To be very brief, the government’s stance on illegal immigration is a humane one (excluding Tonio Borg). This is seriiously under attack by public opinion, especially the disgusting comments one can follow on The Times comments section.More can be done, as suggested by the Jesuit Refugee Services but again the government can’t walk that extra mile due to the changing tide in public opinion. It needs to lead, educate and be consistent.

As regards divorce I’m not against it. I can see that the current damage of cohabitation/separations is in my opinion more damaging and a greater threat to society then divorce. Divorce could restore some social order. This does not mean I will resort to it myself, but I can separate my beliefs from what is needed by society. I wish politicians could do the same, rather than cowardly waiting for the church to absolve them.

Daphne I can’t seriously believe that you expect the archbishop to make such a call.

[Daphne – Why on earth not?]

I’ll reverse the situation. What if the PM and JM act as real leaders and LEAD, rather than expect to be absolved by the church from the clutches of hell. I honestly believe that we have a leadership vacuum were our cabinet ministers are shell shocked, seemingly paralysed and putting off decisions until they are sure that public opinion is behind them.

[Daphne – There I agree with you.]

Look at the issues for which decisions have been postponed; MEPA, in vitro, cohabitation, divorce, gambling shops etc. In the meantime, our status quo continues to erode the very essence of our social fabric. The only positive I see from this cabinet is their stance on illegal immigration, the only thing at the moment that makes me feel proud to have voted this government in last March, although even here public pressure is beginning to sway their resolve.

[Daphne – Their stance on illegal immigration being….?]

And by the way, do you really believe that politicians are actually afraid of hell, and that is why they don’t legislate for divorce?! If that is really the case they should follow the advice of Fr Peter and Fr Joe Borg who have a different opinion. My cynical view is they are terrified to lose their seats rather than do what is good for society as a whole.

[Daphne – Why are you against divorce? And why do you expect them to think differently?]

You can call me a hedonist all you like. I could not care less, as the only one being ridiculed by you doing so is yourself.

I’m going to be very clear of what I think so you won’t have to do any further (bad) guesswork. If you keep your beliefs to yourself I would leave you completely alone. But, when you openly profess a certain belief, with reason for ridicule, then trust me, it will be ridiculed.

I can’t be much blunter and direct than that. If you think your belief stands above ridicule you can either travel back to the dark ages where such mindsets was shared by the masses, or you can keep your beliefs to yourself. Same goes for the pope. And yes, same goes for me. When I publicly pronounce my beliefs you have my sheer and utter blessing to ridicule, provoke and challenge those beliefs.

The difference between you and me is that I have good reason to believe what I believe. I’m not just born and bred into a certain mindset and made that way for life. Also I would gladly change my belief if I thought the truth was different. I don’t need to struggle against rationality and evidence, I simply go along with it. When was the last time you looked at a church sermon, or one of your holy books and started thinking if it really made sense. Then indulge in some other holy books and see if they make any less or more sense. Take your own beliefs seriously and do them the honour of finding ways to defend them without imposing on others right to criticise them.

Daphne I think you misunderstood my post.

I think you made it abundantly clear that Pat leads a good life in an earlier post. Pat cannot be spared from his beliefs being ridiculed and called hedonistic just because he leads a good life.

Of course I believe that one can lead an extremely good life even by not being religious.

… you’re kidding! It only shows a very poor knowledge of modern history.

“I make the distinction between the official voice of the Catholic Church and the voluntary efforts of semi-independent or wholly independent Catholic organisations.”

You are free to make such a distinction. But the Catholic Church is one. Please make another distinction between: voluntary work (which anyone can provide) and diakonia (i.e. chiristian charity). You know, the Gospel does make a difference in some people’s lives.

So let me see if I got this right.

If Pat makes the assertion that just because he feels he has a right to ridicule other people’s beliefs and it makes him feel right, and one decides to ridicule this thinking to hedonism, then before one makes this comparison we need to analyse Pat. If we find that Pat is a ‘is a happily married man with a new baby, who works quietly in an office’ then we should refrain from calling him a hedonist, because the way he leads his life is inconsistent to what he writes and thinks.

[Daphne – The way Pat lives his life is NOT in consistent with what he writes and thinks. You see, this is the mistake that people like you make all the time: thinking that only religious people live good, stable lives.]

If on the other hand Pat wakes up in one of his (less) respectable moods and ridicules Jean’s receiving holy communion with nothing more than eating thin wafers accompanied with (occasionally) low grade quality wine, then Pat here makes no attempt to analyse Jean and Pat’s ridicule can stand. The way Jean leads his life, even if it might be consistent with what he writes and thinks, is irrelevant in this case.

Quite frankly, and again, very convenient.

[Daphne – Jean, hasn’t it ever occurred to you that religion is absolutely unnecessary to a well-lived life?]

[Daphne – You know, I think many of them actually fear their religious leader’s censure.]

Again Daphne I don’t agree with your emphasis. Your emphasis is always on the church’s position towards divorce rather than on what the ‘spineless’ politician should do.

A sensible politician would understand that the social fabric is being eroded in a more dangerous way by the current practice of cohabitation and absence of legislation in this regard (if at all possible in the first place) and its implications rather than by the introduction of divorce. Rather than attacking the cabinet and our prime minister’s position in this regard (oh how agonisingly painful this must be for Dr Gonzi. Being an extremely intelligent man, I am sure he understands this very simple concept but is held to ransom by his beliefs), you choose to attack the church’s position which is obviously against both cohabitation and divorce. Fr Gouder cannot be expected to have any other position on this.

In your fervour to consistently apologise this government (thankful sparing Tonio Borg), and in the absence of a credible opposition, you put pressure on the wrong end. The result is that we all lose.

[Daphne – No. I’m afraid you’re wrong. The only reason BOTH GOVERNMENT AND OPPOSITION have problems with the introduction of divorce is fear of the Catholic Church’s censure. All it would take is for the archbishop to get on the phone to the prime minister and the leader of the opposition and say ‘Hey, legislate for divorce. I won’t stand in your way.’ But the opposite has happened. Instead he has taken to the pulpit and sent out his ambassador Gouder to make it clear that MPs who vote for divorce are going straight to hell.]

I didn’t react strongly at all at being called a hedonist, I simply pointed out the error. Also, I don’t mind you ridiculing my beliefs for a second, but do so on their own merits, not on some made up misconception of me being a hedonist. It’s of course true we create an image of who we read online, but we should refrain in leading to non fact based conclusions. What you knew of me was that I don’t believe in God, there is no reason to attribute anything else to that knowledge, unless you have a strong reason to do so.

At least now we have agreed that it is all well to ridicule each others beliefs. Good.

@ Pat

Of course no offence meant. Daphne has the advantage of knowing you personally. I don’t. We all create an image of each other by what we write.

But again you betray what you write. Both you and Daphne immediately reacted to my ‘hedonistic’ comment, even if it was meant to ridicule your non-belief and compare it to hedonistic tendencies. So maybe we all get touchy when it comes to ridicule.

[Daphne – No, we reacted to a wildly inaccurate description of Pat as a hedonist. I find it fascinating that very religious people have formed this dichotomy: if you are not religious then it is because you want to be/are a hedonist. Most of the hedonists I know are very keen on prayer groups. So really, it’s not religion versus hedonism.]

Daphne, a common mistake by non-believers, again to reinforce their non-belief, is to look at the way supposed Catholics lead their life. If they fall short to their non-believer’s idea of Catholic virtues, they then dismiss the religion or worse still use that as some kind of inconsistency in religion. When frankly, it is your yardstick and entirely your measure and judgement.

[Daphne – I don’t use Catholics to measure Catholicism. I just find it interesting that so many people wish to straddle the fence: live the life of a non-Catholic while convincing themselves that they are practising Catholics. The reality is that religion has nothing to do with the goodness or stability of one’s life or otherwise, which is why so many non-believers have stable, non-chaotic, productive lives and solid homes while so many Catholics don’t.]

Never heard of That Mitchell and Webb Look before. Absolutely brilliant clips.

The SS officer one is hilarious (out of topic now, sorry)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SO5WoLnOOlU