In answer to a question on another forum I stated that one of the reasons Catholics are being ‘picked on’ lately is because they are making themselves such easy targets. What with Catholic World Youth Day (C-WYD) and all the apologetics saying how wonderful it’s going to be. Not to mention they are an out-dated, misogynistic, homophobic, power hungry, imaginary sky god worshipping, religious organisation, led by an old authoritarian man in a dress, red shoes and a pointy hat.
A lot of the criticism aimed at C-WYD is the cost to the NSW taxpayers, with the state government spending over $100 million on it. The government has tried to deflect some of the criticism by saying that the event would bring economic benefits to NSW and particularly Sydney. Well it seems that’s not entirely true. It was revealed yesterday that a $3 million contract to provide 800,000 meals for pilgrims has gone to Melbourne. As NSW Greens MP Lee Rhiannon said:
“The Government has boasted this is an event not just about hosting Catholics coming to New South Wales, but bringing economic benefit to New South Wales. We’ve just seen that go over the border.”
Then there is the report from the Vatican daily Osservatore Romano decrying the media picking on the Pope and his extravagant clothing. Esquire magazine had named the Pope as the “accessoriser of the year” mainly for his bright red shoes supposedly made by Prada. As the ABC reports
The [Vatican daily] article explained that the pope’s shoes, like his range of flamboyant hats, are nothing to do with vanity but all to do with tradition.
“The Pope, in summary, does not wear Prada, but Christ,” it said.
Except Christ doesn’t protect the pope’s delicate little footsies so he wears a nice pair of red loathers.
Did I mention the Pope and his catholic entourage are homophobic?
The group Acceptance was hoping to hold an event to discuss the issues around young Catholics who are gay or lesbian.
C-WYD organisers had already refused an initial request to allow the event to be part of official activities, now they have intervened to stop the forum being sponsored by the Jesuit group MAGis.
… MAGiS was contacted by World Youth Day officials and instructed to withdraw its support.
And some of the C-WYD apologetics say this event is going to be so inclusive. Inclusive if you are a catholic youth who isn’t gay or lesbian.
If you would like to support the gay and lesbian community, and protest the anti-condom stance of the catholic church, then you can get involved in the NoToPope Coalition. Also reported here where they say the protesters plan to hand out free condoms to pilgrims en route to the papal Mass at Randwick Racecourse.
(Though what the heck the Raelians are doing in this coalition, I have no idea. But it is probably in protest to their leader being denied a visa to visit this country.)
Catholic Church, I have a tip for you. Stop trying to make out the World Youth Day is such a great thing, we all know it’s just a recruiting drive. If you want people to stop ‘picking on you’ or ‘having a go at you’ then shut up. Most of us really aren’t interested in your bizarre rituals, including bringing dead bodies to youth festivals. This is not a catholic country so don’t try and impose your homophobic, misogynist ideals on the rest of us.
Richard Ackland reports that today an application is going before the High Court to see if there is a case that the Commonwealth governments expenditure on Catholic World Youth Day is in breach of the constitution. We await the outcome.
Share this post :
27 June 2008 at 11:41 am
Good to see you keeping the fires burning on this issue. I completely missed this story (being in the backwater of Brisbane of course). Im a lawyer by trade so I will send you a post of the transcript from hearing if I can find it, or when they make it available. Looks to be a procedural matter at present regarding the state of pleadings as opposed to an application certiorari/ mandamus proper.
27 June 2008 at 11:47 am
Here are links to the transcripts (2 days)
1st – http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/HCATrans/2008/222.html
2nd – http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/HCATrans/2008/252.html
The second one is where Kirby helps Vescio up. I’ll decode it over the weekend.
27 June 2008 at 11:52 am
cheers CASE, a decoding would be great for us dummies.
27 June 2008 at 12:11 pm
BTW – the application for leave to appeal (IE whether this case is going to the full court) is being heard today, 27 June 2008 at 10am.
27 June 2008 at 12:15 pm
“We all know it is just a recruiting drive…”
We do? That is news to me! Folks who work hard to go on this trip for accomadations that are not exactly 5-star are already pretty much “choir members” as in “preaching to the choir”. If this is a recruitment drive, they are mostly recruiting the recruited.
Why the anger? Has the Catholic Church sent henchmen to kidnap you and force you to attend Mass?
27 June 2008 at 3:06 pm
To A simple sinner
Lol – peer pressure on new attendees and existing ones for the purpose of galvanising faith and reindoctrinating is pretty much the definition of recruiting drive. Do you think that all attendees will be dyed in the wool catholics? Interesting notion but clearly fallacious.
27 June 2008 at 8:50 pm
The bit of news by Ackland is welcome news. It is clearly preferential spending.
Oh, and you’ve been tagged.
28 June 2008 at 4:00 am
They lost the application for leave to appeal – they will have to refile their pleadings.
28 June 2008 at 8:30 am
” is pretty much the definition of recruiting drive.”
A self-serving definition at best. Folks know what they are into when they go there… There is no secret to WYD, it is not an AmWay meeting or a pyramid scheme opportunity.
Why is it so offensive to you that people who want to go to something like this – which will be exhilirating to them – are doing so?
28 June 2008 at 2:04 pm
Why is it so offensive to you that people who want to go to something like this – which will be exhilirating to them – are doing so?
You obviously missed the part about sectarian funding of secular dollars, or are you just ignoring that part?
28 June 2008 at 4:00 pm
“Sectarian funding of secular dollars”??
Would that be some sort of church-sponsored initiative to prop up a national currency?
“You obviously missed the part about sectarian funding of secular dollars, or are you just ignoring that part?”
False dichotomy alert! “Either you missed the point or you are ignoring it…”
None of the above, I didn’t miss that objection, I am not ignoring it, I simply was speaking to another aspect of this post which was NOT written from the strictly dispassionate standpoint of objecting to how it is funded.
<Catholic Church, I have a tip for you. Stop trying to make out the World Youth Day is such a great thing, we all know it’s just a recruiting drive. If you want people to stop ‘picking on you’ or ‘having a go at you’ then shut up. Most of us really aren’t interested in your bizarre rituals, including bringing dead bodies to youth festivals. This is not a catholic country so don’t try and impose your homophobic, misogynist ideals on the rest of us.
Sifting through that diatribe, I am trying to see how – if this article is just an objection to WYD’s funding (which seems – to be fair – to be worthy of the same levels of support any other major international gathering would get at a number of basic levels)… Well how is that all germaine, if that is the ONLY point (the point you think I am somehow missing or ignoring) of this post?
30 June 2008 at 10:26 am
Seeing as the article and above comments are all about public funding of religion then perhaps Asimplesinner will grace us with his views on whether the State should help prop up religion from the public coffers?
Is he aware of section 116 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act?
30 June 2008 at 12:51 pm
perhaps Asimplesinner will grace us with his views on whether the State should help prop up religion from the public coffers?
Is he aware of section 116 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act?
Unfortunately, these are two separate issues, since s.116 has in the past not proven sufficient to preclude the High Court (?) ruling in favour of taxpayer dollars being allocated to private religious schools. So there are really two questions here:
1. In a secular liberal democracy, should taxpayer dollars be used to fund religion?
2. Does s. 116 indeed preclude the state from funding religions, and if so, did the High Court interpret the section incorrectly?
30 June 2008 at 1:38 pm
I think thats what the Vescio case will be heading towards and why Kirby is behind it.
I note that the DOGS case [(1981) 146 CLR 559] could be distinguished here anyway. Stephens J clearly quotes and affirms the statement that:-
“by an establishment of religion is meant the erection and recognition of a State church or the concession of special favours, titles and advantages to one Church which is denied to others”.
Stephens J however concludes that the Founding Fathers (of Australia) were writing a “prohibition against two things. the setting up of a national church and the favouring of one church over another. They would not have been denying power to grant non-discriminatory financial aid to churches or church schools” (at 610).
It is completely reasonable to find that such a gross overpayment to the Catholic Church for the purposes of promoting their faith is discriminatory against other faiths and belief systems in Australia.
(Please note: despite the tone of this post I do know the correct answer from a constitutional law point of view – but if Kirby wants to take a shot at this Im sure it would be worth it).
30 June 2008 at 10:00 pm
Not especially interested or familiar with commenting on section 116 of the Commonwealth of Austrailia Constitution Act… Do I have to be?
Again, I was commenting in response to: “Catholic Church, I have a tip for you. Stop trying to make out the World Youth Day is such a great thing, we all know it’s just a recruiting drive. If you want people to stop ‘picking on you’ or ‘having a go at you’ then shut up. Most of us really aren’t interested in your bizarre rituals, including bringing dead bodies to youth festivals. This is not a catholic country so don’t try and impose your homophobic, misogynist ideals on the rest of us. “ Which on the the face of it in fact has very little – it would seem – to do with any strong feelings one way or another about s.116.
1 July 2008 at 11:27 am
The whole business defies reason. Now I can’t even “annoy” a zealot without impunity during World Catholic Youth Day-Week (see http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2008/06/30/1214677946009.html). I think I may just have to spend the whole of POPEC with gaffer-tape over my mouth so I don’t accidentally attempt reasoned debate (I am anticipating a lot of proselytizing) and wind up being charged with annoyance and slapped with a $5500 fine. Too bad these police powers don’t work the other way — it would be a lot easier to arrest the 100,000 or so crazy pilgrims than to arrest the millions of locals who are likely to lash out (in an “annoying” way, no doubt) at the chaos and disruption that we are being told to expect.
1 July 2008 at 2:46 pm
If any of these “pilgrims” are wearing T-shirts that I find offensive, am I to be allowed to complain. Incidentally, I’ve been banging on about WYD for a year or so, but when I spoke to my State MP, Greg Smith, about it, he told me that I was alone in complaining about it. So glad to see that’s not true. Other than the NotoPope coalition, do you know if anyone else has organised any sort of get-together. Atheist Oldies Day, anyone?