I'm sorry but there is an element of indoctrination/brainwashing to all religion whether you want to accept it or not. How many people around the world are religious because their parents were religious and/or they were sent to a religious school? Raising a child in that kind of environment indoctrinates them into the religion in a lot of cases. I'm not saying that was necessarily the case with you but it does happen.
Everything we learn as kids we learn from parents and schools. There is a degree of brainwashing in everything we are told. My objection was that I am not a kid just following in my parents footsteps, I am a grown man with my own family and I have made my own mind up as to what I do or don't believe, I believe in God, Jesus and the Catholic Church and it is insulting to me and millions(billions?) of others to suggest I am brainwashed because of this. When I was young I was told about Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and the Tooth fairy. When I got older and could make my own mind up I did. Me being Catholic has nothing to do with brainwashing. Anyway I dont want to go away off topic again, I am one of the ones who want the pope to visit and think the british taxpayer should help with the bill (I have already said that £12million is way too much) but we should pay something.
Out of curiousity when did you decide to become catholic and what was it that made you come to that decision? Well can I suggest people I think should visit the UK and have the taxpayer pay something towards it? I don't see any reason why the taxpayer should foot any part of the bill for the visit of someone who is essentially nothing more than the head of an organisation dedicated to controlling the thoughts and actions of millions of people.
Just out of curiousity, would you, as a taxpayer, be willing to stump the bill for the leader of another religion to visit? I'm not saying that provocatively, and I suspect the answer would be yes anyway, as you place worth on religion. Can I ask why you think the taxpayer should contribute towards the bill? As a taxpayer, I don't see that there is enough in the way of a return to justify paying this huge amount, but I am keen to hear other perspectives.
I was baptised as a baby but realised that I was happy to be Catholic and continue to be one in my early teens. Its not the same thing and you know it. I understand why some people wouldn't want the taxpayer to pay, it will be impossible for everyone to agree on everything but my opinion is that the taxpayer should on this instance.
Hell no, if you are not a Catholic you are not worth bothering with............... Joking of course Yes of course I would (and do). Because he is the leader of the Catholic Church, there might not be a financial return to the taxpayer (although there will be some) but I would like the chance to see him in our own country and the millions of other catholics in britain im sure will feel the same. Like I said earlier not everyone will agree, both you and I have already disagreed before on how taxpayers money should be spent, haven't we?
Were you raised in a catholic household or was there no religious influence whatsoever, apart from the baptising obviously? Yes it is the same thing, you want a certain individual to visit the UK and have his visit paid for, at least partially, by the taxpayer because he is someone you feel to be important to you and your beliefs. If I could suggest someone who I felt was equally important to me why should their visit not be funded by the taxpayer? Why would my beliefs, if I had any, be of any less importance or less valid as a reason for the taxpayer to stump up money for someone to visit?
Last time I checked, no-one had voted for the Pope either. Which is pretty odd for a 'head of state'. Speaking of which, why on earth does the Vatican exist in the first place? The whole idea of one country built soley on the basis on one branch of one religion is ridiculous. I'm suprised the Muslim extremists haven't tried to bomb it yet...
Good to hear in one way, but I still don't agree that the taxpayer should be forced to pay for religious leaders visits. I know we see things differently, if I was a Catholic I might even be on your side of the fence. I should imagine so I come from a family where my dad was a Roman Catholic, and my mum was Church of Scotland, so there were always differences of opinion with my extended family. I think this gave me the opportunity to question religion as a whole from an early age. I respect those who do have religion though, as placing trust in your faith must be extremely hard at times.
I understand, and I agree with you. It's not a good idea to group atheism with immorality and evil. Likewise, I wouldn't want to group all Catholic priests as pedophiles, but as we've seen from this thread it's an easy mistake to make. Groupthink: it's not just for Christians anymore!
Yes and No. My mother was catholic, father was protestant. I was never forced to go to chapel and like I said earlier I decided for myself when I was old enough to do so. You have a semi valid point. However in your earlier post you never mentioned importance or beliefs, and to justify the expense of someone of your choosing to visit then I think your beliefs would have to be shared by a lot more taxpayers than just you. Who did you have in mind?
It should be pointed out that they are not alone, those of Jewish persuasion comes to mind. Israel is even expanding her borders.
In which case probably ALL of the Arab states come under that sort of banner, but I still find the Vatican the oddball in them all...
In terms of Christian states I would find the Kingdom of Jerusalem more of an oddball than I would find the Vatican. I would place the Vatican second. But let us not bash the religious crowd now, it tends to get nasty and it's counterproductive.
It could have been far worse, so far its been fairly well behaved. we all have our moments and we all make our points.
Actually, don't dismiss him so easily. As walle says: In order to understand the significance of Jesus' preachings you should understand the cultural context in which it occurred. Things were primitive back then. There were no human rights --it was an age of torture, heads on stakes, crucifixion, throwing prisoners to the lions and men fighting to the death for entertainment purposes (there is a nice historical report from those days of a show in the Collosseum in which a woman is tied down on a raised contraption and raped to death by a bull for the crowd's entertainment). There was all but frontier law. Wars and conquest were rife; famine was one bad harvest away and lethal diseases were common. Women were so much property. A suspicion of adultery got her stoned to death. Think of a fundamentalist African country and you get the picture. In this climate a man stood up and preached mutual respect, tolerance, compassion and equal rights for men, women and children alike. And he actually made an impact. And he actually stood his ground and got brutally killed for what he believed in. I'd say he had some balls. We can respect freedom of speech. If someone wants to say that religious people are brainwashed, they can say it. If someone wants to say that atheists are immoral, they can say it. They just have to be prepared to be challenged and be able to back up their argument.
