Insenstive Newspaper

[pantsandsocks]

I think whatever your faith or belief the pope was a man to be admired. As mentioned earlier he did a lot of good for people' date=' and devoted his whole life to others. To say the news of eastenders 'stars' getting their ends away is as important as the death of one of the most worthy men on this planet is utter stupidity.[/quote']

The pope neever apologised on behalf of all those cunts of preists who fucked little kids. So really, he's can't be all that great.

[Hog]

For a change Im not wanting to start an arguement.

Just want to convey a few points.

The pope in my view did good work and bad work. The situation in Africa regarding contraception really annoys me. A large number of HIV sufferers wouldnt have HIV if they were educated. To tell them that condoms are evil and ineffective is wrong. Out of interest, does anyone here agree that condoms are evil? In that sense, I agree with Bob 8o

The Pope did do good work too. He was well respected so to lots of people, his death means a lot. To me, it means nothing, he was a hypocrite who while doing good, also had views that dont transpond very well in the 21st century.

[Mr. Tristen]

To those that 'don't give a shit'...

At the end of the day he gets the last laugh. If you die tomorrow your family and friends will weep at your funeral, then visit your grave on the aniversary for a few years to come then you will simply become yet another lost tomestone in a yard of faceless names, meaning nothing to history or anyone living in it. Your death will most probably have no implications on the world what so ever, and neither will you entire lifes work.

In short, atleast his death means something to almost everyone, wether they are sad or happy or just annoyed because they don't care and are fed up of everyone going on about it, chances are yours will mean very little...

[/morbid mode]

[Skull Commander]

The pope neever apologised on behalf of all those cunts of preists who fucked little kids. So really' date=' he's can't be all that great.[/quote']

I can see what you are saying, but if you were the head of an organisation, and an employee of yours, that you had never met, abused a child, would you apologise on behalf of him?? I wouldn't.

[Monk Rocker]

I was under the impression that the folk that frequent this forum were supposed to be open minded and tolerant. I've heard only narrowmindedness, predjudice, and shameful mockery on here of late. Most of you deserve to be beaten to pulp.

[Mr. Tristen]

I can see what you are saying' date=' but if you were the head of an organisation, and an employee of yours, that you had never met, abused a child, would you apologise on behalf of him?? I wouldn't.[/quote']

Ditto.

The Primeminister doesn't appologise when a british tourist is arrested abroad.

Bill Gates doesn't appologise if a microsoft tech support staff member is rude.

Persides, you have to remember, the molesting was NOT part of the church. If you work for ASDA, they don't have to appologise to the world if you're arrested for child molesting, neither does B&Q, Microsoft, hell even the ministry of defence, why should the church?

[framheim]

i think what a few of us have been trying to say is not that you have to like or agree with the guy but just that you try and show some respect for him and those billions that do want to hear about his passing and reflect on it. rather than argue about whether he was good or bad, it doesn't matter now does it?

[The Milner]

HAHA

How many of us here are Catholics? And out of that number' date=' how many of us visit church on a regular basis? And out of that tiny minority, how many of us actually took 2 seconds to think about how [i']great the Pope was when he was still alive?

Not many? No?

Just because somebody dies doesn't mean to say we should like them any more than when they were still alive.

Make sense? Or are too many people just scared of the voodoo surrounding the death of God's Chosen One?

Kay, I know that likely made no sense, but..

best post in this thread by a mile.

why should i care about something i have absolutley no belief in?

[Laxton's Superb]

do you care about the persecution of Jews in World War two? or is that just incidental considering you aint Jewish?

[The Milner]

do you care about the persecution of Jews in World War two? or is that just incidental considering you aint Jewish?

purely incidental.

[Camie]

best post in this thread by a mile.

why should i care about something i have absolutley no belief in?

yeh, but if you read dave_m_ll's post you would realise that there is a lot of stuff he has done for people for example he gave hope for a lot of Eastern countries under communist regimes.

People's respect for him goes beyond religion.

[Paranoid Android]

he also gave hope to alot of fascists whose regimes had crumbled

[Laxton's Superb]

purely incidental.

hmm..incidental is an awfully big word for you to have grasped....word a day calendar?

[The Milner]

hmm..incidental is an awfully big word for you to have grasped....word a day calendar?

no no word a week, it takes me a while sometimes.

[The Milner]

yeh' date=' but if you read dave_m_ll's post you would realise that there is a lot of stuff he has done for people for example he gave hope for a lot of Eastern countries under communist regimes.

People's respect for him goes beyond religion.[/quote']

yeah but if you read bobs post then you can see where im coming from no?

[Guest Scorge Spike]

Good god, has no-one learned that you never pay attention to newspapers, ever?

(Except the jobs in the Friday P&J, that is.)

[SensesWorkingOverTime]

yeah but if you read bobs post then you can see where im coming from no?

In My Opinion, Bob's post was the typical knee-jerk reaction of Athiests that love the fact they are Athiests and want to show off how little religion means to them.

[Guest Bob]

He studied for the priesthood during the era of Nazi occupation of Poland' date=' when such actions were punishable by internment in concentration camps.[/quote']

Lots of people did lots of things during Nazi occupation that were punishable by internment in concentration camps. Like studying to be a Priest (according to you) living in a caravan, being Jewish, gay or ginger. Luckily, after Nazi occupation the torch of anti-homosexuality was carried on by the Catholic Church and Mr John Paul II himself. My hero!

He continued to preach during the Soviet occupation' date=' when religious gatherings were condemned and those organising and attending them risked imprisonment and death for proclaiming God's law over that of the Soviets. Later, as Pope, he was instrumental in stimulating revolution in Poland and other Eastern Bloc countries.[/quote']

So he carried on doing what he'd always been doing during Soviet rule, and then helped out his "homies" later on? Wow! Good on him though.

Secondly' date=' he was a unique figure in the history of the Roman Catholic church, making more pilgrimages and visits to countries than any other Pope in history, often to places that would have been too politically sensitive for his predecessors to contemplate.[/quote']

Of course, living in an age where transport is now easier, quicker and more comfortable than ever has nothing to do with it...

His influence was felt way beyond the bounds of his church in a way that no Pontiff before or after could imagine. The dialogue between faiths he initiated and the progress he made towards reconciling the world's religions was unprecedented.

And people joined hands and sang together' date=' creating an unbroken human link that stretched over the land and seas, making one giant hug of the world. Pish! What fairytale world do you live in? The world's religions will never be reconciled because they were never "conciled" in the first place.

Thirdly, the contraception issue; the Pope did more to raise awareness of the plight of the developing world than any other human who has ever lived. Bob Geldof's efforts look like a weekend helping out in Oxfam in comparison. In order to do this, he had to maintain the support of the church in those countries worst affected. The church in Africa and South America tends to be more evangelical and conservative in attitude and nature than in the west. Hence the Pope's reluctance to enforce doctrinally suspect dogma on the leaders of the church in those areas for fear of schism.

There's not point raising awareness of the plight of the developing world when you're creating part of the problem.

Billy: Hey look, those people over there are on fire!

Tom: Holy fuck, how did that happen?

Billy: I did it. Now fetch a pail of water.

Tom: Oh, erm... okay, but what are you going to do?

Billy: Don't look at me, I've still got a second can of petrol to douse on them!

Undoubtedly' date=' he had personal, conservative views on the subject of contraception and abortion, but can anyone find me biblical justification for these practices? The Pope may interpret God's law, but he cannot overrule.[/quote']

This is where your whole argument really falls apart. The Bible has no specific teachings on contraception. So the rules about contraception were invented by men and enforced by the men of the Catholic Church. For all we know God could disapprove of the Internet, but strangely, the Internet doesn't feature heavily the Bible... nor do condoms or any modern methods of contraception. (In fact, I don't think contraception is mentioned at all)

Use some common sense.

All I'm saying is' date=' he was just one man, he did a lot of good for the world, and he really had no room to manouver over the the word of God. Show some respect[/quote']

He had no room to manouver to a position of fairness and enlightenment over the word of a God that he worshipped? Maybe he should've worshipped a different god, if you're saying it's God that's the bigot.

At the end of the day he gets the last laugh.

I'm sure he's laughing right now.

[feeble!]

Sunday 3rd April 2005 (3 days after Pope's demise)

I was in the Thainstone Market on Sunday and couldn't help but notice the overflowing amount of eulogies offered by all the national newspapers on the death of the Pope. It was almost touching!

Until I saw the headline on one specific paper...

It read

"I was roasted by TWO Eastenders Stars" - No prizes in guessing the paper.

(not birdman)

What's the problem if a paper decides it doesn't want to have the pope's death on its front page for another day? I mean, come on - there's only so much you can really report on someone dying before it gets repetetive and the writing starts going around in circles. What new news do you think there could possibly be?

"POPE IS STILL DEAD" ?

Do you not get bored? If you read the papers in the 2 days after his death, you'd really get all the information you need - the guy died, he's not coming back, new pope coming soon.

[Guest AmbientMood]

Bob, you are criticising the whole catholic faith, which is irrelevant when really, you were only ever bitched at for showing bad taste and disrespect towards the death of a good human being.

Why should you care that he's dead? You don't have to as it doesn't affect you (other than spoiling your goddam paper), but show some respect for the dead please.

[Guest AmbientMood]

What's the problem if a paper decides it doesn't want to have the pope's death on its front page for another day? I mean' date=' come on - there's only so much you can really report on someone dying before it gets repetetive and the writing starts going around in circles. What new news do you think there could possibly be?

"POPE IS STILL DEAD" ?

Do you not get bored? If you read the papers in the 2 days after his death, you'd really get all the information you need - the guy died, he's not coming back, new pope coming soon.[/quote']

To be honest I think he was just showing the magnitude of contrast between the two events, which is in fact quite ridiculous. I personally would rather read about an article of worldwide interest than some bullshit tabloid in need of prioritization.

But hey, if you're the kind of guy who always turns to page three first..

[feeble!]

To be honest I think he was just showing the magnitude of contrast between the two events' date=' which is in fact quite ridiculous. I personally would rather read about an article of worldwide interest than some bullshit tabloid in need of prioritization.

But hey, if you're the kind of guy who always turns to page three first.. [/quote']

I'd rather read an article of worldwide importance, but I'd really only rather read it once. Any other variation of article on the exact same event will bore me. What I'm saying is it's hardly insensitive of a paper to do something different, however trashy, than just blandly report and re-report the same news over and over and over again. How tiresome! Is it really necessary for every newspaper in the country to make the now deceased pope headline news until everyone is satisfied a "decent" amount of time has passed so that they can start doing other things with their column space?

And nah, I'm not a big buyer of newspapers - I usually just skim read them at work, if anything really catches my eye and interests me then I might buy it but other than that I'd rather save my money

[Guest AmbientMood]

save my money

And buy a Snickers?

[feeble!]

And buy a Snickers?

Oh you're damn right - a snickers bar is like a meal in itself!

[Birdman]

What new news do you think there could possibly be?

Hey, not me. I really created this thread for a laugh because it just seemed so totally out-of-touch with all the mourning at the time for a newspaper to report on something so obscenely provocative.

Personally, I thought it was hilarious.

(Not Birdman)

p.s Just my opinion though. Don't stop the thread just because the creator isn't entirely what you guys all originally thought. Its been good up to now!