Scooby Do
New Member
Where's my pic?
Posts: 21,324
|
Post by Scooby Do on Feb 3, 2009 22:51:06 GMT
What's his name again?
|
|
feral
New Member
Posts: 8,237
|
Post by feral on Feb 3, 2009 23:28:08 GMT
Dunno .But Merkel made a speech slamming the Pope cos of this .< shock horror > .She did it quite politely though
|
|
VikingHumpingWitch
New Member
"My philosophy in life is keep dry and keep away from children. I got it from a matchbox."
Posts: 8,018
|
Post by VikingHumpingWitch on Feb 4, 2009 7:30:54 GMT
But simply holding strange points of view isn't enough reason to ostracise him If that were the case we would be sacking workers who support political parties other than those which we support. Weren't there a couple of police/army people who got suspended when their names were published as BNP members? |
|
|
|
Post by jonren on Feb 4, 2009 8:03:51 GMT
Weren't there a couple of police/army people who got suspended when their names were published as BNP members? " - - - - - -VHW Yes! Quite correct, Vox. "BNP members and supporters have had their names and addresses published on ... serving Metropolitan police officers were suspended" search.live.com/results.aspx?q=police% |
|
ricklinc
New Member
Nostalgia
Posts: 2,597
|
Post by ricklinc on Feb 4, 2009 8:07:58 GMT
I'm not sure what the Pope is up to with this. It's not as if there's a union or diversity enforcer in the Vatican to take him to a religious industrial tribunal for sacking a jumped-up stupid priest. Is he trying to whitewash his Aryan heritage or something?
Get a new supreme pontif.
|
|
|
|
Post by takemebacktolondon on Feb 4, 2009 8:35:27 GMT
Isnt it strange that no one talks about the Gypsies in the holocaust .
Could it be perhaps that they were already being persecuted in the whole West as were the Jews before them .
What do you call anti Gypsy ?
They are certainly persecuted today in the UK .
Perhaps thats why the British today and indeed the world do not recount their experiences under Hitler and Himmler as victims of the holocaust .
No problems with the Jewish experiences though .
|
|
ricklinc
New Member
Nostalgia
Posts: 2,597
|
Post by ricklinc on Feb 4, 2009 8:49:28 GMT
Gypsies wander around a lot so how is anybody supposed to know if they're being persecuted or not? Travellers are another matter. They seem to stop travelling long enough to piss off the locals and either leave a disgusting mess behind them or fail to travel any further pissing off the locals even more by using their rights to make mothers of the whole county. With government backing.
I hear that they were victims before but they sure as fcuk aren't now.
|
|
|
|
Post by bertrus2 on Feb 4, 2009 10:40:39 GMT
Bishop Williams has interesting thoughts on women's trousers, as well. Girls, be mothers, and in order to be mothers, let not wild horses drag you into shorts or trousers. When activities are proposed to you requiring trousers, if it is something your great-grandmother did, then find a way of doing it, like her, in a skirt. And if your great-grandmother did not do it, then forget it! Her generation created your country, your generation is destroying it. Of course not all women who wear trousers abort the fruit of their womb, but all help to create the abortive society. Old-fashioned is good, modern is suicidal. You wish to stop abortion? Do it by example. Never wear trousers or shorts.www.sspx.ca/Documents/Bishop-Williamson/September1-1991.htm(Is this for real?) |
|
VikingHumpingWitch
New Member
"My philosophy in life is keep dry and keep away from children. I got it from a matchbox."
Posts: 8,018
|
Post by VikingHumpingWitch on Feb 4, 2009 10:48:56 GMT
Of course not all women who wear trousers abort the fruit of their womb, but all help to create the abortive society. Old-fashioned is good, modern is suicidal. You wish to stop abortion? Do it by example. Never wear trousers or shorts. [/i][/quote] Hahahahaha brilliant! |
|
mids
New Member
Posts: 61,101
|
Post by mids on Feb 4, 2009 10:57:23 GMT
What a bunch of loons. Too much thinking about women's trousers than is good for the priestly mind.
"For instance Bishop de Castro Mayer used to say that trousers on a woman are worse than a mini-skirt, because while the mini-skirt is sensual and attacks the senses, the trousers are ideological and attack the mind. For indeed women's trousers, as worn today, short or long, modest or immodest, tight or loose, open or disguised (like the "culottes”), are an assault upon woman's womanhood and so they represent a deep-lying revolt against the order willed by God. This may be least true of the long "culottes", trousers most closely resembling a skirt, and at best mistakable for a skirt, but insofar as "culottes" establish the principle of dividing woman's outward apparel from the waist down, they merely disguise the grave disorder."
|
|
|
|
Post by bertrus2 on Feb 4, 2009 11:20:07 GMT
I was slightly worried about the comment in brackets that followed the Bishop's thoughts on 'disorder'.
"they merely disguise the grave disorder. What disorder? ("Excellency, this time really you have flipped your lid!")."
I assume the comment was inserted in the newsletter by somebody sane (i.e. not the Bishop).
|
|
mids
New Member
Posts: 61,101
|
Post by mids on Feb 4, 2009 11:40:59 GMT
It reads like someone was commenting on it as they went along. Hopefully they haven't changed the actual text of anyone's letter.
|
|
VikingHumpingWitch
New Member
"My philosophy in life is keep dry and keep away from children. I got it from a matchbox."
Posts: 8,018
|
Post by VikingHumpingWitch on Feb 4, 2009 12:01:43 GMT
I think that was Williamson's light-hearted comment as to what a person might say if they were unaware of the grave disorder to which he and the Cardinal refer (i.e. the link between women's trousers and witchcraft, satanism and abortion).
I think Excellency is how you address Cardinals, can't remember what it is for Bishops but I think it's Grace or summat.
|
|
|
|
Post by bertrus2 on Feb 4, 2009 12:07:14 GMT
Thank God. Bishop Williamson's letters are genuine. "This time you've really flipped your lid." was a comment by an imaginary reader and made by the Bishop himself. It's a stylistic quirk, which comes up in the follow-up letter (in November) he did to the Pants letter of September 1991. This explains homesexuality as the result of women's pants. something is going profoundly wrong when men in large numbers turn from women to men, and women from men to women. Might not women wearing trousers be contributing to this blurring and confusion of the sexes? In any case this upheaval, this earthquake in the realm of morals, is the correct back-drop against which to view the arguments for women's trousers, only this time the appeal will be to the men.
Men, let us suppose that your womenfolk need to go skiing, sailing, mountaineering, Operation Rescuing, engineering, home repairing, parachuting, etc., etc., and that for these activities they absolutely – or for modesty – require trousers. Nevertheless, if with trousers they gain the activity but lose their femininity, is not the price too great? Today, you want to go mountaineering. Tomorrow, she wants to go with you. The day after she loses her womanliness. The day after that, your son turns to his own kind. Obviously, that is to fast forward the process involved, but the fact remains that when women are allowed, encouraged or pushed into activities in any way diminishing their womanliness or their modesty, they are being betrayed.
"But, Excellency, you are talking as though we men still have some control over what they do!" Reply: if men have lost control, it is only because they have wanted to lose control. Even disobedient modern woman is still, believe it or not, only following her disobedient revolutionary man. If he would obey his God, she would much more easily obey her man. If he is liberal and lawless, why should she not be? "The head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man" (I Cor. XI, 3). The responsibility is man's, coming from God. Modern women have, in general, been betrayed, by the liberalism of their men. www.stas.org/publications/letter/1991/November |
|
ricklinc
New Member
Nostalgia
Posts: 2,597
|
Post by ricklinc on Feb 4, 2009 12:07:33 GMT
I would think that anyone who frowns on masturbation would have a rather distorted view of everything. Science has made a number of serious claims about the dangers of masturbation and maintained these for a considerable time, even when the evidence was lacking. Fortunately, since the 60s, science has come to a more rational view of this vital aspect of human health. You mean that it doesn't really send you blind? Damn! I've wasted all this time! |
|
mids
New Member
Posts: 61,101
|
Post by mids on Feb 4, 2009 12:10:15 GMT
Bish Williamson's far too obsessed with trousers. Maybe because his work clothes are a dress?
|
|
VikingHumpingWitch
New Member
"My philosophy in life is keep dry and keep away from children. I got it from a matchbox."
Posts: 8,018
|
Post by VikingHumpingWitch on Feb 4, 2009 12:14:01 GMT
Hang on. If a woman goes mountaineering her son will go gay? I think I'm missing a link somewhere.
|
|
|
|
Post by cobblers on Feb 4, 2009 12:37:19 GMT
Holding those views is a crime in some countries. Once again all we hear is deafening silence from the so-called "decent" "moderate" Christian "majority". I assume that means tacit agreement and am appalled to find that Christians routinely deny the Holocaust. Risible attempt. First off, there is a huge difference between holding an opinion, however objectionable, and members of your religion letting off bombs that maim and kill in the name of your religion. Secondly, there has been loads of condemnation. Holocaust denial should not be a crim (nor should holding and expressing any views that don't incite violence be a crime) but the only people who would suport this man's views are other Holocaust (or as Tarrant would say Hollowcost) deniers. Thirdly, I've never said muslims should condemn jihadism. I've just said it is interesting that more of them don't (ie in programmes like Undercover Mosque, where hateful views were expressed in front of various Islamic congregations acorss the country and no one said a peep). |
|
|
|
Post by cobblers on Feb 4, 2009 12:38:15 GMT
But simply holding strange points of view isn't enough reason to ostracise him If that were the case we would be sacking workers who support political parties other than those which we support. Weren't there a couple of police/army people who got suspended when their names were published as BNP members? Yes and that was wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by tarrant on Feb 4, 2009 13:36:15 GMT
I would think that anyone who frowns on masturbation would have a rather distorted view of everything. Science has made a number of serious claims about the dangers of masturbation and maintained these for a considerable time, even when the evidence was lacking. Fortunately, since the 60s, science has come to a more rational view of this vital aspect of human health. You mean that it doesn't really send you blind? Damn! I've wasted all this time! Not only doesn't it make you blind but everyone does it, including those who might rant about it. I recall, in about 1967, when the medical authorites finally admitted that it wasn't actually harmful or a sign of underlying preversion, some problems pages in women's magazines suggested that, while it probably wasn't going to do any harm as such, if young boys got into the habit of doing it, they might start to prefer it to the real thing!! |
|
