Mugabe!

[Him Her]

What I objected to was the question of 'personal experience' that was just way out of line.

Why?

The OP wrote:

The fact the media in this country has had nothing but new pope this/new pope that but fail to present a balanced story...

So, when the media in this country had nothing but Mugabe this, Mugabe that, was it unbalanced too? Does that mean what we think we know about Zimbabwe and Mugabe is right or wrong?

If the sum total of our knowledge on a subject is gleaned from media reports it may amount to little. Hence my question.

 

[danforth]

I was trying to separate the religious and legal elements. My views on all religions should be pretty well known by now.

I accept the point that vatican law allows them any visitors they choose, but what about Italian law ?
As part of the EU, and being propped up at the moment by the EU, should they not support an EU travel ban,
at least to the point of refusing entry, if not arrest ?

If Mugabe went to San Marino which, from memory, is also surrounded by Italian soil, would this be allowed by Italy ?
I'm not sure of the legal status of San Marino, but I think not.

Don't want to be egotistical by quoting myself, but it gets my post count off 69 (too many memories) and saves typing.

The religious and political dog-fighting got us into the rant room, and continuation justified that decision.

Moving on, as I assume Mugabe must have (can't afford absence for long, think we could all agree on that),
while Italian silence on that issue is understandable, I've not seen any other EU comment.
A sign of embarrassment, tacit admission of legal loophole, religious influence (please don't start again),
or is it just that, in practical terms, it no longer matters ?

On the face of it, an EU travel ban is bluster, no content. Maybe it's time our celebrated undesirables were
deported for trial, I know it's the EC, not the EU, but again, after the event, I suspect little consequence.

Feel free, we're already in the rant room, and that's what it's for !

 

[nara]

Don't want to be egotistical by quoting myself, but it gets my post count off 69 (too many memories) and saves typing.

The religious and political dog-fighting got us into the rant room, and continuation justified that decision.

Moving on, as I assume Mugabe must have (can't afford absence for long, think we could all agree on that),
while Italian silence on that issue is understandable, I've not seen any other EU comment.
A sign of embarrassment, tacit admission of legal loophole, religious influence (please don't start again),
or is it just that, in practical terms, it no longer matters ?

On the face of it, an EU travel ban is bluster, no content. Maybe it's time our celebrated undesirables were
deported for trial, I know it's the EC, not the EU, but again, after the event, I suspect little consequence.

Feel free, we're already in the rant room, and that's what it's for !

Well at least you're on topic, or am I wrong in assuming that Mugabe's odious presence at the ceremony is the topic.

The OP's contribution in the second half of post #7 and some of the other replies are way off topic.

 

[D 8 RCS]

Moving the wrong way - i think the thread was moving in exactly the right way - The OP seemed to care less about why Mugabe wasnt arrested and more intent on bemoaning catholics.



Why does the catholic church even want to associate themselves with such dictators?? I dont think the catholic church wants to associate itself with dictators but they cant stop a dictator being a catholic?



How anyone can follow a church that seems to support such dictators and some seriously depraved "OTHERS" just beggars belief. Henry 8th chopped off his wifes head - how can anyone follow a church founded by someone who did that (CofE) - what nonsense I know plenty of perfectly reasonable protestants???

Gooner, you have made some good points but you have also got overheated about someone trying to make their point all be it perhaps misguided in the way it was made.
Earlier you said about religion being based on peace, well the scripts of all religions preach peace at some point but they all also advocate hatred and revenge...............that is because all the scripts are a collection of stories. Power seekers and War mongerers have used this as an excuse for war and violence for centuries and it will never change because it is convenient to hide under a flag of religion as an excuse.
Your point about dictators associating with the church is spot on, but as I have just said above it is easy and convenient.
You then have an attack on the C of E (which is what you are blaming the OP of doing to the Catholic Church) with reference to Henry VIII who allegedly founded the C of E as it stands.
The C of E was going before this and was under the authority of the Pope and the Catholic Church, so Henry VIII was "Catholic" but fell out with the Church because they refused to recognise the annulment of his marriage to Catherine of Aragon so he then separated the C of E from the Catholic Church.

Anyhow, Mugabe...................he is a racist, tyrannical dictator who is only interested in power and wealth and does not care how he manages to hang on to that power and wealth and should have been "removed" long before the likes of Gaddafi........In my opinion.

 

[danforth]

Well at least you're on topic, or am I wrong in assuming that Mugabe's odious presence at the ceremony is the topic.

The OP's contribution in the second half of post #7 and some of the other replies are way off topic.

Maybe a bit of both. I picked the part of the OP which interested me, others made a different choice,
so I'm as guilty as everyone else. I enjoy the rant room, but posts do tend to become repetitive.
General chat appears to be viewed more widely, with initially, at least, more diversity.
This one has polarized, and the OP may well have bailed out, possibly just watching with amusement.
If so, my parachute is on standby too.

 

[gooner71]

Gooner, you have made some good points but you have also got overheated about someone trying to make their point all be it perhaps misguided in the way it was made.
Earlier you said about religion being based on peace, well the scripts of all religions preach peace at some point but they all also advocate hatred and revenge...............that is because all the scripts are a collection of stories. Power seekers and War mongerers have used this as an excuse for war and violence for centuries and it will never change because it is convenient to hide under a flag of religion as an excuse.
Your point about dictators associating with the church is spot on, but as I have just said above it is easy and convenient.
You then have an attack on the C of E (which is what you are blaming the OP of doing to the Catholic Church) with reference to Henry VIII who allegedly founded the C of E as it stands.
The C of E was going before this and was under the authority of the Pope and the Catholic Church, so Henry VIII was "Catholic" but fell out with the Church because they refused to recognise the annulment of his marriage to Catherine of Aragon so he then separated the C of E from the Catholic Church.

Any how, Mugabe...................he is a racist, tyrannical dictator who is only interested in power and wealth and does not care how he manages to hang on to that power and wealth and should have been "removed" long before the likes of Gaddafi........In my opinion.

I cant knock your reply - I think its fair and well written. I slightly disagree in so much as I have no problem with the Anglican communion founded through calvinism and lutherism due to corruption in Rome at the time. The official C of E was born out of Henry's disagreement with the church on the issue of divorce although in those times a King would have had the power to do pretty much as he pleased!!

Mugabe, from what I have read and heard from people fleeing Zimbabwe is a tyrant but, such is the world we live in,unless there is a profit for the west we will not get involved, certainly not in any military capacity! I previously purposely steered away from giving an opinion on Mugabe as i felt it would dilute my argument against the OP and give creedence to that post.

If the OP wanted to discuss the merits of an EU travel ban or Mugabe's crimes against humanity the post could have easily reflected that. Unfortunately, it is clear that Mugabe being at Vatican City was merely used as a way to attack the catholic church? I have no trouble debating any of these three points on an issue by issue basis but I do object to being told that I have gone off topic when clearly the main topic on the agenda of the OP was his hatred of the catholic church!! Once you get to post #7 any doubt anyone has about his intentions should be resolved!!

 

[gooner71]

Well at least you're on topic, or am I wrong in assuming that Mugabe's odious presence at the ceremony is the topic.

The OP's contribution in the second half of post #7 and some of the other replies are way off topic.

I think if you put aside the initial reference to Mugabe in the OP and then factor in post#7 its clear the OP wanted to have a dig at the catholic church rather than Mugabe or the EU travel ban. I am pleased some people went on to expand the debate into other areas but its undeniable that attacking the catholic church was the main point and Mugabe was just used as a means to light the touch paper!!!

 

[danforth]

I think if you put aside the initial reference to Mugabe in the OP and then factor in post#7 its clear the OP wanted to have a dig at the catholic church rather than Mugabe or the EU travel ban. I am pleased some people went on to expand the debate into other areas but its undeniable that attacking the catholic church was the main point and Mugabe was just used as a means to light the touch paper!!!

As said before, I extracted a different part out of the OP, because my religious views are not going to be changed in any way.

If the OP was intended as an attack on the catholic church (which his absence would suggest), why did you, and others,
give him the satisfaction, and continue to do so ?

Time for bed, probably for this thread too! :grayno:

 

[jenreban]

I think if you put aside the initial reference to Mugabe in the OP and then factor in post#7 its clear the OP wanted to have a dig at the catholic church rather than Mugabe or the EU travel ban. I am pleased some people went on to expand the debate into other areas but its undeniable that attacking the catholic church was the main point and Mugabe was just used as a means to light the touch paper!!!

without a doubt i used mugabe to orcestrate this attack on the catholic church
or maybe i used a roundabout way to try and show what the catholic church are all about!
either or i'm glad there was some debate:Fish:
still think their was some sensible chat in thread.much more than rants
well maybe:bangshead:

 

[Him Her]

without a doubt i used mugabe to orcestrate this attack on the catholic church
or maybe i used a roundabout way to try and show what the catholic church are all about!
either or i'm glad there was some debate:Fish:
still think their was some sensible chat in thread.much more than rants
well maybe:bangshead:

I suspect that had you just directly attacked the Catholic Church with a reasonable argument there would not have been a problem? Might have been less complicated

 

[nara]

I suspect that had you just directly attacked the Catholic Church with a reasonable argument there would not have been a problem? Might have been less complicated

..and more honest.