The pope weeps for not mentioning Rohingya in Myanmar

Oldtree

Pope disclosed that he wept when he met a group of Rohingya refugees on Friday in Bangladesh

That's just great after he didn't have the balls to say anything about the situation when in Myanmar.

"I knew that if in the official speeches I would have used that word, they would have closed the door in our faces."

Nothing like a good cry to sort out world peace.

I'm sooooooo sorry.........

Tell me how

Oldtree wrote:

I'm sooooooo sorry.........

Why? What did you do?

It's all Geldof's fault anyway..

Oldtree

Tell me how wrote: »

Why? What did you do?

Perhaps I was too obsequious with my combined overt sarcasm/TV reference about this ecumenical matter. This should clear it up for you

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Oldtree wrote: »

Perhaps I was too obsequious with my combined overt sarcasm/TV reference about this ecumenical matter. This should clear it up for you

]

That old reference is done to death.

Wanderer78

Charley Panicky Hairpiece wrote:

That old reference is done to death.

Still funny though

jacksie66

This post has been deleted.

OnDraught

Charley Panicky Hairpiece wrote: »

That old reference is done to death.

This is boards.ie. It's all about repetition.

Oldtree

Tell me how wrote: »

Why? What did you do?

Charley Panicky Hairpiece wrote: »

That old reference is done to death.

Clearly new to Tell me how!
And oldie for sure, but a golden goodie.
For some reason I never tire of Father Ted.
Perhaps because it never ceases to be current.

Oldtree

jacksie66 wrote: »

I don't believe in God, can't stand organised religion and whatnot but I think he's a decent genuine person.

Can one of the world's leading cult leaders be a decent genuine person?

Wanderer78

Oldtree wrote:

Can one of the world's leading cult leaders be a decent genuine person?

Yup, I'm not sure I'd call the Catholic church a cult though, it's does create a lot of positivities for society

super_furry

Oldtree wrote: »

That's just great after he didn't have the balls to say anything about the situation when in Myanmar.



Nothing like a good cry to sort out world peace.

I'm sooooooo sorry.........

I'm hardly a Holy Joe but it was a very delicate political situation and him speaking at that specific time and place out could have easily led to further attacks and deaths.

Oldtree

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Yup, I'm not sure I'd call the Catholic church a cult though, it's does create a lot of positivities for society

It does, but you don't need to be brought up as a Catholic to be a good person.

I'm sure the church of scientology could also claim to create a lot of positives for society with their good works, but the good works by both always come with the "message".

Oldtree

super_furry wrote: »

I'm hardly a Holy Joe but it was a very delicate political situation and him speaking at that specific time and place out could have easily led to further attacks and deaths.

So Shhhhh, say nothing about the multitude of attacks and deaths that have already occurred? So he did a kinda 'turn the other cheek' thing?

Wanderer78

Oldtree wrote:

It does, but you don't need to be brought up as a Catholic to be a good person.

Of course not, but I still stand by my statement, I'm atheist myself

Oldtree wrote:

I'm sure the church of scientology could also claim to create a lot of positives for society with their good works, but the good works by both always come with the "message".

It's clearly obvious that scientology is a cult, in fact I'd say it's actually a ponzi scheme that preys on the vulnerable, yes yes, I know, you could kinna say the same about the Catholic church, but don't forget, scientology is a relatively new thing, Catholicism isn't. It was created to give meaning, yes I know, some could say the same about scientology, but it's clearly obvious, to me anyway, it's just a ponzi scam. I have seen Catholicism help people, bring positivity to their lives, of course there will always be the negative things

ohnonotgmail

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Of course not, but I still stand by my statement, I'm atheist myself




It's clearly obvious that scientology is a cult, in fact I'd say it's actually a ponzi scheme that preys on the vulnerable, yes yes, I know, you could kinna say the same about the Catholic church, but don't forget, scientology is a relatively new thing, Catholicism isn't. It was created to give meaning, yes I know, some could say the same about scientology, but it's clearly obvious, to me anyway, it's just a ponzi scam. I have seen Catholicism help people, bring positivity to their lives, of course there will always be the negative things

Well no. Scientology was specifically created to make money.

jacksie66

jacksie66 wrote: »

I don't believe in God, can't stand organised religion and whatnot but I think he's a decent genuine person.

Oh yea. But when your predecessor was a f*cking Nazi Youth then you'd have to do something goddamn awful to be any worse.

ohnonotgmail

Deleted User wrote: »

Oh yea. But when your predecessor was a f*cking Nazi Youth then you'd have to do something goddamn awful to be any worse.

that was probably the least bad thing about him.

endacl

Aaaannnndddd ...3 ...2...1...

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Oh yea. But when your predecessor was a f*cking Nazi Youth then you'd have to do something goddamn awful to be any worse.

Godwin!

super_furry

Oldtree wrote: »

So Shhhhh, say nothing about the multitude of attacks and deaths that have already occurred? So he did a kinda 'turn the other cheek' thing?

Well if saying something about it there and then is going to spark more attacks, then yeah, it's probably better in that time and place to turn the other cheek.

c_man

Deleted User wrote: »

Oh yea. But when your predecessor was a f*cking Nazi Youth then you'd have to do something goddamn awful to be any worse.

Did you ever actually read up on that yourself? Cos what you're saying is pretty stupid to anyone who knows the slightest bit on the topic.

endacl

endacl wrote: »

Aaaannnndddd ...3 ...2...1...
Godwin!

Do you even know what Godwin's Law actually is?

"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Hitler approaches 1"

I did not compare anyone to Hitler.

I merely pointed out factual statement that Pope Benedict XVI was, in fact, a Hitler Youth.

c_man wrote: »

Did you ever actually read up on that yourself? Cos what you're saying is pretty stupid to anyone who knows the slightest bit on the topic.

Ara jaysis. Don't get your panties in a twist there.

Oldtree

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Of course not, but I still stand by my statement, I'm atheist myself

It's clearly obvious that scientology is a cult, in fact I'd say it's actually a ponzi scheme that preys on the vulnerable, yes yes, I know, you could kinna say the same about the Catholic church, but don't forget, scientology is a relatively new thing, Catholicism isn't. It was created to give meaning, yes I know, some could say the same about scientology, but it's clearly obvious, to me anyway, it's just a ponzi scam. I have seen Catholicism help people, bring positivity to their lives, of course there will always be the negative things

As an atheist I'm surprised that you don't see catholicism and it's many counterparts as cults. It is just a well organised superstition that extracts money after all. You are looking at an ancient ponzi scheme.

Have you seen any atheists bring positivity into people's lives? People are fundamentally good and do not need a doctrine to be made into good people.

Oldtree

super_furry wrote: »

Well if saying something about it there and then is going to spark more attacks, then yeah, it's probably better in that time and place to turn the other cheek.

Did it prevent further attacks? No......
Just cow towed to a regime for "fear of the door being shut".

jimd2

Deleted User wrote: »

Oh yea. But when your predecessor was a f*cking Nazi Youth then you'd have to do something goddamn awful to be any worse.

But the poster wasnt comparing him to his predecessor so I am not sure whether this point is relevant.

Tell me how

Oldtree wrote:

Have you seen any atheists bring positivity into people's lives? People are fundamentally good and do not need a doctrine to be made into good people.

Agree. But religions can provide a framework for nurturing a community spirit as well as a support during difficult times.

Oldtree

Tell me how wrote: »

Agree. But religions can provide a framework for nurturing a community spirit as well as a support during difficult times.

I don't think the pope did either in this instance, do you?

Edit: and I cannot but cast a cynical eye on the subsequent "weeping"

mordeith

Tell me how wrote: »

Agree. But religions can provide a framework for nurturing a community spirit as well as a support during difficult times.

As long as everyone in the community has the same beliefs of course

Tell me how

Oldtree wrote:

I don't think the pope did either in this instance, do you?

Edit: and I cannot but cast a cynical eye on the subsequent "weeping"

But how much can one person/figure do in one situation. He cannot fix all things with the flick of his wrist, does that mean he is a failure?

What is a realistic level of achievement you think any such figure has the power to deliver?

As for the cynical eye, that's your eye and your cynicism. Maybe it's coming from a place of negativity.

I'm not an avid Catholic and its probably more accurate to class myself as non-practising but I do feel that Pope Francis generally portrays a sense of love and support towards his fellow human beings and as a figurehead of an organization such as the Catholic church, that is a good thing. I don't expect him to be able fix all the problems of the world.

Tell me how

mordeith wrote:

As long as everyone in the community has the same beliefs of course

Not necessarily. Yes when it is hijacked by authoritarians, (of which there are plenty in all religions) but the central tennant which I think most religions profess are love, suppport, kindness and understanding.

How is that a bad thing? It's when the authoritarians gain a foothold, things start to go awry.

super_furry

Oldtree wrote: »

Did it prevent further attacks? No......
Just cow towed to a regime for "fear of the door being shut".

You can't possibly know that. For most people the risk of sparking off further attacks and deaths by making what would be seen as an inflammatory public proclamation is one not worth taking.

Wanderer78

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Well no. Scientology was specifically created to make money.

Scientologists obviously dont see it that way

Oldtree wrote: »

As an atheist I'm surprised that you don't see catholicism and it's many counterparts as cults. It is just a well organised superstition that extracts money after all. You are looking at an ancient ponzi scheme.

your statement is understandable, but again, no i dont. many if not most of our predominant religions were created centuries ago for multiple reasons, mainly to give meaning to life. this is a very fundamental question of our existence. of course you can argue your point, i.e. they are just all ponzi schemes, and you d be partially right, but id say your more wrong than right. i have seen evidence of our predominant religions that bring positivity to society, in fact, id go further and say, ive seen them save lives.

Have you seen any atheists bring positivity into people's lives? People are fundamentally good and do not need a doctrine to be made into good people.

yup. difficult statement to respond to, but thats very subjective. theres many complex human behavioral traits that cause people to behave in a potentially dangerous and disturbing way to others, psychopathy comes to mind, but there are others.

c_man

Deleted User wrote: »

Ara jaysis. Don't get your panties in a twist there.

Err right, sorry to ruin the jerk.

RobertKK

As well as a religious figure, the Pope is also a political figure.

The problem in Myanmar is Christians are also a minority in the mostly Buddhist country. Christians there were apparently concerned for their own safety if the Pope had spoken out directly about the Rohingya.
The Pope instead talked about respecting the lives of all including the minorities in that country.

I don't think he could go into Myanmar gung-ho and start spouting off, with the likelihood things would end up worse.

Oldtree

Tell me how wrote: »

But how much can one person/figure do in one situation. He cannot fix all things with the flick of his wrist, does that mean he is a failure?

What is a realistic level of achievement you think any such figure has the power to deliver?

As for the cynical eye, that's your eye and your cynicism. Maybe it's coming from a place of negativity.

I'm not an avid Catholic and its probably more accurate to class myself as non-practising but I do feel that Pope Francis generally portrays a sense of love and support towards his fellow human beings and as a figurehead of an organization such as the Catholic church, that is a good thing. I don't expect him to be able fix all the problems of the world.

In this instance he did nothing and portrayed no love or support for the Rohingya people. qed

I'm not sure where you get the 'place of negitivity' bit from? I'm just saying what I see. Are you in a place of positivity due to being a non-avid catholic and do you want to take me there?

ohnonotgmail

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Scientologists obviously dont see it that way

not publicly they wouldn't. the founder had no such qualms.

Oldtree

super_furry wrote: »

You can't possibly know that. For most people the risk of sparking off further attacks and deaths by making what would be seen as an inflammatory public proclamation is one not worth taking.

well i can be somewhat sure as its been widely reported

“Had I said that word, I would have been slamming the door,” the Pope told journalists on the flight back from Bangladesh.

Oldtree

Wanderer78 wrote: »

yup. difficult statement to respond to, but thats very subjective. theres many complex human behavioral traits that cause people to behave in a potentially dangerous and disturbing way to others, psychopathy comes to mind, but there are others.

It is. But when it comes the masses, religion is a merely a mechanism of social control, used by those that understand that to have their way, so to speak, a mindset not too far away from psychopathy imo.

Oldtree

RobertKK wrote: »

As well as a religious figure, the Pope is also a political figure.

The problem in Myanmar is Christians are also a minority in the mostly Buddhist country. Christians there were apparently concerned for their own safety if the Pope had spoken out directly about the Rohingya.
The Pope instead talked about respecting the lives of all including the minorities in that country.

I don't think he could go into Myanmar gung-ho and start spouting off, with the likelihood things would end up worse.

Amnesty International did not feel that way and were very disapointed that the issue was ignored in a very public way.

Grayson

Oldtree wrote: »

Amnesty International did not feel that way and were very disapointed that the issue was ignored in a very public way.

Officially they were but I'm sure unofficially they understood.

Help!!!!

Oldtree wrote: »

That's just great after he didn't have the balls to say anything about the situation when in Myanmar.



Nothing like a good cry to sort out world peace.

I'm sooooooo sorry.........

Maybe when he go to Myanmar & heard the truth rather than the usual drivel from MSM he realised he shouldn't say anything
Has he ever gone to the Middle East & asked to stop the killing of the Christians??

Help!!!!

RobertKK wrote: »

As well as a religious figure, the Pope is also a political figure.

The problem in Myanmar is Christians are also a minority in the mostly Buddhist country. Christians there were apparently concerned for their own safety if the Pope had spoken out directly about the Rohingya.
The Pope instead talked about respecting the lives of all including the minorities in that country.

I don't think he could go into Myanmar gung-ho and start spouting off, with the likelihood things would end up worse.

The Myanmar would do nothing to the Christians because the Christians haven't been attacking the Myanmar or threatening to burn down their villages if they do not convert

Oldtree

Grayson wrote: »

Officially they were but I'm sure unofficially they understood.

Not sure that that would stand up anywhere.

super_furry

Oldtree wrote: »

well i can be somewhat sure as its been widely reported

No, I was referring to "Did it prevent further attacks? No......"

You can't possibly know if there would have been retaliation on the Rohingya if he'd gone over there with all guns blazing.

mordeith

Tell me how wrote: »

Not necessarily. Yes when it is hijacked by authoritarians, (of which there are plenty in all religions) but the central tennant which I think most religions profess are love, suppport, kindness and understanding.

How is that a bad thing? It's when the authoritarians gain a foothold, things start to go awry.

Hijacked? All religions are run by authoritarians, whether it's the pope or a local imam, priest or rabbi

Oldtree

Help!!!! wrote: »

Maybe when he go to Myanmar & heard the truth rather than the usual drivel from MSM he realised he shouldn't say anything
Has he ever gone to the Middle East & asked to stop the killing of the Christians??

Seeing is believing, isnt it. Not sure he saw anything to comment about other than having a cry afterwards.

as an aside, I wonder was he weeping about 12 year olds in the vatican, before he then decided to do something about that issue, but not too much if they are married

Help!!!!

Oldtree wrote: »

Seeing is believing, isnt it. Not sure he saw anything to comment about other than having a cry afterwards.

as an aside, I wonder was he weeping about 12 year olds in the vatican, before he then decided to do something about that issue, but not too much if they are married

Yeah I dont get the whole religious underage sex thing

Oldtree

super_furry wrote: »

No, I was referring to "Did it prevent further attacks? No......"

You can't possibly know if there would have been retaliation on the Rohingya if he'd gone over there with all guns blazing.

So are you saying that the popes mere presence stopped some/all attacks?

feargale

Your evident concern for the plight of the Rohingya people is touching.

Oldtree wrote: »

That's just great after he didn't have the balls to say anything about the situation when in Myanmar.

How many cases do you know of a head of state, while on a visit abroad, engaging in megaphone diplomacy with the hosts to good effect? The only case I can think of where a visitor did it your way was de Gaulle's visit to Canada in 1967 ("Vive le Québec libre") and that didn't end well. Francis was treading a minefield in Burma. As for what he did say privately you are entitled to your opinion as to whether he should have said more, but you make it sound as if he had a dishonourable motive for not doing so. Do you think he saw his trip to Burma as a junket? You haven't spelled out his motive as you see it.

Leading figures in the Catholic Church and international politics advised Pope Francis not to use the term Rohingya during a trip to Myanmar due to political sensitivities.

Daniel Aguirre, a former legal adviser to the International Commission of Jurists in Myanmar, said Pope Francis was “damned if he did and damned if he did not say the word Rohingya,” he told the The Independent. “Although it is disappointing that he did not refer to the Rohingya by name, his visit brought attention to the human rights violations against them.”


Francis told reporters aboard the papal plane on Saturday that he was confident his message had been heard during private meetings with Myanmar's leader Aung San Suu Kyi and military chief Min Aung Hlaing.

Oldtree wrote: »

Amnesty International did not feel that way and were very disapointed that the issue was ignored in a very public way.

Amnesty International has in the past done sterling work on behalf of those who have been blatantly denied their basic human rights. Now that it has begun to adopt a position on the interpretation of human rights in the democratic world, on an issue or issues that leave decent democrats deeply divided it has lost some of its sheen.

Oldtree wrote: »

as an aside, I wonder was he weeping about 12 year olds in the vatican, before he then decided to do something about that issue, but not too much if they are married

Aha! Now we see what you're at. If you want to talk about the sex abuse scandals aren't there numerous threads covering that? If they don't meet your requirements you can open a new one. Maybe Godwin should formulate a new law: When the Vatican is mentioned in Boards.ie whether in the context of the Rohingya or the Copts or whatever, a thread will not go more than a dozen or so posts before paedophilia gets a mention. Yes, we are all deeply affected by your concern for the Rohingya.

Oldtree wrote: »

It is. But when it comes the masses, religion is a merely a mechanism of social control, used by those that understand that to have their way, so to speak, a mindset not too far away from psychopathy imo.

This being your view, how come you don't remain consistent and maintain that the Pope should mind his own business and remain silent on the Rohingya question?

Oldtree wrote: »

Nothing like a good cry to sort out world peace.

I'm sooooooo sorry.........

Yes, so sorry for the Rohingya, you are.

feargale

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Oh yea. But when your predecessor was a f*cking Nazi Youth then you'd have to do something goddamn awful to be any worse.

Ratzinger's family, especially his father, a policeman, bitterly resented the Nazis, and his father's opposition to Nazism resulted in demotions and harassment of the family. Following his 14th birthday in 1941, Ratzinger was conscripted into the Hitler Youth—as membership was required by law for all 14-year-old German boys after March 1939—but was an unenthusiastic member who refused to attend meetings. In 1941, one of Ratzinger's cousins, a 14-year-old boy with Down syndrome, was taken away by the Nazi regime and murdered during the Action T4 campaign of Nazi eugenics. In 1943, while still in seminary, he was drafted into the German anti-aircraft corps as Luftwaffenhelfer. Ratzinger then trained in the German infantry. As the Allied front drew closer to his post in 1945, he deserted.

By all means criticise his views and his governance if you feel you must, but you should do a minimum of research before you post. It will help you to avoid defaming people. This old chestnut has previously appeared in Boards.ie from time to time. It's clear that some people rely exclusively on Boards for their "education."

I once knew an genial old man, long dead, who went to the outskirts of Moscow as a privare soldier in Hitler's army. If you call Ratzinger a Nazi you must also call him a Nazi, and also just about every German who wore a uniform, even if it was only a postman's uniform.

Mutant z

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Yup, I'm not sure I'd call the Catholic church a cult though, it's does create a lot of positivities for society

What else would you call an organisation that believes in an invisible man in the sky.