Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Religion IS crazy!

Jump to new
bellenuit said:
St. Louis Archbishop denies knowing that child rape is a crime

Click to expand...


The weak gutless bastard – what a poor apology for a man..........it’s pathetic when these cowards say ‘I can’t remember’ or ‘I don’t recall’, because they don’t have the character to tell the truth.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
bellenuit said:
Another aspect of insisting on celibacy for priests and nuns is that it gives the message that a celibate state is 'holier' or more noble than that of one who is sexually active. The corollary is that sex is somewhat bad but acceptable only between married couples for the purpose of procreation. This inevitably leads to the thinking of those who ran the Mother and Baby institutions in Ireland, that having sex out side marriage was not only to be ostracised, but demanding physical punishment (hard labour) of the mother and neglect of their offspring.
Click to expand...

Yes, I think that’s true. And yet this church that ostracized unmarried mothers and treated their illegitimate children with such contempt that they were regarded as being unworthy of burial in catholic cemeteries, is the same church that for hundreds of years has turned a blind eye to the fact that numerous priests and bishops and others of high standing in the church have shown a proclivity towards sexual dalliances despite their oath of celibacy.

Double standards and hypocrisy are common in religion.
 
McLovin said:
The apologists for the RCC will be along shortly to explain that he doesn't represent the views of the Church or the teachings of Jesus.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

No doubt the conversation would go like this.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The high court has thrown out government funded chaplaincy in government schools. And about time too, if lesbian Senator Louise Pratt is to be believed.

Outgoing Labor Senator Louise Pratt has used one of her final parliamentary speeches to call for the abolition of the school chaplaincy program, saying it is harming vulnerable gay and lesbian children.
Senator Pratt said a survey found anti-gay chaplains had driven schoolchildren to self-harm and had told them to “pray the gay away”, claims rejected by chaplaincy groups
Click to expand...


Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...ouise-pratt-20140618-3adyv.html#ixzz353Tk6qz8
 
I don't think we should be celebrating just yet. From the ABC's reporting of the High Court's decision:
The national body for school chaplains says it believes the program will survive despite the court ruling, saying the payments could continue as state and territory grants.

"While the High Court has ruled against the current [funding] model, the court has acknowledged federal funding can continue for chaplaincy through state/territory grants," the National School Chaplaincy Association said in a statement after the ruling.

"In 2012, the High Court ruled unanimously that, funding model aside, there is no constitutional problem with chaplains serving in government schools.

"Therefore we hope the Federal Government will again act swiftly to protect this vital and beneficial program for students."

Prime Minister Tony Abbott says the Government will examine ways to ensure the program continues.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't underestimate Mr Abbott's determination to get religion into schools.

Outrageous and utterly inappropriate waste of money which could be so much better allocated elsewhere.
 
Why the Labor party continued the chaplaincy program is anyone's guess, but at least under their system it was up to the schools to decide if they wanted a secular or religious chaplain. Under Lib it's religious or nothing. Considering that the attendance at churches is declining, the government's chaplaincy program is just another indication of how out of step with the rest of us this government is.
 
SirRumpole said:
Why the Labor party continued the chaplaincy program is anyone's guess, but at least under their system it was up to the schools to decide if they wanted a secular or religious chaplain. Under Lib it's religious or nothing. Considering that the attendance at churches is declining, the government's chaplaincy program is just another indication of how out of step with the rest of us this government is.
Click to expand...

Now if we had communism in this country we would not have to worry about religion because all good communists, like Gillard, Bowen and Macklin, are atheists.

So I guess if we had communism, there would be no Islamic movement because they would clash with opposed ideologies....all religions would be banned.

Religion is really crazy....it has caused so many problems around the world for centuries.
 
The situations in Iraq and Syria are yet another example of ‘religion is crazy’. You’d think the ‘religion of peace’ would mean peace and harmony for everyone in these strongly Islamic countries. And yet their different religious factions cause them to hate each other with an intensity that sees horrific violence every single day.
You wonder what goes on inside their heads....do they ever stop and think ‘Would my god really approve of my behaviour’?
I guess you could ask the same question of priests who commit horrific sexual acts against children. And of the church officials who cover up the crimes to protect the offenders.

Another perfect example of ‘religion is crazy’ can be found in the attitudes of the Islamic religion that deem it OK to subjugate women, OK to force children into marriage with adults and have sexual relationships with them, but a sin to eat a bacon sandwich!
 
bunyip said:
Another perfect example of ‘religion is crazy’ can be found in the attitudes of the Islamic religion that deem it OK to subjugate women, OK to force children into marriage with adults and have sexual relationships with them, but a sin to eat a bacon sandwich!
Click to expand...

Classic
 
noco said:
Now if we had communism in this country we would not have to worry about religion because all good communists, like Gillard, Bowen and Macklin, are atheists.

So I guess if we had communism, there would be no Islamic movement because they would clash with opposed ideologies....all religions would be banned.
Click to expand...

I'm not so sure about that, Noco....... Gillard, Bowen, Rudd, Macklin & Co threw our borders gates wide open to allow Muslims to come flooding in en masse!
 
Value Collector said:
Hopefully one day the religious based chaplains will be removed from the Defence force

http://www.army.gov.au/Who-we-are/Corps/The-Royal-Australian-Army-Chaplains-Department
Click to expand...


I don't think this is likely to happen as long as Jim Wallace AM, Deputy Chairman of the Board of the Australian Christian Lobby, and his associates have any influence.

"Mr Wallace left the Army as a Brigadier in late 2000 after a 32-year career which included command of the SAS Regiment, Special Forces, and the Army’s mechanised Brigade of 3,000 personnel and most of the Army’s fighting vehicles. He is a graduate of Duntroon in Canberra, the British Army Staff College and the Australian College of Defence and Strategic Studies.

Mr Wallace served as a UN Observer in the Golan Heights and Lebanon with the United Nations Truce Supervision Organisation.

In 1984 he was made a Member of the Order of Australia for his services to counter-terrorism. He has been a Visiting Fellow at the Australian Defence Studies Centre and has served on the Council of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute and the National Consultative Committee for International Security Issues.

He was the Managing Director of ACL for 13 years until May 2013 when he was appointed Deputy Chairman.

Mr Wallace and his family [his wife is a medical doctor] worship at Hughes Baptist Church in Canberra."

It is worth reading the CVs of the other board members as well at http://www.acl.org.au/our-board/. They have plenty of influence.
 
bunyip said:
I'm not so sure about that, Noco....... Gillard, Bowen, Rudd, Macklin & Co threw our borders gates wide open to allow Muslims to come flooding in en masse!
Click to expand...

The reason why they opened our boarders and allowed the Muslims (50,000) to flood in was to divide the community into hatred.

Read my post #143 Communism : It is not dead and buried.
---------------------------------------------------------

"They have opened the doors to illegal invaders who are bringing in a religion that goes totally against our way of life. They are using Islam to create divisions in our society and turn citizen against citizen. At the same time, they have neglected our own needy; our aged and veterans, the very citizens who have contributed so much to our country and who should now be enjoying the fruits of their labour. Instead, they are living on the brink of poverty".

As far as the various sects of Islam, being the Kurds, the Sunnis and the Shiites (I think that is how you how you spell them) ,they are using religion as a front for political purposes.

Saddam Hussein tried to eliminate the Kurds who mainly come from Turkey.

The war in Syria is between the Sunnis and the Shiites and now the Sunniis are trying to take over Iraq which was under the control of the Shiite President.
 
You think so? is that why the Libs are planning increasing immigration levels? I don't think causing hatred in the community is their aim. You have to remember very few immigrants come by boat. Most are legal.

Business wants a high immigration rate in order to achieve growth and the plan is to get to 50million by 2050.

And the powerful right wing think tank IPA wants this result:

http://ipa.org.au/news/2792/liberals'-legacy-of-mass-migration-is-at-stake

For the past 70 years, the party that has most embraced permanent migration in government has been the Liberal Party, not Labor.

Permanent and long-term arrival numbers vary every year; and not all of those variations are driven by Commonwealth government policy. But most are.

The largest declines in our migration intake have occurred under Labor governments.

When Gough Whitlam, that darling of the progressive movement, came into power, immigration plummeted. In 1970, the Liberal government of John Gorton had admitted 185,000 migrants. The Whitlam government shrunk that to just over 50,000.

This was a deliberate policy decision. Whitlam even shut down the Department of Immigration, placing migration under the Department of Labour and Immigration.

That might seem a minor institutional change but it wasn't: when merged with labour, immigration policy came under the influence of a traditionally pro-union bureaucracy. And unions don't like it when the government imports foreign workers.

There's long been a debate about whether it was Whitlam who ended the White Australia Policy or Harold Holt. Both did their part. But even though Whitlam proclaimed the end to the infamous policy, the sharp decline of total immigration on his watch meant that few non-European migrants could come to Australia regardless.

In March 1974 The Age pondered whether Gough Whitlam was doing as every government had done: "preaching tolerance while still practicing discrimination".

Bob Hawke described himself as a "high immigration man". But when he took government in 1983, the immigration intake dropped by more than a third. To Hawke's credit, migration crept up over the next decade. But when Paul Keating took over, it plummeted again.

The Liberals have a much more impressive record.

Post-war immigration was at its peak under John Gorton. And Malcolm Fraser reversed the Whitlam backslide.

Under John Howard - that bête noire of pro-migration progressives - immigration jumped up well above the Gorton heights. In 2007, the number of permanent migrants arriving on our shores hit 191,000 - the largest cohort since the Second World War.

As George Megalogenis wrote in The Howard Factor, the real story was how "the former Hansonite belt ... think Howard is keeping out all the foreigners, when he is bringing them here at a rate Paul Keating never contemplated".

Yet Howard's record-breaking immigration intake is apparently an awkward truth. In the standard text on this subject, From White Australia to Woomera: the Story of Australian Immigration, the academic James Jupp briefly acknowledges the Howard record - in one sentence. But the real issue for Jupp is that Howard was considering a temporary guest worker scheme, and such a scheme would hurt unions already battered by WorkChoices.

But then came the Rudd government, and the partisan pattern broke. Rather than immediately shrinking the intake, Rudd continued the trend upwards - hugely. More than 224,000 migrants entered Australia in 2010. And that terrifying guest worker scheme? A pilot program was eventually introduced not by the union-hating Liberal Party, but by the ALP.

Even Julia Gillard's government - she of small Australia fame - has not appreciably reduced the number of migrants we take.

Given the showy anti-population rhetoric of the 2010 election, it is remarkable that we're taking nearly twice as many foreigners than we did under the government of Bob "high immigration" Hawke.

There's one obvious lesson here. Don't trust what politicians say about immigration.

But when Rudd broke the pattern, he also broke the Liberal Party's cover. After Labor prime ministers had lowered the intake, Liberal prime ministers were free to raise it; they gained no political benefit from doing otherwise. The Coalition could bang on about multiculturalism and refugees, but it would still bring in many more people than Labor.
 
Knobby22 said:
You think so? is that why the Libs are planning increasing immigration levels? I don't think causing hatred in the community is their aim. You have to remember very few immigrants come by boat. Most are legal.
Click to expand...

Immigration programs have been going on for years and mainly after World War 11......The program run by the Immigration Department is highly screened with preference is given to highly skilled professional people and tradesmen........The late 40's and 50's encouraged good tradesmen from Germany, England and Italy......I worked with many of them and they assimilated in to our community and left their hatreds behind them.......They became respected Australian citizens.

If you check out the Immigration Department, you will note that various countries around the world are are based on a level of risk.....That level ranges from 1 to 5......5 being the greatest risk........migrants from say Britain, Canada and some European countries are on level 1 where as migrants from some African countries are on level 4.....So preference is given to the lower risk migrants.......Skills are the essence of migration to Australia.....In some cases, consideration is given to an over seas family member wanting to join up with a relative living in Australia and whom have become Australian citizens.

I know of a case where this person tried to assist a Ghanaian girl to apply for a 2 year study visa to study nursing....Because this girl was on a level 4 risk, the person assisting her had to put up $66,030 into an bank account in Australia as a guarantee to cover her air fare, study fees of some $22,000 and some $38,000 to cover her two years of accommodation.

Most of the illegal immigrants Rudd and Gillard allowed in have no skills and will be on welfare for the rest of their lives....Welfare which is over and above what our aged pensioners receive here in Australia...... Do we need those types?.......I think not.
 
Top