digg

Join DiggAbout

Digg Townhall Tonight!
Tune into the live Digg townhall tonight at 5:00pm PST/8:00pm EST.

Law allows anti-pope activists to 'annoy' Catholic pilgrims

timesonline.co.uk — Anti-papal activists in Australia have won permission to annoy Catholic pilgrims at the World Youth Day celebrations in Sydney after a court upheld their right to hand out condoms and coat hangers.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • kloop10, on 07/16/2008, -25/+6wow, how in the world did they win that ? :/
    • blackmesa, on 07/16/2008, -2/+33Because a law saying it's illegal to "annoy" (in it's own words) anyone is a stupid law that should be struck down. The right to offend someone is more important than the right not to be offended.

      Honestly, even the major church leaders and organisers said the government went too far. The judges agreed.
      • norman619, on 07/16/2008, -11/+2Ah yes and please don't bother us if/when you are stopped from doing something you want which harms no one by some other ignorant ass who feels offended and/or annoyed by your activities. It's called freedom. Yes I know you feel it should only be given to people you agree with.
      • blackmesa, on 07/16/2008, -1/+6"Ah yes and please don't bother us if/when you are stopped from doing something you want which harms no one by some other ignorant ass"

        No, you see, if they actually _stopped_ me from exercising my own freedom, then they would be doing more that just "annoying" me. Your own personal freedom is limited to things that do not curtail the freedom of others. The legislation made it illegal to "annoy" World Youth Day pilgrims. Obviously this is extremely broad. Annoyance can easily include things that do not violate the above rule I mentioned.

        So don't tell me what freedom is. You don't ***** know.

        Other parties are free to express opinions just as I am free to express my own. We can all annoy each other. If I was doing something that "harmed no one" and which I was free to do and was stopped (presumably by force? or against my will?) then I'm being denied liberty. Uttering an "annoying" comment does not affect the freedom of the pilgrims. I frequently put up with the annoying comments of Jehovah's witnesses turning up at my door, but I don't think they should be outlawed.

        People like you are the ones who end up letting stupid laws like these get passed.
      • DuffyDirect, on 07/16/2008, -2/+3"Don't tell me what freedom is!"

        ah I love the hypocrisy in the morning...
    • Godlike, on 07/16/2008, -0/+11Because it's not illegal to give things away for free?
      • TheDeepFriar, on 07/16/2008, -2/+4...unless it's drugs
      • Godlike, on 08/11/2008, -0/+1No it's just illegal to get caught. Read how the laws are written, stuff like "is found to posses" etc, it almost always says "is known to" or "is found to".
    • wilywondr, on 07/16/2008, -3/+14Maybe because Australia is not run by wacko Xtians that believe in the grey-bearded, cloud floating old man that controls everything. It is difficult for some in the US to understand that not all people believe in the easter bunny.
      • use2bacanadian, on 07/16/2008, -3/+1Australia is run by a moron who makes President Busch look like a Rhodes Scholar!
      • travis1982, on 07/16/2008, -0/+1Who's the moron who can't even spell Bush.
  • skewl, on 07/16/2008, -8/+33We have the right to peaceful assembly and these annoyance laws contravene that right. The judges specifically said condoms, T-shirts, coat hangers and so on.
    • Seldon2639, on 07/16/2008, -17/+3You have the right to peacefully assemble, and they have the right to freedom of speech on public property. Your right to assemble is not contravened by their right to assemble concurrently, and to even speak out against what you happen to believe. If this were any other day, and a group of people were handing out condoms, t-shirts, whatever else (including when Catholics have handed out bibles to others) on public property, no one would even be talking about this.

      Or, are you saying that their rights should be limited because it may bother you?
      • Dundasbro, on 07/16/2008, -1/+12Actually, he is agreeing with you. Reading comprehension for the win!
      • Seldon2639, on 07/16/2008, -0/+5Dundasbro, you're right. I'd misunderstood Skewl's original post. I assumed he was on the side of the Catholics, and touting their right to peacefully assemble without being annoyed. Mea culpa
    • masamunecyrus, on 07/16/2008, -4/+5That said, isn't it a bit ridiculous how common anti-protest-protests are becoming? Is it really necessary to counter-protest? Granted, the World Youth Day is an assembly and not really a protest, but it's not that different.
    • Shawn4168, on 07/16/2008, -4/+10You know, the Catholics have the right to peaceful assembly, too. They're going to a conference, they're not hurting anybody. So leave them the hell alone.
      • warriorscot, on 07/16/2008, -1/+6Why? There are allot of very good reasons to protest against the catholic church for both past and present policies. Any gathering of the church and its supporters is and should always be fair game to those who would make there disagreement known.
      • darneveryone, on 07/16/2008, -1/+3They have a right to peaceful assembly. They have a right not to be arrested. They don't have a right not to be criticized or annoyed.
      • Dundasbro, on 07/17/2008, -0/+1I don't see how free condoms or coat-hangers damages the WYD gathers from assembling peacefully.
    • Smills, on 07/17/2008, -0/+1This article is very misleading. A law was passed that prevented people from saying or doing anything that the pilgrims considered annoying. If one of them did not like your actions for any reason, they could issue an on-the-spot fine of over $5,000. What has happened is that the power of the pilgrims to do that has been revoked as it was stopping free-speech.

      This article is making it out that the government has created a law saying that it is ok to annoy Catholics, when instead they have simply removed one saying that it is not.
  • Shootfast, on 07/16/2008, -5/+16"regulate annoying behaviour would affect freedom of speech"

    There's no law providing freedom of speech here, just saying. At least it got overturned
    • blackmesa, on 07/16/2008, -0/+14No codified law, but this decision (amongst many others) has led to a quite well defined body of case law and precedents that support free speech. Yes, it's true we have no bill of rights or constitutional doctrine of free speech, but it's protected reasonably well by the Common Law.

      I'd still like a bill of rights, but it's not as bad as people make it seem. The judge in this case struck down the law for two main reasons:
      1) It went beyond the intentions of the original legislation created in 2006 (World Youth Day Act 2006)
      2) It violated the "fundamental" (judge's words) right of free speech.
      • norman619, on 07/16/2008, -1/+7Common sense came out on top. It was a good day.
    • Dundasbro, on 07/16/2008, -0/+2There is a law that forbids government to create laws pertaining to religion in our constitution though, if I remember correctly. A good lawyer could argue that the World Youth Day Act is a law that has been made to respect religion.
    • passedoutghost, on 07/16/2008, -0/+1As blackmesa said, there's no statute, but it's implied in the Constitution as exemplified in the cases of McGinty, Lange and Roach which is more than enough to guarantee it's existence.
  • Mr.Gone, on 07/16/2008, -15/+57What doesn't annoy catholics though?
    • RudeTurnip, on 07/16/2008, -4/+21I think you'll find the Protestant derivatives are the thinner-skinned of the various branches of Christians.
    • dygel, on 07/16/2008, -1/+11The missionary position.
    • DuffyDirect, on 07/16/2008, -0/+1lots of things... or have you not heard irish bagpipes?
    • mllawso, on 07/16/2008, -1/+1Bread-crackers.
      Though they do seem to get upset when you put cheese-wiz on them.
  • mimigins, on 07/16/2008, -27/+13Coat hangers? That's a pretty ***** gross. They should just leave those people the hell alone.
    • stevetrojanman, on 07/16/2008, -10/+12At this point, nothing from the radical anti-religious groups would shock me...

      They go for shock value thinking they're making a point, but really they just end up looking like idiots.

      The same thing goes for the ultra-religious protesters...pictures of aborted fetuses are not necessary...again, going for shock value is stupid and makes your argument less significant.
    • norman619, on 07/16/2008, -4/+5You should leave us the hell alone.
      • BOFH2, on 07/16/2008, -3/+2Non-Catholic here - who are you and us?
    • passedoutghost, on 07/16/2008, -4/+1I agree, it's a pretty dick thing to do. I mean just because I don't agree with homosexuality (not that I have anything against it, I just don't swing that way) doesn't mean I go to the mardi gras and ruin their fun.

      LEAVE CATHOLICS ALONE! /Chris Crocker.
      • SpyDerMann, on 07/16/2008, -0/+5Mardi Gras? Heh. Whenever I hear about Gay Pride festivals, I wonder if they're not actually humilliating themselves with the costumes, lipsticks and ridiculous eyelashes.

        If I was gay, I'd be embarrassed about those.
      • mrkmrk, on 07/16/2008, -2/+1I agree, it's a pretty dick thing to do. I mean just because I don't agree with the existence of blacks (not that I have anything against them, I'm just not one of them) doesn't mean I go to mardi gras and ruin their fun.

        LEAVE WHITE SUPREMACISTS ALONE! /Chris Crocker.
      • norman619, on 07/16/2008, -0/+3You seem to think Mardi Gras is a gay festival. You obviously have never been. Let me fill you in. It's not.
  • DanBoodro, on 07/16/2008, -8/+43"The pope is wrong put a condom on"
  • Pobotrol, on 07/16/2008, -17/+58It's all fair, because Catholicism annoys me too.
    • soupdawg30, on 07/16/2008, -13/+12How? No one is going to try a persuade you to join.
      • scex, on 07/16/2008, -9/+8How about getting to call their "event" world youth day, and not world catholic youth day?
        Anyone would think this was a fun and interesting event, not just an excuse for a bunch of religious nutters to circle jerk over our fine country.Not to mention the vandalism of the war memorial in Hyde Park.
      • nmnnotmyname, on 07/16/2008, -2/+19I beg to differ. Alot of them try to persuade me from being athiest.
      • soupdawg30, on 07/16/2008, -2/+8Well if you are being annoyed by them trying to get you to join I am sorry. I have never been told as a Catholic to try and recruit members, or "save" atheist. Honestly I can't stand most baptists for that reason alone.
      • Pixelante, on 07/16/2008, -1/+1I see no problems at all in jerking over your fine country.
      • Pobotrol, on 07/16/2008, -1/+6Who said I was being recruited?

        Doctrine doesn't have to be directed at me to annoy me, the same way as US foreign policies don't directly affect me but annoy me, or Nestle's aggressive marketing in the third world annoys me.

        Catholicism's stance on abortion and contraception annoys me.
      • DuffyDirect, on 07/16/2008, -0/+2touchy little c*nt, ain't ye?
      • Skorme, on 07/16/2008, -0/+2@Soupdawg30

        Does it bother you that it's called recruiting?
      • soupdawg30, on 07/16/2008, -0/+2No cause as far as I'm concerned we don't recruit.
      • warriorscot, on 07/16/2008, -0/+2You speak for all Catholics do you? Because if you do you might want to call a meeting to tell them you don't recruit or "try to save our heathen souls" cause some people didn't get the memo.
      • KobraKommander, on 07/17/2008, -0/+0"No cause as far as I'm concerned we don't recruit."
        Try telling that to all the Jews who were forced to either convert of be tortured to death during the inquisition. What about the millions of Muslims killed during the crusades, or even the native tribes of South America who were slaughtered by the Spanish or the French Huguenot colonists in St. Augustine Florida who were chased to a sand bar in the Matanzas bay and told if they converted and lay down their arms they would be spared and after-wards the Spanish troops then proceeded to kill them and their wives and children under order of the king of Spain with approval of the pope? I think the Catholic church is the furthest thing from a proper Christian religion with its hugely oppressive and violent past, not to mention if it weren't for the crusades the world may have never had to endure this Jihad/ terrorism epidemic we have now.
  • removesstains, on 07/16/2008, -23/+17Dugg for coat hangers.LOL thats awesome.
    • fattyb, on 07/16/2008, -7/+19too bad your mom didn't use one :)
    • toekneebullard, on 07/16/2008, -6/+4Feel however you want about abortion, but to support the idea of a woman ripping out her insides with a coat hanger is just ***** up.
      • HillerMylife, on 07/24/2008, -1/+2They're not supporting back-alley abortions, they're saying that the Church's stance leads to them. A tenuous argument maybe, but that's what they're saying.
  • Untit1ed, on 07/16/2008, -8/+3Thank god for that
  • exec0extreme, on 07/16/2008, -24/+43I'm not against the peaceful assembly aspect of this, but bothering these people is just a dick thing to do. Leave em alone and go rally against the War or something.
    • HillerMylife, on 07/24/2008, -10/+17If I don't have the right to be a dick, then, well, ***** you.
      • SpyDerMann, on 07/16/2008, -3/+7Congratulations! You've just shown an example of how to start a war.
      • Skorme, on 07/16/2008, -0/+1You can't ***** if you're not a dick.
      • AzureRise, on 07/16/2008, -0/+1@Skorme
        Stop discriminating against lesbians!
    • DryMaltExtract, on 07/16/2008, -11/+6Harassing a bunch of religious people is our god given right damnit.

      Besides, when those assholes were in Toronto they overflowed toilets everywhere and caused a "*****"-ton of damage and wouldn't pay for it.
      • passedoutghost, on 07/16/2008, -2/+2Just because it's a right doesn't mean you need to do it.
      • HillerMylife, on 07/24/2008, -1/+4Just because I don't need to do it doesn't mean I won't.
    • Nosferotu, on 07/16/2008, -12/+14It's not a dick thing to do, it's speaking out against what, to non-religious folk, is a massive organization that brainwashes children into false beliefs.
    • wilywondr, on 07/16/2008, -5/+20Well isn't that the pot calling the kettle black. F*cking xtians hang out in front of various medical clinics/street corners everyday spewing their fairy tale mumbo jumbo at anyone within range.
      Did the cloud wizard direct you to come to digg.com this morning?
    • EmileVictor, on 07/16/2008, -4/+5I'm at WYD for reasons other than going to mass & eating bread etc. I'm here to have fun, go out to Kings Cross with mates & meet foreign women I can practise my language skills on.

      It pisses me off to no end that someone would want to annoy the people here - all of them are good and don't deserve to be given ***** just because they are religious (I must admit, as a moderate I find it a bit affronting, but I'm not giving out clothes hangers now to them, am I?).
    • TheUngod, on 07/16/2008, -0/+8It's no different than Christians handing out bibles and pamphlets at a city common or in a subway. If you want to hand out your propaganda, at least allow others to do the same.
    • warriorscot, on 07/16/2008, -0/+1I think thats kinda the point of the whole protest thing.
  • crackberri, on 07/16/2008, -20/+3And the Hitler lovers march on…….
    • coyote1284, on 07/16/2008, -2/+7Worst. Godwin. Ever.
    • nigh7dagger, on 07/16/2008, -0/+4That's a Godwin fail. It didn't even come close to making sense.
  • blackmesa, on 07/16/2008, -3/+24A more accurate headline would be "Law criminalising 'annoyance' of Catholic pilgrims struck down". There was no law passed that permitted this action (as implied by the headline and description), rather a law which prevented it was removed (for obvious reasons).
    • 0tis, on 07/16/2008, -0/+2I think the implication was that "the Law" (as in "the long arm of") allowed it, rather than that any particular law was passed. But hey, everyone loves a nitpicker on Digg, so I dugg you up anyway.
  • MrIso, on 07/16/2008, -13/+4I am the anti-pope
    I am the anti-pope
    Like a lion kills an antelope
    Like a hammer hits a cantaloup

    http://youtube.com/watch?v=GGBHfXPqbgI
    • drewmtb, on 07/16/2008, -4/+0Why are people digging Mriso down!!!

      It's Zlad damn it.
  • idontlikeyou2, on 07/16/2008, -8/+47In Australia, we've had issues with Islam, and the consensus is that they should abide by our rules in society. The same applies to the Chrisitans, they don't get any special laws to protect their feelings.
    • mlagana, on 07/16/2008, -9/+5few non-muslims care about the feelings of muslims in australia, many white australians are christian you can't compare the two.
      • TheNakedChef, on 07/16/2008, -2/+8Christians, but not catholic and there's a huge population which is agnostic or atheist. We are not talking USA here. Catholics are minority and yes, they are everywhere now, chanting their songs, poking everyone on the streets with their flags and being a general nuisance to everyone. I've not met a single person who wasn't annoyed with the whole event, especially that our money are footing the bill for it.

        (former catholic)
      • sooperspook, on 07/16/2008, -4/+1You haven't met a single person not annoyed by it? Maybe because the people who aren't annoyed by it aren't spouting off to other people about not being annoyed.
        It's only those with something to bitch about that say anything.

        Like you.

        And don't generalise. Not all Catholics stand around "chanting songs" and "poking people with their flags" and "beign a general niusance". Thats like saying the Muslims are all strapping on bombs and preparing to run into a market place. Completely untrue.
      • DuffyDirect, on 07/16/2008, -0/+1Since when are Catholics a majority in the U.S.?
      • LeRenard, on 07/16/2008, -0/+2I'm a bit baffled by "We are not talking USA here".. and personally I've never really heard a peep from the Catholics as a group here. Mostly seem to be elderly women who enjoy bingo. It's odd that that a church whose name means "universal" seems to be different everywhere you go.
    • ftx437, on 07/16/2008, -9/+9It's one thing to be annoying and it's a completely other to hand out coat hangers and condoms that to me is not being annoying it taking things to a whole new level....
      It's the same as having the kkk at the million man march passing out white caps, burning cross's and swastikas .
      • Screwy1138, on 07/16/2008, -0/+5Yeah you'd have to allow swastikas, burning crosses, KKK outfits based on this ruling.

        Which is kind of okay to me, not sure how I feel about that. People need to be not so insulted all the time.
      • AeonTorpor, on 07/16/2008, -3/+4That is a sickeningly horrible comparison.

        The million man march wasn't about using ideology to suppress the masses. And handing out condoms and coat hangers isn't the same as supporting the annihilation of a race and hatred of everyone not Aryan.

        It's terrible that you would bring up such a struggle as those fighting for black rights to illustrate a very flawed point.
      • Screwy1138, on 07/16/2008, -0/+2Sure it's extreme. But it's not flawed. The ruling was simply about using symbols (condoms and coat hangers) to counter protest a rally. Fundamentally the ruling says that people need to have thicker skin, which is fine. I personally would never try to insult people that way, focusing energy on hatred and negative things just seems silly.
      • TheUngod, on 07/16/2008, -2/+1As opposed to handing out bibles and "the world is ending" pamphlets? I get those once in a while and, as a Jew, they are annoying and offensive. So take your coat hanger and condom with a smile and remember your people are no better.
      • Screwy1138, on 07/16/2008, -1/+1TheUngod, you're only making my point. It's all acceptable.
    • IKORKYI, on 07/16/2008, -0/+2it makes me sick that catholics actively campaign in AIDS stricken Africa against use of condoms. why is that annoying? does it make logical sense to anyone that use of condoms is a sin? How do you even rationalize that? Is pulling out a sin too then?

      I hate how hypocritical some Catholics can be. On one hand, they say that condoms and being gay are sins because it is in the bible. On the other hand they choose to ignore the "sex only for reproduction" as a sin - claiming it just isnt realistic. Find a catholic family, and i PROMISE you the parents had sex more than just trying to have the children. So which one is it, do you do whatever the Catholic church tells you and "leave the consequences to God (aka let god be responsible for the continual spread of AIDS)", or do you have your own mind? You can't take the good of both and none of the bad.

      And wouldn't handing out coat hangers be more of a Pro-Life thing? I mean I'm not against abortion but the thought of using a coat hanger to scramble things up isn't pleasent (plus thats not the way they do it anymore).
  • Maximilian000, on 07/16/2008, -5/+14Everyone has always had the God given right to be annoying, the problem is that many people (especially religious fanatics and Republicans) have exercised that right too much. The court hearing outlined in the article was a reaction to the Aussie government's introduction of special measures to stop WYD pilgrims from being annoyed by people with objections to the Church's politics. The ruling doesn't mean that the courts are inspiring people to annoy Catholics, they are just overturning a ridiculous set of measures introduced to give the police more power to suppress anti-christian sentiment. Bloody good work by the courts if you asked me.
    • HillerMylife, on 07/24/2008, -0/+6The minute you start declaring who is being "too annoying" with their speech is the minute that you are governing too much.
    • feliks2, on 07/16/2008, -6/+6***** you, nothing is "god given" to me.
  • XxtraLarGe, on 07/16/2008, -26/+10I'm not Catholic, but I have to call into question the logic here. This atheist group is claiming that Catholicism's policy of abstinence outside of marriage & no birth control causes "back alley abortions"? I'd say that "back alley abortions" are a consequence of not following those policies. It's pretty simple. If you don't want to get pregnant, don't have sex. I know it's an unpopular position here, but condoms break and other birth control methods fail as well.
    • HillerMylife, on 07/24/2008, -2/+9Condoms might break, but will breaks easier.
    • kestrel7e7, on 07/16/2008, -3/+2Assuming the Catholic policy is followed to the letter... reality is another thing altogether.
      • XxtraLarGe, on 07/16/2008, -1/+3Exactly my point. It's peoples' own irresponsibility that causes these problems, not the church's policies.
      • HillerMylife, on 07/24/2008, -2/+3Seems more than a touch irresponsible to me to promote a repressive and ineffective method of "contraception" backed up by the threat of damnation.
    • Ratm22, on 07/16/2008, -2/+3VIRGIN ALERT!!!!!!
    • AndreiOttawa, on 07/16/2008, -0/+3Really? Are you nuts? I think it's easier, healthier and more fun to put on a condom than just be abstinent.
  • XxtraLarGe, on 07/16/2008, -9/+1Oh, here's a little added irony...

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1035336/ ...
  • jer2eydevil88, on 07/16/2008, -10/+14[Quote from the article] Alan:"..moral dictates of its imaginary deity.."

    The non-existence of God is unprovable, while a God could hypothetically give objective knowledge of Himself, which is what religious claim: faith is pure knowledge. So your statement is unfounded, and your belief irrational

    Jesus is God.

    Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK[/QUOTE]

    Some people scare me.



    • AuriniDMJ, on 07/16/2008, -2/+4EDIT: Heh, didn't realize you were quoting at first. Oh, well, here's a response to Greg Lorriman, then.

      Ahem:

      Yes, yes, 'God moves in mysterious ways.' For every Godhead that a thinking person disproves, you can invent thirty new ways for your 'God of the Cracks' to fit into reality.

      Thankfully, we're not talking about *any* God - we're talking about a very specific God, with very specific moral dictates; metaphysical claims which can be put to the test. The arguments are by no means simple (partly because theologians have been saying "Yes, but.." for fifteen-hundred years), but they're pretty damning once you've read them all.

      Start here: www.infidels.org
  • ph00p, on 07/16/2008, -6/+8:) progress one small battle at a time! :)
    • zacharytelschow, on 07/16/2008, -4/+3Being an obnoxious dick one day at a time.
  • ikarimaru, on 07/16/2008, -2/+24That's nice of them! Now they can hang up their coats :)

    Wait... Oooooooooooooooohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh...
    • nmnnotmyname, on 07/16/2008, -3/+3Funniest responce based on this so far.
  • CYG101, on 07/16/2008, -5/+2Zlad is the real Anti-Pope: http://youtube.com/watch?v=GGBHfXPqbgI
    (Not a rick roll...)
  • Ratteler, on 07/16/2008, -8/+1In other news. Australian supports free speech against religious nutbags.

    Oh wait... that's the same new stated honestly. Sorry.
    • malman4, on 07/16/2008, -3/+4Speech is one thing, but hand me a coat hanger and I'll show you a use for it you will not enjoy..........
      • IKORKYI, on 07/16/2008, -0/+2and then you'll go to jail and he will plan a civil suit
      • Ratteler, on 07/17/2008, -1/+1I wish I was that smart. I'd just make him show me on himself. :-D
  • ftx437, on 07/16/2008, -10/+8If there allowed to do this then Atheists stfu when people pray around you..and deal
    • blackmesa, on 07/16/2008, -1/+7They don't need to "stfu"... nobody does... that's the point of free speech.
    • violo, on 07/16/2008, -1/+2I am an atheist but I do see your point.
      I am completely against christians, and mormons and jehova's witnesses trying to convince me that God/Jesus/the easter bunny loves me.
      This would be the exact reverse, and it would be wrong too.
    • warriorscot, on 07/16/2008, -1/+1Its not the praying that bothers people, its all the other BS.
    • IKORKYI, on 07/16/2008, -0/+1i have no problem with people praying around me, i have a problem if it is led by a school or government institution.
  • igyigyigy, on 07/16/2008, -1/+12Coat hangers?
    classy...
    • LilJimmyNordin, on 07/16/2008, -2/+5Unfortunately, if the Christians had their way, coat hangers is all we'd have left. Now THAT'S classy.
      • ProUSADigger, on 07/16/2008, -3/+0Self control is always an option too.
      • LilJimmyNordin, on 07/16/2008, -0/+3So's suicide. So's castration. So's World Of Warcraft. Etc. Etc.

        I want ALL my options, not just the ones you think are appropriate, moral or "godly".
  • kestrel7e7, on 07/16/2008, -0/+2Everyone's invited!
  • ProUSADigger, on 07/16/2008, -10/+3There is nothing good at all about this. They should just let those people live
    their lives without constant hassle. Shameful, really.
  • toekneebullard, on 07/16/2008, -0/+2Revenge fixes everything.

    /end sarcasm
  • zacharytelschow, on 07/16/2008, -8/+3What a bunch of obnoxious pricks. Just as obnoxious as the Christians who celebrate at inappropriate times in inappropriate places (funerals of gays, etc). Beleive what you want, but you don't have to go out of your way to be a jerk about it.
    • EmileVictor, on 07/16/2008, -0/+3WBC is not Christian...
    • IKORKYI, on 07/16/2008, -0/+1look at it as reparations to the rest of the world for the Crusades
  • markgl, on 07/16/2008, -6/+5people are just plain mean these days.
  • NarcisseDeD, on 07/16/2008, -3/+1Anybody noticed that these "annoying" people seems to be Raelians ...?

    I'm not really sure about the one I prefer... Let me think... Pope... Rael...

    Too hard to choose. I think I'll stay neutral in this one.
    • use2bacanadian, on 07/16/2008, -2/+0Raliens arent out molesting young boys in their care are they??
  • Screwy1138, on 07/16/2008, -11/+19Christianity aside, what is so tragic about believing a human is formed at conception? There is no science that proves that it is not a human life. In fact, as science itself advances, we will be able to provide medical support for a new embryo outside of the womb and care for that human until it is able to live on it's own off of medical support.

    I understand hatred for Christianity may inspire people to be pro-choice. Also, blatant interest in lust and sexual promiscuity encourages this belief as well.

    But I don't understand why people would so passionately hate the idea that some people want to respect human life from beginning to end. Those of us who feel life starts at conception, it is reasonable that we feel strongly about protecting those humans. Is that so bad? The defense of innocent human life? You may disagree that it's a human, but that's not the point, you must look at the motives of those who do believe this.

    I am Catholic, and as such, I will embrace scientific evidence as taught by our Church (for the ignorant, we accept evolution as a valid and highly likely theory, we do not take a literal interpretation of Genisis, and one of the great scholars of our Church, Augustine, taught way back in 400 AD that we cannot take the bible literally when it contradicts the plain science we can see and study, because God knows how everything works, but it would not have made any sense for him to reveal things in the Bible that people would not understand).

    However, I feel science has not defined when human life starts. I would be interested in being pointed to papers that do try and make this decision.
    • ikarimaru, on 07/16/2008, -3/+9"I understand hatred for Christianity may inspire people to be pro-choice. Also, blatant interest in lust and sexual promiscuity encourages this belief as well."

      Hell yeah, dude. I hate those damn Christians because I wanna get my bone on!

      /sarc
      • Screwy1138, on 07/16/2008, -1/+4Those are two different, independant reasons that people hate pro-lifers. This isn't the point though. Tell me, if an embryo isn't human, when does it become human? I'm looking for an open science based debate, no religion. But you just prefer silly insults. Very scientific of you.
    • use2bacanadian, on 07/16/2008, -5/+6So - you are saying that when a single sperm cell injects its DNA into a single egg cell - neither of which can be seen except with a powerful microscope, and which is a process that is an automatic algorithm and indistinguishable from any other mammalian critter on earth at this stage except for the arrangement of the molecules in the DNA, that it is a human being?! I beg to differ strenuously and on scientific grounds as well.
      • Screwy1138, on 07/16/2008, -1/+5Please provide references, I want to read them. Except for the arrangement of the molecules in the DNA.... wait, isn't that the point? That our DNA defines our species?

        Also, I could argue, that WITH SCIENCE, that arrangement of molecules in the DNA, can, with the right medical attention, in time, be a healthy independant human.

        Also, if that arrangement of molecules is not human, tell me, when is it human?
      • use2bacanadian, on 07/16/2008, -3/+0Screwy1138 - --- if you are really interested in this debate on a scientific level, you will have to find your own references, I assume you can google search and I do not have the time nor the interest to give simple science lessons here to people who just DO NOT want to believe the facts of the world. Basically, a two celled organism is not a viable human being, even nature extinguishes most of them before they develop. To take one step back - nature destroys MILLIONS of the single celled sperm before they even have a chance to make it to an egg - is that destruction of a human being in your world of thought? How about the destruction of eggs monthly in fertile age women who are NOT impregnated. Is that destruction of human life? What is the difference between nature destroying human life if you believe that and humans preventing the impregnation of an egg by a sperm? It is pretty clear to any thinking individual with a basic science education that a single cell - no matter which animal it comes from - is NOT a human life.
      • travis1982, on 07/16/2008, -0/+4@use2beacanadian: I have noticed you like having "scientific debates" with people of faith who usually have no real knowledge of anything science related. Screwy wasn't imposing his beliefs on anyone, he said he is aware why some people are pro-choice because of their hatred of the church. There isn't much of a grounds to debate on whether a sperm/ovum constitutes a human being, from fertilization to the early stages of pregnancy on a biological level, but there is one on a ethics/philosophical level. Captrick, you are only arguing with this guy because whenever you "debate" on topics that demand only a minor knowledge and understanding of anything science related, you feel superior. That's pretty sick,and basically...you're just a bully. It doesn't take a genius to understand that you, most likely, have been bullied your entire life, and so you resort to bullying people on the internet. Sad.
    • Hetman, on 07/16/2008, -2/+2"You may disagree that it's a human, but that's not the point, "
      What? That is the point. Either it is human or it is not.
      • wishninja, on 07/16/2008, -0/+1not really my sperm, skin cells are human.
    • Andrwmorph, on 07/16/2008, -1/+2The problem is that people that "respect human life from beginning to end" will not allow people that believe differently to get a good ol' abortion.
      • Screwy1138, on 07/16/2008, -0/+2This is why abortion it a sticky issue. You say 'let people that believe differently get an abortion'. That makes the presumption, that without better knowledge, BOTH interpretations (it's a life, or it's not a life), have merit. But for those who feel it's a life, then abortion is MURDER. This is why it's a sticky topic. As a Catholic, I don't believe homosexuality is right. But I believe you have free will and can make your own decisions, your sins are yours as my sins are mine. I love you as a human regardless. However, I can't accept the murder of another human, you are taking away their right to life.

        Please understand that I know this is a sticky issue, I'm just having a rational discussion about it. I appreciate everyone who responded rationally in kind.
    • sndream, on 07/16/2008, -0/+1A lot of conception spontaneous aborted, even after week 2, 25% of zygote won't make it to the embryo state, if human life are formed at conception. Then some magical being is a serial baby killer.
    • paidhima, on 07/16/2008, -1/+2Let's assume that human life begins at conception. If this is true, and your "abortion is murder" argument is to believed, then the following may occur:

      1. A woman that receives an illegal abortion in Texas would be subject to the death penalty. Women in states that do not have the death penalty would be tried for first degree, premeditated murder.

      2. If the child is interracial, and the woman gets an illegal abortion, the woman may possibly be tried for a hate crime.

      3. A miscarriage would be an accidental death, and an investigation would ensue. Additionally, law enforcement paperwork would be required.

      3a. If the cause of the miscarriage is determined to be illegal drug use, the mother could be tried for felony murder, provided the drug charge is brought as a felony.

      3b. If the mother was addicted to legal drugs, such as pain killers, and these pain killers were the cause of a miscarriage, the mother could be tried for negligent homicide or murder.

      3c. A pregnant woman, drunk, falls down stairs and causes a miscarriage. Is this negligent homicide, since the fall was caused by her impairment?

      3d. A pregnant woman is in an accident and a miscarriage occurs. If the other driver were at fault, but not in a circumstance that would be considered illegal (a regular fender bender) could she sue for wrongful death? If she were at fault, could the father sue for wrongful death?

      4. If their are complications in the pregnancy, and there must be a choice of aborting the fetus or risking the mother's life, would it be legal for a doctor to perform the abortion? What if the situation were twins, and the choice was between aborting one to save the other or risk the death of both?
      • bigfinger, on 07/16/2008, -0/+1was this the case before row vs. wade?
      • paidhima, on 07/16/2008, -0/+1No, but some pro-lifers have built their argument on the idea that a human life begins at conception, and aborting that life is equivalent to killing a human being. I'm simply taking that idea and extrapolating. It's a matter of degree, and meant to be a bit exaggerated.
      • use2bacanadian, on 07/16/2008, -1/+0People that believe life begins at conception and to destroy it is "murder" also like to take that to the extreme conclusion and blow up abortion clinics and kill doctors and nurses. True home grown terrorists are often radical Christians. The world will not have peace until God and Jesus go the way of Apollo and Zeus, into the realm of ancient and interesting archaic beliefs and mythology where they belong.
      • Screwy1138, on 07/17/2008, -0/+1@use2;

        Ah, you've gone back to strawman arguments and argument-by-extreme. I suppose in a different thread you'd argue we shouldn't judge Muslims by their extremists? You devalue your own argument with such silly tactics.
      • Screwy1138, on 07/17/2008, -0/+1@paidhima;

        You should understand that your extrapolations have no logical bearing on the argument at hand. Those are merely sub issues once the primary issue is solved. You cannot demerit an idea because of these types of extrapolations. You draw a logical conclusion in one place, then, if you feel the extrapolations are wrong, you address them independently.

        Interesting enough, your extrapolations are not as crazy as you suggest. There are already laws against 'feticide'. In most states, after 6 months, it can become homicide. But if a drunk driver hits my wife's car, and kills her 2 month old fetus, there are laws to convict that driver of additional crimes because the 2 month old fetus was killed. This is where the law contradicts itself (in a scientific point of view, though not in a sociological point of view). If the mother WANTS the fetus, then it is a crime to harm it. If she doesn't want the fetus, then it is not a crime.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feticide
        "In the U.S., most crimes of violence are covered by state law, not federal law. Thirty-five (35) states currently recognize the "unborn child" (the term usually used) or fetus as a homicide victim, and 25 of those states apply this principle throughout the period of pre-natal development.These laws do not apply to legal induced abortions. Federal and state courts have consistently held that these laws do not contradict the U.S. Supreme Court's rulings on abortion."
    • warriorscot, on 07/16/2008, -0/+1They don't hate the idea, they just disagree with your idea and believe they should make their own decisions.

      Its about trying to impose your ideas upon others, to restrict someone based on your "Ideas" of right and wrong. THAT is what people hate, it has ***** all to do with the actual issue and everything to do with freedom.
      • Screwy1138, on 07/17/2008, -0/+1Again the problem with pro-life/pro-choice is that pro-lifers believe that the baby is a human being. To say that they are 'forcing their beliefs on others' is akin to saying that forcing people to not-murder is 'forcing beliefs on others'. You wouldn't argue that I would be infringing on someone's belief that murder is okay, would you? That is why this issue is sticky. Murder is not covered by freedom.
    • Smills, on 07/17/2008, -0/+1This may sound cold, but I don't have any issues with abortions at all. The human in the womb, while definitely human, has had no experiences in life yet, and does not have a personality, or speech, or anything above a basic consciousness, (sometimes not even that).

      I don't see abortions as wasteful, because the baby has not yet cost money or time (significantly, anyway), so nothing is wasted except the possibility of a human life. Really, we are just animals, and at the level of a foetus, a rabbit is significantly more intelligent. I don't have any issues with killing a rabbit, so why would I have issues with killing an even less developed human?

      Heh, that makes me sound so cold, but oh well, it is just my opinion anyway, doesn't mean it is true.
  • reaper527, on 07/16/2008, -5/+16i think coat hangers is going a bit to far, even if its just a symbolic gesture.
  • use2bacanadian, on 07/16/2008, -5/+0Australia!! While I agree with the court in this decision, why would anyone from Australia think they have freedom of speech, like what is guaranteed in the US constitution, when there is a law against annoying people!!!
    What a backward country!
    • avatarpalin, on 07/16/2008, -0/+1Yup we are backward... But our beer is great, beaches so wide some are considered highways, the women just love a root oh and don't get me started on the amount of land.. We have crap loads of it!!

      • use2bacanadian, on 07/16/2008, -0/+0Who cares about beer? Australia has nothing - except huge expanses of wasteland that not even the aboriginals can survive in. Ever been to Daytona beach? How about Clearewater Beach - these are the highest rated beaches in the world ad there are actually things to do there - year round.
    • idontlikeyou2, on 07/16/2008, -0/+1Actually we do have freedom of speech, although it is not written into our constitution, it is implied as ruled by the high court. So there you go.
      • use2bacanadian, on 07/16/2008, -1/+0Its not a guranteed right and can be revoked at whim.
    • LilJimmyNordin, on 07/16/2008, -0/+1Their right to freedom of speech is just implemented differently than the US. And it's also circumvented, undermined and selectively enforced in different ways.

      Anyone from the US that thinks they REALLY have freedom of speech should go check out FCC regulations someday. Or do a little research into the regular and consistent erosion of that freedom by the religious infection of the US government.

      The US is the most powerful glass house in the world.
      • use2bacanadian, on 07/16/2008, -2/+0Tell me ONE erosion of freedom by "religious infection". Freedom of and from religion is ALSO a Constitutional guarantee in this country. Religious nuts have the right to practice their religion and I have the right to criticize them. The 1st Amendment is a right that is debated and affirmed all the time. There are always limits on any right, the common example of the right to free speech is hurtful speech. Which is why we have libel laws. The 2nd Amendment's right to own a firearm is limited to people who have not had their rights taken away by a Felony Conviction and restrictions on owning explosive ordnance and machine guns and silencers. Its not that you cant own them but local laws will restrict them or require licensing, etc. This is much different from a cultural norm that allows free speech and can also take that right away in a heart beat.
      • LilJimmyNordin, on 07/16/2008, -0/+1If you are honestly suggesting that the Christian-bred-and-appointed President and the Christian-bred-and-appointed Supreme Court Judges aren't in any way eroding America's freedoms, then you're not paying attention. Freedom from religion is an illusion as long as Americans keep voting along church lines. Religion infects and permeates American life, and has massive influence on the options available to all Americans. Open your eyes.
      • use2bacanadian, on 07/16/2008, -1/+0The President and Supreme court judges do not make the laws in this country - Congress does. The US Congress is made up of over 600 individuals of all different religious faiths and some with no faith at all. When you throw in the State Congressional Law makers it is even a bigger and more diverse mix. If you really don't like the way that you mispercieve the way Christians run a country, you should try an Islamic country, like Iran or Sudan or Saudi Arabia. You would not last a year without getting your hands or worse, your head cut off.
        Besides, you did not answer my question......escatly WHAT rights have you personaly lost?????
  • wowsah156, on 07/16/2008, -8/+9Considering the amount of child abuse in the Vatican , war mongering and allowing AIDS to be rife in Africa through the Knights of Malta vatican sponsored hospitals i am sure the Vatican will be able to take a bit of healthy protest.
    • DuffyDirect, on 07/16/2008, -1/+2children aren't abused in the vatican that's been documented or reported, it's an incedent reported in U.S. diocese
      • IrishJoker, on 07/16/2008, -0/+2its been everywhere, just not reported, and i dont think he ment "in" the vatican, he ment in the roman catholic church
  • avatarpalin, on 07/16/2008, -0/+2See I have commented on this before, we don't actually have a law stating we have free speech, (sure there is a commonwealth law somewhere but that's with the poms and we only talk about them to slander their ability to play cricket or rugby, or their piss poor beer. )

    ....and yet we usually get to say what we want. Funny that,
    • XxtraLarGe, on 07/16/2008, -0/+3But you don't get to play all the games you'd like, because the Australian government bans many of them...
  • tokabowla, on 07/16/2008, -9/+7Anti-Catholic tactics = annoyance
    Catholic tactics = STDs, back-alley abortions, rampant teen pregnancy
    Me to the Pope = STFU
  • Sogui, on 07/16/2008, -2/+17I'll take Catholics over Evangelicals anyday.
    • da_bradler, on 07/16/2008, -5/+4I prefer to stick with my Roman Lions
    • vermax, on 07/16/2008, -2/+3that's like saying you'd rather have herpes than HIV
      some choice
    • Coolkid11, on 07/16/2008, -4/+1Evangelical girls are total sluts and are generally hotter than their Catholic counterparts. Plus you don't have to worry about babies.
  • meretricis, on 07/16/2008, -2/+4I love how it says we're allowed to annoy them when truly all it means is that we would not be prosecuted if we protested against some of their hardliner beliefs, this is the same right that allows the Christians to practice their religion, a staple of free speech.
    I love ignorant hypocrisy.
    • IKORKYI, on 07/16/2008, -0/+1that is the basis of FSM, just specifically to creation being taught in school
  • zombiecarlin, on 07/16/2008, -7/+1Same ***** different Tune.
  • bigfinger, on 07/16/2008, -2/+7So much tolerance around here
    • vermax, on 07/16/2008, -1/+2the standard retort of the intolerant when called on their *****
  • Hetman, on 07/16/2008, -3/+2Here is the thing. If you are catholic you must follow the pope. It is really simple.
    • 0tis, on 07/16/2008, -1/+3That's my problem with most organised religions right there.
      Following a religious leader (and particularly the Pope, because he is officially God's "mouthpiece" for Catholics) can be problematic, because Catholics must follow what he says - they must believe it, whether or not they "believe" it personally, if that makes sense.
      Surely even a Christian would agree that faith is a personal thing? Yet people will follow the Pope's words despite what they personally believe, because they have defined themselves as Catholics.
      • lumaga, on 07/16/2008, -0/+1The pope isn't there as a ruler of the faith, instead he's there as a steward to protect the Church from heresy. True, Catholic Church has the concept of papal infallibility. However that concept doesn't decree that everything out of the pope's mouth is God's word. Papal infallibility has only ever been invoked twice in the Church's history, and in both cases it had to do with defining (not creating or changing) a specific dogma.
      • 0tis, on 07/17/2008, -0/+1Just because he didn't have to invoke the concept doesn't mean that what he says is not automagically dogma for Catholics, however - the Pope says no condoms, and Catholics must follow that, for example. Interestingly, not all do - but officially they must follow the Pope's word.

        I did find it interesting that the Pope himself once wrote a theological paper in which he claimed that the Pope was not necessarily infallible - he invoked a defense similar to yours and said that he wrote it as a theologian and not as the Pope, so I'll let you decide on that one.

        I will leave you, though, with the thought that if he is infallible, saying that he might not be infallible pretty much screws everyone up, though - because nobody can say that he's wrong.

    • DuffyDirect, on 07/16/2008, -2/+2you're both bafoons.

      i don't think latin would be a dead language if "you must follow the pope" in catholicism.
      • 0tis, on 07/17/2008, -0/+1It's buffoons, but yeah.

        Latin is a dead language because nobody speaks it as a first language anymore, not because people decided to ignore the Pope when they couldn't understand him - it was spoken in church long after it officially died.

        Latin died out in the Church because the Lutherans wanted a Bible normal people could read,. and Catholicism slowly changed its mind as more people started going to churches where they could actually understand the sermons. You can still get sermons in Latin if you know where to look, but usually on special occasions.
    • Hetman, on 07/16/2008, -1/+1I agree with you. I think organized religion is wrong. However if you want to be catholic you have to follow the pope. There are literally thousands and different Christian denominations. It just so happens that to be considered catholic you must follow catholic tradition and law. And they believe birth control and abortion is a sin. If you do not agree with the pope, switch denominations.
  • Dralha, on 07/16/2008, -2/+3I hope the protesters don't throw crackers at them. They'll stir up into a murderous frothing frenzy if someone messes with their crackers.

    http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/07/its_a_g ...

    • DuffyDirect, on 07/16/2008, -0/+1symbolism is important to everyone... look how bent out of shape diggers get for bush's "it's just a goddamn piece of paper!" remark. Is he wrong? It is, factually, a piece of paper.
    • LeRenard, on 07/16/2008, -0/+1The article you listed says in bold "get some perspective". Apparently the author needs to. I'm not saying it isn't whacked, but that "cracker" was Jesus to those people, their god. You don't think people will get a bit testy if you walk away with a chunk of their god? Or even something just very important to their religion. Could you walk out of Mecca with the stone from the Kaaba? After all, to you its just a stone.
    • paidhima, on 07/16/2008, -0/+1For the two who responded:

      First, there's a difference between "it's a goddamn piece of paper" and a communion wafer. The Constitution is a singular thing, both a physical item and a symbolic message. It is the thing, and the whole of the thing.

      A communion wafer is a piece of unleavened bread that symbolizes a pact between the apostles and Jesus. To take it so literally as to see it as the body of Christ is nutty. Where do you think those wafers come from? They come from supply manufacturers that bake them, package them in zip lock bags and wholesale them to various church supply companies. They have no intrinsic value, only symbolic.

      In the same way, a stone from the Kaaba has value both intrinsically and symbolically. It is, again, the thing and the whole of the thing.
  • Skoozar, on 07/16/2008, -2/+4I am a Christian (not catholic) and I agree with free speech. The protesters have a right to express their views to the public. I do not agree with the methods they are using. It shows lack of character. I do not respect people who to use means to purposefully anger and hurt peoples feelings. I include Christians with those statements. Even if you do not like, agree with or hate Christians, at least follow the 'golden rule'. We have enough problems in this world and do not need to add to them.
  • darkfus, on 07/16/2008, -0/+1I am glad they get to show up... It'll be fun to see them raise a stink with a 200:1 ratio lol.
  • djAnakin, on 07/16/2008, -4/+1Wow. I swear... anyone who protests just has way to much time on their hands.. especially these people... Sad.
    • paidhima, on 07/16/2008, -0/+2As they say: decisions are made by those who show up. Activism is responsible for some of the most powerful social movements in history. You may disagree with their cause, but don't disparage their commitment.
    • thal3s, on 07/17/2008, -0/+1Yeah, those dumb Founding Fathers!! They should have stayed on their farms and not done anything with that tea is Boston harbor...
  • DarkSideofMoon, on 07/16/2008, -2/+3If we applied the same logic, wouldn't it only be fair to let pro-lifers/Catholics to pray in front of abortion clinics?
    • paidhima, on 07/16/2008, -1/+1Yes. See how easy that is?
    • IKORKYI, on 07/16/2008, -1/+2they do - and its a lot more than praying, its also along the lines of yelling at 16 year old girls and calling them sluts - you know - spreading the word of god a lil
  • knyghtryda, on 07/16/2008, -1/+3I don't see whats the issue with this. They're not displaying graphic images (I've seen anti-abortion christians do that with post-aborted fetuses) and they're not disturbing the peace (yup, same group with a megaphone). I actually find the coathangers ironic and amusing, and condoms are just good common sense. I would love to see them trying to ban the public display of coathangers....
  • lesleye, on 07/16/2008, -2/+0It took me soooo long to work out the coat hanger thing! Too subtle!
    • lanium, on 07/16/2008, -0/+1you thought a coat hanger paired with a condom at an anti-papal protest was a subtle message?
    • lesleye, on 07/16/2008, -0/+0maybe i was just having a slow moment!
  • sndream, on 07/16/2008, -1/+4As long as they also a pass law to forbid Catholic to annoy the rest of the world, then I am fine with it.
  • jbs3600, on 07/16/2008, -2/+1There is an anti-pope again?
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 57 of 57 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.