If we forget formal rhetoric and consider reality we can recognise the following top religions in the west and elsewhere:

1. The most popular religion still on rise is Dogmatic Humanism.

Humanism is (natural extension of atheism ) a religion that puts human being in the centre of universe by believing in his unlimited possibilities and power.
Humanism is at the present dominant religion in the western world.
Many institutionalized Christian religions in the west evolved shifting from original Christ teaching in to pragmatic humanism.
For example Catholic Church did it long time ago by introducing new dogma about Pope’s infallibility (sinless or Pope is a God) and so on.
With this new dogma Catholic Church actually replaced God with the human being, at least as his representative on earth.
Immediately after introducing the new dogma Jesuits had their new motto: “We don’t need Christ we have a Pope”.
On the other hand the protestant Church was transformed in to even more pragmatic humanism, shall we say business Christianity by introducing their own new dogmas like Jon Calvin’s ( 1509 – 1564 ) doctrine that “ God’s grace would be gained through hard work and financial success”.
This directly confronts with Christ teaching:
“ You can not serve Mammon and God at the same time”.



2. Dogmatic democracy

Second the most important religion in the west is Dogmatic Democracy.
Western world took for granted ancient Greek social concept called Democracy and made a new religion of it.
One of the greatest Greek philosophers Plato had very low opinion about democracy.
In his book “Republic”, Plato put democracy on the bottom of his list of possible social concepts by expressing opinion that democracy possesses inherent, long term fatal weakness, with potential to encourage bad leadership and a few people (Plato refers to as the "beasts” ) can take advantage by manipulating masses and accumulate great wealth  which can lead in to potential collapse of the society and different forms of tyranny.
The west ignored all of this and made a religion of democracy which tries to export everywhere to everyone by all means. Like during period of Catholic Inquisition any one who dears to criticise democracy faces danger to be announced as a heretic or even a terrorist.
The democracy also can be defined as dictatorship of majority. If stupid, manipulated and uncontrolled majority (separated from intellectuals - Plato refers as “Philosophers”) reaches critical level then it can lead to self destructive society what is happening in America at the present.



3. Social Darwinism

Religion that believes that happiness in the society can be achieved trough competition of the fittest and the most adaptable. Social Darwinism established in the Victorian era in England, America, and elsewhere, which states that the strongest or fittest only should survive and flourish in society. This "ethical" concept very well compliments with the idea of corporate capitalistic globalisation and is very suitable for today’s materialistic shopping societies. When Darwin established the theory of evolution in 19th century, he pointed out that his theory was supposed to apply strictly to animals, but English capitalism and Victorian colonial fascism found this theory very suitable for British society. Today social Darwinism is widely accepted in corporate world and used for increasing productivity of modern slaves: working class and corporate employs.

Social Darwinism, by definition, is the principle that "the survival of the fittest" applies to human ethics and politics just as it does to biological evolution. The theory of Social Darwinism was introduced by Herbert Spencer. The theory was then used by White Protestants, men, and others to proliferate the idea that they were socially superior.
Capitalism of the early 20th century led to very clear class distinctions in the United States. The Captains of Industry, (depending on whether you saw them as philanthropists or criminals), subscribed to a concept of "Social Darwinism" which promoted a survival of the richest ideal and was reflected in their business dealings. Men like John D. Rockefeller, Andrew Carnegie, and others (today Bill Gates) have used this social concept to justify their incredible and morally questionable wealth.
In order for Communism to be an effective system people must deny their desire to be competitive and greedy or to progress on a higher moral level. These desires are a part of human nature which, in accordance with capitalist teaching, should be encourage as a driving force for becoming rich. Competition, according to Darwin, is what promotes evolution, thus in a societal context if there is no competition then there would be no evolution.
Today, in the west and elsewhere, capitalism together with social Darwinism is adopted as more pragmatic and efficient social concept feeding off of human characteristics, like greed and competition as a meaning of the life.

I'm not sure about the democracy one. Even the most ardent supporter of democracy will admit it has it's flaws. I've never met a supporter of democracy who is totally happy with their government.

"Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others."

I think economic liberalism or socialism produces far more dogmatists that democracy.

freediver wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2008 at 1:19pm:

I'm not sure about the democracy one. Even the most ardent supporter of democracy will admit it has it's flaws. I've never met a supporter of democracy who is totally happy with their government. "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others." I think economic liberalism or socialism produces far more dogmatists that democracy.

My concern is hypocritical dogmatic democracy:
As I said:

"Like during period of Catholic Inquisition any one who dears to criticise democracy faces danger to be announced as a heretic or even a terrorist".

If you classify democracy as a religion, maybe I could add two more religions - The first is monetary gambling and the second is Astrology (Horoscopes). Astrology is possibly the biggest unofficial religion in the world. If you look at all the emerging teenage dominated  Facebook type sites, it's obvious that 'Star Sign' is something that has a great deal of significance for a lot of people, and it transcends normal religious boundaries.

Then we have tea drinkers....

... and domino players...

...and folders/scrunchers

Actually the top religions are sleeping, then eating, then excrementing. Actually that makes statement that other three are top wrong.

Quote:

"Like during period of Catholic Inquisition any one who dears to criticise democracy faces danger to be announced as a heretic or even a terrorist".

People who denounce democracy are a threat to our society. It automatically implies that they will seek undemocratic means to gain power. Democracy is fragile. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

freediver wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2008 at 2:50pm:

Quote: "Like during period of Catholic Inquisition any one who dears to criticise democracy faces danger to be announced as a heretic or even a terrorist". People who denounce democracy are a threat to our society. It automatically implies that they will seek undemocratic means to gain power. Democracy is fragile. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

That's exactly why democracy became a religion.

freediver wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2008 at 2:50pm:

Quote: "Like during period of Catholic Inquisition any one who dears to criticise democracy faces danger to be announced as a heretic or even a terrorist". People who denounce democracy are a threat to our society. It automatically implies that they will seek undemocratic means to gain power. Democracy is fragile. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

Speaking hypothetically, let's suppose there was a crisis that threatened the future of mankind, and a series of referendums across the world gave a mandate for ignoring the crisis and concentrating on short term gains, would you still support democracy?

Don't get me wrong here. I'm just playing devil's advocate.

muso wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2008 at 6:33pm:

freediver wrote on Nov 22nd, 2008 at 2:50pm: Quote: "Like during period of Catholic Inquisition any one who dears to criticise democracy faces danger to be announced as a heretic or even a terrorist". People who denounce democracy are a threat to our society. It automatically implies that they will seek undemocratic means to gain power. Democracy is fragile. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. Speaking hypothetically, let's suppose there was a crisis that threatened the future of mankind, and a series of referendums across the world gave a mandate for ignoring the crisis and concentrating on short term gains, would you still support democracy? Don't get me wrong here. I'm just playing devil's advocate.

I want to play too.

So hypothetically speaking does not matter what crisis it is as long as I have a choice like in real democracy. So I would filter out undemocratic representatives across the world first and see if that makes a difference.

freediver wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2008 at 2:50pm:

Quote: "Like during period of Catholic Inquisition any one who dears to criticise democracy faces danger to be announced as a heretic or even a terrorist". People who denounce democracy are a threat to our society. It automatically implies that they will seek undemocratic means to gain power. Democracy is fragile. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

If someone denounce democracy vocally only I would not have any problems with them as long as they are true to what they preach and don't participate in democratic process trying to infiltrate it and to destroy it from within.

Of course if they use or support terrorist tactics like islamists do we have to get rid of them then. Nothing to do with religion, athos.

tallowood wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2008 at 8:08pm:

muso wrote on Nov 22nd, 2008 at 6:33pm: freediver wrote on Nov 22nd, 2008 at 2:50pm: Quote: "Like during period of Catholic Inquisition any one who dears to criticise democracy faces danger to be announced as a heretic or even a terrorist". People who denounce democracy are a threat to our society. It automatically implies that they will seek undemocratic means to gain power. Democracy is fragile. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. Speaking hypothetically, let's suppose there was a crisis that threatened the future of mankind, and a series of referendums across the world gave a mandate for ignoring the crisis and concentrating on short term gains, would you still support democracy? Don't get me wrong here. I'm just playing devil's advocate. I want to play too. So hypothetically speaking does not matter what crisis it is as long as I have a choice like in real democracy. So I would filter out undemocratic representatives across the world first and see if that makes a difference.

OK, again hypothetically we have China - a totally undemocratic country. The government of China consult with their best technical advisers who explain that unless they radically change the way we do business, the future of mankind is doomed.

Meantime in the US and Australia, we have a fully democratic process. "Big Business" interests democratically lobby government, using appropriately democratic deployment of brown paper bags (for a just cause) in order to change government policy to ensure that their short term financial security is not compromised. Now unfortunately accountants and economists alike find it very difficult to plan any more than say 20 years ahead.  Meanwhile, the general population is fed subliminal information that hints that there will be massive job losses and (shock horror) house prices will plummet unless we ignore the coming crisis and take measures to tend to the very real threat that the Market will crash unless we encourage more and more consumers to use more and more resources.

In summary, the democratic view is keep feeding Mammon at all costs. The undemocratic view is to listen to the technical advisers.

....hypothetically speaking of course.

I would suggest that you convince the general public of what is in their long term interests, then let democracy take care of the rest. It's a lot easier than blowing up power stations.

freediver wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2008 at 1:08pm:

I would suggest that you convince the general public of what is in their long term interests, then let democracy take care of the rest. It's a lot easier than blowing up power stations.

What if the general public is too stupid to understand?
(we're talking hypotheticals here)

I don't know where you got the idea of blowing up power stations from. It sounds a bit radical.

Perhaps you should go with a benign dictatorship then? You know, place absolute power in the hands of one man and hope he doesn't abuse it.

muso wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2008 at 10:13pm:

... OK, again hypothetically we have China - a totally undemocratic country. The government of China consult with their best technical advisers who explain that unless they radically change the way we do business, the future of mankind is doomed. Meantime in the US and Australia, we have a fully democratic process. "Big Business" interests democratically lobby government, using appropriately democratic deployment of brown paper bags (for a just cause) in order to change government policy to ensure that their short term financial security is not compromised. Now unfortunately accountants and economists alike find it very difficult to plan any more than say 20 years ahead.  Meanwhile, the general population is fed subliminal information that hints that there will be massive job losses and (shock horror) house prices will plummet unless we ignore the coming crisis and take measures to tend to the very real threat that the Market will crash unless we encourage more and more consumers to use more and more resources. In summary, the democratic view is keep feeding Mammon at all costs. The undemocratic view is to listen to the technical advisers. ....hypothetically speaking of course.

Knowing that Chinese technicians usually produce very crappy products I would not trust Chinese technical advisers to come with credible solution and as it happened I was correct. Future had shown that after the crisis had passed democratic nations enjoyed even better life style and happiness while undemocratic China get itself even in deeper problems again.

Disclaimer: All that of course was hypothetical speak as the genre of hypo dictates.

I'll be controversial here and argue that China has improved its standard of living much more under an authoritarian system than it would have done under a democracy where the 2 child policy was relaxed etc.

Considering the actual participation rate in most countries in the world, is there that really much difference between a democratic system and an authoritarian one?  The real difference is accountability.

The melamine scandal in China was dealt with pretty effectively. I think public accountability is starting to be important in China.  

(I'm still acting as advocatus diaboli by the way )  ;D

I am a firm believer in Democracy.

It's pretty easy to make an improvement if you start as low as China. So easy in fact that even a doctator can pull it off. They were starving to death a generation ago, eating locusts and bugs.

Actually if China improves even more they will become a democracy.

tallowood wrote on Nov 24^th, 2008 at 9:05am:

Actually if China improves even more they will become a democracy.

It wouldn't surprise me if that happened.

muso - you could well be right there
dictatorships are the most efficient form of govt.
Assuming a good dictator, it could work very well.
Fact is most kings are well loved by their subjects for good reason

China may be headed toward a democracy.

athos wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2008 at 12:50pm:

If we forget formal rhetoric and consider reality we can recognise the following top religions in the west and elsewhere: 1. The most popular religion still on rise is Dogmatic Humanism. Humanism is (natural extension of atheism ) a religion that puts human being in the centre of universe by believing in his unlimited possibilities and power. Humanism is at the present dominant religion in the western world. Many institutionalized Christian religions in the west evolved shifting from original Christ teaching in to pragmatic humanism. For example Catholic Church did it long time ago by introducing new dogma about Pope’s infallibility (sinless or Pope is a God) and so on. With this new dogma Catholic Church actually replaced God with the human being, at least as his representative on earth. Immediately after introducing the new dogma Jesuits had their new motto: “We don’t need Christ we have a Pope”.On the other hand the protestant Church was transformed in to even more pragmatic humanism, shall we say business Christianity by introducing their own new dogmas like Jon Calvin’s ( 1509 – 1564 ) doctrine that “ God’s grace would be gained through hard work and financial success”. This directly confronts with Christ teaching: “ You can not serve Mammon and God at the same time”.

what a load of dribble.

1. Papal infallibility does not signify that the pope is impeccable, i.e., that he is specially exempt from liability to sin. The pope is Human and can sin or make mistakes like anyone else. The only sinless peole ever to wal the earth according to the catholic church are Jesus and his mother Mary.

2. Infallibility is the concept that if the pope feels god has spoken to him about something he is the only person on earth who can make it an article of faith in the Church without any opposition from anyone else in the church.

3. Infallibility has only every been use ONCE in 1950 when Pope Pius XII defined the Assumption of Mary as being an article of faith for Roman Catholics.

4. the Pope is merely the representative of God, no catholic prays to the pope (if they do they are wrong according to the church), we pray to god, the pope however can pray for us to god.


Dont speak about things u do not understand.

muso wrote on Nov 24^th, 2008 at 8:06am:

freediver wrote on Nov 23rd, 2008 at 1:08pm: I would suggest that you convince the general public of what is in their long term interests, then let democracy take care of the rest. It's a lot easier than blowing up power stations. What if the general public is too stupid to understand? (we're talking hypotheticals here) I don't know where you got the idea of blowing up power stations from. It sounds a bit radical.

What if irresponsible stupid majority and elects idiotic leader who virtually can destroy country. Is it hypothetical assumption. It would be if it did not happened in America where G.W. Bush was elected twice.

athos wrote on Nov 24^th, 2008 at 1:44pm:

muso wrote on Nov 24th, 2008 at 8:06am: freediver wrote on Nov 23rd, 2008 at 1:08pm: I would suggest that you convince the general public of what is in their long term interests, then let democracy take care of the rest. It's a lot easier than blowing up power stations. What if the general public is too stupid to understand? (we're talking hypotheticals here) I don't know where you got the idea of blowing up power stations from. It sounds a bit radical. What if irresponsible stupid majority and elects idiotic leader who virtually can destroy country. Is it hypothetical assumption. It would be if it did not happened in America where G.W. Bush was elected twice.

Bush did not destroyed America despite winning to terms. In fact a  democracy has has checks on absolute power while dictatorship does not.
Take for example  mad psychopath Jo Stalin. He caused killing of tens of millions of soviet citizens and destroyed lives of hundreds of millions more.
That is why democracy is way better then alternatives.

Like I said athos, demcoracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others. Why do you and muso appear to keep assuming I claim it to be infallible? In a democracy, if you don't like the leader, vote for someone else.

athos wrote on Nov 24^th, 2008 at 1:44pm:

What if irresponsible stupid majority and elects idiotic leader who virtually can destroy country. Is it hypothetical assumption. It would be if it did not happened in America where G.W. Bush was elected twice.

They have learned from their mistake. The great US public couldn't make the same mistake again. Could they?

---

muso wrote on Nov 24^th, 2008 at 2:20pm:

athos wrote on Nov 24th, 2008 at 1:44pm: What if irresponsible stupid majority and elects idiotic leader who virtually can destroy country. Is it hypothetical assumption. It would be if it did not happened in America where G.W. Bush was elected twice. They have learned from their mistake. The great US public couldn't make the same mistake again. Could they?

Anybody can do as many mistakes as they like that's why in America a leader has limited number of terms while in USSR or China people could not get rid of mad dictators Stalin and Mao till they dropped dead.

tallowood wrote on Nov 24^th, 2008 at 8:35am:

muso wrote on Nov 22nd, 2008 at 10:13pm: ... OK, again hypothetically we have China - a totally undemocratic country. The government of China consult with their best technical advisers who explain that unless they radically change the way we do business, the future of mankind is doomed. Meantime in the US and Australia, we have a fully democratic process. "Big Business" interests democratically lobby government, using appropriately democratic deployment of brown paper bags (for a just cause) in order to change government policy to ensure that their short term financial security is not compromised. Now unfortunately accountants and economists alike find it very difficult to plan any more than say 20 years ahead.  Meanwhile, the general population is fed subliminal information that hints that there will be massive job losses and (shock horror) house prices will plummet unless we ignore the coming crisis and take measures to tend to the very real threat that the Market will crash unless we encourage more and more consumers to use more and more resources. In summary, the democratic view is keep feeding Mammon at all costs. The undemocratic view is to listen to the technical advisers. ....hypothetically speaking of course. Knowing that Chinese technicians usually produce very crappy products I would not trust Chinese technical advisers to come with credible solution and as it happened I was correct. Future had shown that after the crisis had passed democratic nations enjoyed even better life style and happiness while undemocratic China get itself even in deeper problems again. Disclaimer: All that of course was hypothetical speak as the genre of hypo dictates.

Dear Tallwood I am amused that you even don’t know ( or you don’t want to know ) that in your country you don’t have democracy? and then you criticise others because they don’t have democracy??? Isn’t it a little bit hypocritical?.

So let’s see what Plato said about democracy in his “Republic”.
Looking specifically at each government, Plato situates each government in their respectable positions beginning with the ideal state and slowly escalating to the worst possible system, which are in order as follows: aristocracy, timarchy, oligarchy, democracy, and tyranny.  Plato views democracy as one of the lowest forms of government in terms of his proposal of the ideal state.

As we can see Monarchy and democracy are totally different or opposing concepts of government.
You can either have a Monarch ( monarchy ) elected by God or democratically elected leader, who is elected by populus.
So let’s see what you have.

You have a Foreign Monarch as your absolute head of state who can sack your democratically elected prime minister ( as it happened to Gough Whitlam in seventies).
Is it democracy or hypocrisy? And after that you claim you have democracy and criticise China for not not having democracy.
Do you still think that Australia is not British colony? and do you still think that Australia has democracy?

Do you agree with Plato athos?

athos wrote on Nov 24^th, 2008 at 2:57pm:

tallowood wrote on Nov 24th, 2008 at 8:35am: muso wrote on Nov 22nd, 2008 at 10:13pm: ... OK, again hypothetically we have China - a totally undemocratic country. The government of China consult with their best technical advisers who explain that unless they radically change the way we do business, the future of mankind is doomed. Meantime in the US and Australia, we have a fully democratic process. "Big Business" interests democratically lobby government, using appropriately democratic deployment of brown paper bags (for a just cause) in order to change government policy to ensure that their short term financial security is not compromised. Now unfortunately accountants and economists alike find it very difficult to plan any more than say 20 years ahead.  Meanwhile, the general population is fed subliminal information that hints that there will be massive job losses and (shock horror) house prices will plummet unless we ignore the coming crisis and take measures to tend to the very real threat that the Market will crash unless we encourage more and more consumers to use more and more resources. In summary, the democratic view is keep feeding Mammon at all costs. The undemocratic view is to listen to the technical advisers. ....hypothetically speaking of course. Knowing that Chinese technicians usually produce very crappy products I would not trust Chinese technical advisers to come with credible solution and as it happened I was correct. Future had shown that after the crisis had passed democratic nations enjoyed even better life style and happiness while undemocratic China get itself even in deeper problems again. Disclaimer: All that of course was hypothetical speak as the genre of hypo dictates. Dear Tallwood I am amused that you even don’t know ( or you don’t want to know ) that in your country you don’t have democracy? and then you criticise others because they don’t have democracy??? Isn’t it a little bit hypocritical?. So let’s see what Plato said about democracy in his “Republic”. Looking specifically at each government, Plato situates each government in their respectable positions beginning with the ideal state and slowly escalating to the worst possible system, which are in order as follows: aristocracy, timarchy, oligarchy, democracy, and tyranny.  Plato views democracy as one of the lowest forms of government in terms of his proposal of the ideal state. As we can see Monarchy and democracy are totally different or opposing concepts of government. You can either have a Monarch ( monarchy ) elected by God or democratically elected leader, who is elected by populus. So let’s see what you have. You have a Foreign Monarch as your absolute head of state who can sack your democratically elected prime minister ( as it happened to Gough Whitlam in seventies). Is it democracy or hypocrisy? And after that you claim you have democracy and criticise China for not not having democracy. Do you still think that Australia is not British colony? and do you still think that Australia has democracy?

Lovely artos, you obviously don't know that Plato never lived in Australia, in fact he didn't even know that Australia existed. But now after I have informed you cease to refer to Plato trying to prove that Australia has no democracy.

BTW, China do produce crappy things cheap but crappy. You can't drill Australian hardwood with crappy Chinese drill bits too many times before it goes blunt.

Anyway compare to idiots Stalin and Mao any of our political democratically elected leaders are saints. I know that you know it and that's why you are here and not there.

As for Gough I have already said that democracy has checks on power of individuals.

tallowood wrote on Nov 24^th, 2008 at 3:11pm:

athos wrote on Nov 24th, 2008 at 2:57pm: tallowood wrote on Nov 24th, 2008 at 8:35am: muso wrote on Nov 22nd, 2008 at 10:13pm: ... OK, again hypothetically we have China - a totally undemocratic country. The government of China consult with their best technical advisers who explain that unless they radically change the way we do business, the future of mankind is doomed. Meantime in the US and Australia, we have a fully democratic process. "Big Business" interests democratically lobby government, using appropriately democratic deployment of brown paper bags (for a just cause) in order to change government policy to ensure that their short term financial security is not compromised. Now unfortunately accountants and economists alike find it very difficult to plan any more than say 20 years ahead.  Meanwhile, the general population is fed subliminal information that hints that there will be massive job losses and (shock horror) house prices will plummet unless we ignore the coming crisis and take measures to tend to the very real threat that the Market will crash unless we encourage more and more consumers to use more and more resources. In summary, the democratic view is keep feeding Mammon at all costs. The undemocratic view is to listen to the technical advisers. ....hypothetically speaking of course. Knowing that Chinese technicians usually produce very crappy products I would not trust Chinese technical advisers to come with credible solution and as it happened I was correct. Future had shown that after the crisis had passed democratic nations enjoyed even better life style and happiness while undemocratic China get itself even in deeper problems again. Disclaimer: All that of course was hypothetical speak as the genre of hypo dictates. Dear Tallwood I am amused that you even don’t know ( or you don’t want to know ) that in your country you don’t have democracy? and then you criticise others because they don’t have democracy??? Isn’t it a little bit hypocritical?. So let’s see what Plato said about democracy in his “Republic”. Looking specifically at each government, Plato situates each government in their respectable positions beginning with the ideal state and slowly escalating to the worst possible system, which are in order as follows: aristocracy, timarchy, oligarchy, democracy, and tyranny.  Plato views democracy as one of the lowest forms of government in terms of his proposal of the ideal state. As we can see Monarchy and democracy are totally different or opposing concepts of government. You can either have a Monarch ( monarchy ) elected by God or democratically elected leader, who is elected by populus. So let’s see what you have. You have a Foreign Monarch as your absolute head of state who can sack your democratically elected prime minister ( as it happened to Gough Whitlam in seventies). Is it democracy or hypocrisy? And after that you claim you have democracy and criticise China for not not having democracy. Do you still think that Australia is not British colony? and do you still think that Australia has democracy? Lovely artos, you obviously don't know that Plato never lived in Australia, in fact he didn't even know that Australia existed. But now after I have informed you cease to refer to Plato trying to prove that Australia has no democracy. BTW, China do produce crappy things cheap but crappy. You can't drill Australian hardwood with crappy Chinese drill bits too many times before it goes blunt. Anyway compare to idiots Stalin and Mao any of our political democratically elected leaders are saints. I know that you know it and that's why you are here and not there. As for Gough I have already said that democracy has checks on power of individuals.

1.      Is your country a Britis colony?
2.      Do you have monarchy or democracy?
For example USA has democracy, and you?

athos wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2008 at 12:50pm:

If we forget formal rhetoric and consider reality we can recognise the following top religions in the west and elsewhere: For example Catholic Church did it long time ago by introducing new dogma about Pope’s infallibility (sinless or Pope is a God) and so on. With this new dogma Catholic Church actually replaced God with the human being, at least as his representative on earth. Immediately after introducing the new dogma Jesuits had their new motto: “We don’t need Christ we have a Pope”.

I think you need to research the doctrine of Papal infallibility. You are confusing infallibility, under strict conditions, on articles of faith (used only once since its proclamation in 1870) with impeccability. The Pope is not free or exempt from sin.

athos wrote on Nov 24^th, 2008 at 3:27pm:

tallowood wrote on Nov 24th, 2008 at 3:11pm: athos wrote on Nov 24th, 2008 at 2:57pm: tallowood wrote on Nov 24th, 2008 at 8:35am: muso wrote on Nov 22nd, 2008 at 10:13pm: ... OK, again hypothetically we have China - a totally undemocratic country. The government of China consult with their best technical advisers who explain that unless they radically change the way we do business, the future of mankind is doomed. Meantime in the US and Australia, we have a fully democratic process. "Big Business" interests democratically lobby government, using appropriately democratic deployment of brown paper bags (for a just cause) in order to change government policy to ensure that their short term financial security is not compromised. Now unfortunately accountants and economists alike find it very difficult to plan any more than say 20 years ahead.  Meanwhile, the general population is fed subliminal information that hints that there will be massive job losses and (shock horror) house prices will plummet unless we ignore the coming crisis and take measures to tend to the very real threat that the Market will crash unless we encourage more and more consumers to use more and more resources. In summary, the democratic view is keep feeding Mammon at all costs. The undemocratic view is to listen to the technical advisers. ....hypothetically speaking of course. Knowing that Chinese technicians usually produce very crappy products I would not trust Chinese technical advisers to come with credible solution and as it happened I was correct. Future had shown that after the crisis had passed democratic nations enjoyed even better life style and happiness while undemocratic China get itself even in deeper problems again. Disclaimer: All that of course was hypothetical speak as the genre of hypo dictates. Dear Tallwood I am amused that you even don’t know ( or you don’t want to know ) that in your country you don’t have democracy? and then you criticise others because they don’t have democracy??? Isn’t it a little bit hypocritical?. So let’s see what Plato said about democracy in his “Republic”. Looking specifically at each government, Plato situates each government in their respectable positions beginning with the ideal state and slowly escalating to the worst possible system, which are in order as follows: aristocracy, timarchy, oligarchy, democracy, and tyranny.  Plato views democracy as one of the lowest forms of government in terms of his proposal of the ideal state. As we can see Monarchy and democracy are totally different or opposing concepts of government. You can either have a Monarch ( monarchy ) elected by God or democratically elected leader, who is elected by populus. So let’s see what you have. You have a Foreign Monarch as your absolute head of state who can sack your democratically elected prime minister ( as it happened to Gough Whitlam in seventies). Is it democracy or hypocrisy? And after that you claim you have democracy and criticise China for not not having democracy. Do you still think that Australia is not British colony? and do you still think that Australia has democracy? Lovely artos, you obviously don't know that Plato never lived in Australia, in fact he didn't even know that Australia existed. But now after I have informed you cease to refer to Plato trying to prove that Australia has no democracy. BTW, China do produce crappy things cheap but crappy. You can't drill Australian hardwood with crappy Chinese drill bits too many times before it goes blunt. Anyway compare to idiots Stalin and Mao any of our political democratically elected leaders are saints. I know that you know it and that's why you are here and not there. As for Gough I have already said that democracy has checks on power of individuals. 1.      Is your country a Britis colony? 2.      Do you have monarchy or democracy? For example USA has democracy, and you?

1 My country isn't British colony for quiet a while now
What about your country whose colony is it?

2 I have democracy albeit somewhat different from the USA model.
Do you have dictatorship like in USSR or like in China?

athos wrote on Nov 24^th, 2008 at 2:57pm:

So let’s see what Plato said about democracy in his “Republic”. Looking specifically at each government, Plato situates each government in their respectable positions beginning with the ideal state and slowly escalating to the worst possible system, which are in order as follows: aristocracy, timarchy, oligarchy, democracy, and tyranny.  Plato views democracy as one of the lowest forms of government in terms of his proposal of the ideal state.

Yes, Plato (who was born into the ruling class) never forgave democratic Athens for having executed Socrates and had nothing but contempt for democracy - although even he ultimately admitted that the democrats ruled even handedly, relative to the alternatives. Plato was obsessed with the notion of rule by a philosopher King - rule by 'one who knows' although he gave no indication of what to do if the philosopher King turned tyrannical or turned out not to know. Plato's Republic was impossibly idealistic as much in his time as in ours.

If Australia is not British colony, how come British monarch can sack your prime minister?

You can not have monarchy and democracy at the same time, this is Hypocrisy.
To have a democracy, your head of state must be elected by people not by God.

athos wrote on Nov 24^th, 2008 at 3:56pm:

If Australia is not British colony, how come British monarch can sack your prime minister? You can not have monarchy and democracy at the same time, this is Hypocrisy. To have a democracy, your head of state must be elected by people not by God.

Suggest you research the concept of constitutional Monarchy (not that I'm a monarchist).

athos wrote on Nov 24^th, 2008 at 3:56pm:

...

You haven't answer my questions yet. Do that and then I will answer more of yours.


Here they are together with my answers to your previous questions.

1 My country isn't British colony for quiet a while now
What about your country whose colony is it?

2 I have democracy albeit somewhat different from the USA model.
Do you have dictatorship like in USSR or like in China?

Athos, do you agree with Plato?

freediver wrote on Nov 24^th, 2008 at 4:03pm:

Athos, do you agree with Plato?

I am sorry but I have to say that Plato is too big for me, I will rather leave others to judge him.
My point is that once we are forced to take something for granted that it can easily become a religion.
I don’t see why democracy shouldn’t be under scrutiny like any other social or political concept created by humans?

athos wrote on Nov 24^th, 2008 at 4:32pm:

freediver wrote on Nov 24th, 2008 at 4:03pm: Athos, do you agree with Plato? I am sorry but I have to say that Plato is too big for me, I will rather leave others to judge him. My point is that once we are forced to take something for granted that it can easily become a religion. I don’t see why democracy shouldn’t be under scrutiny like any other social or political concept created by humans?

Doesn't it feels uncomfortable to use something that is too big for you?

Democracy is under scrutiny all the time just like all other systems and in comparison to them it always come the winner.

Well I think Plato was wrong. Why did you introduce his comments?


Quote:

I don’t see why democracy shouldn’t be under scrutiny like any other social or political concept created by humans?

It is under scrutiny, right here in this thread, and in many others.

For example here is why India, the biggest world democracy, is and will be economically behind China or Singapore. For many the main reason for that is the democracy.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/DI04Df03.html

Doesn't it feels uncomfortable to use something that is too big for you?
[/quote]


Do we need to take an advantage of someone's modesty and honesty?

Who is and what is the winner?

And she said: "They have the best universities in the world, but they can’t figure out their ethics and morality, that’s why they go broke".

That is a very complex problem. You could just as easily argue that Europe, America, Australia, Japan etc are ahead of China because of democracy. In fact that would be a far more sound argument. A significant percentage of India's population were alive before it became a democracy. It would be naive to attribute India's problems to it's relatively young system of government.

athos wrote on Nov 24^th, 2008 at 4:59pm:

Quote: Doesn't it feels uncomfortable to use something that is too big for you? Do we need to take an advantage of someone's modesty and honesty? Who is and what is the winner? And she said: "They have the best universities in the world, but they can’t figure out their ethics and morality, that’s why they go broke".

Democracy is the winner in comparison to other systems.

To throw names around without reason is false modesty. To refuse answer questions connected to those names is not honesty.

Did she break her nail scratching her head?

NorthOfNorth wrote on Nov 24^th, 2008 at 3:28pm:

athos wrote on Nov 22nd, 2008 at 12:50pm: If we forget formal rhetoric and consider reality we can recognise the following top religions in the west and elsewhere: For example Catholic Church did it long time ago by introducing new dogma about Pope’s infallibility (sinless or Pope is a God) and so on. With this new dogma Catholic Church actually replaced God with the human being, at least as his representative on earth. Immediately after introducing the new dogma Jesuits had their new motto: “We don’t need Christ we have a Pope”. I think you need to research the doctrine of Papal infallibility. You are confusing infallibility, under strict conditions, on articles of faith (used only once since its proclamation in 1870) with impeccability. The Pope is not free or exempt from sin.

http://alcuinbramerton.blogspot.com/2005/11/my-name-is-god-and-these-are-my.html

tallowood wrote on Nov 24^th, 2008 at 6:12pm:

athos wrote on Nov 24th, 2008 at 4:59pm: Quote: Doesn't it feels uncomfortable to use something that is too big for you? Do we need to take an advantage of someone's modesty and honesty? Who is and what is the winner? And she said: "They have the best universities in the world, but they can’t figure out their ethics and morality, that’s why they go broke". Democracy is the winner in comparison to other systems. To throw names around without reason is false modesty. To refuse answer questions connected to those names is not honesty. Did she break her nail scratching her head?

He could not, but because you are so smart maybe you can answer those questions:

1.     Is your country a British colony?

If Australia is not British colony, how come British monarch can sack your prime minister?



2.      Do you have monarchy or democracy?
For example USA has democracy, and you?

You can not have monarchy and democracy at the same time, then this is a Hypocrisy.
To have a democracy, your head of state must be elected by people not by God.

Quote:

Is your country a British colony?

No.


Quote:

If Australia is not British colony, how come British monarch can sack your prime minister?

Because she is also the Australian monarch.


Quote:

Do you have monarchy or democracy?

Democracy, to the extent your question does not raise a false dichotomy.


Quote:

You can not have monarchy and democracy at the same time

Yes we can. We can have whatever we want. That is the beauty of democracy.


Quote:

then this is a Hypocrisy

It would be hypocritical to deny people the system they voted for.


Quote:

To have a democracy, your head of state must be elected by people not by God.

Wrong. Demcoracy requires that your leader or representative be elected. We could have a stone statue for a head of state and we would still be a democracy.

athos wrote on Nov 24^th, 2008 at 7:30pm:

tallowood wrote on Nov 24th, 2008 at 6:12pm: athos wrote on Nov 24th, 2008 at 4:59pm: Quote: Doesn't it feels uncomfortable to use something that is too big for you? Do we need to take an advantage of someone's modesty and honesty? Who is and what is the winner? And she said: "They have the best universities in the world, but they can’t figure out their ethics and morality, that’s why they go broke". Democracy is the winner in comparison to other systems. To throw names around without reason is false modesty. To refuse answer questions connected to those names is not honesty. Did she break her nail scratching her head? He could not, but because you are so smart maybe you can answer those questions: 1.     Is your country a British colony? If Australia is not British colony, how come British monarch can sack your prime minister? 2.      Do you have monarchy or democracy? For example USA has democracy, and you? You can not have monarchy and democracy at the same time, then this is a Hypocrisy. To have a democracy, your head of state must be elected by people not by God.

You haven't answer my questions yet. Do that and then I will answer more of yours.


Here they are together with my answers to your previous questions.

1 My country isn't British colony for quiet a while now
What about your country whose colony is it?

2 I have democracy albeit somewhat different from the USA model.
Do you have dictatorship like in USSR or like in China?

Extra penalty question: Are you Chinese made bot(you keep repeating yourself too often so you can't be Australian made bot)?

freediver wrote on Nov 24^th, 2008 at 7:40pm:

Quote: Is your country a British colony? No. [quote]If Australia is not British colony, how come British monarch can sack your prime minister?

Because she is also the Australian monarch.


Quote:

Do you have monarchy or democracy?

Democracy, to the extent your question does not raise a false dichotomy.


Quote:

You can not have monarchy and democracy at the same time

Yes we can. We can have whatever we want. That is the beauty of democracy.


Quote:

then this is a Hypocrisy

It would be hypocritical to deny people the system they voted for.


Quote:

To have a democracy, your head of state must be elected by people not by God.

Wrong. Demcoracy requires that your leader or representative be elected. We could have a stone statue for a head of state and we would still be a democracy.[/quote]

Well

“In the world of universal deceit everything is possible”

Sir please provide serious answers not false self consolation.

tallowood wrote on Nov 24^th, 2008 at 7:50pm:

athos wrote on Nov 24th, 2008 at 7:30pm: tallowood wrote on Nov 24th, 2008 at 6:12pm: athos wrote on Nov 24th, 2008 at 4:59pm: Quote: Doesn't it feels uncomfortable to use something that is too big for you? Do we need to take an advantage of someone's modesty and honesty? Who is and what is the winner? And she said: "They have the best universities in the world, but they can’t figure out their ethics and morality, that’s why they go broke". Democracy is the winner in comparison to other systems. To throw names around without reason is false modesty. To refuse answer questions connected to those names is not honesty. Did she break her nail scratching her head? He could not, but because you are so smart maybe you can answer those questions: 1.     Is your country a British colony? If Australia is not British colony, how come British monarch can sack your prime minister? 2.      Do you have monarchy or democracy? For example USA has democracy, and you? You can not have monarchy and democracy at the same time, then this is a Hypocrisy. To have a democracy, your head of state must be elected by people not by God. You haven't answer my questions yet. Do that and then I will answer more of yours. Here they are together with my answers to your previous questions. 1 My country isn't British colony for quiet a while now What about your country whose colony is it? 2 I have democracy albeit somewhat different from the USA model. Do you have dictatorship like in USSR or like in China? Extra penalty question: Are you Chinese made bot(you keep repeating yourself too often so you can't be Australian made bot)?

Also in accordance with great Pome Cronulla tradition, please be calm and control negative emotions.

athos wrote on Nov 24^th, 2008 at 8:19pm:

tallowood wrote on Nov 24th, 2008 at 7:50pm: athos wrote on Nov 24th, 2008 at 7:30pm: tallowood wrote on Nov 24th, 2008 at 6:12pm: athos wrote on Nov 24th, 2008 at 4:59pm: Quote: Doesn't it feels uncomfortable to use something that is too big for you? Do we need to take an advantage of someone's modesty and honesty? Who is and what is the winner? And she said: "They have the best universities in the world, but they can’t figure out their ethics and morality, that’s why they go broke". Democracy is the winner in comparison to other systems. To throw names around without reason is false modesty. To refuse answer questions connected to those names is not honesty. Did she break her nail scratching her head? He could not, but because you are so smart maybe you can answer those questions: 1.     Is your country a British colony? If Australia is not British colony, how come British monarch can sack your prime minister? 2.      Do you have monarchy or democracy? For example USA has democracy, and you? You can not have monarchy and democracy at the same time, then this is a Hypocrisy. To have a democracy, your head of state must be elected by people not by God. You haven't answer my questions yet. Do that and then I will answer more of yours. Here they are together with my answers to your previous questions. 1 My country isn't British colony for quiet a while now What about your country whose colony is it? 2 I have democracy albeit somewhat different from the USA model. Do you have dictatorship like in USSR or like in China? Extra penalty question: Are you Chinese made bot(you keep repeating yourself too often so you can't be Australian made bot)? Also in accordance with great Pome Cronulla tradition, please be calm and control negative emotions.

My emotions are always positive. How about yours? Do bots have emotions, artos?
Or is it the same as with answering questions, light on but nobody home?

tallowood wrote on Nov 24^th, 2008 at 8:27pm:

athos wrote on Nov 24th, 2008 at 8:19pm: tallowood wrote on Nov 24th, 2008 at 7:50pm: athos wrote on Nov 24th, 2008 at 7:30pm: tallowood wrote on Nov 24th, 2008 at 6:12pm: athos wrote on Nov 24th, 2008 at 4:59pm: Quote: Doesn't it feels uncomfortable to use something that is too big for you? Do we need to take an advantage of someone's modesty and honesty? Who is and what is the winner? And she said: "They have the best universities in the world, but they can’t figure out their ethics and morality, that’s why they go broke". Democracy is the winner in comparison to other systems. To throw names around without reason is false modesty. To refuse answer questions connected to those names is not honesty. Did she break her nail scratching her head? He could not, but because you are so smart maybe you can answer those questions: 1.     Is your country a British colony? If Australia is not British colony, how come British monarch can sack your prime minister? 2.      Do you have monarchy or democracy? For example USA has democracy, and you? You can not have monarchy and democracy at the same time, then this is a Hypocrisy. To have a democracy, your head of state must be elected by people not by God. You haven't answer my questions yet. Do that and then I will answer more of yours. Here they are together with my answers to your previous questions. 1 My country isn't British colony for quiet a while now What about your country whose colony is it? 2 I have democracy albeit somewhat different from the USA model. Do you have dictatorship like in USSR or like in China? Extra penalty question: Are you Chinese made bot(you keep repeating yourself too often so you can't be Australian made bot)? Also in accordance with great Pome Cronulla tradition, please be calm and control negative emotions. My emotions are always positive. How about yours? Do bots have emotions, artos? Or is it the same as with answering questions, light on but nobody home?

That’s OK. I hope you are right. All the best.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Nov 24^th, 2008 at 3:28pm:

athos wrote on Nov 22nd, 2008 at 12:50pm: If we forget formal rhetoric and consider reality we can recognise the following top religions in the west and elsewhere: For example Catholic Church did it long time ago by introducing new dogma about Pope’s infallibility (sinless or Pope is a God) and so on. With this new dogma Catholic Church actually replaced God with the human being, at least as his representative on earth. Immediately after introducing the new dogma Jesuits had their new motto: “We don’t need Christ we have a Pope”. I think you need to research the doctrine of Papal infallibility. You are confusing infallibility, under strict conditions, on articles of faith (used only once since its proclamation in 1870) with impeccability. The Pope is not free or exempt from sin.

i said this about 5 posts ago

athos wrote on Nov 24^th, 2008 at 6:59pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Nov 24th, 2008 at 3:28pm: athos wrote on Nov 22nd, 2008 at 12:50pm: If we forget formal rhetoric and consider reality we can recognise the following top religions in the west and elsewhere: For example Catholic Church did it long time ago by introducing new dogma about Pope’s infallibility (sinless or Pope is a God) and so on. With this new dogma Catholic Church actually replaced God with the human being, at least as his representative on earth. Immediately after introducing the new dogma Jesuits had their new motto: “We don’t need Christ we have a Pope”. I think you need to research the doctrine of Papal infallibility. You are confusing infallibility, under strict conditions, on articles of faith (used only once since its proclamation in 1870) with impeccability. The Pope is not free or exempt from sin. http://alcuinbramerton.blogspot.com/2005/11/my-name-is-god-and-these-are-my.html

why did you waste my time on that?

athos wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2008 at 12:50pm:

For example Catholic Church did it long time ago by introducing new dogma about Pope’s infallibility (sinless or Pope is a God) and so on. With this new dogma Catholic Church actually replaced God with the human being, at least as his representative on earth. Immediately after introducing the new dogma Jesuits had their new motto: “We don’t need Christ we have a Pope”.

i said this about 5 posts ago[/quote]

Pope Caught Orchestrating Church Pedophile Cover Up

http://bsalert.com/news/1418/Pope_Ca..._Cover_Up.html

A BBC documentary has exposed that Pope Benedict XVI, aka Cardinal Ratzinger, played a leading role in a systematic cover-up of child sex abuse by Roman Catholic priests.

In 2001, while he was a cardinal, he issued a secret Vatican edict to Catholic bishops all over the world, instructing them to put the Church's interests ahead of child safety.

The document recommended that rather than reporting sexual abuse to the relevant legal authorities, bishops should encourage the victim, witnesses and perpetrator not to talk about it. And, to keep victims quiet, it threatened that if they repeat the allegations they would be excommunicated.

A secret document which sets out a procedure for dealing with child sex abuse scandals within the Catholic Church is examined by BBC documentary show Panorama.

Crimen Sollicitationis was enforced for 20 years by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger before he became the Pope.

It instructs bishops on how to deal with allegations of child abuse against priests and has been seen by few outsiders.

Critics say the document has been used to evade prosecution for sex crimes.

Crimen Sollicitationis was written in 1962 in Latin and given to Catholic bishops worldwide who are ordered to keep it locked away in the church safe.

It instructs them how to deal with priests who solicit sex from the confessional. It also deals with "any obscene external act ... with youths of either sex."

It imposes an oath of secrecy on the child victim, the priest dealing with the allegation and any witnesses.

Breaking that oath means excommunication from the Catholic Church.

Reporting for Panorama, Colm O'Gorman finds seven priests with child abuse allegations made against them living in and around the Vatican City.

One of the priests, Father Joseph Henn, has been indicted on 13 molestation charges brought by a grand jury in the United States.

During filming for Sex Crimes and the Vatican, Colm finds Father Henn is fighting extradition orders from inside the headquarters of this religious order in the Vatican.

The Vatican has not compelled him to return to America to face the charges against him.

After filming, Father Henn lost his fight against extradition but fled the headquarters and is believed to be hiding in Italy while there is an international warrant for his arrest.

Colm O'Gorman was raped by a Catholic priest in the diocese of Ferns in County Wexford in Ireland when he was 14 years old.

Father Fortune was charged with 66 counts of sexual, indecent assault and another serious sexual offence relating to eight boys but he committed suicide on the eve of his trial.

Colm started an investigation with the BBC in March 2002 which led to the resignation of Dr Brendan Comiskey, the bishop leading the Ferns Diocese.

Colm then pushed for a government inquiry which led to the Ferns Report.

It was published in October 2005 and found: "A culture of secrecy and fear of scandal that led bishops to place the interests of the Catholic Church ahead of the safety of children."

The Catholic Church has 50 million children in its worldwide congregation and no universal child protection policy although in the UK there is the Catholic Office for the Protection of Children & Vulnerable Adults.

In some countries this means that the Crimen Sollicitationis is the only policy followed.

The Vatican has refused repeated requests from Panorama to respond to any of the cases shown in the film.

Watch Sex Crimes and the Vatican http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programme...ma/5402928.stm

That sounds just like that south park episode.

athos wrote on Nov 27^th, 2008 at 10:42am:

athos wrote on Nov 22nd, 2008 at 12:50pm: For example Catholic Church did it long time ago by introducing new dogma about Pope’s infallibility (sinless or Pope is a God) and so on. With this new dogma Catholic Church actually replaced God with the human being, at least as his representative on earth. Immediately after introducing the new dogma Jesuits had their new motto: “We don’t need Christ we have a Pope”. i said this about 5 posts ago Pope Caught Orchestrating Church Pedophile Cover Up http://bsalert.com/news/1418/Pope_Ca..._Cover_Up.html A BBC documentary has exposed that Pope Benedict XVI, aka Cardinal Ratzinger, played a leading role in a systematic cover-up of child sex abuse by Roman Catholic priests. In 2001, while he was a cardinal, he issued a secret Vatican edict to Catholic bishops all over the world, instructing them to put the Church's interests ahead of child safety. The document recommended that rather than reporting sexual abuse to the relevant legal authorities, bishops should encourage the victim, witnesses and perpetrator not to talk about it. And, to keep victims quiet, it threatened that if they repeat the allegations they would be excommunicated. A secret document which sets out a procedure for dealing with child sex abuse scandals within the Catholic Church is examined by BBC documentary show Panorama. Crimen Sollicitationis was enforced for 20 years by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger before he became the Pope. It instructs bishops on how to deal with allegations of child abuse against priests and has been seen by few outsiders. Critics say the document has been used to evade prosecution for sex crimes. Crimen Sollicitationis was written in 1962 in Latin and given to Catholic bishops worldwide who are ordered to keep it locked away in the church safe. It instructs them how to deal with priests who solicit sex from the confessional. It also deals with "any obscene external act ... with youths of either sex." It imposes an oath of secrecy on the child victim, the priest dealing with the allegation and any witnesses. Breaking that oath means excommunication from the Catholic Church. Reporting for Panorama, Colm O'Gorman finds seven priests with child abuse allegations made against them living in and around the Vatican City. One of the priests, Father Joseph Henn, has been indicted on 13 molestation charges brought by a grand jury in the United States. During filming for Sex Crimes and the Vatican, Colm finds Father Henn is fighting extradition orders from inside the headquarters of this religious order in the Vatican. The Vatican has not compelled him to return to America to face the charges against him. After filming, Father Henn lost his fight against extradition but fled the headquarters and is believed to be hiding in Italy while there is an international warrant for his arrest. Colm O'Gorman was raped by a Catholic priest in the diocese of Ferns in County Wexford in Ireland when he was 14 years old. Father Fortune was charged with 66 counts of sexual, indecent assault and another serious sexual offence relating to eight boys but he committed suicide on the eve of his trial. Colm started an investigation with the BBC in March 2002 which led to the resignation of Dr Brendan Comiskey, the bishop leading the Ferns Diocese. Colm then pushed for a government inquiry which led to the Ferns Report. It was published in October 2005 and found: "A culture of secrecy and fear of scandal that led bishops to place the interests of the Catholic Church ahead of the safety of children." The Catholic Church has 50 million children in its worldwide congregation and no universal child protection policy although in the UK there is the Catholic Office for the Protection of Children & Vulnerable Adults. In some countries this means that the Crimen Sollicitationis is the only policy followed. The Vatican has refused repeated requests from Panorama to respond to any of the cases shown in the film. Watch Sex Crimes and the Vatican http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programme...ma/5402928.stm

Another idiot conspiracy theorist.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Nov 27^th, 2008 at 10:50am:

athos wrote on Nov 27th, 2008 at 10:42am: athos wrote on Nov 22nd, 2008 at 12:50pm: For example Catholic Church did it long time ago by introducing new dogma about Pope’s infallibility (sinless or Pope is a God) and so on. With this new dogma Catholic Church actually replaced God with the human being, at least as his representative on earth. Immediately after introducing the new dogma Jesuits had their new motto: “We don’t need Christ we have a Pope”. i said this about 5 posts ago Pope Caught Orchestrating Church Pedophile Cover Up http://bsalert.com/news/1418/Pope_Ca..._Cover_Up.html A BBC documentary has exposed that Pope Benedict XVI, aka Cardinal Ratzinger, played a leading role in a systematic cover-up of child sex abuse by Roman Catholic priests. In 2001, while he was a cardinal, he issued a secret Vatican edict to Catholic bishops all over the world, instructing them to put the Church's interests ahead of child safety. The document recommended that rather than reporting sexual abuse to the relevant legal authorities, bishops should encourage the victim, witnesses and perpetrator not to talk about it. And, to keep victims quiet, it threatened that if they repeat the allegations they would be excommunicated. A secret document which sets out a procedure for dealing with child sex abuse scandals within the Catholic Church is examined by BBC documentary show Panorama. Crimen Sollicitationis was enforced for 20 years by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger before he became the Pope. It instructs bishops on how to deal with allegations of child abuse against priests and has been seen by few outsiders. Critics say the document has been used to evade prosecution for sex crimes. Crimen Sollicitationis was written in 1962 in Latin and given to Catholic bishops worldwide who are ordered to keep it locked away in the church safe. It instructs them how to deal with priests who solicit sex from the confessional. It also deals with "any obscene external act ... with youths of either sex." It imposes an oath of secrecy on the child victim, the priest dealing with the allegation and any witnesses. Breaking that oath means excommunication from the Catholic Church. Reporting for Panorama, Colm O'Gorman finds seven priests with child abuse allegations made against them living in and around the Vatican City. One of the priests, Father Joseph Henn, has been indicted on 13 molestation charges brought by a grand jury in the United States. During filming for Sex Crimes and the Vatican, Colm finds Father Henn is fighting extradition orders from inside the headquarters of this religious order in the Vatican. The Vatican has not compelled him to return to America to face the charges against him. After filming, Father Henn lost his fight against extradition but fled the headquarters and is believed to be hiding in Italy while there is an international warrant for his arrest. Colm O'Gorman was raped by a Catholic priest in the diocese of Ferns in County Wexford in Ireland when he was 14 years old. Father Fortune was charged with 66 counts of sexual, indecent assault and another serious sexual offence relating to eight boys but he committed suicide on the eve of his trial. Colm started an investigation with the BBC in March 2002 which led to the resignation of Dr Brendan Comiskey, the bishop leading the Ferns Diocese. Colm then pushed for a government inquiry which led to the Ferns Report. It was published in October 2005 and found: "A culture of secrecy and fear of scandal that led bishops to place the interests of the Catholic Church ahead of the safety of children." The Catholic Church has 50 million children in its worldwide congregation and no universal child protection policy although in the UK there is the Catholic Office for the Protection of Children & Vulnerable Adults. In some countries this means that the Crimen Sollicitationis is the only policy followed. The Vatican has refused repeated requests from Panorama to respond to any of the cases shown in the film. Watch Sex Crimes and the Vatican http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programme...ma/5402928.stm Another idiot conspiracy theorist.

Once Jean Paul Sartre said:
"In the world of universal deceit telling the truth is a revolutionary act"

athos wrote on Nov 27^th, 2008 at 10:59am:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Nov 27th, 2008 at 10:50am: athos wrote on Nov 27th, 2008 at 10:42am: athos wrote on Nov 22nd, 2008 at 12:50pm: For example Catholic Church did it long time ago by introducing new dogma about Pope’s infallibility (sinless or Pope is a God) and so on. With this new dogma Catholic Church actually replaced God with the human being, at least as his representative on earth. Immediately after introducing the new dogma Jesuits had their new motto: “We don’t need Christ we have a Pope”. i said this about 5 posts ago Pope Caught Orchestrating Church Pedophile Cover Up http://bsalert.com/news/1418/Pope_Ca..._Cover_Up.html A BBC documentary has exposed that Pope Benedict XVI, aka Cardinal Ratzinger, played a leading role in a systematic cover-up of child sex abuse by Roman Catholic priests. In 2001, while he was a cardinal, he issued a secret Vatican edict to Catholic bishops all over the world, instructing them to put the Church's interests ahead of child safety. The document recommended that rather than reporting sexual abuse to the relevant legal authorities, bishops should encourage the victim, witnesses and perpetrator not to talk about it. And, to keep victims quiet, it threatened that if they repeat the allegations they would be excommunicated. A secret document which sets out a procedure for dealing with child sex abuse scandals within the Catholic Church is examined by BBC documentary show Panorama. Crimen Sollicitationis was enforced for 20 years by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger before he became the Pope. It instructs bishops on how to deal with allegations of child abuse against priests and has been seen by few outsiders. Critics say the document has been used to evade prosecution for sex crimes. Crimen Sollicitationis was written in 1962 in Latin and given to Catholic bishops worldwide who are ordered to keep it locked away in the church safe. It instructs them how to deal with priests who solicit sex from the confessional. It also deals with "any obscene external act ... with youths of either sex." It imposes an oath of secrecy on the child victim, the priest dealing with the allegation and any witnesses. Breaking that oath means excommunication from the Catholic Church. Reporting for Panorama, Colm O'Gorman finds seven priests with child abuse allegations made against them living in and around the Vatican City. One of the priests, Father Joseph Henn, has been indicted on 13 molestation charges brought by a grand jury in the United States. During filming for Sex Crimes and the Vatican, Colm finds Father Henn is fighting extradition orders from inside the headquarters of this religious order in the Vatican. The Vatican has not compelled him to return to America to face the charges against him. After filming, Father Henn lost his fight against extradition but fled the headquarters and is believed to be hiding in Italy while there is an international warrant for his arrest. Colm O'Gorman was raped by a Catholic priest in the diocese of Ferns in County Wexford in Ireland when he was 14 years old. Father Fortune was charged with 66 counts of sexual, indecent assault and another serious sexual offence relating to eight boys but he committed suicide on the eve of his trial. Colm started an investigation with the BBC in March 2002 which led to the resignation of Dr Brendan Comiskey, the bishop leading the Ferns Diocese. Colm then pushed for a government inquiry which led to the Ferns Report. It was published in October 2005 and found: "A culture of secrecy and fear of scandal that led bishops to place the interests of the Catholic Church ahead of the safety of children." The Catholic Church has 50 million children in its worldwide congregation and no universal child protection policy although in the UK there is the Catholic Office for the Protection of Children & Vulnerable Adults. In some countries this means that the Crimen Sollicitationis is the only policy followed. The Vatican has refused repeated requests from Panorama to respond to any of the cases shown in the film. Watch Sex Crimes and the Vatican http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programme...ma/5402928.stm Another idiot conspiracy theorist. Once Jean Paul Sartre said: "In the world of universal deceit telling the truth is a revolutionary act"

QED