The Hazards of Belief

joseph brand

I was just listening to a podcast by This American Life. There is a report by Kathy Stuart on a woman who decided to kill a child, rather than commit suicide (which was her original intention) to gain entry into 'heaven'. Suicide by proxy.

The church taught that, suicide is a bigger sin than murder. If you've commited murder, you can repent your sins to a priest, then everything's okay. You're going to 'heaven'.

But, if you commit suicide, there's no chance to repent (obviously) and your sole buys a one-way ticket to hell. Ouch.

So some people decided that if they killed a child, they would receive the death penalty, thus avoiding suicide, and avail of the chance to repent and enter into 'paradise'. Religious logic. The worst kind of logic.

Christina Johansdotter was one such person.

Children were not just ideal victims because they easy preys due to their disadvantage in size and strength, but they were also believed to be free of sin and, thus, did not have to receive absolution before death in order to go to Paradise.

robindch

Did this one show up before? Hope not

seamus

joseph brand wrote: »

Religious logic. The worst kind of logic.

I think what makes it worse is the idea that their God can be tricked by way of technicality. Even though he's supposed to know everything and see into your soul, you can trick him into letting you into heaven by exploiting a philosophical loophole.

Bizarre.

The Black Oil

robindch wrote: »

Here in Ireland, some christians are upset at the ECHR's ruling on abortion. While in the UK, some christians are taking a case to the ECHR alleging systemic discrimination:

Mr McFarlane, a Bristol counsellor, was sacked by Relate after saying on a training course he might have had a conscientious objection to giving sex therapy advice to gay couples

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19472438

I'm not sure what to make of this, really. If the counsellor advertised his services as having a Christian bent then fair enough that's what people can go in expecting. But if he is putting forward his personal objections as a reason for not providing therapy (that doesn't have a Christian focus) then I don't know if he should have much support. My limited of understanding is that counsellors have to be there for their clients for the 50 minutes or whatever, regardless. They all have prejudices about something or other and work with uncomfortable topics all the time, but he should have worked through those in training, kept them in check or talk about them with his supervisor. Be they personal or professional. But hey, let's just play the persecuted Christian card, eh?

The Black Oil

Just thinking about that sort of situation again, there was a case I heard a year or two ago about a 24 year old trainee counsellor in the US. I think it was that she was a counsellor who happened to be Christian, as opposed to being a Christian counsellor. Anyway, she spoke about teh gheys and I think she lost her place on the course. Can't find a link just now. Naturally enough she was defended by some family values org.

It's all a bit stupid, no? I mean, people from all walks of life must tell some of these counsellors their 'sins', but are they pushed towards 'repair' therapy? Are they bollocks.

robindch

Hard to say what this is about exactly, but it seems that Catholic Relief Services, a large relief services charity with 5,000 employees, is revising the advice they give on condom use amongst HIV positive clients. It's probably safe to assume the worst:

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/catholic-relief-services-responds-to-criticism-over-hiv-document-employees/

Catholic News Agency wrote:

Baltimore, Md., Sep 6, 2012 / 10:01 am (CNA).- Catholic Relief Services has announced revisions to an HIV prevention document because of its “inappropriate information” about condoms and their use.

“Despite the mistakes, at no point did CRS purchase or distribute condoms. We are revising the document to ensure that it meets our standards as approved by the USCCB,” Michael Hill, a senior writer with the relief agency, told CNA Sept. 5.

Hill said the 179-page document was written in 2009 by outside consultants for a Vietnam program that aimed to halt the spread of HIV among intravenous drug users.

“CRS staff prescribed revisions to the document that were not carried out by the external consultant in the final, posted document,” he said. This meant that five sentences in the document referred to condom use among couples where one person is HIV positive and the other is HIV negative.

The agency announced the revisions in Aug. 31 in response to a report from LifeSite News.

The relief agency, which is overseen by the U.S. bishops, has 5,000 employees working to help more than 100 million people across the world address poverty, hunger, drought, disease and other emergencies.

LifeSite News has also reported on several of the agency’s employees who have records of past employment with agencies that support legal abortion or distribute abortion drugs and condoms.

One reported case also involves an employee’s assault on pro-life demonstrators.

Charisse Glassman, a legislative assistant with Catholic Relief Services-Haiti, was charged with assault last year after she drove her car into a female pro-life demonstrator in a crowd at the March for Life in January 2011. Court records say Glassman allegedly laughed several times during the incident.

In response to the questions raised about employees, Michael Hill stated that Catholic Relief Services employees “all are expected to follow Church teachings and doctrines” in their work for the agency.

The agency also aims to hire “the best qualified people for jobs.”

“In many cases, that requires that an employee be Catholic, but in many it does not,” he said.

Potential employees are informed about the agency’s Catholic identity and are asked about their commitment to the agency’s “faith-based mission.” All job postings also note “fundamental” Catholic teachings.

“If someone has previously worked at an employer with policies that are not in agreement with Catholic teachings, we do not assume that the applicant shares those views,” Hill said. “We do ask about their commitment to Catholic teachings to ensure they are a good fit for CRS.”

Hill said the agency does not investigate employees’ outside activities but it expects employees to “conduct themselves with integrity to CRS’ values and its fidelity to Church teachings.”

In July, Catholic Relief Services responded to concerns about its funding of CARE, an international humanitarian organization that provides relief to the needy in developing nations but also offers contraception and early abortion-inducing drugs. Catholic Relief Services said the funding was carefully restricted to morally acceptable purposes and was reviewed by a Catholic bioethicist.

magicbastarder

The Black Oil wrote: »

I'm not sure what to make of this, really

i don't see what the fuss is, myself. do we really expect a straight man to give sex therapy advice to a gay couple? we give out enough about priests' opinions on marriage...

Penn

magicbastarder wrote: »

i don't see what the fuss is, myself. do we really expect a straight man to give sex therapy advice to a gay couple? we give out enough about priests' opinions on marriage...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19472438

There's a two minute interview with him linked on the page. Interviewer asks if there is anything a heterosexual couple would do that would conflict with his beliefs but that he'd have to give advice on, he says no (despite how sexual activities like anal sex cannot result in children and would therefore conflict with his beliefs). He then says that the conflict comes from any type of sex which is outside of the marriage relationship. He then contradicts that by saying that there would be no problem with giving sex therapy to straight couples who aren't married (He even says that he sees the point the interviewer was trying to make with that question, yet he doesn't try to justify his answer, just repeating about not wanting to judge people or go against his beliefs).

Basically, it's not about the actual physical sex. His issue seems to stem solely from the fact that they're gay and it conflicts with his beliefs.

Bannasidhe

Penn wrote: »

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19472438

There's a two minute interview with him linked on the page. Interviewer asks if there is anything a heterosexual couple would do that would conflict with his beliefs but that he'd have to give advice on, he says no (despite how sexual activities like anal sex cannot result in children and would therefore conflict with his beliefs). He then says that the conflict comes from any type of sex which is outside of the marriage relationship. He then contradicts that by saying that there would be no problem with giving sex therapy to straight couples who aren't married (He even says that he sees the point the interviewer was trying to make with that question, yet he doesn't try to justify his answer, just repeating about not wanting to judge people or go against his beliefs).

Basically, it's not about the actual physical sex. His issue seems to stem solely from the fact that they're gay and it conflicts with his beliefs.

Have I got this straight (ba dum tish) he doesn't want to judge people or go against his beliefs but is willing to council unmarried heterosexual unmarried couples but not Gay couples as having the ghey sex is against his beliefs but he doesn't intend to be judgmental?

WOW. That is some mental gymnastics.

Penn

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Have I got this straight (ba dum tish) he doesn't want to judge people or go against his beliefs but is willing to council unmarried heterosexual unmarried couples but not Gay couples as having the ghey sex is against his beliefs but he doesn't intend to be judgmental?

WOW. That is some mental gymnastics.

Married couples who have freaky sex? That's fine (even though that conflicts with his beliefs)
Unmarried couples having normal sex? That's fine (even though that conflicts with his beliefs)
Gay couples? No. Why? Because that conflicts with his beliefs!

robindch

David Cameron is not only under fire for appointing Jeremy Hunt, a well-known supporter of homeopathy, as the UK's Minister of Health, but he's also made a rather odd choice for Minister for Culture which includes women and equality:

Bannasidhe

robindch wrote: »

David Cameron is not only under fire for appointing Jeremy Hunt, a well-known supporter of homeopathy, as the UK's Minister of Health, but he's also made a rather odd choice for Minister for Culture which includes women and equality:

Have you seen the rest of his appointees?:

Minister for Transport:



Minister for Science and Technology:



Minister for Education:


(The chap on the right obviously. That's 'our' right, it would be hard to be to the right of the chap to whose left he is standing)

Nodin

....if it wasn't fer the size of me belly, it'd be like the 80's again....

Hotblack Desiato

This is what happens when you have a 2-party system

Party A wins power, does OK for a few years, gradually adopts increasingly nutty policies, is revealed to have received illegal donations/cash for peerages/whatever you're having yourself.

Electorate can no longer stand the stink of Party A and elects Party B as the fresh new hope for clean politics.

Party B does OK for a few years...



Things are slightly better here in that we have PR, and coalitions are normal, but only slightly.

Hotblack Desiato

robindch wrote: »

David Cameron is not only under fire for appointing Jeremy Hunt, a well-known supporter of homeopathy

Does that make you a homeophobe ? :pac:

biko

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/9298578/Prisoners-under-pressure-to-convert-to-Muslim-gang.html

Prison guards said they had a policy of “appeasement” towards the powerful and growing Islamic population, particularly convicted terrorists who were feared to be recruiting future extremists.

Non-believers avoided confrontation with any Muslim in case it led to retribution from the wider group, and said they even avoided cooking pork or bacon in communal kitchens or undressing in the showers in case it caused offence.

biko

MRC vid of a Muslim refusing allowing his wife to show her face at a Japanese airport.
http://www.mrctv.org/embed/116514

MrPudding

seamus wrote: »

I think what makes it worse is the idea that their God can be tricked by way of technicality. Even though he's supposed to know everything and see into your soul, you can trick him into letting you into heaven by exploiting a philosophical loophole.

Bizarre.

I feel the same way about Pascal's Wager. They believe in and all powerful, all knowing gid who is also a fcuking retard.

biko wrote: »

MRC vid of a Muslim refusing allowing his wife to show her face at a Japanese airport.
http://www.mrctv.org/embed/116514

Asshole.

MrP

joseph brand

Joao de Deus (John of God).

I was shown a video of this 'faith healer' yesterday and told "look, he can heal people".

He makes incisions in his patients and removes tumours without anaesthetic, apparently. The power he has over these poor folks is scary.

Robert and Caterina Pellegrino-Estrich claim they were the first non-Brazilians to reveal to the world John of god's amazing healing gifts. They are practicing "Bio-Energy Spiritual Healers" and Reiki Masters, Prana Therapists, and Spiritual Healing Practitioners. Caterina calls herself "The Lady of Light." They provide "ground support" for visitors to Abadiania, where John plies his trade. They advise, however, that before you travel to Brazil you purchase travel insurance. "Travel insurance is essential to cover you in the event of accident, illness, loss of personal belongings or death." Nice touch.
I know John doesn't charge a fee for his "services," but he prescribes herbs to everybody he sees (about 1,500-2,000 people a week) and his clinic sells the herbs. According to Quinones, "the clinic does pull in something like $400,000 a year from the sale of herbs." I know from watching the video of John at work that he places his hands on the breasts of his female patients regardless of what ails them.
Another 30 seconds was spent noting that John of god has been accused of molesting one of his young patients and has been arrested several times for practicing medicine without a license. John is a farmer by training and has a large ranch outside of the town where he has his clinic.

Reiki Masters? Ahahaha.

An old, creepy, breast-fondling farmer? More of a healing grope than touch. The lord does indeed work in mysterious ways.

ShooterSF

Will check it out after work. Anything like Randi's Philippines explanation?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxMGxz6-oTs

shanered

biko wrote: »

MRC vid of a Muslim refusing allowing his wife to show her face at a Japanese airport.
http://www.mrctv.org/embed/116514

He didn't seem like to most reasonably guy in the world!
"You will die from my Muslim punch", pretty funny when he says that!
But it is crazy that he just expects his wife to escape and identification or searching in an airport.
I just don't understand why Muslims expect to be exempt from other cultures laws while if people from other cultures are in a Muslim country they must follow their laws.
It just stinks of hypocrisy!

robindch

How to Determine If Your Religious Liberty Is Being Threatened in Just 10 Quick Questions

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rev-emily-c-heath/how-to-determine-if-your-religious-liberty-is-being-threatened-in-10-questions_b_1845413.html

Huffington Post wrote:

It seems like this election season "religious liberty" is a hot topic. Rumors of its demise are all around, as are politicians who want to make sure that you know they will never do anything to intrude upon it.

I'm a religious person with a lifelong passion for civil rights, so this is of great interest to me. So much so, that I believe we all need to determine whether our religious liberties are indeed at risk. So, as a public service, I've come up with this little quiz. I call it "How to Determine if Your Religious Liberty Is Being Threatened in Just 10 Quick Questions." Just pick "A" or "B" for each question.

1. My religious liberty is at risk because:
A) I am not allowed to go to a religious service of my own choosing.
Others are allowed to go to religious services of their own choosing.

2. My religious liberty is at risk because:
A) I am not allowed to marry the person I love legally, even though my religious community blesses my marriage.
Some states refuse to enforce my own particular religious beliefs on marriage on those two guys in line down at the courthouse.

3. My religious liberty is at risk because:
A) I am being forced to use birth control.
I am unable to force others to not use birth control.

4. My religious liberty is at risk because:
A) I am not allowed to pray privately.
I am not allowed to force others to pray the prayers of my faith publicly.

5. My religious liberty is at risk because:
A) Being a member of my faith means that I can be bullied without legal recourse.
I am no longer allowed to use my faith to bully gay kids with impunity.

6. My religious liberty is at risk because:
A) I am not allowed to purchase, read or possess religious books or material.
Others are allowed to have access books, movies and websites that I do not like.

7. My religious liberty is at risk because:
A) My religious group is not allowed equal protection under the establishment clause.
My religious group is not allowed to use public funds, buildings and resources as we would like, for whatever purposes we might like.

8. My religious liberty is at risk because:
A) Another religious group has been declared the official faith of my country.
My own religious group is not given status as the official faith of my country.

9. My religious liberty is at risk because:
A) My religious community is not allowed to build a house of worship in my community.
A religious community I do not like wants to build a house of worship in my community.

10. My religious liberty is at risk because:
A) I am not allowed to teach my children the creation stories of our faith at home.
Public school science classes are teaching science.

Scoring key:

If you answered "A" to any question, then perhaps your religious liberty is indeed at stake. You and your faith group have every right to now advocate for equal protection under the law. But just remember this one little, constitutional, concept: this means you can fight for your equality -- not your superiority.

If you answered "B" to any question, then not only is your religious liberty not at stake, but there is a strong chance that you are oppressing the religious liberties of others. This is the point where I would invite you to refer back to the tenets of your faith, especially the ones about your neighbors.

In closing, no matter what soundbites you hear this election year, remember this: Religious liberty is never secured by a campaign of religious superiority. The only way to ensure your own religious liberty remains strong is by advocating for the religious liberty of all, including those with whom you may passionately disagree. Because they deserve the same rights as you. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Nodin

A US state department official was killed and at least one other American was wounded when militiamen stormed the US consulate in the eastern Libyan city of Benghazi.
It is believed the protest was held over a US-produced film that is said to be insulting to the Prophet Muhammad.
The building was set on fire after armed men raided the compound with grenades.
Protests have also been held at the US embassy in the Egyptian capital, Cairo.
In the attack in Benghazi, unidentified armed men stormed the grounds, shooting at buildings and throwing handmade bombs into the compound.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-19562692

This is the movie in question
http://youtu.be/qmodVun16Q4

For those not in a clicky mood, it's a dire piece of shite, not some documentary. An example of real world trolling, by the looks of things.

- The "muhammed" section starts at 2.15 in.

joseph brand

What's wrong with this picture?

robindch

Israeli religious fundamentalists are horrified that they're now being called upon to defend the state they demand and justify, having traditionally relied upon their non-religious brothers and sisters to do it for them.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19492627

"It's very stressful", said one religious student with no obvious trace of irony.

Dades

It seems a benefit of belief is about to come to an end!

ShooterSF

robindch wrote: »

Israeli religious fundamentalists are horrified that they're now being called upon to defend the state they demand and justify, having traditionally relied upon their non-religious brothers and sisters to do it for them.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19492627

"It's very stressful", said one religious student with no obvious trace of irony.

"Me and my friends are going to the army and we're risking our lives. We could die. You see ultra-Orthodox people saying they're not joining the army because they are protecting Israel through prayer. It's very frustrating."

"I don't see those ultra-Orthodox as Israeli as me, because they are doing nothing for the state," she says.

Ha. Keep thinking like that and you'll be one of us soon lady (if you're not killed protecting such ridiculous ideas)

I really wonder what mainstream Israeli belief is like. I remember someone making I point that rang through that they have a whole legal system that when it comes to politics and Arabs exists purely for justice to be seen to be done. Many in the UK up til the late 80s at least were completely ignorant of what was happening in NI, would be interesting to find out if that holds true in Israel because TV programme makers only seem to like to find the nuts and the Godwinners.

Gbear

Deleted User wrote: »

I really wonder what mainstream Israeli belief is like. I remember someone making I point that rang through that they have a whole legal system that when it comes to politics and Arabs exists purely for justice to be seen to be done. Many in the UK up til the late 80s at least were completely ignorant of what was happening in NI, would be interesting to find out if that holds true in Israel because TV programme makers only seem to like to find the nuts and the Godwinners.

Given that it appears to be quite a strong nation in scientifiic terms I'd assume that most Israeli's are fairly secularist.

joseph brand

Gbear wrote: »

Given that it appears to be quite a strong nation in scientifiic terms I'd assume that most Israeli's are fairly secularist.

The Haredim are doing their best to outnumber them, with their large families. These Ultra Orthodox Jews are ridiculous. We've already read about their special blurred glasses which make it difficult for them to see a woman, when they're out and about. (Not from The Onion)

From the link provided by Robin:

But he sees obstacles to integrating all ultra-Orthodox recruits in the army if the exemptions end - not least because of strict religious rules about the separation of men and women.

For example, ultra-Orthodox men would not be able to listen across the communications system if a woman radio operator was speaking.

What. Dafuq?

They're almost as bad as the muslims.

Women have to sit at the back of the bus in Jerusalem. Jews persecuting Jews.

recedite

But he sees obstacles to integrating all ultra-Orthodox recruits in the army....

Just put on the special glasses and hey presto; problem solved

Banbh

Israel is a confessional state - that is, a state based on and subordinate to a particular religion - the same as Iran and Saudi Arabia (different religion but just as discriminatory).
My favourite nuttiness is the banning of pictures of women in public places; on one recent occasion where a family was killed in a car crash, the picture of the family in the papers had the mammy's face blacked out.

robindch

Banbh wrote: »

[...] banning of pictures of women in public places [...]

And famously photoshopping out Hiliary Clinton too:

http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/10/newspaper-regrets-erasing-hillary-clinton/

... in case anybody watching gets overheated from the sight of her exposed right wrist.

joseph brand

robindch wrote: »

And famously photoshopping out Hiliary Clinton too:

http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/10/newspaper-regrets-erasing-hillary-clinton/

... in case anybody watching gets overheated from the sight of her exposed right wrist.

Do they have a 'spot the woman' competition in Israeli newspapers? Similar to the 'spot the ball' photos which appeared in newspapers here years ago.

Nuts. Absolutely bonkers.

jank

If a private newspaper is photoshopping women to cater for it's readership then what is the issue. Don't buy said newspaper. Just as if a private magazine is selling pictures of naked women (or men) to its readership. All the hallmarks of a tolerant society.

ShooterSF

jank wrote: »

If a private newspaper is photoshopping women to cater for it's readership then what is the issue. Don't buy said newspaper. Just as if a private magazine is selling pictures of naked women (or men) to its readership. All the hallmarks of a tolerant society.

A) Because it was against the terms of the photo's copyright

and

even if I don't have any desire to buy it I'll still voice my dislike for it's publishers similar to if say the KKK printed newspapers with black people edited out. You can actually voice disgust for private organisations. Look at people's opinion on nestle or walmart or Liverpool supporters opinion of the Sun. Do you tell them also that they shouldn't be outraged at these private companies and should just leave them be while not purchasing their products?

pauldla

Widespread protests at denigration of prophet

PROTESTS ARE expected today after noon prayers across the Muslim world against a US-made film denigrating the prophet Muhammad as Pope Benedict XVI arrives in Beirut to preach reconciliation between Christians and Muslims. Reconciliation is, however, not likely at present.


US secretary of state Hillary Clinton yesterday called the film “disgusting and reprehensible”, disavowed its message and again condemned the violence in Benghazi during which US ambassador Chris Stevens and three staff members were killed....


THE KEY figure behind the film that has sparked violence across much of the Muslim world, including the murder of the US ambassador to Libya and three of his colleagues, has been identified by US law enforcement officers.


He is Nakoula Basseley Nakoula (55), who lives in southern California. He is a convicted fraudster who has used multiple identities to conceal his involvement is various nefarious activities.

It seems even the cast and crew didn't know what was going on, thanks to some editing magic by Mr Nakoula.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2012/0914/1224324008929.html

Dades

jank wrote: »

If a private newspaper is photoshopping women to cater for it's readership then what is the issue. Don't buy said newspaper. Just as if a private magazine is selling pictures of naked women (or men) to its readership. All the hallmarks of a tolerant society.

Jesus, jank, does it not interest you in the slightest that in the 21st century, in a nation with nuclear weapons a woman's face is considered taboo to be printed in a newspaper or put on a billboard? Are you purposefully so obtuse?

Wiggles88

Virginia lawmaker: Children with disabilities are God’s punishment to women who previously had abortions.

Mainstream American politics is a terrifying place.

pauldla

Wiggles88 wrote: »

Virginia lawmaker: Children with disabilities are God’s punishment to women who previously had abortions.

Mainstream American politics is a terrifying place.

That truly beggars belief. FFS.

kylith

Wiggles88 wrote: »

Virginia lawmaker: Children with disabilities are God’s punishment to women who previously had abortions.

Mainstream American politics is a terrifying place.

Well, hopefully that'll get to his supporters who have disabled children, who would probably have some views on whether or not their child is a punishment.

Also, what about people who have disabled children and have never had an abortion? Will this guy claim that the child is a punishment for fornication or something? Ugh, I suppose I shouldn't be giving him ideas...

robindch

Malaysia holds seminars to help teachers spot 'gay children'

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/sep/14/malaysia-seminars-spot-gay-children

Guarniad wrote:

The Malaysian government has begun holding seminars aiming to help teachers and parents spot signs of homosexuality in children, underscoring a rise in religious conservatism in the country.

So far, the Teachers Foundation of Malaysia has organised 10 seminars across the country. Attendance at the last event on Wednesday reached 1,500 people, a spokesman for the organisation said.

"It is a multi-religious and multicultural [event], after all, all religions are basically against that type of behaviour," said the official. The federal government said in March that it is working to curb the "problem" of homosexuality, especially among Muslims who make up over 60% of Malaysia's population of 29 million people. According to a handout issued at a recent seminar, signs of homosexuality in boys may include preferences for tight, light-coloured clothes and large handbags, local media reported.

For girls, the details were less clear. Girls with lesbian tendencies have no affection for men and like to hang out and sleep in the company of women, the reports said. Malaysia frowns on oral and gay sex, describing them as against the order of nature. Under civil law, 'offenders', both male and female, can be jailed for up to 20 years, caned or fined. Actual prosecutions are rare, although former deputy prime minister Anwar Ibrahim has twice been tried for sodomy, in cases he called political conspiracies. He spent six years in jail, but the courts have since cleared him on appeal or dropped charges for lack of evidence.

Official intolerance of gay people has been on the rise. Last year, despite widespread criticism, the east coast state of Terengganu set up a camp for "effeminate" boys to show them how to become men. The latest seminar for the teachers and parents was run by deputy education minister Puad Zarkashi, his office confirmed. Zarkashi wasn't immediately available for comment but national news agency Bernama quoted him as saying that being able to identify the signs will help contain the spread of the unhealthy lifestyle among the young, especially students.

"Youths are easily influenced by websites and blogs relating to LGBT [lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender] groups," he was quoted as saying. "This can also spread among their friends. We are worried that this happens during schooling time."

pauldla

robindch wrote: »

Malaysia holds seminars to help teachers spot 'gay children'

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/sep/14/malaysia-seminars-spot-gay-children

Am I just particularly sick and twisted, or does that seem like somebodies wet dream...?

"We're going to take all these teenage boys, all the ones we think are gay, with their tight clothes and hairdos and rippling young bodies, and we're going to put them all in a big camp, and we're going to make men of them. And we'll have communal showers, and make them all wear shorts, and..."

Will the be assigned accountabilibuddies?

Delirium

joseph brand wrote: »

Lovely person. :rolleyes:

http://www.thejournal.ie/not-a-dumping-ground-pregnant-girl-turned-away-from-school-433812-Apr2012/

Seems the school owner that turned the pregnant girl away isn't so keen on "upholding morals" when it comes to his tax matters.

Padraig O’Shea, the school owner who refused admission to a pregnant girl in Borrisoleigh, Co. Tipperary because he had to “uphold morals” in the classroom?
Well, he’s appeared on the Revenue defaulters list for undeclaring income tax in the sum of €705,000 [with interest and whatnot].
Seven hundred thousand and five euros.
Here’s how it went down:
O’SHEA, PÁDRAIG “BORRISOLEIGH, THURLES,” CO. TIPPERARY. PRIVATE SCHOOL OPERATOR €346,059.00 €100,016.00 €259,544.00 €705,619.00 “Underdeclaration of Income Tax. Revenue Deposit Interest Reporting Case.”


via Broadsheet.ie

muppeteer

From Sydney

It really is tragic.

I'm not sure which is worse: that a young child is holding such an awful sign, or that the child's mother is taking a photo of him holding it, which she'll likely post on Facebok.

Considering the above, a person can't help but lose some hope in humanity.

Banbh

Lest you despair - for every evil, there are a thousand kindnesses.
Our species has come a long way because, by and large, we are supportive of each other and cooperate for the common good. This present evil, Islam, is learning that its power does not extend to the civilised nations of the world and like a spoiled child when the tantrum is over it will realise that it didn't get its way and freedom of speech and freedom to criticise still holds sway among most people of the earth.

robindch

Church may be forced to pay tax on non-religious activities.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/financially-troubled-cities-in-spain-consider-taxing-church-properties/2012/09/13/3b62c736-f842-11e1-8398-0327ab83ab91_story.html

Washington Post wrote:

Alcala de Henares, Spain — Cash-strapped officials in Europe are looking for a way to ease their financial burden by upending centuries of tradition and seeking to tap one of the last untouched sources of wealth: the Catholic Church.

Thousands of public officials who have seen the financial crisis hit their budgets are chipping away at the various tax breaks and privileges the church has enjoyed for centuries. But the church is facing its own money troubles. Offerings from parishioners have nosedived, and it has been accused of using shady bank accounts and hiding suspect transactions. Now, along come officials like Ricardo Rubio.

Rubio, a city council member in Alcala, is leading an effort to impose a tax on all church property used for non-religious purposes. The financial impact on the Catholic Church could be devastating. As one of the largest landowners in Spain — with holdings that include schools, homes, parks, sports fields and restaurants — the church could owe up to 3 billion euros in taxes each year. “We want to make a statement that the costs of the crisis should be borne equally by every person and institution,” said Rubio, a 36-year-old former accountant in his first term in office.

Similar efforts that target church coffers or powers are underway in neighboring countries. In Italy, Prime Minister Mario Monti has called for a tax on church properties or on those portions of properties that have a commercial purpose. In Ireland, the minister of education is fighting to end church control of many of the country’s primary schools, and the government has slashed in half the grants it gives poor families for first Communions. More than half the city councils in Britain have eliminated state subsidies for transportation to faith-based schools, leading to a precipitous drop in enrollment.

Once an untouchable institution in some parts of Europe, the Catholic Church has come under fire for its government subsidies at a time when the continent’s economies are faltering and the population is subject to painful cuts in jobs, benefits and pensions. Political groups have seized on the crisis as an opportunity to open up a larger debate about whether it is time to unwind some of the deals struck generations ago between church and state in predominantly Catholic countries in Europe.

“The separation of church and state is the big issue here,” said Charles Zech, director of the Center for the Study of Church Management at Villanova University, which focuses on the Catholic Church’s finances. In response to the controversy, the Vatican and representatives of the church — Cardinal Antonio Maria Rouco in Spain and Cardinal Angelo Bagnasco in Italy, who head the council of bishops in their respective countries — have released statements saying they intend to comply with all laws. But they have declined to comment further except to emphasize that current norms recognize the “social value” of church activities.

Efforts to pare down its financial privileges could not have come at a worse time for the Catholic Church, which is experiencing money troubles despite its great wealth.

[...]

recedite

robindch wrote: »

Church may be forced to pay tax on non-religious activities.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/financially-troubled-cities-in-spain-consider-taxing-church-properties/2012/09/13/3b62c736-f842-11e1-8398-0327ab83ab91_story.html

In the coastal city of Buenavista del Norte in the Canary Islands, Mayor Antonio Gonzales Fuertes, 30, says he is trying to collect 6000 euros— about $7,750 — from the church for a rental villa and a banana farm it operates. Fuertes would like to use the money for efforts that have had to be cut, such as children’s recreation programs.

Catholic Bananas!!! WTF