The 'Funny (ha, ha)' side of religion

Worztron

robindch

seamus wrote: »

Who steals a worthless relic anyway? Bizarre. Probably just your common or garden scrotes who took it for the laugh.

Scrotes? Holy prepuce, batman! Religious theft has been going on for a long time

http://mentalfloss.com/article/30178/holy-foreskin-brief-history-stolen-catholic-relics

Worztron

Odhinn

A COUNTY councillor has defended claims that the abolition of the Eighth Amendment will lead to sex slavery becoming “normalised”.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/abortion-referendum/councillor-sex-slavery-will-be-normalised-if-8th-amendment-is-repealed-36886060.html

They're all coming out of the woodwork now.

Cabaal

Odhinn wrote: »

A COUNTY councillor has defended claims that the abolition of the Eighth Amendment will lead to sex slavery becoming “normalised”.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/abortion-referendum/councillor-sex-slavery-will-be-normalised-if-8th-amendment-is-repealed-36886060.html

They're all coming out of the woodwork now.

Getting desperate.

Surprised they've not said allowing abortions will create tornados... Somebody prev said that about marriage equality

Peregrinus

Cabaal wrote: »

Getting desperate.

Surprised they've not said allowing abortions will create tornados... Somebody prev said that about marriage equality

But have you never noticed, Cabaal, that after a big storm there is often . . . a rainbow?

I mean, QED!

Seth Brundle

Two trainee priests sent back to Ireland after being found in bed together

Two seminarians at the Irish College in Rome have been sent home by the rector Fr Ciáran O’Carroll after being found in bed together.

It is understood both men had been drinking earlier at an event marking the 50th anniversary of Pope Paul V1’s 1968 encyclical Humanae Vitae, which banned artificial means of contraception.

It is unclear whether either man will be permitted to resume studies for the priesthood. A spokesman for the Catholic bishops said it was “not appropriate to comment about individuals” when asked about the matter.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/religion-and-beliefs/two-trainee-priests-sent-back-to-ireland-after-being-found-in-bed-together-1.3491779

marcbrophy

They were celebrating banning contraception?
What a shower of cúnts :mad:

Hotblack Desiato

It was banned here in Ireland decades before that!

To think that in 1922 women had the vote, legal contraception, employment rights after marriage, and the right to divorce, and within about ten years would lose them all except the vote.

Worztron

robindch

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Two trainee priests sent back to Ireland after being found in bed together

The Irish Catholic makes much of how false and perfidious these reports are, but describes them in curiously specific language - that the two men weren't sent home, as reported, but "left of their own accord"; that the college did not accuse the men of "sexual impropriety" and that the written report does not refer to "any matters of a sexual nature", and that leaders in Rome and Ireland have refused to issue any prose clarifying what happened.

https://www.irishcatholic.com/profoundly-defamed-rome-seminarian-to-sue-over-fake-media-sex-slur/

Irish Catholic wrote:

Sources close to one of the Rome-based Irish seminarians who has been at the centre of widespread lurid allegations in the national media have said that lawyers have been instructed to take immediate legal action to clear his good name, The Irish Catholic can exclusively reveal. Legal letters have been issued to the media including The Irish Times and Irish Independent.
It was reported in a number of national newspapers late last week that two seminarians were sent home from Rome’s Pontifical Irish College after being found in bed together. However, sources in Rome close to the two men have insisted that the allegations are entirely false. Speaking exclusively to The Irish Catholic, one source said that while the two seminarians had been disciplined over concerns around excessive alcohol consumption, at no time were allegations of sexual impropriety put to the men by the college authorities.
It is understood that a report furnished to the Archbishop of Dublin from the Rector of the Irish College Msgr Ciaran O’Carroll also makes no mention of any matters of a sexual nature and, sources claim, that this has been confirmed by the archbishop to one of the seminarians. It is also claimed that both men were not dismissed from the college, as reported in the media, but left of their own accord. Both men were not sent back to Ireland as claimed in the media.
The media also reported that the alleged incident happened after students attended a Mass commemorating Pope Paul VI’s 1968 encyclical Humanae Vitae on artificial birth control.
The Irish Catholic has established that there was no Mass in the Vatican to mark the 50th anniversary of the publication of the papal encyclical as reported in the Irish Independent and The Irish Times and repeated extensively elsewhere. A senior source in Archbishop’s House in Dublin described these media reports as “fabrications”.
Both seminarians are believed to be deeply distressed at the false allegations aired in the national media about them.
It is understood that the men have pleaded with the Rector of the Irish College Msgr O’Carroll to issue a statement to set the record straight about what they describe as “lies” in the media. However, the rector has declined to do so and Archbishop Martin has also refused to issue a similar statement.
It is believed lawyers for one of the seminarians have criticised media outlets directly for reporting the allegations without trying to make contact with the men involved or seek independent confirmation of the story.
They also claim that as there are so few seminarians in the Irish College, particularly from the Dublin Diocese, the men involved – even though not named – are easily identifiable.

smokingman

robindch wrote: »

The Irish Catholic makes much of how false and perfidious these reports are, but describes them in curiously specific language - that the two men weren't sent home, as reported, but "left of their own accord"; that the college did not accuse the men of "sexual impropriety" and that the written report does not refer to "any matters of a sexual nature", and that leaders in Rome and Ireland have refused to issue any prose clarifying what happened.

https://www.irishcatholic.com/profoundly-defamed-rome-seminarian-to-sue-over-fake-media-sex-slur/

tee hee hee...rector...:D

Worztron

A little muslim kid can't find his mother in the supermarket.
The store attendant asks, "What does your mother look like?"
The kid says.. "I have no ****ing idea."

Worztron

Worztron

smacl

Odhinn

The foibles of American sex education. Few years old.
https://youtu.be/L0jQz6jqQS0

Peregrinus

Worztron wrote: »

There's no magic involved. The offensiveness stems from the fact that your purpose in identifying the stick figure as Mohammed is to give offence.

Michael OBrien

Peregrinus wrote: »

There's no magic involved. The offensiveness stems from the fact that your purpose in identifying the stick figure as Mohammed is to give offence.

That is not the point. Its to show that you cannot silence people with violence and threats of violence. Being offended is not a license to be violent and the whole point of draw mohammed day is to show how ineffective it is to threaten everyone, even those not in your religion, over depictions of a legendary figure.

Peregrinus

Michael OBrien wrote: »

That is not the point. Its to show that you cannot silence people with violence and threats of violence. Being offended is not a license to be violent and the whole point of draw mohammed day is to show how ineffective it is to threaten everyone, even those not in your religion, over depictions of a legendary figure.

Really? That's the point? You'd never get that out of the caption, would you?

The point would perhaps be clearer if you could find an example of someone show suffered violence for simply for purporting to depict Mohammed, with no offensive intent.

Michael OBrien

Peregrinus wrote: »

Really? That's the point? You'd never get that out of the caption, would you?

The point would perhaps be clearer if you could find an example of someone show suffered violence for simply for purporting to depict Mohammed, with no offensive intent.

Well there was the case of the teacher who named a class mascot teddy bear Mohammed, because it was the most popular name in the class, and was arrested for it, and threatened with lashes, then the local population rose up against the police and wanted to overturn that verdict, not because they saw it as an overreaction, but the opposite, as they wanted to kill her for daring to offend them by depicting Mohammed as a teddy bear.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudanese_teddy_bear_blasphemy_case


Also it does not matter what the intent was, being offended by an image does not justify killing or imprisoning the person who made it. The issue however around Draw Mohammed day is to refuse to allow violence to silence free expression. A stick man becomes offensive if its named mohammed. The naming of it does not NEED to be aimed to offend any individual but to illustrate how easy it is to trigger a disproportionate response. By escalating the depictions, one spreads the risk of retaliation and shows solidarity against that oppressive attitude.

Odhinn

Ireland's leading Catholic prelate has expressed frustration that priests increasingly face derision when they preach about the family - and are dismissed as "grey-haired celibate males who don't know what they are talking about".

Imagine that.

Archbishop Eamon Martin told the Irish Independent priests were finding if they stray into a matter concerning the family, or marriage difficulties, they were liable to get a reaction of "what would you know?"

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/priests-dismissed-as-greyhaired-celibates-on-family-matters-36948096.html

Worztron

How did Jesus get so ripped? ... Crossfit

smacl

From WWN

Worztron

magicbastarder

my wife was wondering if information imparted to a priest during confession falls under GDPR regulations. i guess the RCC would argue that the priest is merely a prxi for god and that he's outside the remit of the GDPR?

Peregrinus

magicbastarder wrote: »

my wife was wondering if information imparted to a priest during confession falls under GDPR regulations. i guess the RCC would argue that the priest is merely a prxi for god and that he's outside the remit of the GDPR?

You can set your wife's mind at rest. Information is only within the scope of the GDPR if it is personal date "processed by automated means" or if it forms "part of a filing system".

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

You can set your wife's mind at rest. Information is only within the scope of the GDPR if it is personal date "processed by automated means" or if it forms "part of a filing system".

To be fair, the Catholic church with confession were well ahead of the posse on this whole anonymization lark, so even if there was such a dubious thing as automated confession taking, it would still be GDPR friendly until such time as it gathered personal details.

smacl

And on the same subject, GDPR on Craggy Island

evolving_doors

Worztron wrote: »

That image is offensive.... offensive to comic artists around the world

Here's a better one of the man himself.

Here