Tuesday, 14 September 2010


     We all know that the Catholic church preaches repression, sexual repression being at its foundation. Women are second class citizens as far as the Catholic church is concerned, unclean in fact. If it wasn't for Eve and her weakness we would all be living in the Garden of Eden, women are flawed. That doesn't say much for the creator, after all he only made two humans and got one wrong.
      This organisation is lead by a former member of the Hitler Youth movement who has presided over a cesspool of paedophiles and abuser.
      This organisation, like all religions, heaps suffering and misery on the lives of millions across the globe with its views on so many things from contraception, aids, gays and abortion, plus the influence it wields in the corridors of power, an influence out of all proportion to the number of the faithful practitioners. Poly Toynbee's comment in the Guardian is very apt when it comes to the Catholic Church's view on aids, " Ann Widdecombe's riposte that the Catholic church runs more Aids clinics than any single nation was like suggesting the Spanish Inquisition ran the best rehab clinics for torture victims." 

ann arky's home.


  1. Just as I wouldn't presume to know more about ideas such as the French Revolution than you, perhaps it is just as presumptive of you to speak about what the church represents, other than political authority. Though no one likes to be criticized, perhaps the way one goes about criticizing a group, especially a religious group, should be done with a certain amount of knowledge about that group, and a fair amount of discretion. Remember, the church has been around much longer than you have. Religious beliefs are held dear by all the major traditions. No one wants their beliefs trampled upon. Though I respect your right to speak, I totally disagree with the trampling upon of what others consider sacred.

  2. Thanks for the comment, however, nobody could deny that the church has been around longer than I have, but what does that mean? Does it mean it is therefore beyond criticism? The length of time anything has been around has no bearing what so ever on its truth or otherwise, so is a pointless statement. Is criticism trampling? Is the church beyond criticism? I also accept that religious beliefs are held dear by those involved, so dear that there are those who would kill for those “beliefs”, so dear that they can't enter into a debate on the bases of rational evidence and often turn to threats. The ultimate threat being an eternity of hell and damnation. History is filled with those who have been put to death by the religious. It was the religious that burnt witches, it is the religious that shout death to the infidel, death for blasphemy. I have yet to hear an atheist shout death to the religious, or death to those who speak against atheism. It can't protect itself by rational debate so it has to resort to draconian laws or violence.

  3. It is true that the church has a history which is not pleasant, and at times downright despicable. The witch burnings are one example of how wrong the church can be. I can't defend the church on that one. However, let's get back to the 20th century. You were saying that women are being treated as second class citizens by the church. Why? Because it forbids abortion? Because it doesn't allow women to become priests? Please explain your thinking here. Abortion is wrong...it's the killing of innocent life.
    Women in the priesthood may come about eventually, these things take time. Rome was not built in a day. I do believe with all my heart that the church sees women as sacred, it sees men as sacred, and it sees marriage as sacred. It also sees marriage as between a man and a women. That isn't wrong, that is what God intended from the beginning.

  4. All your ramblings are based on “What God intended from the beginning” If there is a God then I have no idea what his intentions are or were, nor have you. Unless of course you claim some special insight to what that god has on his mind. What you base you “knowledge” of what “God intended from the beginning” is based on what you have been told by men or read in a book written by men, who said that God told them. It doesn't seem at all rational or reliable.

  5. Set aside divine inspiration for a moment. Common sense says that a man and woman were physically made for one another in order to propagate the species. The nuclear family of a man & woman which provide a stable environment for a child is that environment where a child can grow up and become a well functioning adult.
    Many times this isn't the case, but it is the ideal. For a child to grow up without a mother or father leaves that child, obviously without a role model, either of the masculine or the feminine. Children need both role models in order to become whole individuals.

  6. “Set aside divine inspiration for a moment” everything you spout is based on that divine inspiration, a set of hard and fast rules which you want everybody to obey. “Man and woman were made for one and other” once again that god made thing, where is your evidence that man and woman were “made”? I thought the general consensus was that we evolved with no pre set, pre ordained rules. As for “common sense” your “common sense” again is just a set of rules you wish to enforce. Perhaps your “common sense” isn't everybody else's “common sense” If you open your mind you will see that there are many and varied role models that can lead to a full, creative and happy life. All you come out with is the usual set of binding rules that you “believe” to be somehow superior to everybody else's rules as yours are from some divine being who lives somewhere outside in vast space and he took the time to write a set of unbreakable rules for those pesky little humans in a tiny wee planet lost somewhere in space. Every one of your hard and fast unbreakable rules are based on a false premise, that there is god, and you have not a shred of hard evidence on which to base the premise. You will cling to your “beliefs” no matter the evidence, so there can be no debate and I have no interest in being an ear for religious fundamentalism, so I consider this to be my last input to this little ping-pong.