Super Hans Posted December 23, 2008 Share Posted December 23, 2008 ---The war in Ireland has raised it's head. While not the topic under discussion, and please do try not to go down the path or arguing about the many wrongs of the war and or the attrocities committed on both sides of the conflict. It does however provide an good example of how a very long standing conflict can be brought to an end by negotiation and discussions between 'enemies'. - It was 'Peace Talks' that brought an end to the conflict, not guns, bombs or violence. Though a very good case can be made that it was an attack on the UK's Financial Center that forced the hand of the British into Peace Talks, it was nevertheless the willingness of leaders on both sides of the conflict to engage each other over the peace talks table that brought an end to a conflict which was damaging to both sides. Those peace talks where also an example of where excluding certain language enabled the discussion to take place. The conflict is over, and we now have a Peace Dividend that goes beyond the economic bernefits, the removal of 'emergency laws' restricting civil liberties and the twisting of the legal system to support an untenable position. I like many here I am sure, work with Irish people as colleagues on an equal footing, the war in Ireland is passed, it is not an issue. dam_n right it's not an issue - the English are a stoic lot - we'll not bleat about it for 700 years. No, we'll just continue getting on with things until the world is a better place, just like we always do. One need not go back to the 60s for this kind of thing. A pub less than five miles from where I am now had a sign in the door stating 'No Gypsies' as recently as the late 80s. The door has been replaced by a plywood board and the sign by one stating 'For Sale or Lease', they perhaps could not find enough non Gypsie customers. Oh please. Just about every single person on the planet is discriminated against on a daily basis. The Groucho Club refused me entrance again last night as I was wearing trainers. The bastards. Ok, I've been hooked back in to this thread but only because you've mentioned my favourite source of quotes. as Groucho himself would say, "Please accept my resignation. I don't care to belong to any club that will have me as a member." And one other final point - the 160,000 responses from Google keeps coming back, so I decided to put this in context by doing a couple of searches of my own - just for fun. Here are the results: Can a fish play the piano - 263,000 replies in 0.19 seconds Are turnips better than carrots - 104,000 replies in 0.32 seconds Is Garro a root vegetable - 396 replies in 0.15 seconds No offence is intended to fish, Garro or root vegetables - remember its just for fun Ok, I'll now disappear back into the night - where no doubt some of you would suggest I belong Merry Christmas to all - whatever your view on this topic. I've a question for the PC brigade. Can someone point me in the direction of someone with impeccable PC credentials who is funny? I've yet to meet one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted December 23, 2008 Share Posted December 23, 2008 I've a question for the PC brigade. Can someone point me in the direction of someone with impeccable PC credentials who is funny? I've yet to meet one. plenty of them here .... they're just unwittingly funny Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garro Posted December 23, 2008 Share Posted December 23, 2008 (edited) You still have not explained how you managed to be a rabid pc'er in your youth and yet bullying the PC crowd as well. Hard to imagine. Did you beat yourself up? What are you twittering on about now? It's not a hard concept to grasp, is it? When I saw the necessity for being PC, I was. Now I don't see the necessity, I'm not. What an utter cop out over your refusal to answer the fighting Hitler question. I'll pose it again, shall I? Would you, as a citizen of a neutral country, join a world war against fascism? Do you have <deleted>, man? Again this is an impossible question to answer. I could provide a glib answer, but what would be the point. It is sort of the silly comments you hear like; if someone tried to do this, I would do that. It has been my experience that we only know how we will react in a situation when we are in it. I was not alive during the time of Hitler. I am also fairly certain that most people had no idea just how bad he was until after the war. Edited December 23, 2008 by garro Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses G. Posted December 23, 2008 Share Posted December 23, 2008 I am shocked at the quality of work she provides - she lacks basic numeracy and literacy skills for starters, and her judgment is poor. I also discover she's 120 hours down on her flexi clock - she claims she doesn't understand the need to clock on for 37 hours a week. I like her as a person and we are good friends, but I could not in all conscience recommend her for a permanent position. Why did you discriminate against that nice Chinese girl? The white man has been abusing the ethnic minorities since the beginning of time. So what if she did not posses the most basic of job skills? Just think what happened to her family at Nagasaki. However, another person of color that couldn't do the job right might have deserved it more. It depends on what the white man did to them in the past Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garro Posted December 23, 2008 Share Posted December 23, 2008 Back to your rabid PC days SuperHans. I'll make it easy for you shall I. Did you say the following; We used to bully these people in the playground, for good reason too. What happy days. Did you also say; As for my background, rabid PCer until I started as an economist with the Home Office in 1994 Do you understand why I'm confused by your posts SuperHans. Can you explain? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ijustwannateach Posted December 23, 2008 Share Posted December 23, 2008 ^^UG, Nagasaki is in Japan, though there were probably some Chinese there. Did you mean Nanjing? That's where the Japanese who thought Chinese were racially inferior were having a big party. Not PC, no, not them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Hans Posted December 23, 2008 Share Posted December 23, 2008 Back to your rabid PC days SuperHans. I'll make it easy for you shall I.Did you say the following; We used to bully these people in the playground, for good reason too. What happy days. Did you also say; As for my background, rabid PCer until I started as an economist with the Home Office in 1994 Do you understand why I'm confused by your posts SuperHans. No. Were you bullied at school, Garro? Is this why you feel the need to enact some form of revenge on the internet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garro Posted December 23, 2008 Share Posted December 23, 2008 Back to your rabid PC days SuperHans. I'll make it easy for you shall I.Did you say the following; We used to bully these people in the playground, for good reason too. What happy days. Did you also say; As for my background, rabid PCer until I started as an economist with the Home Office in 1994 Do you understand why I'm confused by your posts SuperHans. No. Were you bullied at school, Garro? Is this why you feel the need to enact some form of revenge on the internet? Is that what you think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses G. Posted December 23, 2008 Share Posted December 23, 2008 Ijustwannateach Posted Today, 2008-12-23 19:43:42 ^^UG, Nagasaki is in Japan, though there were probably some Chinese there. Did you mean Nanjing? That's where the Japanese who thought Chinese were racially inferior were having a big party. Not PC, no, not them. I know that. That was my imitation of your average politically correct poster. Notice the crazy-eyes icon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Hans Posted December 23, 2008 Share Posted December 23, 2008 I am shocked at the quality of work she provides - she lacks basic numeracy and literacy skills for starters, and her judgment is poor. I also discover she's 120 hours down on her flexi clock - she claims she doesn't understand the need to clock on for 37 hours a week. I like her as a person and we are good friends, but I could not in all conscience recommend her for a permanent position. Why did you discriminate against that nice Chinese girl? The white man has been abusing the ethnic minorities since the beginning of time. So what if she did not posses the most basic of job skills? Just think what happened to her family at Nagasaki. However, another person of color that couldn't do the job right might have deserved it more. It depends on what the white man did to them in the past To clarify, here in the UK, asians are generally of Pakistani/Bangladeshi descent, or Indian in this case. I believe north americans would say Southern Asians? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses G. Posted December 23, 2008 Share Posted December 23, 2008 I don't think that I am allowed to post what most people would call them. It is not PC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Hans Posted December 23, 2008 Share Posted December 23, 2008 Back to your rabid PC days SuperHans. I'll make it easy for you shall I.Did you say the following; We used to bully these people in the playground, for good reason too. What happy days. Did you also say; As for my background, rabid PCer until I started as an economist with the Home Office in 1994 Do you understand why I'm confused by your posts SuperHans. No. Were you bullied at school, Garro? Is this why you feel the need to enact some form of revenge on the internet? Is that what you think? Of course. Isn't the uberPC brigade really just a coalition of bedwetters? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garro Posted December 23, 2008 Share Posted December 23, 2008 Back to your rabid PC days SuperHans. I'll make it easy for you shall I.Did you say the following; We used to bully these people in the playground, for good reason too. What happy days. Did you also say; As for my background, rabid PCer until I started as an economist with the Home Office in 1994 Do you understand why I'm confused by your posts SuperHans. No. Were you bullied at school, Garro? Is this why you feel the need to enact some form of revenge on the internet? Is that what you think? Of course. Isn't the uberPC brigade really just a coalition of bedwetters? I'm not sure. Did you wet the bed up until you joined the home office in 1994? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F1fanatic Posted December 23, 2008 Share Posted December 23, 2008 ---The war in Ireland has raised it's head. While not the topic under discussion, and please do try not to go down the path or arguing about the many wrongs of the war and or the attrocities committed on both sides of the conflict. It does however provide an good example of how a very long standing conflict can be brought to an end by negotiation and discussions between 'enemies'. - It was 'Peace Talks' that brought an end to the conflict, not guns, bombs or violence. Though a very good case can be made that it was an attack on the UK's Financial Center that forced the hand of the British into Peace Talks, it was nevertheless the willingness of leaders on both sides of the conflict to engage each other over the peace talks table that brought an end to a conflict which was damaging to both sides. Those peace talks where also an example of where excluding certain language enabled the discussion to take place. The conflict is over, and we now have a Peace Dividend that goes beyond the economic bernefits, the removal of 'emergency laws' restricting civil liberties and the twisting of the legal system to support an untenable position. I like many here I am sure, work with Irish people as colleagues on an equal footing, the war in Ireland is passed, it is not an issue. dam_n right it's not an issue - the English are a stoic lot - we'll not bleat about it for 700 years. No, we'll just continue getting on with things until the world is a better place, just like we always do. One need not go back to the 60s for this kind of thing. A pub less than five miles from where I am now had a sign in the door stating 'No Gypsies' as recently as the late 80s. The door has been replaced by a plywood board and the sign by one stating 'For Sale or Lease', they perhaps could not find enough non Gypsie customers. Oh please. Just about every single person on the planet is discriminated against on a daily basis. The Groucho Club refused me entrance again last night as I was wearing trainers. The bastards. Ok, I've been hooked back in to this thread but only because you've mentioned my favourite source of quotes. as Groucho himself would say, "Please accept my resignation. I don't care to belong to any club that will have me as a member." And one other final point - the 160,000 responses from Google keeps coming back, so I decided to put this in context by doing a couple of searches of my own - just for fun. Here are the results: Can a fish play the piano - 263,000 replies in 0.19 seconds Are turnips better than carrots - 104,000 replies in 0.32 seconds Is Garro a root vegetable - 396 replies in 0.15 seconds No offence is intended to fish, Garro or root vegetables - remember its just for fun Ok, I'll now disappear back into the night - where no doubt some of you would suggest I belong Merry Christmas to all - whatever your view on this topic. I've a question for the PC brigade. Can someone point me in the direction of someone with impeccable PC credentials who is funny? I've yet to meet one. Ben Elton? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MiG16 Posted December 23, 2008 Share Posted December 23, 2008 alright people..... calm down. else I will have to give out sedatives. any more off topic, personal attacks against anyone, and not only will I be giving out warnings, but will also have to close this thread. your choice: want to carry on discussion? be civil done with discussion? or find it impossible to have differing views without getting nasty? I shall oblige. the choice is yours Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rgs2001uk Posted December 23, 2008 Share Posted December 23, 2008 I'll respond on one point, however. Google turns up 160,000 anonymous discussions on muslim integration. I think you'll find there is not a lot of anonymity when many of the discussions carry the title of the people/organistions discussing the issue. The 'Black and White' issue here, is 'Black and White' evidence of discussion that you deny is taking place, is once more denied. Putting asside the Golly <deleted>, have you one single case where you can demonstrate Political Correctness is causing the ills which you attribute to it? You have told us of your many years on the civil service, and you mentioned Shysters, Snake Oil Salesmen and men in Shiney Suits but you have not given us a single example of how Political Correctness stopped you from doing your job as a Civil Servant. Not withstanding anything you are not allowed to talk about under the OSA, is there any example you can give us? OSA? That's not stopped me so far! Ok, here's the scenario I was faced with a few years ago. There is a recruitment exercise for low level admin staff. I have a second/third generation asian girl working for me as a casual. I'm her boss, but she does actual work for someone else - a PC thug as it happens - so I don't really see much of her day to day output. Girl applies for job, then does some work for me whilst PC thug is on holiday. I am shocked at the quality of work she provides - she lacks basic numeracy and literacy skills for starters, and her judgment is poor. I also discover she's 120 hours down on her flexi clock - she claims she doesn't understand the need to clock on for 37 hours a week. I like her as a person and we are good friends, but I could not in all conscience recommend her for a permanent position. The application process involves a line manager's assessment, which simply states "if this person is successful at interview, would you like them working for you?" This is a fairly euphemistic way of sifting out people who are no good - tick the "no" box and the applicant will not be offered a job, irrespective of their application and how they perform at interview. I am immediately (and very publicly) called into the director's office and asked to explain my decision. I do this robustly, with examples of her work as evidence. I'm told that that is irrelevant and I must revise my assessment as it is open to legal challenge on racial grounds. I refuse, my assessment is forcibly withdrawn and my director writes it instead. She is ranked 26th at interview, yet offered a job. Just for those getting a twitch-on at this, I have made the exact same decision about dozens of other, white, people who did not meet the minimum requirements - none of these were queried. Incidentally, the girl gets placed in the team dealing with community integration, along with every other asian people in the building. She is promoted within months of being made permanent against her will. She is unable to cope with new demands and is extremely unhappy. She resents management interference and hates PC with as much passion as I do. She also has some rather extreme views on immigration. There are also countless examples of people being promoted because of their background, not their abilities. Some have even failed their interviews, yet been given the post. If you really think banging square pegs into round holes is the way to go, good luck to you. Is having a workforce that is reflective of the community more important than having the most competent workforce possible? In terms of the job itself, there are examples too numerous to mention of how PC has been crowbarred into public policy. All government programmes have been adapted in recent years, many unnecessarily in my view. The problem lies more within the recruitment policies; at least for now. In order to succeed you need to be able to demonstrate you've "out-diversified" your opponents. This is leading to a spiral of often unnecessary schemes, propagated by people whose intentions are nothing but naked ambition. They have spotted a mechanism for making pretty bloody comfortable careers for themselves, often with little or no added value. In such circumstances, PC becomes a runaway train. from the website of, equlityhumanrights.com Businesses and organisations can feel uncertain where to turn for specific advice on meeting their obligations under the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) and other equality legislation. A growing number of unscrupulous organisations are looking to exploit that uncertainty to the detriment of the public. This page explains some of the practices you should be wary of in potential suppliers. In general, you should weigh the claims of any supplier very carefully before parting with your money, particularly those claiming to give you peace of mind through a one-stop advice shop. Discrimination legislation is complex, and there are no easy fixes on offer. Remember: no-one can deem you to be 'compliant' and anyone who makes that kind of promise misunderstands the legislation. That does not mean that employers and service providers are left in the dark. There is a wealth of authoritative advice available, such as the codes of practice and guidance available on this site, and of course there are excellent, established advisers in the field. There are also various government online business advice services, which are free of charge and are likely to be of much greater use than any service offered by these so-called experts. In particular, watch out for the following: 'Gold-plating' This means advising businesses that they must, under the DDA, provide specific adjustments (or risk being taken to court) without any regard to their circumstances. This often puts businesses – particularly smaller ones – under pressure to make expensive adjustments when, with a little imagination and forethought, a less expensive option would be just as good. Guarantees and promises of protection Some companies claim to have all the answers, and say that working with them will mean you are sure of being compliant with the DDA, or other equality legislation. You should be extremely cautious if approached by anyone who makes sweeping assertions that: Offer accreditation or other forms of recognition – either through themselves or a third party. Claim that working with them will make you DDA compliant or compliant with equality legislation in general. Promise protection from legal action. Overcomplicate or oversimplify your legal requirements relating to equality, inclusion and diversity. Claimed relationships with the Commission or government Many outfits may suggest on their websites that they have close relationships with the Equality and Human Rights Commission or with government departments. More often than not this is not true, but of course creates the illusion of respectability. Details of any of our partnerships or accreditation will be listed on our website, so if in doubt, visit this site. If you have concerns about a company you think may be behaving unscrupulously, please contact our Helpline. Genuine occupational requirements There are certain circumstances where some types of discrimination can be justified and certain exceptions to the general prohibition on discrimination, which vary in respect of each of the protected grounds. For example, a care worker post may, in limited circumstances, be restricted to applicants with personal attributes such as being male or female, or having membership of a particular religious group. It is important to remember that the exceptions are very narrow and that they will be strictly interpreted by any court or tribunal that comes to consider the case at a later date. If you believe that you have a situation which might arise within an exception, we would recommend that you take professional advice. Positive action Employers are allowed by law to take positive action to help redress any imbalances that may have arisen in the workplace as a result of past discrimination or disadvantage. The aim of positive action is to ensure that people from previously excluded groups have the opportunity to compete on equal terms with other applicants. The legislation allows for measures by which people from a particular under-represented group are either encouraged to apply for jobs in which they are under-represented, or are given training to help them develop their potential to improve their chances in competing for particular work. In practical terms this may result in a positive action programme of advertising that is specifically directed at members of a particular minority group, or providing training opportunities for women or men to help them gain employment or promotion in job sectors traditionally dominated by one sex. Positive action is not the same as positive discrimination or affirmative action, which are both unlawful in Britain. An employer cannot try to change the balance of the workforce by selecting someone mainly because she or he is from a particular group. It is most important to remember that, at the point of selection, all applicants must be judged equally on a job-related basis. Discrimination at the point of selection is unlawful. I dont know how many can remember the days of affirmative action,(however well intentioned it may have been) or how many know of its consequences.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rgs2001uk Posted December 23, 2008 Share Posted December 23, 2008 Carrying on from a topic raised earlier, as they say, if you know your history etc etc. GENERATIONS of Roman Catholic Irish Republicans have proclaimed loud and long that the source of all of Ireland's woes has been the presence of the English. The Emerald Isle, once famed as a land of Saints and Scholars, has been drenched in blood down the centuries, as inhuman fiends posing as patriots have murdered, maimed and massacred, rebelled and waged civil war, often with the blessing of the Roman Catholic clergy, in the supposed cause of Irish freedom. However the suppressed facts of history are that when King Henry IIof England landed with an army of 4,000 at Waterford in October 1171, he came at the Pope's behest and carrying as his authority the Papal Bull Laudabiliter, by which the Roman Pontiff claimed the right to bestow Ireland as a gift to the English King on condition that he suppressed the ancient Celtic or Culdee Church, and brought the island and its people into submission to Rome. We reproduce herewith the Bull Laudabiliter by which Pope Adrian IV gave Ireland to England: "Adrian, bishop, servant of the servants of God, to our well beloved son in Christ, the illustrious King of the English greeting and Apostolic Benediction. Laudably, and profitably, does your majesty contemplate spreading the glory of your name on earth and laying up for yourself the reward of eternal happiness in heaven, in that as becomes a Catholic Prince, you propose to enlarge the boundaries of the Church, to proclaim the truths of the Christian religion to a rude and ignorant people (the Irish), to root out the growth of vice from the field of the Lord; and the better to accomplish this purpose you seek the counsel and goodwill of the Apostolic See. In pursuing your object the loftier your aim and the greater your discretion, the more prosperous we are assured with God's assistance will be the progress you will make: for undertakings commenced in the zeal of faith and the love of religion are ever wont to attain to a good end and issue. Verily as your excellency doth acknowledge, there is no doubt that Ireland, and all the islands on which Christ the sun of righteousness has shone, and which have accepted the doctrines of the Christian faith, belong to the blessed Peter and the Holy Roman Church, wherefore the more pleased are we to plant in them the seed of faith acceptable to God, inasmuch as our conscience warns us that in their case a stricter account will hereafter be required of us. Whereas then well beloved son in Christ you have expressed to us your desire to enter the island of Ireland in order to subject its people to law (Papal Canon Law) and to root out from them the weeds of vice (the ancient Culdee faith) and your willingness to pay an annual tribute to the blessed Peter (the Pope) of one penny from every house, and to maintain the rights of the Churches of that land whole and inviolate. We therefore meeting your pious and laudable desire with due favour, and according a gracious assent to your petition, do hereby declare our will and pleasure, that with a view to enlarging the boundaries of the Church, restraining the downward course of vice, correcting evil customs and planting virtue and for the increase of the Christian religion (Romanism) you shall enter that island and execute whatsoever may tend to the honour of God, and the welfare of the land; and also that the people shall receive you with honour and revere you as their Lord: provided always that the rights of the Churches remain whole and inviolate and saving to the blessed Peter and the Holy Roman Church the annual tribute of one penny for every house. If then you should carry your project into effect, let it be to your care to instruct that people in good ways of life ... that the Church there may be adorned, that the Christian religion (Romanism) may take root and grow ... that you may deserve at God's hands the fulness of an everlasting reward and may obtain on earth a name renowned throughout the ages." Pope Adrian's successor Alexander III wrote to the Bishops of Ireland calling on them to submit to King Henry: "Understanding that our dear son in Christ, Henry, illustrious King of England stirred by divine inspiration and with his united forces has subjected to his dominion, that people a barbarous one, uncivilized and ignorant of the Divine Law - we command and enjoin upon you that you will diligently and manfully assist the above said King to maintain and preserve that land and to extirpate the filthiness of such great abominations. And if any of the Kings, Princes or persons of the land shall rashly attempt to go against his due oath and fealty pledged to the said King you shall lay ecclesiastical censure on such a one." In a similar vein Pope Alexander addressed these words to the Princes of Ireland: "Whereas you have received our dear son in Christ, Henry, illustrious King of England as your king and Lord and have sworn fealty to him ... we ward and admonish your noble order to strive to preserve the fealty which by solemn oath you have made." The same Roman Pontiff in a letter congratulating Henry on his conquest of Ireland wrote: "We have been assured how you have wonderfully triumphed over the people of Ireland and over a Kingdom which the Roman Emperors, the conquerors of the world left untouched, and you have extended the power of your majesty over the same people, a race uncivilized and undisciplined. We understand that you, collecting your splendid naval and land forces have set your mind upon subjugating that people ... so we exhort and beseech your majesty and enjoin upon you that you will even more intently and strenuously continue ... and earnestly enjoin upon your majesty that you will carefully seek to preserve the rights of the See of St. Peter." This was indeed what King Henry did and one of his first acts was to call the Council of Cashel in 1172 at which the ancient Celtic Church of Ireland was brought into submission to the yoke of Roman bondage. As for the Papal insults that the Irish were a rude, ignorant, uncivilized people, had not the missionaries of Patrick's Celtic Church brought the uncorrupted Gospel not only to the rest of the British Isles but to Europe? Was it a savage people who produced such beautifully illuminated Christian manuscripts as the Book of Kells, and who preserved the primitive Christian faith in their communities even under Viking attack, whilst Papal Rome was sunk in, the depths of vice and superstitions? The Roman Catholic writer O'Driscoll admits: "The Christian Church of Ireland was founded by St. Patrick, existed for many centuries free and unshackled ... and differed on many points from Rome. From the days of Patrick to the Council of Cashel was a bright and glorious career for Ireland. From the sitting of that Council to our own times the lot of Ireland has been unmixed evil and all her history a tale of woe." Views of Ireland, Vol. 2, Page 84. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Hans Posted December 23, 2008 Share Posted December 23, 2008 ---The war in Ireland has raised it's head. While not the topic under discussion, and please do try not to go down the path or arguing about the many wrongs of the war and or the attrocities committed on both sides of the conflict. It does however provide an good example of how a very long standing conflict can be brought to an end by negotiation and discussions between 'enemies'. - It was 'Peace Talks' that brought an end to the conflict, not guns, bombs or violence. Though a very good case can be made that it was an attack on the UK's Financial Center that forced the hand of the British into Peace Talks, it was nevertheless the willingness of leaders on both sides of the conflict to engage each other over the peace talks table that brought an end to a conflict which was damaging to both sides. Those peace talks where also an example of where excluding certain language enabled the discussion to take place. The conflict is over, and we now have a Peace Dividend that goes beyond the economic bernefits, the removal of 'emergency laws' restricting civil liberties and the twisting of the legal system to support an untenable position. I like many here I am sure, work with Irish people as colleagues on an equal footing, the war in Ireland is passed, it is not an issue. dam_n right it's not an issue - the English are a stoic lot - we'll not bleat about it for 700 years. No, we'll just continue getting on with things until the world is a better place, just like we always do. One need not go back to the 60s for this kind of thing. A pub less than five miles from where I am now had a sign in the door stating 'No Gypsies' as recently as the late 80s. The door has been replaced by a plywood board and the sign by one stating 'For Sale or Lease', they perhaps could not find enough non Gypsie customers. Oh please. Just about every single person on the planet is discriminated against on a daily basis. The Groucho Club refused me entrance again last night as I was wearing trainers. The bastards. Ok, I've been hooked back in to this thread but only because you've mentioned my favourite source of quotes. as Groucho himself would say, "Please accept my resignation. I don't care to belong to any club that will have me as a member." And one other final point - the 160,000 responses from Google keeps coming back, so I decided to put this in context by doing a couple of searches of my own - just for fun. Here are the results: Can a fish play the piano - 263,000 replies in 0.19 seconds Are turnips better than carrots - 104,000 replies in 0.32 seconds Is Garro a root vegetable - 396 replies in 0.15 seconds No offence is intended to fish, Garro or root vegetables - remember its just for fun Ok, I'll now disappear back into the night - where no doubt some of you would suggest I belong Merry Christmas to all - whatever your view on this topic. I've a question for the PC brigade. Can someone point me in the direction of someone with impeccable PC credentials who is funny? I've yet to meet one. Ben Elton? Ben Elton? Ben Elton? You've really done it now. He's just a political opportunist, like many of the first wave of alternative comedians. He's done nothing of note since Blackadder, which he only co-wrote anyhow. He's an arse licking luvvy these days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garro Posted December 23, 2008 Share Posted December 23, 2008 Carrying on from a topic raised earlier, as they say, if you know your history etc etc.GENERATIONS of Roman Catholic Irish Republicans have proclaimed loud and long that the source of all of Ireland's woes has been the presence of the English. The Emerald Isle, once famed as a land of Saints and Scholars, has been drenched in blood down the centuries, as inhuman fiends posing as patriots have murdered, maimed and massacred, rebelled and waged civil war, often with the blessing of the Roman Catholic clergy, in the supposed cause of Irish freedom. However the suppressed facts of history are that when King Henry IIof England landed with an army of 4,000 at Waterford in October 1171, he came at the Pope's behest and carrying as his authority the Papal Bull Laudabiliter, by which the Roman Pontiff claimed the right to bestow Ireland as a gift to the English King on condition that he suppressed the ancient Celtic or Culdee Church, and brought the island and its people into submission to Rome. We reproduce herewith the Bull Laudabiliter by which Pope Adrian IV gave Ireland to England: "Adrian, bishop, servant of the servants of God, to our well beloved son in Christ, the illustrious King of the English greeting and Apostolic Benediction. Laudably, and profitably, does your majesty contemplate spreading the glory of your name on earth and laying up for yourself the reward of eternal happiness in heaven, in that as becomes a Catholic Prince, you propose to enlarge the boundaries of the Church, to proclaim the truths of the Christian religion to a rude and ignorant people (the Irish), to root out the growth of vice from the field of the Lord; and the better to accomplish this purpose you seek the counsel and goodwill of the Apostolic See. In pursuing your object the loftier your aim and the greater your discretion, the more prosperous we are assured with God's assistance will be the progress you will make: for undertakings commenced in the zeal of faith and the love of religion are ever wont to attain to a good end and issue. Verily as your excellency doth acknowledge, there is no doubt that Ireland, and all the islands on which Christ the sun of righteousness has shone, and which have accepted the doctrines of the Christian faith, belong to the blessed Peter and the Holy Roman Church, wherefore the more pleased are we to plant in them the seed of faith acceptable to God, inasmuch as our conscience warns us that in their case a stricter account will hereafter be required of us. Whereas then well beloved son in Christ you have expressed to us your desire to enter the island of Ireland in order to subject its people to law (Papal Canon Law) and to root out from them the weeds of vice (the ancient Culdee faith) and your willingness to pay an annual tribute to the blessed Peter (the Pope) of one penny from every house, and to maintain the rights of the Churches of that land whole and inviolate. We therefore meeting your pious and laudable desire with due favour, and according a gracious assent to your petition, do hereby declare our will and pleasure, that with a view to enlarging the boundaries of the Church, restraining the downward course of vice, correcting evil customs and planting virtue and for the increase of the Christian religion (Romanism) you shall enter that island and execute whatsoever may tend to the honour of God, and the welfare of the land; and also that the people shall receive you with honour and revere you as their Lord: provided always that the rights of the Churches remain whole and inviolate and saving to the blessed Peter and the Holy Roman Church the annual tribute of one penny for every house. If then you should carry your project into effect, let it be to your care to instruct that people in good ways of life ... that the Church there may be adorned, that the Christian religion (Romanism) may take root and grow ... that you may deserve at God's hands the fulness of an everlasting reward and may obtain on earth a name renowned throughout the ages." Pope Adrian's successor Alexander III wrote to the Bishops of Ireland calling on them to submit to King Henry: "Understanding that our dear son in Christ, Henry, illustrious King of England stirred by divine inspiration and with his united forces has subjected to his dominion, that people a barbarous one, uncivilized and ignorant of the Divine Law - we command and enjoin upon you that you will diligently and manfully assist the above said King to maintain and preserve that land and to extirpate the filthiness of such great abominations. And if any of the Kings, Princes or persons of the land shall rashly attempt to go against his due oath and fealty pledged to the said King you shall lay ecclesiastical censure on such a one." In a similar vein Pope Alexander addressed these words to the Princes of Ireland: "Whereas you have received our dear son in Christ, Henry, illustrious King of England as your king and Lord and have sworn fealty to him ... we ward and admonish your noble order to strive to preserve the fealty which by solemn oath you have made." The same Roman Pontiff in a letter congratulating Henry on his conquest of Ireland wrote: "We have been assured how you have wonderfully triumphed over the people of Ireland and over a Kingdom which the Roman Emperors, the conquerors of the world left untouched, and you have extended the power of your majesty over the same people, a race uncivilized and undisciplined. We understand that you, collecting your splendid naval and land forces have set your mind upon subjugating that people ... so we exhort and beseech your majesty and enjoin upon you that you will even more intently and strenuously continue ... and earnestly enjoin upon your majesty that you will carefully seek to preserve the rights of the See of St. Peter." This was indeed what King Henry did and one of his first acts was to call the Council of Cashel in 1172 at which the ancient Celtic Church of Ireland was brought into submission to the yoke of Roman bondage. As for the Papal insults that the Irish were a rude, ignorant, uncivilized people, had not the missionaries of Patrick's Celtic Church brought the uncorrupted Gospel not only to the rest of the British Isles but to Europe? Was it a savage people who produced such beautifully illuminated Christian manuscripts as the Book of Kells, and who preserved the primitive Christian faith in their communities even under Viking attack, whilst Papal Rome was sunk in, the depths of vice and superstitions? The Roman Catholic writer O'Driscoll admits: "The Christian Church of Ireland was founded by St. Patrick, existed for many centuries free and unshackled ... and differed on many points from Rome. From the days of Patrick to the Council of Cashel was a bright and glorious career for Ireland. From the sitting of that Council to our own times the lot of Ireland has been unmixed evil and all her history a tale of woe." Views of Ireland, Vol. 2, Page 84. A quick search of the internet shows this article was produced for one , http://www.ensignmessage.com/archives/popsirlnd.html This is part of a racist website; http://www.ensignmessage.com/default.asp It's opening page states; TO THE BRITISH AND ALL THE CELTIC, ANGLO-SAXON PEOPLES OF THE WORLD This website also promotes such other brilliant show-pieces such as; http://www.ensignmessage.com/archives.html#october01 This is the free speech that these people want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garro Posted December 23, 2008 Share Posted December 23, 2008 rgs2001uk, by the way. Why didn't you quote the rest of the article. You know the bit that says; Ireland will only truly enjoy peace and liberty when the chains of Roman Catholicism are broken by the Gospel of Christ, and the blight of priestcraft and Popery are banished from our island home for ever. Yes, you proved your point. The anti-PC mob are the victims here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rgs2001uk Posted December 23, 2008 Share Posted December 23, 2008 Garro, I try not to highlight, as you call them racist websites. Carrying on from that, can you please let me know what part of the article could be considered racist, I thought it was historical. I have said before I am against the rewriting of history, if you could point me to a link that contradicts what I posted I would be more than happy to read it. I understand your feelings on free speech, the following I am sure speaks for itself, and will no doubt lead to soul searching for many, not to include the many world wide to which it gives offense. Pope Benedict was accused of stoking homophobia today after a speech in which he declared that saving humanity from homosexuality was just as important as saving the rainforest from destruction. The Pontiff made the remarks yesterday in an end-of-year address to the Curia, the Vatican's central administration. He said that humanity needed to listen to the "language of creation" to understand the intended roles of man and woman and behaviour beyond traditional heterosexual relations was a "destruction of God’s work". "The tropical forests do deserve our protection. But man, as a creature, does not deserve any less," he told scores of prelates gathered in the Vatican's Clementine Hall. "What’s needed is something like a ‘human ecology,’ understood in the right sense. It’s not simply an outdated metaphysics if the Church speaks of the nature of the human person as man and woman, and asks that this order of creation be respected." It is not the first time that the Pope has used the Curia speech to throw out a controversial idea – two years ago he complained that Islam had yet to learn the lessons of the Enlightenment – but the comments were quickly denounced by gay and lesbian groups, both inside and outside the Church. The Rev Sharon Ferguson, chief executive of the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement, described the Pope's comments as "totally irresponsible and unacceptable in any shape or form". She said: "It is more the case that we need to be saved from his comments. It is comments like that that justify homophobic bullying that goes on in schools and it is comments like that that justify gay-bashing. "There are still so many instances of people being killed around the world, including in Western society, purely and simply because of their sexual orientation or their gender identity. "When you have religious leaders like that making that sort of statement then followers feel they are justified in behaving in an aggressive and violent way because they feel that they are doing God’s work in ridding the world of these people." Her views were echoed by the Reverend Dr Giles Fraser, the vicar of Putney and president of Inclusive Church, the pro-gay Anglican movement. "I thought the Christmas angels said ’Fear not’. Instead, the Pope is spreading fear that gay people somehow threaten the planet. And that’s just absurd ... Can’t he think of something better to say at Christmas?" Pam Spaulding, a leading lesbian blogger from the United States, was even more direct. She said: "The Prada Papa Ratzi opens his trap again, and the homophobia stinks like trash piled up during a NYC garbage strike." The Catholic Church teaches that while homosexuality is not sinful, homosexual acts are. It opposes gay marriage and, in October, a leading Vatican official called homosexuality "a deviation, an irregularity, a wound". The Pope's speech was also seen, however, as a denunciation of "gender theory" – the study of how gender assignments affects the behaviour of individuals. The Catholic Church has repeatedly spoken out against gender theory, which gay and transsexual groups promote as a key to understanding and tolerance. "That which is often expressed and understood by the term ‘gender’ in the end amounts to the self-emancipation of the human person from creation and from the Creator," the Pope said. "Human beings want to do everything by themselves, and to control exclusively everything that regards them. But in this way, the human person lives against the truth, against the Creator Spirit." Mark Dowd, campaign strategist at Operation Noah, the Christian environmental group, who is a gay man and a former Dominican friar, said that the Pope’s remarks were "understandable but misguided and unfortunate". He said that he understood the Pope’s vision of creation in which rainforests were protected and men and women "complement one another, reproduce and live happily ever after". But he said: "The problem is that if you study ecology seriously as any intelligent man would do, and the Pope is a fantastically intelligent man, you realise that ecology is complex, it has all sort of weird interdependencies and it is the same with human sexuality. "It is not a one-size-fits-all model, there are lots of differences, so therefore I think it is really sad that these comments betray a lack of openess to the complexity of creation." Taken from the TimesOnline, as oppossed to The Daily Mail. Who am I to deny the right to freedom of speech, to the leader of one of the worlds most respected churches? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garro Posted December 23, 2008 Share Posted December 23, 2008 (edited) Garro, I try not to highlight, as you call them racist websites. Carrying on from that, can you please let me know what part of the article could be considered racist, I thought it was historical. I have said before I am against the rewriting of history, if you could point me to a link that contradicts what I posted I would be more than happy to read it. I understand your feelings on free speech, the following I am sure speaks for itself, and will no doubt lead to soul searching for many, not to include the many world wide to which it gives offense. Pope Benedict was accused of stoking homophobia today after a speech in which he declared that saving humanity from homosexuality was just as important as saving the rainforest from destruction. The Pontiff made the remarks yesterday in an end-of-year address to the Curia, the Vatican's central administration. He said that humanity needed to listen to the "language of creation" to understand the intended roles of man and woman and behaviour beyond traditional heterosexual relations was a "destruction of God's work". "The tropical forests do deserve our protection. But man, as a creature, does not deserve any less," he told scores of prelates gathered in the Vatican's Clementine Hall. "What's needed is something like a 'human ecology,' understood in the right sense. It's not simply an outdated metaphysics if the Church speaks of the nature of the human person as man and woman, and asks that this order of creation be respected." It is not the first time that the Pope has used the Curia speech to throw out a controversial idea – two years ago he complained that Islam had yet to learn the lessons of the Enlightenment – but the comments were quickly denounced by gay and lesbian groups, both inside and outside the Church. The Rev Sharon Ferguson, chief executive of the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement, described the Pope's comments as "totally irresponsible and unacceptable in any shape or form". She said: "It is more the case that we need to be saved from his comments. It is comments like that that justify homophobic bullying that goes on in schools and it is comments like that that justify gay-bashing. "There are still so many instances of people being killed around the world, including in Western society, purely and simply because of their sexual orientation or their gender identity. "When you have religious leaders like that making that sort of statement then followers feel they are justified in behaving in an aggressive and violent way because they feel that they are doing God's work in ridding the world of these people." Her views were echoed by the Reverend Dr Giles Fraser, the vicar of Putney and president of Inclusive Church, the pro-gay Anglican movement. "I thought the Christmas angels said 'Fear not'. Instead, the Pope is spreading fear that gay people somehow threaten the planet. And that's just absurd ... Can't he think of something better to say at Christmas?" Pam Spaulding, a leading lesbian blogger from the United States, was even more direct. She said: "The Prada Papa Ratzi opens his trap again, and the homophobia stinks like trash piled up during a NYC garbage strike." The Catholic Church teaches that while homosexuality is not sinful, homosexual acts are. It opposes gay marriage and, in October, a leading Vatican official called homosexuality "a deviation, an irregularity, a wound". The Pope's speech was also seen, however, as a denunciation of "gender theory" – the study of how gender assignments affects the behaviour of individuals. The Catholic Church has repeatedly spoken out against gender theory, which gay and transsexual groups promote as a key to understanding and tolerance. "That which is often expressed and understood by the term 'gender' in the end amounts to the self-emancipation of the human person from creation and from the Creator," the Pope said. "Human beings want to do everything by themselves, and to control exclusively everything that regards them. But in this way, the human person lives against the truth, against the Creator Spirit." Mark Dowd, campaign strategist at Operation Noah, the Christian environmental group, who is a gay man and a former Dominican friar, said that the Pope's remarks were "understandable but misguided and unfortunate". He said that he understood the Pope's vision of creation in which rainforests were protected and men and women "complement one another, reproduce and live happily ever after". But he said: "The problem is that if you study ecology seriously as any intelligent man would do, and the Pope is a fantastically intelligent man, you realise that ecology is complex, it has all sort of weird interdependencies and it is the same with human sexuality. "It is not a one-size-fits-all model, there are lots of differences, so therefore I think it is really sad that these comments betray a lack of openess to the complexity of creation." Taken from the TimesOnline, as oppossed to The Daily Mail. Who am I to deny the right to freedom of speech, to the leader of one of the worlds most respected churches? You really can't see anything wrong with that article? Really? I am not a Roman Catholic so I will not defend that church, but the bigoted tripe that you just quoted in your last post is beyond the pale. Edited December 23, 2008 by garro Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rgs2001uk Posted December 23, 2008 Share Posted December 23, 2008 rgs2001uk, by the way. Why didn't you quote the rest of the article. You know the bit that says; Ireland will only truly enjoy peace and liberty when the chains of Roman Catholicism are broken by the Gospel of Christ, and the blight of priestcraft and Popery are banished from our island home for ever. Yes, you proved your point. The anti-PC mob are the victims here. Garro, I didnt post the rest of the article, because, a, I dont believe it, and, b, it is not my intention to promote sectarianism or religious intolerance. As I have said before my problem is with the rewriting and or suppression of history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garro Posted December 23, 2008 Share Posted December 23, 2008 So let me get this straight rgs2001uk. You posted from an article with things even you knew were bigoted and wrong. Yet in your last post you asked me to prove that this article wasn't factual. Do you see what I'm getting at here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thaibeachlovers Posted December 23, 2008 Share Posted December 23, 2008 I'll respond on one point, however. Google turns up 160,000 anonymous discussions on muslim integration. I think you'll find there is not a lot of anonymity when many of the discussions carry the title of the people/organistions discussing the issue. The 'Black and White' issue here, is 'Black and White' evidence of discussion that you deny is taking place, is once more denied. Putting asside the Golly <deleted>, have you one single case where you can demonstrate Political Correctness is causing the ills which you attribute to it? You have told us of your many years on the civil service, and you mentioned Shysters, Snake Oil Salesmen and men in Shiney Suits but you have not given us a single example of how Political Correctness stopped you from doing your job as a Civil Servant. Not withstanding anything you are not allowed to talk about under the OSA, is there any example you can give us? OSA? That's not stopped me so far! Ok, here's the scenario I was faced with a few years ago. There is a recruitment exercise for low level admin staff. I have a second/third generation asian girl working for me as a casual. I'm her boss, but she does actual work for someone else - a PC thug as it happens - so I don't really see much of her day to day output. Girl applies for job, then does some work for me whilst PC thug is on holiday. I am shocked at the quality of work she provides - she lacks basic numeracy and literacy skills for starters, and her judgment is poor. I also discover she's 120 hours down on her flexi clock - she claims she doesn't understand the need to clock on for 37 hours a week. I like her as a person and we are good friends, but I could not in all conscience recommend her for a permanent position. The application process involves a line manager's assessment, which simply states "if this person is successful at interview, would you like them working for you?" This is a fairly euphemistic way of sifting out people who are no good - tick the "no" box and the applicant will not be offered a job, irrespective of their application and how they perform at interview. I am immediately (and very publicly) called into the director's office and asked to explain my decision. I do this robustly, with examples of her work as evidence. I'm told that that is irrelevant and I must revise my assessment as it is open to legal challenge on racial grounds. I refuse, my assessment is forcibly withdrawn and my director writes it instead. She is ranked 26th at interview, yet offered a job. Just for those getting a twitch-on at this, I have made the exact same decision about dozens of other, white, people who did not meet the minimum requirements - none of these were queried. Incidentally, the girl gets placed in the team dealing with community integration, along with every other asian people in the building. She is promoted within months of being made permanent against her will. She is unable to cope with new demands and is extremely unhappy. She resents management interference and hates PC with as much passion as I do. She also has some rather extreme views on immigration. There are also countless examples of people being promoted because of their background, not their abilities. Some have even failed their interviews, yet been given the post. If you really think banging square pegs into round holes is the way to go, good luck to you. Is having a workforce that is reflective of the community more important than having the most competent workforce possible? In terms of the job itself, there are examples too numerous to mention of how PC has been crowbarred into public policy. All government programmes have been adapted in recent years, many unnecessarily in my view. The problem lies more within the recruitment policies; at least for now. In order to succeed you need to be able to demonstrate you've "out-diversified" your opponents. This is leading to a spiral of often unnecessary schemes, propagated by people whose intentions are nothing but naked ambition. They have spotted a mechanism for making pretty bloody comfortable careers for themselves, often with little or no added value. In such circumstances, PC becomes a runaway train. I dont know how many can remember the days of affirmative action,(however well intentioned it may have been) or how many know of its consequences.. I can remember the days of affirmative action, and indeed I directly benefitted. Back in 1985 I applied for nurse training ( there were almost no males in nursing in my country back then ), and was accepted, despite better female applicants not even being interviewed, due, I am certain, to a desire to have more male nurses. This would be supported by the other 2 males on the course being totally unsuitable applicants ( IMO ), one of whom did not complete the course, and the other stopped nursing on graduation. However, in my defence, I am still nursing, while the majority of the females on my course long ago gave it up ( mainly after getting married ), so I was probably one of the most cost effective students they enrolled. Incidentally, there are lots more male nurses in the UK, where I now work in the NHS, to the extent that some days I work with no female nurses at all! Makes a change from being the only guy. I also spent time in Antarctica in the '70s, when they were trying to get females down there. In fact they created a new position on the base just to be able to employ a female. While she was capable of doing the job ( kitchen duties ), she caused all sorts of tensions amongst the men, which is understandable when you have up to 60 males and two women ( one was a scientist ) on a very small base! I'm not saying there shouldn't be women there ( that would be very politically incorrect ), but the numbers should be more balanced, or not at all. ( I believe there are indeed lots of women down there these days. ) Where I disagree with affirmative action, is in the armed forces, where we now have a situation that allows female officers with no combat experience to command soldiers going into action ( themselves safely behind the lines ). The US recently announced that they have promoted their first female general. I would have no problem with women that have been under fire commanding front line troops, but there's not a lot of them about, are there! My main beef with PC, is where it is used by ignorant bureaucrats to justify being killjoys, mainly in forcing a majority of the population to suppress it's own culture/ religion in deference to a minority/ immigrant culture/ religion. In the UK there are countless instances of Christian rituals being banned "in case people of other religions object". As for most of the other stuff blamed on PC, IMO it's just good manners not to use insulting language or actions directly to another person, regardless of color, race or creed. Why would anyone want to be able to insult someone else- not nice. The only instance I can think of where PC ( if it can be applied in this case ) would be a "good thing", is where it is used to enforce equal access for the disabled/ less able. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rgs2001uk Posted December 23, 2008 Share Posted December 23, 2008 Garro, I try not to highlight, as you call them racist websites. Carrying on from that, can you please let me know what part of the article could be considered racist, I thought it was historical. I have said before I am against the rewriting of history, if you could point me to a link that contradicts what I posted I would be more than happy to read it. I understand your feelings on free speech, the following I am sure speaks for itself, and will no doubt lead to soul searching for many, not to include the many world wide to which it gives offense. Pope Benedict was accused of stoking homophobia today after a speech in which he declared that saving humanity from homosexuality was just as important as saving the rainforest from destruction. The Pontiff made the remarks yesterday in an end-of-year address to the Curia, the Vatican's central administration. He said that humanity needed to listen to the "language of creation" to understand the intended roles of man and woman and behaviour beyond traditional heterosexual relations was a "destruction of God's work". "The tropical forests do deserve our protection. But man, as a creature, does not deserve any less," he told scores of prelates gathered in the Vatican's Clementine Hall. "What's needed is something like a 'human ecology,' understood in the right sense. It's not simply an outdated metaphysics if the Church speaks of the nature of the human person as man and woman, and asks that this order of creation be respected." It is not the first time that the Pope has used the Curia speech to throw out a controversial idea – two years ago he complained that Islam had yet to learn the lessons of the Enlightenment – but the comments were quickly denounced by gay and lesbian groups, both inside and outside the Church. The Rev Sharon Ferguson, chief executive of the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement, described the Pope's comments as "totally irresponsible and unacceptable in any shape or form". She said: "It is more the case that we need to be saved from his comments. It is comments like that that justify homophobic bullying that goes on in schools and it is comments like that that justify gay-bashing. "There are still so many instances of people being killed around the world, including in Western society, purely and simply because of their sexual orientation or their gender identity. "When you have religious leaders like that making that sort of statement then followers feel they are justified in behaving in an aggressive and violent way because they feel that they are doing God's work in ridding the world of these people." Her views were echoed by the Reverend Dr Giles Fraser, the vicar of Putney and president of Inclusive Church, the pro-gay Anglican movement. "I thought the Christmas angels said 'Fear not'. Instead, the Pope is spreading fear that gay people somehow threaten the planet. And that's just absurd ... Can't he think of something better to say at Christmas?" Pam Spaulding, a leading lesbian blogger from the United States, was even more direct. She said: "The Prada Papa Ratzi opens his trap again, and the homophobia stinks like trash piled up during a NYC garbage strike." The Catholic Church teaches that while homosexuality is not sinful, homosexual acts are. It opposes gay marriage and, in October, a leading Vatican official called homosexuality "a deviation, an irregularity, a wound". The Pope's speech was also seen, however, as a denunciation of "gender theory" – the study of how gender assignments affects the behaviour of individuals. The Catholic Church has repeatedly spoken out against gender theory, which gay and transsexual groups promote as a key to understanding and tolerance. "That which is often expressed and understood by the term 'gender' in the end amounts to the self-emancipation of the human person from creation and from the Creator," the Pope said. "Human beings want to do everything by themselves, and to control exclusively everything that regards them. But in this way, the human person lives against the truth, against the Creator Spirit." Mark Dowd, campaign strategist at Operation Noah, the Christian environmental group, who is a gay man and a former Dominican friar, said that the Pope's remarks were "understandable but misguided and unfortunate". He said that he understood the Pope's vision of creation in which rainforests were protected and men and women "complement one another, reproduce and live happily ever after". But he said: "The problem is that if you study ecology seriously as any intelligent man would do, and the Pope is a fantastically intelligent man, you realise that ecology is complex, it has all sort of weird interdependencies and it is the same with human sexuality. "It is not a one-size-fits-all model, there are lots of differences, so therefore I think it is really sad that these comments betray a lack of openess to the complexity of creation." Taken from the TimesOnline, as oppossed to The Daily Mail. Who am I to deny the right to freedom of speech, to the leader of one of the worlds most respected churches? You really can't see anything wrong with that article? Really? highlighted in red I am not a Roman Catholic so I will not defend that church, but the bigoted tripe that you just quoted in your last post is beyond the pale. So as not to confuse me which post are you referring to? the Popes speech or the one about Ireland? As I said before can you please tell me if it is historically or factually wrong? If it is I apologize for any offense it may have caused, if the article is wrong can you please point me to a site or book that covers this in greater detail from a historical angle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ijustwannateach Posted December 23, 2008 Share Posted December 23, 2008 Pope Ratty's off his rocker- but then, he always was. If you start with being a member of the Hitler Youth, enter the Catholic Church, spend many years leading the coverup protecting priests who molested their child parishioners worldwide, and then become pope, only to wear ruby-red fashion slippers- well, this is not a terribly sane man. Clever, but far from sane. "S" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GuestHouse Posted December 23, 2008 Author Share Posted December 23, 2008 Super Hans, you asked for a Politically Correct Comedian and where offered Ben Elton - You now object because, well it seems you don't like Ben Elton. Thanks for your example of Political Correctness, you not being able to turn down an Asian applicant... why does that not surprise me?! Thaibeachlover, the case of the banned Christian Festivities has, like so very much more of the Anti PC Hyperbole been debunked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rgs2001uk Posted December 23, 2008 Share Posted December 23, 2008 Garro, a quick web search found the following on a site called, Library Ireland. <h2 style="text-align: center;"> POPE ADRIAN'S BULL "LAUDABILITER" AND NOTE UPON IT </h2> Taken from A History of Ireland by Eleanor Hull Volume One, Appendix I "ADRIAN, bishop, servant of the servants of God, to his most dearly beloved son in Christ, the illustrious king of the English, greeting and apostolical blessing.[1] "Laudably and profitably doth your Majesty consider how you may best extend the glory of your name on earth and lay up for yourself an eternal reward in heaven, when, as becomes a Catholic prince, you labour to extend the borders of the Church, to teach the truths of the Christian faith to a rude and unlettered people, and to root out the weeds of vice from the field of the Lord; and to accomplish your design more effectually you crave the advice and assistance of the Apostolic See, and in so doing we are persuaded that the higher are your aims, and the more discreet your proceedings, the greater, under God, will be your success; because, whatever has its origin in ardent faith and in love of religion, always has a prosperous end and issue. Certainly it is beyond a doubt, as your Highness acknowledgeth, that Ireland and all the other islands, on which the Gospel of Christ hath dawned and which have received the knowledge of the Christian faith, belong of right to St Peter and the holy Roman Church. Wherefore we are the more desirous to sow in them the acceptable seed of God's word, because we know that it will be strictly required of us hereafter. You have signified to us, our well-beloved son in Christ, that you propose to enter the island of Ireland in order to subdue the people and make them obedient to laws, and to root out from among them the weeds of sin; and that you are willing to yield and pay yearly from every house the pension of one penny to St Peter, and to keep and preserve the rights of the churches in that land whole and inviolate. "We, therefore, regarding your pious and laudable design with due favour, and graciously assenting to your petition, do hereby declare our will and pleasure, that, for the purpose of enlarging the borders of the Church, setting bounds to the progress of wickedness, reforming evil manners, planting virtue, and increasing the Christian religion, you do enter and take possession of that island, and execute therein whatsoever shall be for God's honour and the welfare of the same. "And, further, we do also strictly charge and require that the people of that land shall accept you with all honour, and dutifully obey you, as their liege lord, saving only the rights of the churches, which we will have inviolably preserved; and reserving to St Peter and the holy Roman Church the yearly pension of one penny from each house. If, therefore, you bring your purpose to good effect, let it be your study to improve the habits of that people, and take such orders by yourself, or by others whom you shall think fitting, for their lives, manners and conversation, that the Church there may be adorned by them, the Christian faith be planted and increased, and all that concerns the honour of God and the salvation of souls be ordered by you in like manner; so that you may receive at God's hands the blessed reward of everlasting life, and may obtain on earth a glorious name in ages to come." PRIVILEGE OF POPE ALEXANDER III TO HENRY II, CONFIRMING THE BULL OF ADRIAN, 1172 [2] "Alexander, bishop, servant of the servants of God, to our well-beloved son in Christ, the illustrious king of the English, health and apostolic benediction. "Forasmuch as these grants of our predecessors which are known to have been made on reasonable grounds, are worthy to be confirmed by a permanent sanction; We, therefore, following in the footsteps of the late venerable Pope Adrian, and in expectation also of seeing the fruits of our own earnest wishes on this head, ratify and confirm the permission of the said Pope granted you in reference to the dominion of the kingdom of Ireland; (reserving to Blessed Peter and the holy Roman Church, as in England, so also in Ireland, the annual payment of one penny for every house;) to the end that the filthy practices of that land may be abolished, and the barbarous nation which is called by the Christian name, may through your clemency attain unto some decency of manners; and that when the Church of that country which has been hitherto in a disordered state, shall have been reduced to better order, that people may by your means possess for the future the reality as well as the name of the Christian profession." NOTE.—In recent years the authenticity of Adrian's so-called "Bull" has been disputed by authorities like Cardinal Moran and Cardinal Gasquet. The latter has, in his Monastic Life in the Middle Ages (1922), republished an essay originally printed forty years ago in the Dublin Review for July 1883, without any alterations, although a number of its dates and statements have been challenged by later writers (cf. Miss Kate Norgate's paper in the English Historical Review, vol. viii, pp. 18-52[3]). But none of these writers notices the important fact that through the whole of the Middle Ages and up to late times the Bull was accepted without question as genuine both by the Irish nation and by the Vatican. The Privilege of Pope Alexander III, Adrian's successor, confirmed the Bull, and his letters to the King, to the clergy and bishops of Ireland, and to the nobles, enforced obedience to it. A copy existing in the Book of Leinster, on a fly-leaf (p. 342 of the facsimile), shows that in the thirteenth century, to which date this copy is ascribed, it was looked upon as part of the historical material belonging to that province. It is most singular that Cardinal Gasquet should state that Pope John XXII was ignorant of the Bull of Adrian. In the Appeal sent by Donal O'Neill and the Irish princes to this Pope, at the time of the invasion of Edward Bruce, they distinctly appeal to this Bull as a reason for the Pope's interference on their behalf. They say: "Adrian IV, your predecessor, an Englishman, more even by affection and prejudice than by birth, blinded by that affection and by the false suggestions of Henry II, King of England, . . . gave the dominion of this our island, by a certain form of words, to that same Henry II, whom he ought better to have stripped of his own, on account of the above crime" (i.e., the murder of St Thomas á Becket). In his reply, consequent on this Irish appeal, the Pope, writing from Avignon to King Edward II, in the second year of his pontificate, to recommend to him the advisability of dealing more leniently with his Irish subjects, himself refers to Adrian's Bull as follows: [4] "Know then, Son, that we have received a certain letter directed in the first instance from the Irish nobles and people to our sons Anselm, presbyter, of the title SS. Marcellinus and Peter, and Luke, deacon of St Mary's in the Broadway, Cardinal Nuncios of the apostolic see, and by them enclosed to us in a letter of their own.[5] In which we see it stated, among other things, that whereas our predecessor Pope Adrian of happy memory, did, in a certain mode and form of grant, which was distinctly specified in his apostolic letters drawn up in that behalf, convey to your progenitor, Henry, King of England, of illustrious memory, the supreme dominion over Ireland, that king himself and the kings of England his successors, even to the present time failing to observe the mode and form so set forth, have in direct violation of them, for a long period past kept down that people in a state of intolerable bondage, accompanied with unheard-of hardships and grievances. Nor was there found during all that time, any person to redress the grievances they endured or be moved with a pitiful compassion for their distress; although recourse was had to you . . . and the loud cry of the oppressed fell, at times at least, upon your own ear. In consequence whereof, unable to support such a state of things any longer, they have been compelled to withdraw themselves from your jurisdiction and to invite another to come and be ruler over them," etc. It is clear that in the early fourteenth century both the Irish and the Popes believed the grant of Adrian to have been genuine. The appeal of O'Neill founds its complaint on the fact that the English kings had not fulfilled the conditions on which the grant was made: it does not dispute the grant. Moreover this epistle of the Pope, as also the Bull, are quoted in full by two of the greatest of Irish ecclesiastical authorities, David Rothe, Bishop of Ossory, in his Analecta Sacra (1616), when he was secretary at Rome to the Primate, Peter Lombard, and by the Primate himself in his book De Regno Hiberniae (1632).[6] He was long resident in Rome and in close touch with the Papal Court, and his book is dedicated to Pope Urban VIII. Neither of these men had any doubt of the genuineness of the document. A later example of the Papal recognition of the Bull is found in the letter of instructions given by Pope Innocent X to the nuncio Rinuccini, when he was sent from Rome to Ireland during the Confederate Wars in 1645. It contains a brief summary of English dealings with Ireland in the past. In it occur the words: "Henry, desiring to strengthen his empire, . . . wished to subdue the island of Ireland; and to compass this design, had recourse to Adrian, who, himself an Englishman, with a liberal hand granted all he coveted. The zeal manifested by Henry to convert all Ireland to the faith moved the soul of Adrian to invest him with the sovereignty of the island," etc. [7] It is clear that later Popes did not disavow Adrian's act. Nor is the distinction attempted to be drawn by some modern writers between the "Donation" and the "Bull" visible in the writings of these authorities. The so-called Bull was an expression of approval and benediction of Henry's action similar to that bestowed by an earlier Pope on Duke William when he proposed to add the crown of England to his dukedom of Normandy, or to the approval by another Pope of John's visit to Ireland, symbolized by the gift of a crown of peacock's feathers. Pope Alexander's three epistles in 1172 declare that when he heard that Henry, "instigated by divine inspiration," had subjected the Irish people to his dominion he had "returned thanks to Him who had conferred so great a victory." He "has learned with joy" that the Irish kings have taken Henry as their sovereign and he exhorts them to fidelity.[8] His legate, Vivianus, at the synod of Dublin immediately afterward "made a public declaration of the right of the king of England to Ireland" and threatened excommunication against all "who presumed to forfeit their allegiance," an attitude persevered in by the Papal See up to the reign of Elizabeth, when the Reformation introduced new considerations. The gift of Adrian was partly a consequence of the fatherly concern felt by the Pope for the spiritual welfare of the Irish people, of the moral and spiritual condition of whom St Malachy and St Bernard had recently given a desponding report, and it was partly a move in that Weltpolitik which was gradually extending the power of the Roman curia over every part of Europe. At a far later date Pope Alexander VI put forth a similar claim in his division of the entire Western world between Spain and Portugal. These gifts, while extending the Papal support to the recipients in their ambitious projects, at the same time gave expression to the assumption of an authority which claimed to stand above kings and made them suppliants at the hands of the spiritual power. [1] The original text of this Bull will be found in Dimock's edition of the works of Giraldus Cambrensis, vol. v, pp. 317-319 (1867). [2] For the original see ibid., pp. 318-319; and Ussher's Sylloge, No. 47. [3] See also G. H. Orpen, Ireland under the Normans (1911), i, 287-318. [4] For the original see Theiner, Vet. Mon. Hib. et Scot., No. ccccxxii, p. 201. [5] The two cardinals arrived in England in the summer of 1317, more than two years after the landing of Edward Bruce in Ireland. [6] Pp. 245-260. [7] Rinuccini, Embassy in Ireland, xxviii-xxix. [8] Sweetman, Calendar, i, No. 38, pp. 6, 7; Black Book of the Exchequer, Q-R., fol. 8b, 9, 9b. Taken from A History of Ireland by Eleanor Hull I have no idea who Elanor Hull is or if this is a racist website. Another site, Answers.com, gives the following Laudabiliter, c.1155-60. The authenticity of this papal bull, granted by Adrian IV and recognizing Henry II as lord of Ireland, has been much debated. The balance of scholarly opinion finds in its favour, but there is, in any case, little doubt that the papacy supported Henry's pretensions. Alexander II, Adrian's successor, praised Henry's attempt to subjugate ‘this barbarous and uncouth race which is ignorant of divine law’. I have no idea if answers.com is a racist website or not. NationMaster.com, has the following Encyclopedia > Laudabiliter In 1155, Pope Adrian IV issued a papal bull Laudabiliter giving the Norman King Henry II lordship over Ireland. Though it was mentioned by John of Salisbury, who was sent to Rome as an envoy to request it[1] and by Geraldus Cambrensis[2] the authenticity of its text became the subject of academic dispute in the nineteenth century;[3] As with many Church documents whose authenticity has never been questioned, the original document is no longer in existence:[4] when Cardinal Baronius published it as ex codice Vaticano the codex in question was a transcription of the chronicle of Matthew Paris.[5] only later copies exist. Ernest Henderson noted in 1896 that "in form and wording it differs from other papal bulls of the time" Pope Adrian IV (c. ... Norman conquests in red. ... Henry II of England 5 March 1133 – 6 July 1189) ruled as King of England (1154–1189), Count of Anjou, Duke of Normandy, Duke of Aquitaine, Duke of Gascony, Count of Nantes, Lord of Ireland and, at various times, controlled parts of Wales, Scotland and western France. ... John of Salisbury (c. ... Giraldus Cambrensis (Gerald of Wales) or Gerald De Barri, to give his Norman name, one of the greatest Welsh writers in Latin, was born at Manorbier, Pembrokeshire around 1146. ... Caesar Baronius (October 31, 1538— June 30, 1607), Italian cardinal and ecclesiastical historian, was born at Sora, and was educated at Veroli and Naples. ... Self portrait of Matthew Paris from the original manuscript of his Historia Anglorum (London, British Library, MS Royal 14. ... The wording of the copy of the bull that has survived by implication reinforces a papal claim to England equally with Ireland, as an island: "There is indeed no doubt, as thy Highness doth also acknowledge, that Ireland and all other islands which Christ the Sun of Righteousness has illumined, and which have received the doctrines of the Christian faith, belong to the jurisdiction of St. Peter and of the holy Roman Church." Henry invaded Ireland in 1171, using the papal bull to claim sovereignty over the island, and forced the Cambro-Norman warlords and some of the Gaelic Irish kings to accept him as their overlord. Events Saladin abolishes the Fatimid caliphate, restoring Sunni rule in Egypt. ... Cambro-Norman is a term used for Norman knights who settled in southern Wales after the Norman conquest of England in 1066. ... “Gaelâ€� redirects here. ... Irish Kings or monarchs ruled various kingdoms and territories in Ireland for much of her history. ... If Laudabiliter was of questionable legality, Adrian's successor, Pope Alexander III reconfirmed the grant of Ireland to Henry in 1172, and Irish bishops at the Synod of Cashel, 2 February 1172, accepted the bull. In 1317 some Gaelic kings sent a remonstrance to the Pope asking for Laudabiliter to be revoked, following decades of Norman misrule, indicating that they and their dynasties considered it valid between 1172 and 1317. Pope Alexander III (c. ... Events Duke Richard of Aquitaine becomes Duke of Poitiers. ... Henry awarded his Irish territories to his younger son John with the title Dominus Hiberniae ("Lord of Ireland"). When John unexpectedly succeeded his brother as John of England, the Lordship of Ireland fell directly under the English Crown. Ireland in the century prior to the Anglo-Norman invasion of 1169 is probably best described as a national kingdom lacking a settled monarchy, the kingship being disputed by three regional dynasties. ... This article is about the King of England. ... Coat of arms1 Capital Dublin Language(s) Norman French, Irish, Welsh, English Government Monarchy Lord of Ireland - 1171-1189 Henry II - 1509-1541 Henry VIII Lord Lieutenant - 1528-1529 Piers Butler - 1540–1548 Anthony St Leger Legislature Parliament of Ireland - Upper house Irish House of Lords - Lower house Irish House... I would like to think that this website is also impartial, however I really have no idea. You may turn me into a pcer yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rott Posted December 23, 2008 Share Posted December 23, 2008 Actually he said THEY haven't gone away you know. We were always supposed to believe that he and McMingeface were never members of the PIRA, after all they denied it so many times. And now you tell us they were liars? Who to believe, I just don't know..........Lovely photo by the way, bit meaningless without it's history and provenance. Couldn't just have been a set up could it? Well I certainly believe they were members, but I am not a spokesperson for either of them. As for your comments that the photo could be a set up well I am sure you could find a way to dispute any evidence. Just keep on saying to yourself; "it's not true". "it's not true". I lived in England for a great deal of my life and while most English people are fair-minded there are a significant number who are extremely hostile to anyone with an Irish accent. I always felt sorry for people of a different colour though as they couldn't just put on an accent to fit in. I am sure that I won't have to wait too long for your comments that Irish people have no right to be in England. Well things have moved on in the 12 hours since i was last on the p.c., but at the same time some things never change, i.e., taking the last point first:- You habitually accuse me of things that I do not think and have not said, opinions that on the other side of the coin you will frequently argue forcibly. Irish people in England?(the UK?), I presume they are there legally so have never given the matter a thought. Now take British people in Ireland, as you appear to hold and trot out "production line" Irish Republican opinions you will presumably blame "The British Presence" for all Ireland's problems, as this is the beardy git's standby phrase. It always struck me as supremely ironic that people who based all their acts on a "Brits out of Ireland" premise, could then form a fenian propaganda setup called "The Irish in Britain Movement". The slogan "Brits Out", of course is carefully ambiguous so that it neither includes nor excludes the Ulster Unionist poulation, and you talk of showing people respect? I have never been aware of a significant number of English people who are hostile to anyone with an Irish accent. At the end of the day actions speak louder than words, the RC population in Northern Ireland is proportionally and numerically larger than at the time of partition, Protestants in the 26 counties smaller, and there is of course a substantial Irish poulation in the UK. The photo? I am not in a position to say yea or nay to it's veracity, but I have to be at least a little bit sceptical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Recommended Posts