I believe NetJunkie is correct. El Po-Po is referring to porn as humiliating and degrading. Not a surpise he's not a big fan.

But NetJunkie went on to say maybe El Po-Po is right, if you wouldn't want your parents to catch you looking at porn. WTF? I mean WTF(ckity)FFF??

SV Guy - make these replacements in the first two paragraphs of your post and it will still hold water:
Pope for (scandelous politician of the day)
"Religion" with "Government"
"Catholic Church" with (scandelous government of the day)
"TV evangelist" with "local gov't official"
"Faith" with "the truth"

What do you get?
"(Bush/Clinton/Blair/Thatcher) has committed and assisted in the commission of grave crimes in many countries and is seeking to protect himself/herself. His/her hierarchy is acting similarly. These are the actions of government - and deeply flawed people within them - specifically in the (American/British/Republican/whatever) (system/party).

There are examples of such corruption in every government. Self-serving local government officials. Militant mullahs. These people try to distort the truth, to use people to their own ends in the name of the truth.

As your post said, it's not religion, it's people.

For example: how many child molestors in prison are NOT catholic? And how many catholics are not child molestors? A catholic might conclude that non-religious people are a bigger problem, just like non-catholics think catholics are the problem. Either is a self-serving point of view.

what a dodgy old hippocrit the nazi pope is. He should shut his mouth until he can live as he preaches. Protecting 100's of pedophiles in his service, he should be arrested - he has no right to say anything. Lock him up.

plottle keck bat - as a dislexic might say

Well I guess that since most of us learned he was a kiddy-fiddler defending member of the Hitler Youth in charge of a vast paedophile ring known as the Catholic Church, then he might have a few qualms about the Internet.
So, nothing to see here, move on.

"exacerbates tensions between nations and within nations themselves". And it increases the "dangers of ... intellectual and moral relativism", which can lead to "multiple forms of degradation and humiliation" of the essence of a person, and to the "pollution of the spirit"

Isn't this what the church has been doing for centuries? and everybody knows what happened to those who complained. So please, feel free to cook me and my ISP in the grill...

A devilish red-head

Nice comments, Mike.

This Pope has committed and assisted in the commission of grave crimes in many countries and is seeking to protect himself. His hierarchy is acting similarly. These are the actions of organized religion - and deeply flawed people within them - specifically in the Catholic Church.

There are examples of such corruption in every religion. Self-serving TV evangelists. Militant mullahs. These people try to distort faith, to use people to their own ends in the name of faith.

It's easy to jump on the bandwagon and demonize entire faiths. But let's not throw out the baby with the bath water. Most people of faith are doing good things and serving others.

As I appear to be the only poster named 'mike', I'm curious about your statement "Mike, you sir are a fool."

I suspect you can't point out a single logical error or fallacy in any statement I made. Do you think I am a fool for agreeing with Louisa? Do you think I am a fool because I recognize that not all religions are Catholic? Posts prior to mine voiced objection to religion in general, and if those posters are not fools for discussing religion in general then why am I?

Do you think I'm a fool because I recognize that a faithful person will ignore logical arguments against their faith? Your own life experience should make you agree with me on that point.

Do you disagree with me because I point out that there are legitamatly benificial religious institutions that serve their communities without 'pushing faith'? I gave two good examples of that, and I can provide more if you wish.

Do you disagree with me because I think time spent disprooving the great flood or the parting of the Red Sea would be better served doing something else? I mean, really, why would a non-religious person care if the great flood really happened? It's a 'my dog is better than your dog' contest to see who can come up with the largest amount of biased data. If they want to research something meaningful they can go tackle renewable energy or sustainable farming or something else that is actually worth while. A non-religious person arguing about religious teachings is little more than an argumentative brat.

I suspect you think I'm religious (I'm not, but I know a few hand-raisers, good people) and think I must be a fool for being religious. I can appreciate the Charlton Heston/Agony and the Esctacy-type faith, it must be grand to have that type of belief, but for me, well, it just didn't happen and I'm quite happy sleeping in on Sundays.

However I DO recognize the comfort that religion brings to people, particularly in times of mourning, and I really don't see the value in taking that away from people. Consider the value a hospice worker gives to a dying person; my girlfriend does that kind of work and she does it admirably - and the fee charged by the medical system is just as formidable than any tithe. Would you take that away from someone, citing that they're just going to die anyways so shut them away and put the hospice workers to more practical work? Now apply that logic to (for example) a Christian church. They spend decades teaching church members that they will have eternal peace and happiness as long as they treat their neighbors well.

And, some religious people are rightous asses, but some non-religious people are rightous asses too. An ass is an ass regardless of their religion.

I am myself an atheist.
But I have met many very devoted religious people, mainly Christians who are so entrenched into the believe that the bible is word of God and contains undeniable absolute truth you cannot reason with them. I've also read the pamphlets countering argument by popular science about sensitive topic such as evolution. To me the wording sounds like propaganda. It's interesting that I read a New Scientist article saying that some people are more religious than others simply because of genes.

I have nothing against some aspects of religion guiding positive moral codes.But things about teaching creationism in school over evolution in US is just plain absurd

The reason we still have religion in this day and age is there are still people who are gullible and unintelligent enough to believe it, and have a desire to be led and ordered like sheep, rather than do any thinking for themselves.

Any intelligent person can clearly see that if any of the claims of these religions were true, the people at the top would be adhering to their own religious laws.

History has shown that they do not, and the Roman Catholic church is the best example. Of course, even with the facts presented, and a large number of people knowing the truth, the religions and their leaders, much like nations under dictatorships, are powerful enough to keep getting away with whatever wrongdoing they commit.

I'm no fan of the Pope or the Catholic church in general (I think they need to actually read the book they claim to be teaching from) but the old guy has a point. Consider this: The Catholic church, along with most other Christian churches, believe that pornagraphy is an addictive evil. Addictive? Debatable. Evil? Well, let's put it this way. Would you want your kids or parents to catch you looking at it? If the answer is no, then maybe it is evil. If not, maybe not.

But let's assume for the moment that the church's view on porn is accurate (they certainly do). Now consider how many porn sites there are compared to, say, tech news sites. And by now you should be seeing where old Benedict is coming from.

Also, despite what the crowd that frequents tech news sites seem to think, most of the world does still believe in God in one form or another. I don't know the numbers, but Christianity is certainly one of the top three religions. Add to that the fact that many 'protestant' denominations pay nearly as much attention to the Pope as Catholics do and you begin to see that this is a man with a whole heck of a lot of influence.

I have no problems with organised religions which don't interfere in democracy, don't curtail human rights, don't commit crimes, and don't rely on the blind ignorance of their members. Unfortunately i can't find any so i'm a religion hater by default.
I appreciate that i'm wasting my time typing this as your "faith" means you reject anything you don't like but maybe someones offspring will read this and turn away from parental indoctrination.
BTW freethinker was refering to comments made by the government which apparently offended the see's feelings, but why not misinterpret fact as religion always does.
Mike, you sir are a fool.

Nowhere in the Pope's address did he say he opposed transparency nor did he say the internet was evil. Here is the link to his full address: http://www.zenit.org/article-29033?l=english

So pope says internet = evil, and the crazy right-wing people say Al Gore invinted the internet, ergo, Al Gore = devil

It is a tragedy when a religious man enters the priesthood promising to remain celibate finds that he cannot control himself. It is also a tragedy for the altar boy that has his faith and sphincter destroyed. Blame it on Satan for making a pious man a slave to his lowest instinct.

Please keep in mind that 'organized religion' gave us Mr. Roger's Neighborhood and the YMCA. I don't know if those are well known in the UK but in the USA they are examples of kindness and open mindedness. Well, the YMCA is also known for homosexuality, too, especially thanks to the Village People song.

Anyways, I don't get the hate against 'organized religion', I understand the hate against the child molesters (burn them at the stake, please). But not all organized religions are Catholic, please explain why (for example) you hate the presbyterians (back to the Mr. Rogers example with that one).

People seem to spend a lot of time and energy on anti-religious rants and disproving religious texts. It's a waste of time and effort, because no one listens anyways. Doing so is also an expression of ignorance, because there is a fundamental difference between faith and knowledge. Faith brings comfort to many peopel and the removal of that faith does not necessarily improve people's lives.

One principal of Christianity is 'neither a borrower nor a lender be' and that seems to make sense in a time when our economy is suffering because of bad banking practices.

@Freethinker: I wouldn't expect a government official to ask random people to open an abortion clinic or sponsor a brand of condom. So why would a government official ask the Pope? Who else have government officials asked? If you were trying to make a point, please try to do so in a way that makes sense.

@Louisa: Agreed.

And FIY, of we were in a church-run state taxes would be set at a flat 10%. I could live with that.

The pope recently stated that there should be "transparency" when it comes to the child abuse crises and yet he is and has been the most SECRETIVE of all, shunting bishops and priests from church to church to HIDE THEIR CRIMES and keeping the whole issue locked within the walls of the vatican. Hypocrisy has been a hallmark of his leadership. If he truly wants "transparency" why doesn't he simply open the Vatican files on the child rapists in his clergy. The fact is HE WILL NEVER DO IT, EVER, EVER, EVER. TENS OF THOUSANDS to HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS IN HIS CLERGY HAVE REPORTED ABUSE AND HE HAS NO INTENTION TO MAKE THIS PUBLIC.

I'm unsure as to why religion is necessary in this day and age. Most religious people I know have "inherited" their faith and have been indoctrinated as children.
A thought occured to me yesterday regarding all the media fuss about the pope visiting the UK and how government officials mustn't offend him by asking him to "open an abortion clinic" and "sponsor a brand of benedict condoms". The vast majority of people in the UK aren't interested in religion in general, yet someone who has blatantly turned a blind eye to child sex scandals and makes comments as described in the above article is allowed into the country with welcoming arms. The law of religion is over, the pope is about as important as an x-factor contestant.