Topless women activists bang Notre Da...

Topless women activists bang Notre Dame bell in anti-pope protest in Paris cathedral

There are 183 comments on the The Washington Post story from Feb 12, 2013, titled Topless women activists bang Notre Dame bell in anti-pope protest in Paris cathedral. In it, The Washington Post reports that:

Topless women activists have pounded a huge church bell in Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris to "celebrate" the pope's resignation.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at The Washington Post.

Dan

Omaha, NE

#122 Feb 15, 2013
tha Professor wrote:
<quoted text>
My fingernails (which I was not talking about) still grow. I was talking about all my LIVING cells, which indeed are developing. They are not "toddlers," and no one's arguing that toddlers should be aborted. Your arguments seem awfully convoluted.
Fetuses are undeveloped proto-humans in the womb, and vary from a small collection of multiplying cells to a near-human ready for birth. No one ever said any of these were "not human," only that we can decide whether we want the process of development to continue or to end.
To clarify my prior response:

During gestation, the fetus is wholly dependent upon the mother for nourishment, warmth, etc. These needs are met by the mother-the act of fulfilling these needs is done not through overt action, but through the gestaional process itself.

After the birth of the child, the infant is still wholly dependent upon the mother for everything, but now the mother must take overt action to fulfill these needs where she did not previously.

The reasons to not want the child are still there (financial hardship, added responsibility, you can name them). If the woman now decides to to end the development of the child of her own volition, it is a criminal act. If someone other than the mother ends the fetal development of their own volition, its a criminal act in many states.

That's the illogic I'm speaking of. Parsing exclusive authority of life or death out to one person at an arbitrary point in time while punsihing that same person (or others) for the same act at any other point in time is beyond reason.
Dan

Omaha, NE

#123 Feb 15, 2013
Stanley Engel wrote:
<quoted text>
I think that the fools who accept fake miracles (e.g. icons oozing blood, apparitions to crazy women) would believe that the Pope has that authority. He's got magic powers, direct from Jesus.
<quoted text>
What's been debunked? His Holiness admitted an evil woman into his presence and allowed her to kiss his hand. The Pope knew that she supported the "kill the gays" bill and people who saw the photos would be inclined that he also supported it. The Ugandans believe he gave a blessing and it sure seems to me that he did. The Vatican can claim he did something else but that's doubletalk, or "nuance".
<quoted text>
I didn't know we were on a first name basis, Dan. But no, I don't believe any lie I hear and that includes the lies you've been telling on this thread. The Pope met with Ms. Kadaga and that's a privilege given to very few who enter the Vatican. In doing so he gave approval to her wickedness. However, I accept the possibility that he's senile and didn't know what the hell he was doing. That's a strange combination: senility and infallibility. The triune God sure acts in strange ways.
RE: the Kadaga blessing debunked-

Original story with /editors note excerpted below:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belie...

• Editor's note: "The disgrace of Church backing for Ugandan homophobia" was amended because the original headline – "The disgrace of papal blessing for Ugandan homophobia" – and the text incorrectly suggested that the Ugandan parliamentary speaker, Rebecca Kadaga, had received a private audience with the pope and a blessing. Ms Kadaga was part of a delegation from Uganda which attended a public audience to greet the pope. The article was amended at 10am ET on 4 January 2013

What else, Stanley?

“Stop the Brain Rot”

Since: Jan 12

Take a Looonng Vacation

#124 Feb 15, 2013
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
The church doesn't teach that the Pope can decide who goes to heaven or hell. You're wrong. Being aggressively wrong still means you're wrong.
Kadaga didn't receive a papal blessing, Stanley. Sorry. The story was debunked. You ignoring that fact doesn't make it go away.
He's a head of state and he sees foreign delegations all the time. You're just blowing smoke.
Is that all you have?
Hint: "The Church denied it" isn't the same as "debunked."

“Stop the Brain Rot”

Since: Jan 12

Take a Looonng Vacation

#125 Feb 15, 2013
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
To clarify my prior response:
During gestation, the fetus is wholly dependent upon the mother for nourishment, warmth, etc. These needs are met by the mother-the act of fulfilling these needs is done not through overt action, but through the gestaional process itself.
After the birth of the child, the infant is still wholly dependent upon the mother for everything, but now the mother must take overt action to fulfill these needs where she did not previously.
The reasons to not want the child are still there (financial hardship, added responsibility, you can name them). If the woman now decides to to end the development of the child of her own volition, it is a criminal act. If someone other than the mother ends the fetal development of their own volition, its a criminal act in many states.
That's the illogic I'm speaking of. Parsing exclusive authority of life or death out to one person at an arbitrary point in time while punsihing that same person (or others) for the same act at any other point in time is beyond reason.
Which is an elaborate way of saying that you don't want a woman to control her own body, and to do it, you'll lie and distort the whole timeline as much as necessary.

Bleah. Get lost.

“Stop the Brain Rot”

Since: Jan 12

Take a Looonng Vacation

#126 Feb 15, 2013
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
RE: the Kadaga blessing debunked-
Original story with /editors note excerpted below:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belie...
• Editor's note: "The disgrace of Church backing for Ugandan homophobia" was amended because the original headline – "The disgrace of papal blessing for Ugandan homophobia" – and the text incorrectly suggested that the Ugandan parliamentary speaker, Rebecca Kadaga, had received a private audience with the pope and a blessing. Ms Kadaga was part of a delegation from Uganda which attended a public audience to greet the pope. The article was amended at 10am ET on 4 January 2013
What else, Stanley?
As usual, you're arguing technicalities rather than addressing the larger point. From the Guardian REVISED story:

"Yes, that's correct: just around the same time the pope was drafting his first tweet, he met with Ugandan parliamentary speaker Rebecca Kadaga, who had earlier promised to level the death penalty for gays as a "Christmas present" to the Ugandan people (minus, one assumes, the Ugandans who will be murdered because of their sexual orientation). She was part of a delegation from Uganda which greeted the Pope during a public audience. Ugandan media sources reported that Kadaga had received the pope's "blessing", but this was denied by a Vatican spokesman who insisted the meeting was not a "sign of approval of the actions or proposals of Ms Kadaga"."

IOW, he received her, met with her and others. How can that not be viewed as implicit approval? Would a Pope meet with someone whose views he explicitly condemned? Wouldn't he realize that such an action would be viewed as some sort of approval?

I think he's a smart enough guy to have known it would be. You're simply nitpicking here.
Dan

Omaha, NE

#127 Feb 15, 2013
tha Professor wrote:
<quoted text>
Hint: "The Church denied it" isn't the same as "debunked."
No, it isn't. The editorial board at the Guardian did it.

RE: the Kadaga blessing debunked-

Original story cited with editors note excerpted below:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belie ...

• Editor's note: "The disgrace of Church backing for Ugandan homophobia" was amended because the original headline – "The disgrace of papal blessing for Ugandan homophobia" – and the text incorrectly suggested that the Ugandan parliamentary speaker, Rebecca Kadaga, had received a private audience with the pope and a blessing. Ms Kadaga was part of a delegation from Uganda which attended a public audience to greet the pope. The article was amended at 10am ET on 4 January 2013
Dan

Omaha, NE

#128 Feb 15, 2013
tha Professor wrote:
<quoted text>
As usual, you're arguing technicalities rather than addressing the larger point. From the Guardian REVISED story:
"Yes, that's correct: just around the same time the pope was drafting his first tweet, he met with Ugandan parliamentary speaker Rebecca Kadaga, who had earlier promised to level the death penalty for gays as a "Christmas present" to the Ugandan people (minus, one assumes, the Ugandans who will be murdered because of their sexual orientation). She was part of a delegation from Uganda which greeted the Pope during a public audience. Ugandan media sources reported that Kadaga had received the pope's "blessing", but this was denied by a Vatican spokesman who insisted the meeting was not a "sign of approval of the actions or proposals of Ms Kadaga"."
IOW, he received her, met with her and others. How can that not be viewed as implicit approval? Would a Pope meet with someone whose views he explicitly condemned? Wouldn't he realize that such an action would be viewed as some sort of approval?
I think he's a smart enough guy to have known it would be. You're simply nitpicking here.
"Nitpicking"?

Stanley has argued for days on the basis that the Ugandan was "blessed".

She wasn't.

The Pope has received delagations from countless nations. He's received Israeli delegations. Are we to assume as a result that the Pope is a proponent of Judaism?
Dan

Omaha, NE

#129 Feb 15, 2013
tha Professor wrote:
<quoted text>
Which is an elaborate way of saying that you don't want a woman to control her own body, and to do it, you'll lie and distort the whole timeline as much as necessary.
Bleah. Get lost.
It's me telling you that the stated premise of "conrtol of her own body" used to buttress abortion is illogical. The premise fails once the "in control" woman tells us she is pregnant against her wishes. Can't cede control until Point X and then claim it post-facto.

Tell me where my timeline was off. I don't think it's debatable that birth follows gestation, but maybe you can correct me. Go ahead.

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#130 Feb 15, 2013
tha Professor wrote:
<quoted text>
Then you'd be stupid or dishonest in saying so. The Pope has ENORMOUS power over the lives and thought processes of Catholics worldwide, is the leader of their Church, and his word is law to many if not most Catholics.
"Legal power to force" something wasn't what I was claiming, but you're being incredibly disingenuous to pretend he has NO power.
I DO believe it's a crime to urge people not to protect themselves from disease because of th epolicies of a religious organization, yes. Sorry you think American guarantees of free speech apply here, somehow.
Its not a crime to urge people to do anything. You can urge people to jump off a cliff for all I care. Its called freedom of speech and .Its really up to them if they decide to jump or not.
If you are going to arrest the Pope for what he says how about Hollywood for its movies that glamorize drug use and violence. Or Gangsta rapper or Country song that glamorize drinking?
No one should ever be tossed in Jail for giving his opinion no matter how wrong. Doing so is called Fascism.

“Stop the Brain Rot”

Since: Jan 12

Take a Looonng Vacation

#131 Feb 15, 2013
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
"Nitpicking"?
Stanley has argued for days on the basis that the Ugandan was "blessed".
She wasn't.
The Pope has received delagations from countless nations. He's received Israeli delegations. Are we to assume as a result that the Pope is a proponent of Judaism?
I'm arguing with YOU, not Stanley. You're arguing technicalities - she was RECEIVED, which is almost as bad as blessing her vile ideas. Don't try to pretend he doesn't know who he's receiving. You're insulting the man's intelligence.
Dan

Omaha, NE

#132 Feb 15, 2013
tha Professor wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm arguing with YOU, not Stanley. You're arguing technicalities - she was RECEIVED, which is almost as bad as blessing her vile ideas. Don't try to pretend he doesn't know who he's receiving. You're insulting the man's intelligence.
She was part of a diplomatic delegation received at Vatican City.

It's not "almost" a blessing. It is how it was described.

Stanley's (and yours, now) projection is what's insulting of one's intelligence.

It's a baseless argument that you keep pushing, all facts to the contrary.

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#133 Feb 15, 2013
tha Professor wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm arguing with YOU, not Stanley. You're arguing technicalities - she was RECEIVED, which is almost as bad as blessing her vile ideas. Don't try to pretend he doesn't know who he's receiving. You're insulting the man's intelligence.
Considering he often receive 50 or more people at a time from these delegation , and often receive several delegations a day, I would say he often has no clue who he is receiving.
Dan

Omaha, NE

#134 Feb 15, 2013
californio wrote:
<quoted text>Considering he often receive 50 or more people at a time from these delegation , and often receive several delegations a day, I would say he often has no clue who he is receiving.
Of course he doesn't know every single person he sees.

No way he could.

“I Am No One To Be Trifled With”

Since: Jun 09

Dread Pirate Roberts

#135 Feb 19, 2013
Look, you could where rubber gloves to not get electrocuted by sticking your finger in a socket but the most effective way to NOT get electrocuted is NOT to stick your finger in an electrical socket....

Now apply that here....

The most effective way not to get an STD is not to stick things in places....
I can read

Edinburgh, UK

#136 Feb 19, 2013
Knightmare wrote:
Look, you could where rubber gloves to not get electrocuted by sticking your finger in a socket but the most effective way to NOT get electrocuted is NOT to stick your finger in an electrical socket....
Now apply that here....
The most effective way not to get an STD is not to stick things in places....
So to extend your analogy: You'd support the catholic church encouraging all electricians to stop using safety equipment, even if it killed a million people every year.

What purpose does this serve?
Hirohitos Surprise

Tiverton, RI

#137 Feb 19, 2013
The church would have endorsed this event had it been about topless children. The hoards of pedophile clergy would of course have kept the event a private affair. The pope can now reflect on his role in covering all the sex scandals he could up.

“I Am No One To Be Trifled With”

Since: Jun 09

Dread Pirate Roberts

#138 Feb 19, 2013
I can read wrote:
<quoted text>
So to extend your analogy: You'd support the catholic church encouraging all electricians to stop using safety equipment, even if it killed a million people every year.
What purpose does this serve?
No, I'd encourage a commone sense approach where everyone who is NOT a professional electrician to stay clear of electrical sockets....

Seriously....

“Stop the Brain Rot”

Since: Jan 12

Take a Looonng Vacation

#139 Feb 19, 2013
Knightmare wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I'd encourage a commone sense approach where everyone who is NOT a professional electrician to stay clear of electrical sockets....
Seriously....
IOW, you'd prohibit people from making their own repairs based on their own natural desire to fix things, and turn it all over to a professional organization which does these things for money, right?

That says a lot about you...:)

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#140 Feb 19, 2013
I can read wrote:
<quoted text>
So to extend your analogy: You'd support the catholic church encouraging all electricians to stop using safety equipment, even if it killed a million people every year.
What purpose does this serve?
As I said freedom of speech. anyone can encourage anyone to do anything. Its up to the individual to make the final decision.
I can read

Edinburgh, UK

#141 Feb 19, 2013
Knightmare wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I'd encourage a commone sense approach where everyone who is NOT a professional electrician to stay clear of electrical sockets....
Seriously....
SO to continue your analogy once again:

Everyone but gynecologists should stay clear of vagina's.

That's why it's fine for the Catholic church to deliberately teach Africans things which will get them killed.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories - Pope Benedict XVI Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Preview: The Pope's Choir Dec 20 KenJr26 1
News Pope Francis celebrates 80th birthday with the ... Dec 18 Butlerrr 1
News Pope Francis: Apologize to gay people and others (Jun '16) Dec '16 Anonymous 5
News Pope to US Catholics: Study, pray, vote your co... Oct '16 Hostis Publicus 5
News Pope wraps up visit to Poland with Mass for 1.5M Jul '16 Mik 1
News Pope calls delivery of weapons, not food a 'str... (Jun '16) Jun '16 wichita-rick 5
News Pope's zero tolerance for pedophiles faces test... (Mar '15) May '16 Gods r Delusions ... 4
More from around the web