, a lot more; Stalin once asked "How many divisions has the Pope?" - 1.1bn is a LOT of divisions. Arguably, we've seen the election of a leader whose sheer reach in terms of population is greater than Blair, or Bush, or any other world leader. I think that's probably worth a lot of coverage.

[alexander]

I agree nichomach, have some respect Twigman.

[Alex]

There's a difference between respecting people's views and respecting the new pope I reckon. To say that he deserves respect on the basis of the fact that he has become the spiritual leader of a billion people doesn't work for me. Respect, even from world leaders, needs to be earned (you only need to look at GWB to see that).

Not entirely sure what my point was, but I felt like typing something...

[nichomach]

I agree that his position doesn't automatically mean that we should respect him as a person; personally, there's a lot that I'd disagree with him on. And I didn't say that you should automatically respect him because he's the spiritual leader of a billion plus people. I noted that that fact made him worthy of a lot of coverage, however, which is rather different. Take your GWB example; personally, I think the man's borderline retarded, with a lot of recovered addict control freak tendencies, a nastily intolerant approach to anyone who doesn't fit his idea of "American", a streak of reckless arrogance a mile wide with regard to international relations, and a whole lot more besides. However, purely by dint of the fact that he's President of the last remaining superpower, I'd rather have his actions receive a lot of coverage and scrutiny. Fair enough?

[Allen]

This is so one sided, it's unbelievable. We have here people saying that just because there's 1.1bn people who believe in blind faith (probably becuase their parents forced it on to them rather than them choosing themselves) they are allowed to take over the media and make such a big thing, worldwide, about it.

Yet, I remember not so long ago the Christians outcry at Jerry Springer the Opera and their demands for it to be forced off the air just because it was against their religion??

So it's OK for Christianity to be forced down our throats by the media, but it's not OK for anything against Christianity (albeit in a comical way) to be aired late night on TV? What a load of tosh...

[nichomach]

No-one's forcing Christianity down anyone's throat, and you're being extraordinarily patronising to assume that people don't choose to become Christian. I did. And they're not taking over the media, the media are simply reporting what is, in any objective sense, a very important event.

Now personally, some Christians may have got worked up about Jerry Springer The Opera and demanded it be taken off. I'm certainly not one of them, and neither are any others I know. That said, there are many different people who are Christian, with many different approaches to their faith; so lumping them all together and saying "the Christians did this, the Christians did that" is rather simplistic. FWIW, I would have been personally opposed to any suggestion that JSTO be banned.

[Allen]

I didn't assume that everyone who is a Christian didn't choose it, it's just a lot of people had their parents force them to go to church and stuff, and that IMO is not fair, therefore, my questions is still "I wonder how many of those 1.1bn chose to be Christians". Quite a lot I'd assume, but I wouldn' like to hazard a guess.

Also, I didn't say all Christians opposed Jerry Springer, but my g/f works at the BBC and there was a massive relgious outcry about it. It sounded kind of scary tbh!

And non-stop coverage, pages upon pages of pictures in the papers, funerals being shown live then repeated again and again on the news is IMO forcing it upon me as everywhere I look I see it. I am not being disrespectful, I was sorry that "an old man" passed away, but I amongst many others didn't wanna see so much of it.

[nichomach]

I take it that you're not a Christian yourself. Fair enough. I am, and my daughter comes with me to church on a Sunday, and I would expect her to continue to do so. If she decides she doesn't want to, or doesn't believe, then I won't force her to. That said, given that I believe in God, and given that my faith is Christian, I'd be pretty irresponsible if I DIDN'T take her to church. Funny that very few people seem to get worked up about kids being brought up as atheists, but if you bring your child up as a Christian then you're "forcing them", "brainwashing them" or otherwise indulging in some form of unspeakable cruelty...

[Allen]

I'm certainyl not going to tell anyone how to bring up their own child, but my own personal view on it is that if I have kids and if I was a Christian, then I would want them to have a fair decision and wait till they are able to make one.

Anyway, this isn't a discussion about religion, it's about the pope. And I still think there's too much, or was far too much, on TV and in the newspapers about it.

[Nick]

Nicho, from reading your last post you touch on a point that I think brings forth the whole 'brainwashing' thing as others percieve it.

You say you expect your duaghter to go to church, which is fair anouhg and totally and utterly your right as a parent. I think many non-religious people would misconsture that expectation as more of an enforcement upon her of your beliefs.

I'm open minded and liberal enough to realise that this IS NOT what you mean, but I think, in general terms, that those who ramble on about 'brainwashing' etc etc are actually misunderstanding the intentions of those that they criticise.

btw, I'm NOT criticising the way you choose to bring your daughter up, that is entirely up to you and good on you for having a faith. I know a few pretty religious people and they often say how they find strength in their faith... sadly, I'm more of a 'beleive it when I can see it' person... Am I missing out on anything? I don't know... I think religion is a deeply personal thing which affect each of us in different ways.

[Alex]

I don't really understand a lot of people's stances on religion, perhaps someone could explain it to me. People say that each person's religion is his own, and he should decide what is right etc. I completely understand this viewpoint, and I think tolerance and understanding is great - what I don't get is that some people say it doesn't matter what you believe in, or that religion is good/bad because etc etc. The kind of 'I don't believe in God because I have a bad mental picture of Christians' stance. Or the 'people are only Christians because their parents were.' (The same could of course be applied to Islam, Judaism, Hindius, and most of all atheism).

Either God exists or He doesn't. The same for Christianity - either Jesus of Nazareth was the Son of God, or he wasn't. Thats the decision you have to make - not whether christianity is 'nice', or whether people have commited atrocities in it's name. The essential truth of Christianity lies in whether Jesus was or was not the Son of God. If you investigate it yourself and decide he is not, then fair enough.

Anyway, I digress. the new pope, much as everyone seems to want to judge him because he is a conservative, may well do much good for the world. he may well be bad, but only time will tell that. No point in judging him too harshly now, is there?

[nichomach]

I quite understand your point, Nick, and don't worry, I'm not overly sensitive on this point. That said, it seems a bit of a double standard when those of an atheist or agnostic disposition seem to regard it as eminently fair and right to bring their children up in accordance with their beliefs, yet vilify people of faith for doing exactly the same thing. You can see the inherent bias in Allen's post; he doesn't believe in God, so in his view, the only fair way to bring up a child is to exclude the idea of God from their upbringing. His starting point for "fairness" is inherently atheist/agnostic, which is also a religious position, just the one with which he happens to agree.

As I note, if my daughter turns out not to believe in Christianity, or to believe in some other faith, or to have no faith, I'll have to respect that.

Back on topic, though. Frankly, I have to put up with a lot of coverage of stuff which doesn't interest me in the slightest; every news broadcast is smothered with football scores, racing results etc. I accept that there is a massive number of people to whom that IS important, though, and consequently accept that, and don't bitch about it (well, much, anyway). I'm sure that there are other subjects about which other people feel the same - I know many people who feel that coverage of Charlie Boy's nuptials was a little, well, TOO comprehensive . Me among them, in all fairness. Again, a lot of people do consider that important, so we pretty much have to put up with it. Personally, I'm not RC, as I've noted, but I do recognise that simply because of the number of Roman Catholics, the new Pope has the potential to have a profound global effect. Consequently, I think the coverage is actuially pretty proportionate, though I'd rather have had a little less on JPII's funeral and a bit more analysis of Benedict XVI's likely effect on the Roman Catholic Church and its members.

[Allen]

I quite understand your point, Nick, and don't worry, I'm not overly sensitive on this point. That said, it seems a bit of a double standard when those of an atheist or agnostic disposition seem to regard it as eminently fair and right to bring their children up in accordance with their beliefs, yet vilify people of faith for doing exactly the same thing. You can see the inherent bias in Allen's post; he doesn't believe in God, so in his view, the only fair way to bring up a child is to exclude the idea of God from their upbringing. His starting point for "fairness" is inherently atheist/agnostic, which is also a religious position, just the one with which he happens to agree.

My parents aren't religious, they didn't take me to church and they didn't teach me the bible, but I still knew and learnt about god at school etc. If I didn't, how could I have made up the decision that I thought he doesn't exist?

If I had children I wouldn't take them to church and I wouldn't teach them the bible but I woudn't dismiss everything about god and I certainly wouldn't ask the school not to teach them about religions!

[nichomach]

That's your prerogative; you don't believe in God, so you won't raise your kids to believe in God. That's your starting point. I do, so that's mine.

[Kitty]

My parents aren't religious, they didn't take me to church and they didn't teach me the bible, but I still knew and learnt about god at school etc. If I didn't, how could I have made up the decision that I thought he doesn't exist?

If I had children I wouldn't take them to church and I wouldn't teach them the bible but I woudn't dismiss everything about god and I certainly wouldn't ask the school not to teach them about religions!

fair point same for me my mum isnt religious i kno what i do about god through school but i still made up my own mind if to carry on the faith or not, its everyone to there own on this subject as long as no-one trys to preach it on to me im a happy girl.

[Nick]

And I'd just like to apologise for my ATROCIOUS spelling in my last post.... that'll teach me to rush a post before nipping out.

right, back on topic...

The POPE!

My view? Hmm, well, my knee-jerk reaction is that the Catholic church has a lot to answer for in refusing to condone the use of condoms for health reasons.

On so many levels this is just irresponsible.

I can see that any couple, adhering devoutly to the catholic dogma, wouldn't need condoms on health grounds, but what about those who fall from the path of their faith and sin by having sex before marriage?

They've now expsed themselves to STDs and, because their faith tells them its forbidden, they risk others catching it too.

I'm not just talking about the AIDS crisis in Africa, the effect is worldwide but highlighted particularly by Africa.

Perhaps the catholic church should look VERY closely at this... surely saving lives would come before everything? Isn't that what it's all about?

Refusing to allow your believers to do something that could save their lives, in my view, falls firmly outside the bounds of a religion which worships a god whose son sacrificed himself to save us all.

The new Pope, if he is as conservative as I've read, won't do anything to change this which leaves us with another who know how many years of suffering and death for thousands upon thousands.... which, incidentally, was one of the reasons cited for the Gulf war... removing a man causing suffering to his subjects... hmmm, now THERE'S food for thought.