Actually, it is the Pope they condemn.
More than 50 public figures have added their names to a letter in the Guardian newspaper saying the Pope should not be given the “honour” of a UK state visit.
Authors Terry Pratchett and Philip Pullman and actor Stephen Fry are among those critical of the Vatican record on birth control, gay rights and abortion.
But as my own record on these things is similar to the Vatican’s, they are also criticising me: not a Catholic; not even a fan of Rome. Quite the opposite, actually!
This is the letter in the Guardian that these few dozen right-on, C to Z list celebs cobbled together,
We, the undersigned, share the view that Pope Ratzinger should not be given the honour of a state visit to this country. We believe that the pope, as a citizen of Europe and the leader of a religion with many adherents in the UK, is of course free to enter and tour our country. However, as well as a religious leader, the pope is a head of state, and the state and organisation of which he is head has been responsible for:
Opposing the distribution of condoms and so increasing large families in poor countries and the spread of Aids.
Promoting segregated education.
Denying abortion to even the most vulnerable women.
Opposing equal rights for lesbians, gay, bisexual and transgender people.
Failing to address the many cases of abuse of children within its own organisation.
The state of which the pope is head has also resisted signing many major human rights treaties and has formed its own treaties (“concordats”) with many states which negatively affect the human rights of citizens of those states. In any case, we reject the masquerading of the Holy See as a state and the pope as a head of state as merely a convenient fiction to amplify the international influence of the Vatican.
Stephen Fry, Professor Richard Dawkins, Professor Susan Blackmore, Terry Pratchett, Philip Pullman, Ed Byrne, Baroness Blackstone, Ken Follett, Professor AC Grayling, Stewart Lee, Baroness Massey, Claire Rayner, Adele Anderson, John Austin MP, Lord Avebury, Sian Berry, Professor Simon Blackburn, Sir David Blatherwick, Sir Tom Blundell, Dr Helena Cronin, Dylan Evans, Hermione Eyre, Lord Foulkes, Professor Chris French, Natalie Haynes, Johann Hari, Jon Holmes, Lord Hughes, Robin Ince, Dr Michael Irwin, Professor Steve Jones, Sir Harold Kroto, Professor John Lee, Zoe Margolis, Jonathan Meades, Sir Jonathan Miller, Diane Munday, Maryam Namazie, David Nobbs, Professor Richard Norman, Lord O’Neill, Simon Price, Paul Rose, Martin Rowson, Michael Rubenstein, Joan Smith, Dr Harry Stopes-Roe, Professor Raymond Tallis, Lord Taverne, Peter Tatchell, Baroness Turner, Professor Lord Wedderburn of Charlton QC FBA, Ann Marie Waters, Professor Wolpert, Jane Wynne Willson
What are these public figures actually saying? The BBC website calls them luminaries; a strange word to describe people who are shrouded in darkness.
“Opposing the distribution of condoms and so increasing large families in poor countries and the spread of Aids.”
And don’t humanists just hate large families? Some of them even hate the fact that people are legally allowed more than one or two children. I bet Marie Stopes is one of their heroines. She who adored Hitler and located her abortion clinics in poorer areas so as to reduce the numbers of black people and lower class white folk.
Humanists love abortion. Because they have nothing on which to base their new “values,” their warped thinking, which is completely lacking in wisdom and genuine humanism, means that quality of life has more value to them than life itself. So, if a child is going to be born with a disability or the parents “don’t want it” humanists dictate that the child would be better off being obliterated from history rather than being allowed its one chance to live.
And they talk about child abuse by priests! What sickening hypocrites humanists are.
And regarding the spread of AIDS, if you believe this information, the humanist “solution” is the one causing more AIDS and more deaths due to so-called charities whose priority is condom distribution and not actual medical treatment or promotion of celibacy.
The article also contains this very interesting assertion from Edward C. Green, director of the AIDS Prevention Research Project at the Harvard Center for Population and Development Studies,
There is a consistent association shown by our best studies, including the U.S.-funded ‘Demographic Health Surveys,’ between greater availability and use of condoms and higher (not lower) HIV-infection rates.
I know we are talking about different cultures, but this makes sense when we consider how the increase in sexually-transmitted diseases of all kinds in the UK has gone hand-in-hand with the increased availability and promotion of contraception. Sadly, some major so-called Christian charities like TearFund and Christian Aid are guilty of involvement in the humanist/atheist agenda of flooding the Third World with contraception.
“Promoting segregated education.”
Humanists hate the fact that some children are still being taught according to any ethos that is outside of their control. Simple as that. They want a “state education” based on their own made-up “values” so that children grow up loving promiscuity, abortion and homosexuality.
And they say that the churches seem primarily concerned with people’s sex lives these days. Hypocritical humanists once again.
“Denying abortion to even the most vulnerable women.”
Of course, the humanist’s definition of “most vulnerable” is not going to be the same as you will find in a dictionary. Notice how they try and sell the idea of abortion by using this phrase “most vulnerable”. It is a cheap trick.
As I have already said, life is cheap to humanists. So cheap that they believe they should hold the power to kill at both the start of life and the end.
“Opposing equal rights for lesbians, gay, bisexual and transgender people.”
Humanists love “equal rights” because they legitimise the sort of behaviour they themselves find acceptable and few other people do. It furthers their objective of building a society around their own valueless values.
“Failing to address the many cases of abuse of children within its own organisation.”
At last, a valid argument. The hushing up of serious crimes against children is despicable. The insistence that clergymen remain unmarried and celibate is unwise and unscriptural.
That said, the abuse humanists wish to impose upon children is far more widespread than the Roman Catholic church could achieve even if that was its objective! The abortions; the “free” condoms which invite promiscuity and leave young lives in ruins; the youngsters trapped in homosexual/bisexual lifestyles; the hopelessness of living in a society where sex and materialism are considered all that matter.
Recently, I have noticed how humanists want to be recognised for giving to charity. They don’t want to give to one of the thousands of religious-based organisations, so they invent their own, like Non-believers Giving Aid.
They want to be seen to be nice. They are not.