NJS

As a slight point of order, the Pope is only infallible when he addresses something in an encyclical letter which is very rare - his day to day hate speech is his own.

The Queen certainly has a phrase like "by the grace of God" enshrined in her mission statement/coronation oath but I think most Anglicans are pretty casual about it.

The same argument though could be made for the easy ride monarchies get - again due to a degree of brainwashing that there's nothing wrong with inherited position.

I know it's a pet subject of mine but I think you have to understand how ingrained catholicism is. I and others can make blithe statements about giving the doctrines 2 seconds of intelligent thought or about people choosing their particular brand but I do recognise that as far as they are concerned it is very much part of their basic identity (obviously the same appiles to other faiths) and attacks on the church, no matter how justified, are still seen as attacks on their team as it were. Having said all that I do hope that the more the Vatican takes this stance (though they have tried to move a bit very recently) the more people might finally take a stand.

Here's the full list of "discussion topics" from the Civil service that's causing all the trouble: Can anyone tell me why the ones in bold are not good discussion points to raise? I fucking hate the moral cowardice of diplomacy.

What I was getting at above when I mentioned a middle ground is that I absolutely believe people should have the right to those things but I still feel sometimes that our morals are a bit too loose - I suppose it's just my upbringing but I think excessively casual sex is still sort of wrong. Fine, just dont address it by issuing a moral decree 'thou shalt not have excessive casual sex' Absolutely - I think there are lots of things which I have a problem with morally which I wouldn't dream of proscribing. I think we almost have the balance between morality and law correct in the west as a whole and one of the things I strongly believe in is non-interference in private consensual activities - though I think that principle should be extended to drug use.

What I was getting at above when I mentioned a middle ground is that I absolutely believe people should have the right to those things but I still feel sometimes that our morals are a bit too loose - I suppose it's just my upbringing but I think excessively casual sex is still sort of wrong.

Typical of the man but true at the same time.

Far too much red and white in those photos.

Keane will fucking love spoiling it - had a feeling it might turn out that way.

I agree it has to be a voluntary "corruption" as I referred to it and I think the driving force is a natural desire of all humans to be "free" from the shackles which repressive regimes whether religious or not impose. At a base level I think religion's classic mistake throughout history has been sexual repression rather than any other kind and I think that will be its "downfall" in the Muslim world. Of course some aspects of this in the western world could be argued to have gone too far but I think a middle ground is the way forward. I think this also applies to Catholic third world countries just as much as Islamic ones.

What industry do you work in? If you don't mind me asking. Banking - I work in IT for the London branch of a German Landesbank (regional state bank). The bank asked its shareholders for a capital injection to cover toxic losses and a condition of that was an EU backed restructuring.

Confirmed today that our branch is going from 129 > 65 staff by the end of 2012 but mostly through wastage - one lad on our team left today so no great pressure but only "guaranteed" a job until the end of the year but should be okay beyond that. There's the option of voluntary redundancy but it has to have a business case as well. They really fucked things up in head office in Stuttgart by announcing stupidly generous packages which loads applied for only to find out there was no chance for most of them so they had to go back to the drawing board.

Can I just verify that shagging pensioners is a no no? Out for a birthday with a lad from work last week and he was telling me how when his brother turned 32 he vowed to shag a 16 year old and a 64 year old in the same week to celebrate - and supposedly succeeded.

Brought back from the edge of lunacy by that clause.

Suggestions I've read this week are that he was either from Palestine or Asia Minor but this was before the Turks as such arivved from an ethnic pov.

I agree with a lot of what you say but the problem as I see it is that English patriotism is almost defined by the "upper class" stuff you mention which I tend to dislike rather than a pride in a shared sense of community I would be happy to embrace.

I don't mind if people want to celebrate or have an excuse to get pissed but I'm sick of this victim myth that nobody can do it. Patrick's day is generally a marketing ploy by Guinness in this country which people have embraced and there would be nothing to stop anyone doing the same for this day. I was just talking to a lad last week how overall the English have been the biggest cunts in human history and my reaction to that falls somewhere between pride and shame depending on the subject/mood but I have no real objection to any celebration of this kind.

Despite my view about toddlers I think caning 6 years olds is wrong but then again I think corporal punishment if any should be only available to parents. The bloke didn't deserve the payback but his remarks about christianity and the creepy way he sounds proud of his stance loses him some sympathy with me. My experience of Catholic school was I think a little fortunate in that it was towards the end of corporal punishment being seen as "okay" but looking back the teachers who did relish using the cane and the strap definitely had something wrong with them imo - and that's not speaking as any kind of regular victim with a grudge.

I've said before that I see the best hope for Muslims in the west at least is for them to be "corrupted" by more modern values - I honestly don't know if the same process can work in Islamic countries. Having said that I was in Morocco just over 3 years ago and though I could see a lot of the traditional culture, it was apparent in the big towns that the youth at least were embracing Westernism to some degree.

As I've said before I'm anti-war and the biggest war-mongers aren't Muslims.

"Members of the human race" - "this applies to other alliances and religinos just as much as Islam" They are hijacking planes full of people and flying them into building where decent people are working for a living. They blowing up trains full of people going to work. They are fighting a crusade, not a war like men in the open but hiding like cowards with a capital C. There's no shaking hands and living together with these scumbags they want us on prayer mats 5 times a day or dead. Excuses excuses excuses. Wise up man. And the Americans are bombing the shit out of people and torturing them around the world. Lots of them want us praying or dead.

Great photos but the comments are a fuckwit's paradise:

I've said many times that I see the main problem with religions is the gang forming side of it - which I accept is a very human trait. On the one hand I don't see why an Indonesian should ally himself with a Syrian just because they notionally believe in the same God but on the other a sense of universal brotherhood works as a concept for me but it should be based on simple membership of the human race rather than another conceptual layer of identity. Of course this applies to other alliances and religions just as much as Islam but I think there is a sense of paranoia running through Muslims which can only lead to problems.

Correct - I get a bill for the house and then get a discount.