What a card Richard Dawkins is. Clearly bored of having "shooting fish in a barrel" debates with Islamic Fundamentalists and Bible Belt Americans, he's decided to go for the big one this time.
Times wrote:RICHARD DAWKINS, the atheist campaigner, is planning a legal ambush to have the Pope arrested during his state visit to Britain “for crimes against humanity”.
Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, the atheist author, have asked human rights lawyers to produce a case for charging Pope Benedict XVI over his alleged cover-up of sexual abuse in the Catholic church.
The pair believe they can exploit the same legal principle used to arrest Augusto Pinochet, the late Chilean dictator, when he visited Britain in 1998.
The Pope was embroiled in new controversy this weekend over a letter he signed arguing that the “good of the universal church” should be considered against the defrocking of an American priest who committed sex offences against two boys. It was dated 1985, when he was in charge of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which deals with sex abuse cases.
Benedict will be in Britain between September 16 and 19, visiting London, Glasgow and Coventry, where he will beatify Cardinal John Henry Newman, the 19th-century theologian.
Dawkins and Hitchens believe the Pope would be unable to claim diplomatic immunity from arrest because, although his tour is categorised as a state visit, he is not the head of a state recognised by the United Nations.
They have commissioned the barrister Geoffrey Robertson and Mark Stephens, a solicitor, to present a justification for legal action.
The lawyers believe they can ask the Crown Prosecution Service to initiate criminal proceedings against the Pope, launch their own civil action against him or refer his case to the International Criminal Court.
Dawkins, author of The God Delusion, said: “This is a man whose first instinct when his priests are caught with their pants down is to cover up the scandal and damn the young victims to silence.”
Hitchens, author of God Is Not Great, said: “This man is not above or outside the law. The institutionalised concealment of child rape is a crime under any law and demands not private ceremonies of repentance or church-funded payoffs, but justice and punishment.
Last year pro-Palestinian activists persuaded a British judge to issue an arrest warrant for Tzipi Livni, the Israeli politician, for offences allegedly committed during the 2008-09 conflict in Gaza. The warrant was withdrawn after Livni cancelled her planned trip to the UK.
“There is every possibility of legal action against the Pope occurring,” said Stephens. “Geoffrey and I have both come to the view that the Vatican is not actually a state in international law. It is not recognised by the UN, it does not have borders that are policed and its relations are not of a full diplomatic nature.”
A sarcastic "terrific" from me. I'm an atheist, and in my perfect world, there'd be no religion, or at least, predominant secularism. Still, this is hardly the right way to go about getting our point across.
I'd like to congratulate Mr. Dawkins for making us atheists everywhere look like tools for 2 reasons.
1. Trying to arrest the pope. Good luck buddy.
2. Announcing to the world that you're trying to arrest the pope. There's definitely no one in the Vatican, or in the pope's security detail, that can use the internet.
Times wrote:Dawkins and Hitchens believe the Pope would be unable to claim diplomatic immunity from arrest because, although his tour is categorised as a state visit, he is not the head of a state recognised by the United Nations.
As smart as Dawkins is, he is also a complete idiot. Hitchens, on the other hand, I find to be a complete fool. The Vatican City State is an internationally recognized state that has diplomatic relations with all but 14 nations across the entire globe, and is a permanent observer state that only lacks a vote, by the choice of the Church, in the United Nations. The Holy See, which is a different entity, but exercises all authority of the Vatican City State, is not a nation, but still recognized as an international authority. This was reconfirmed in 2004 unanimously by the United Nations. Since His Holiness is the Sovereign of a recognized nation, their point is moot...
Commander Endova wrote: 1. Trying to arrest the pope. Good luck buddy. 2. Announcing to the world that you're trying to arrest the pope. There's definitely no one in the Vatican, or in the pope's security detail, that can use the internet.
Is the Pope above the law? He is a human like the rest of us, not above the law, nor is he the law, he must live inside of it like anyone else.
Also, this isnt just above arresting the Pope, but if a judge would rule in favour of crimes against humanity (or something similar) it would cripple and undermine the church as a whole in the eye of the world, which in itself is cataclysmic for the church
I like some of Dawkin's sentiments e.g. In counter to the question "Isn't the idea of death with no hope of an afterlife a bit depressing", he states that the earth is a truly amazing place and what more could you possibly want than the opportunity to spend what time is given to you taking it all in.
But in which case, why does he spoil "the time given to him" picking fights with the religious establishment? Wouldn't he be better off just chilling out on an island somewhere enjoying the scenery?
Flashman wrote:But in which case, why does he spoil the time given to him picking fights the religious establishment? Wouldn't he better off just chilling out on an island somewhere enjoying the scenery?
He is trying to weaken organised religion, which I can totally understand. It has done a lot of "evil" without accounting for it, refuses to keep pace with modern society and slows down things like science.
The Dreadnote wrote:What an arsehole. This plan sounds like something he came up with in his treehouse after school.
+1.
Squig_herder wrote:
Flashman wrote:But in which case, why does he spoil the time given to him picking fights the religious establishment? Wouldn't he better off just chilling out on an island somewhere enjoying the scenery?
He is trying to weaken organised religion, which I can totally understand. It has done a lot of "evil" without accounting for it, refuses to keep pace with modern society and slows down things like science.
To claim that religeon is the sole root of all, or even most, evil is a foolish statement to say the least. Humanity has never really needed religeon as an excuse to kill one another over archaic rules and ancient fueds.
Squig_herder wrote:He is trying to weaken organised religion, which I can totally understand. It has done a lot of "evil" without accounting for it, refuses to keep pace with modern society and slows down things like science.
No, you shouldn't understand that. For every "evil" that religion has done, it has done an insane amount of good. Besides, trying to destroy religion would in essence be a crime against humanity as it inflicts harm and sorrow upon those who adhere to said religion. We are not prisoners of some evil empire, we willingly believe and embrace this, who are you, or anyone for that matter, to tell us that we are wrong? It doesn't matter what he thinks, as I already outlined, he is just plain wrong and his plan is worthless.
I think we should try and see the difference between arresting people who work for organised religion and have committed crimes, and removing organised religion.
Although I am sure that Dawkins would be happy to remove OR entirely, I am happy to support moves which lead to the removal of power people who have abused positions of trust to commit crimes, or cover up crimes (no matter if they are within OR, politics, science, football, etc).
I think that people see any move against such people as a move against the institution. Where the institution is a religion, this effect is magnified.
They need to be really careful to show that they are bringing up charges based on rational evidence for actual crimes, rather than just targeting the head of an organisation they don't like.
Because it is Dawkins who is attempting to bring these charges, most people, even atheists, will see it as an attack on the church, rather than individuals within it who have committed crimes.
It is a sad thing that it seems only a militant atheist with a blatant disregard for religion has the balls to go and try to bring about the arrest of people hiding behind the veil of religion.
JEB_Stuart wrote:No, you shouldn't understand that.
That's rather dictatorial of you, I respect what you have to say, so can you respect what I have to say?
JEB_Stuart wrote:For every "evil" that religion has done, it has done an insane amount of good. Besides, trying to destroy religion would in essence be a crime against humanity as it inflicts harm and sorrow upon those who adhere to said religion. We are not prisoners of some evil empire, we willingly believe and embrace this, who are you, or anyone for that matter, to tell us that we are wrong? It doesn't matter what he thinks, as I already outlined, he is just plain wrong and his plan is worthless.
I never said that the church had never done good, nor that it's evils outweighed it's good, I said that they don't take responsibility for what they have done and they need to set up and acknowledge what they have done. They also seem to think they are above the law, I disagree.
I am not tell you can't believe, im happy with people believing in god, what I have against it, is that it spends a lot of resources hiding/disproving/discrediting people and science. I also don't like that millions of Christians are willing to take the Pope's word as law, he is at best a guide, who is to say that god is closer to him than the average person?
On the topic of Dawkins's plan, if a judge will side with him, then clearly he is legally right, no matter your personal view.
Emperors Faithful wrote:To claim that religeon is the sole root of all, or even most, evil is a foolish statement to say the least. Humanity has never really needed religeon as an excuse to kill one another over archaic rules and ancient fueds.
I never said it was the sole root, or anything along those lines, I am saying that the church has not taken any responsibility for crimes committed by the church itself or the people working under its orders. It has harboured paedophiles and dont been prosecuted by the law for it because they seem to think they are above the law. What about the mass murder of "witches" or "Heretics", no sorry, no formal apology each like the Japanese, no the church turned god mode on and the rest of the world can't touch they seem to think, well im glad the law is catching up with them.
I know I'm not a Mod, but don't particularly want this thread to descend into a conflagration. Been a couple of sparks already. Let's keep it rational people, just to show we can
Squig_herder wrote:That's rather dictatorial of you, I respect what you have to say, so can you respect what I have to say?
Why should I respect it when you said you are ok with him weakening organized religion? I should be ok with people trying to undermine my beliefs? I think not.
Squig_herder wrote:I never said that the church had never done good, nor that it's evils outweighed it's good, I said that they don't take responsibility for what they have done and they need to set up and acknowledge what they have done. They also seem to think they are above the law, I disagree.
They aren't above the law, and the man responsible was tried and punished. The worst that the Pope did was commit obstruction of justice, which he is well past the Statute of Limitations for in Germany. So, again their legal standing is zip. Crimes against humanity are described by the UN as a concerted and systematic attack, against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack. This clearly does not fit that bill...
Squig_herder wrote:I am not tell you can't believe, im happy with people believing in god, what I have against it, is that it spends a lot of resources hiding/disproving/discrediting people and science. I also don't like that millions of Christians are willing to take the Pope's word as law, he is at best a guide, who is to say that god is closer to him than the average person?
So because the Church promotes ethics that you don't support means that it should be undermined? As far as his word as law goes, you should actually read Church theology on the matter, as it isn't as simple as you suggest, nor as broad.
Squig_herder wrote:On the topic of Dawkins's plan, if a judge will side with him, then clearly he is legally right, no matter your personal view.
My personal view on the matter is irrelevant, from a purely legal perspective they are wrong. The facts clearly point that out.
Squig_herder wrote:It has harboured paedophiles and dont been prosecuted by the law for it because they seem to think they are above the law.
Except they have been both prosecuted and punished.
Squig_herder wrote:What about the mass murder of "witches" or "Heretics", no sorry, no formal apology each like the Japanese, no the church turned god mode on and the rest of the world can't touch they seem to think, well im glad the law is catching up with them.
And those mass murders would be? If you knew the history and reaction of the Church, it has apologized many times over for the horrible things it has done in the past.
That is plain ridiculous. I'd pick any religion just to avoid being an atheist like him. I'm adding him to my "To Hurt" list, right after Justin Beiber.
Tim the Biovore wrote:That is plain ridiculous. I'd pick any religion just to avoid being an atheist like him. I'm adding him to my "To Hurt" list, right after Justin Beiber.
Most atheists aren't like Mr Dawkins, while I may support SOME of his actions, I am by no mean actively working against religion, the only proactive thing I do for atheism is support a strong secular state for my county, so it cannot interfere with politics. Don't judge atheists by the extremists in the news.
For every "evil" that religion has done, it has done an insane amount of good.
So it should be left alone and not punished because it has done something good?
So, if hitler was to have done something great for people after all the gak he had done, it would make it ok?
Sorry, but religion is the main cause of fighting, and these days, it tends to break into civil wars (IRA?)
I myself have no religion, nor do i want one.
I think if a religion does something wrong, it should be punished.
It is not above the law, no one is, no matter how much they want to think it.
I find it incredibly sad that some people concentrate solely on the negative aspects of Religion, even if they acknowledge some good it has done.
Catholicism has a lot of skeletons in its closet I'll admit, with the Crusades, the Inquisition, and now this scandal. However attacking the Church and its members is not the right way of dealing with this: there has been an official inquiry and subsequent report, and there has been an official apology and I dare say reprimands have been issued privately. The Pope is meeting victims- an incredibly generous gesture which he was under no obligation to do.
It really bugs me that letters written several years ago are dragged up by journalists solely interested on selling news are paraded in front of the public. I very much doubt that the letter has been read in its entirety by the vast majority (I haven't), and the circumstances surrounding the incident it deals with are also largely unknown. Thus the letter, whilst certainly disgraceful to our very limited perspective, should not be held up as conclusive proof of a criminal 'cover-up', nor should phrases in it be taken out of context.
Do you recall when the Pope was elected? Did the media focus on his charity work, or the hope he gave to his parish? No they dragged up the fact that he was alive during the Nazi regime and was inducted into the Hitler Youth; they failed to mention that this was true for virtually all children of the time and was unremarkable. A clear example of digging up scandal for no reason other than to slander.
I wish the media would give some airtime to the vast good that Catholicism has done, rather than looking for a quick scandal to satisfy viewers appetites.
Furthermore, there is a current issue with compensation to families who were affected in this way. The issue is the amount of compensation given; I find this abhorrent. The Church admits that some of its members were in error, and has agreed to compensate victims- and now said victims are unhappy with the amount of money they receive? Again, I don't have the details of every case, but it makes me wonder how strong Catholics these people are when they will seize the opportunity to plunder their Church for money.
I'm not religious either (agnostic at best), but I'll give you three areas where religion has been of some benefit to the world as a whole.
1. In less enlightened times, it provided a set of values for society to abide by.
2. Religion has inspired the creation of some truly magnificent architecture, sculptures, paintings and the like.
3. Faith gives people courage when they need it most. Can you imagine being an atheist in the trenches?
Im an atheist myself but i can see why religion is needed in many peoples lives, it gives them answers to questions that science can only say i dont know even if those answers have no proof.
Religion is not evil, people are though and will use and abuse the concept of religion to control and inflict suffering on other people which is why to many religion is seen as evil.
Now I have no qualms with anyones beliefs as it is my own that forcing beliefs on others is wrong, you can worship the flying spaghetti monster if you want as long as you dont try to convert others.
This dawkins bloke sounds like a complete fool for trying to arrest someone of such international power but i will agree that the scandel over this child abuse cannot go unpunished.
Flashman wrote:
1. In less enlightened times, it provided a set of values for society to abide by.
2. Religion has inspired the creation of some truly magnificent architecture, sculptures, paintings and the like.
3. Faith gives people courage when they need it most. Can you imagine being an atheist in the trenches?
Rebutting point 1 if I may: For along time, the church silenced (in which ever means they saw fit) scientists of the time for proving science to the world around, showing truth and the church didn't want truth, they want god (Ironicly now they like to claim god did all the science, when e few 100 years ago they didnt even know). The church was (maybe still is?) homophobic, for no good reason. After all the Greek's had homosexuals and were ok with it, so they are a 1000 years behind the times.
Rebutting point 3: As an atheist and having a brother who is atheist and toured in both iraq wars, found pride in serving with friends and to defend his home and the home of others (Qwat [spelling] and Iraq). I find it insulting that you insist that you must have religion to be proud serving your country, and that religion is the only thing keeping you going in a war.
For every "evil" that religion has done, it has done an insane amount of good.
So it should be left alone and not punished because it has done something good?
So, if hitler was to have done something great for people after all the gak he had done, it would make it ok?
Sorry, but religion is the main cause of fighting, and these days, it tends to break into civil wars (IRA?)
I myself have no religion, nor do i want one.
I think if a religion does something wrong, it should be punished.
It is not above the law, no one is, no matter how much they want to think it.
I agree, though not as extremely as you state it. In my honest opinion the world as it is now has little to no place for religion, in a lot of places it's holding humanity back. And it's still fueling hate around the world... which if you objectively look at it, is utter nonsense. I don't mind people believing in any deity, I do mind if they use it as a way to justify the unjustifiable.
As for people saying religion has also done a lot of good things, it's still doing plenty of bad too. And I've never seen this compensation for mindless slaughter, centuries of holding science back and fueling hate for all kinds of people.
Now with this whole pedophilia thing, I saw it as an insult to injury for the victims that the Pope didn't even mention it in his easter speech. More victims are coming out of hiding everywhere and the numbers are simply shocking.
Squig_herder wrote:
Rebutting point 3: As an atheist and having a brother who is atheist and toured in both iraq wars, found pride in serving with friends and to defend his home and the home of others (Qwat [spelling] and Iraq). I find it insulting that you insist that you must have religion to be proud serving your country, and that religion is the only thing keeping you going in a war.
Not sure I was insisting anything, but apologies if you read it that way and were duly insulted.
Have not managed to read all the posts so apologies in advance. Promise I will do so when my noggin is les fuzzy.
It raises a couple of issues for me.
Firstly being an aetheist I still detest any form of funamentalist and dogmatic behaviour. Even from aethists.
Personally I don't care for stamping down on other peoples' beliefs.
Secondly the Catholic Church think the Pope is infallible. Well sorry but he ain't and any cover up needs to be exposed and he should stand down if it is true.
That ain't gonna happen of course, but I hope his Catholic sense of guilt kicks in big time.
Actually thinking about it I can understand Dawkins's motives. But the problem is, Papa hasn't been accused of actually perpertating the child abuse, but covering it up. While that still is reprehensible, I am not sure it is a criminal offence? Therefore arrest would be inappropriate.
If it was a manager of an institute whose workers had committed these offenses and covered up, he would be sacked.
It is interesting how the terrible abuse that has been the cause of this row is now sidelined and Dawkins is being vilified.
may be the Popsicle is infallible after all. The Teflon Pastor
Let me get this straight, Dawkins is a tool because he wants to get a man who enabled child rape punished? Sorry religious chaps, but this sickens me utterly. Go watch some of the victims testimonies on youtube (i wont link because it gets the thread instacensored if people say bad things about religion) and I will bow out of this thread while i have the will power to remain civilised and you guys can get back to defending the pope. Awesome.
mattyrm wrote:Let me get this straight, Dawkins is a tool because he wants to get a man who enabled child rape punished? Sorry religious chaps, but this sickens me utterly. Go watch some of the victims testimonies on youtube (i wont link because it gets the thread instacensored if people say bad things about religion) and I will bow out of this thread while i have the will power to remain civilised and you guys can get back to defending the pope. Awesome.
No dawkins is a tool for not thinking his plan out propperly, the pope is a recognised head of state.
Flashman wrote:
Not sure I was insisting anything, but apologies if you read it that way and were duly insulted.
Its ok, I get a little touchy when it comes to Defece Force and Religion, I might of over reacted, sorry as well
Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:
Actually thinking about it I can understand Dawkins's motives. But the problem is, Papa hasn't been accused of actually perpertating the child abuse, but covering it up. While that still is reprehensible, I am not sure it is a criminal offence? Therefore arrest would be inappropriate.
Being the Head of the Catholic Church he has every reason to be accountable, if it has been brought to his attention and nothing was done. I think the Vatican would have known of some cases regardless of where it happened, there is a whole score of cases.
I don't get this. The guy who commited a crime has been punished and all the church has done is tried to cover it up. Yet some people want the church to be punished for doing this.
If a close member of the familly goes and kills/rapes/burgles someone, you don't go around screaming at the top of your lungs that the member of the familly if a murderer/rapist/robbber because people will think your famillies completly bad while most of your familly work for charities. No you want to keep it on the quiet.
I don't get why people try to force their beliefs on others (OK not the best sentence for someone whose Cathorlic) but seriously, give me one example of a war caused by religion that had no political motives behind it. Now take that list and cancel out the ones that were started by non-cathorlics. There won't be many and definatly non in the time of Benedict. And why judge religions, countries and buissnesses by their past?
Edit: oh yes, I have a quick quesion for people who know about law. If a person who is employed by a country overseas and isn't acturly a citzen of that country. Does the contry that employs them have to deal with any crime they commit?
wizard12 wrote:I don't get this. The guy who commited a crime has been punished and all the church has done is tried to cover it up. Yet some people want the church to be punished for doing this.
If a close member of the familly goes and kills/rapes/burgles someone, you don't go around screaming at the top of your lungs that the member of the familly if a murderer/rapist/robbber because people will think your famillies completly bad while most of your familly work for charities. No you want to keep it on the quiet.
And why judge people by their past?
Let me refer you to politics, that is what the Catholic Church is now, if your governing political party was to cover up a sex offender in the party, would you be ok with just him being stood down and covered up only to find out 6 years later as to why he was stood down? I know most people would be furious. This same attitude is now placed on the Catholic Church, so yes. The Church shouldn't be hiding all of these things, they should be transparent, and be quick and public in its reaction.
Also, I want to see some proactive measures in stopping these people entering the church. How long will it take before something proactive is done?
On your last point, if I were to come over and sexually assault you and then we met in the super market a week later, would you judge me on the past event of me attacking you?
religon and poltical motives are completly different.
Here I was think I was living in a civilisation that didn't mix Church and State.
Oh and Squig Herder. I'm sorry I didn't relly make my point clear. I meant why judge religions and buissness and countries by what they had done in the past, I'll change that in my post now.
wizard12 wrote:religon and poltical motives are completly different.
Here I was think I was living in a civilisation that didn't mix Church and State.
Oh and Squig Herder. I'm sorry I didn't relly make my point clear. I meant why judge religions and buissness and countries by what they had done in the past, I'll change that in my post now.
On your first point there, political motives and religious motives are almost one in the same. Both seek to get more voter/believers and look to be the nice guys while doing it.
Second point, your flag suggests you are from the UK. Your state is by no means secular.
Richard Dawkins really only seems to be furthering the cause of Richard Dawkins. This is a carny trick to generate publicity, pure and simple. If he really gave a rat's ass about doing something constructive he wouldn't be nearly so divisive with his actions.
The sex abuse that took place is terrible though. It's just a hideous situation all the way around. The only thing I would say is that the policies enacted by the Pope were based on rehabilitation(the Priests were made to seek counseling) and forgiveness which I guess makes sense if you've that hardcore of a Christian.
It's not something I agree with. Personally, I think that someone that rapes a child should be castrated with a rusty coffee can lid.
The Vatican is not a state recognized by the United Nations. It is now incontrovertibly clear that the Pope was more concerned about protecting the Catholic Church than he was about protecting children from rapist. He is a criminal and one can only hope he dies in jail.
Being the Head of the Catholic Church he has every reason to be accountable, if it has been brought to his attention and nothing was done. I think the Vatican would have known of some cases regardless of where it happened, there is a whole score of cases.
I totally agree. The real issue of child abuse is in danger of becoming lost in the thread with the discussion about religious beliefs and arthism.
Covering up effectively meant sanctioning the abuse to continue. In my view if he knew about it and did nothing he is party to the crimes. This is why I can understand Dawkins- especially as no one else has the spheres in the scrotum to touch the pope.
However, the point I was trying to make is that the law may not see it that way, so there has possibly been arrestable offence committed.
I don't know- but I assume Dawkins has calling in lawyers.
In my view the Pope is not infallible, nor above the law and should be accountable for his actions before the victims as well as before God.
Commander Endova wrote:
1. Trying to arrest the pope. Good luck buddy.
Is the Pope above the law? He is a human like the rest of us, not above the law, nor is he the law, he must live inside of it like anyone else.
Well actually as a visiting diplomatic personage he is under international law. It also violates the first code of diplomacy, if you arrest people on diplomatic missions you run the risk of destabilising the world. This is an ancient truth from when a King would not arrest a Baron who came to the royal court but would arrest a baron who stayed away.
attempts to arrest the Pope while futile would be damaging to UK relations. What it means is that you cannot afford to trust us.
This line has been crossed by the arrest of Pinochet in the late 90's. The barstool politics attitude of 'lets arrest the baddie' while in our country did great harm. What people don't realise is that for the greater good you have to negotiate and keep the promise of diplomatic favour.
Some dictators need be rooted out of their bunkers, others who are not quite so bad can be given a plane ticket away on the promise that they will not be arrested in exile. This is how Chile got rid of Pinochet to begin with, and how Uganda was rid of Amin. The difference is that Idi Amins deal was kept. If such people had reason not to trust our word they would cling to power as tightly as Stalin or Hitler.
All this is moot, the Pope will be on a state visit, Pinochet wasnt. He is subject to full diplomatic immunity. In fact Dawkins risks arrest for hindering him.
Monster Rain wrote:Richard Dawkins really only seems to be furthering the cause of Richard Dawkins. This is a carny trick to generate publicity, pure and simple. If he really gave a rat's ass about doing something constructive he wouldn't be nearly so divisive with his actions.
Philosophers are not supposed to be media hogs. The whole idea of philosophy is that you let ideas and ideals speak rather than spin and publicity, Spin is a force multiplier that diverts arguments from the purity of logical and ethical debate. I am not sure Dawkins is planning what he is planning for this reason, and I would expect better from him. However just because someone has a reputation for level headed philosophy it is of itself no insurance against ethical collapse.
Flashman wrote:I like some of Dawkin's sentiments e.g. In counter to the question "Isn't the idea of death with no hope of an afterlife a bit depressing", he states that the earth is a truly amazing place and what more could you possibly want than the opportunity to spend what time is given to you taking it all in.
What is odd about Dawkins' answer is that a theist has no reduced access to the majesty of nature. its not either/or.
Flashman wrote:But in which case, why does he spoil "the time given to him" picking fights with the religious establishment? Wouldn't he be better off just chilling out on an island somewhere enjoying the scenery?
As for why Dawkins picks fights, the sad fact is atheism is a religion and it attractse its share of fanatics. Some atheists might be able to let go, but they would not really be atheists then, just people who dont beleive and dont think about it much. Those who dont beleive and do think about it alot get drawn into relgious debate no less fervently than any theist, and often a lot nastier. I have met enough atheist Taliban on these forums, who troll you no matter how polite and logically placed your comments. That is no shock to me. What is slightly more disturbing is that it looks like Dawkins is possibly getting radicalised. I respect Dawkins for trying to stick to the issues, I hope reports about him have been miscommunicated. The world is a safer place when one of the formost atheist apologists is not a raving fundamentalist; we need level heads to be leading the debate at both ends.
All this is moot, the Pope will be on a state visit, Pinochet wasnt. He is subject to full diplomatic immunity.
The Vatican is not a sovereign state recognized by the United Nations. Nor is it clear that diplomatic immunity would be applicable; I suspect Ratzinger could be vulnerable, in theory, to the International Criminal Court, because it prosecutes human rights violations--specifically by heads of states--where no prosecution is possible in the 'home' jurisdiction.
1. Vatican is recognised by the UK so this effects procedures on UK soil.
2. I am pretty sure the Vatican is recognised by the UN. Even most islamics states recognise the Vatican, they just might not have relations. it is certainly recognised by the Big Five.
3. The ICC has to have jurisdiction first. Some heads of state have immunity within their own laws, e.g. US Presidents. Generally speaking you need to depose a leader first then arrest him. This only deals with authority not defacto power, mileage can vary due to the inconsistencies of power politics at this level justice has little to do with it. For example how far would you get trying to arrest incumbent Chinese leaders for complicity in the Tienanmen Square massacres.
4. State visits are formal guests of Her Majesty, obstructing that will cause all manners of nasty. It would ambarass the government for starters and depending on where the guest is accosted could end up with a ton of guardsmen bearing down on the perp; Grens' vs Dawkins. I know who I would put money on.
When it comes to scandal about religion--but especially when it comes to the Catholic Church--most people have made up their minds long before a story breaks. Either the Pope should die in jail or the Church can do no wrong. (In either case, people don't let facts get in the way of their opinions.) Both viewpoints are utterly repulsive and only reveal how sadly detached from reality most folks are. Also, in their willful blindness and vitriolic fanaticism the two extremes have more in common with each other than they would ever care to admit. OP's newstory only indicates to me that Dawkins is at a low ebb of popularity and credibility and needs a stunt to boost his media image, to make people care again. If it was ever unclear that the man had no understanding of the world he lives in, besides the abstractions provided by science, here is the evidence. Dreadnote could not be more correct in his assessment of such shenanigans.
As a committed Atheist, I can only say that Richard Dawkins is a bloody nuisance and makes us look bad.
One of my genuine gripes about religions in general is their lack of tolerance compared to secularism, and yet Dawkins undermines that by showing that Atheists can be just as intolerant as religious folk. Being arguably the MOST high-profile Atheist out there, he manages to make the rest of us look a lot less tolerant than 99% of us are.
Thing is, I have a LOT of bones to pick with the Pope as well, but Dawkins methods are not the right way to go about dealing with them.
drakenkanon wrote:lol, how does he think billions of Catholics will react if their pope is in prison? just say "ah who cares? we can just get a new one"? lol
Fixed. The rest of Christianity doesn't need a pope. HRH Liz 2 is a fine replacement IMO.
drakenkanon wrote:lol, how does he think billions of Catholics will react if their pope is in prison? just say "ah who cares? we can just get a new one"? lol
Fixed. The rest of Christianity doesn't need a pope. HRH Liz 2 is a fine replacement IMO.
There have been sexual abuse cover-ups in the Anglican Church, too, you know. Dawkins may very well want the Queen arrested as well.
@Manchu: You're comments on most people having made their minds up before entering a debate are sadly true.
-----
IMO- the Church had some members that abused their positions of trust. The body as a whole may have been mistaken in trying to keep the incidents quiet.
However I strongly object to persecuting the church as a whole, and particularly its head. It didn't happen on Benedict's watch, but he seems to be carrying the can for it.
Child abuse is utterly horrific, as members have expressed, and they rightly want sanctions against the perpetrators; however it is wrong to tarnish the entire catholic church due to the actions of individuals.
drakenkanon wrote:lol, how does he think billions of Catholics will react if their pope is in prison? just say "ah who cares? we can just get a new one"? lol
Fixed. The rest of Christianity doesn't need a pope. HRH Liz 2 is a fine replacement IMO.
There have been sexual abuse cover-ups in the Anglican Church, too, you know. Dawkins may very well want the Queen arrested as well.
If HRH were directly involved (as Dawkins alleges the Pope is) then I have no problem with that. The monarch isn't above the law and should not be. It's perfectly acceptable to replace bad monarchs with good ones. Of course no such allegations have been made against HRH so it's a moot point.
Anyway Dawkins wouldn't be making the arrest (unless he plans a citizen's arrest, which I doubt). He plans to get CPS and the police to do it. If the case is legal then they should do so. There seems to be some debate over the legality though. The government should not commit (another) illegal act.
drakenkanon wrote:lol, how does he think billions of Catholics will react if their pope is in prison? just say "ah who cares? we can just get a new one"? lol
Fixed. The rest of Christianity doesn't need a pope. HRH Liz 2 is a fine replacement IMO.
There have been sexual abuse cover-ups in the Anglican Church, too, you know. Dawkins may very well want the Queen arrested as well.
And if the Queen was responsible for "covering up" the cases of sexual abbuse,then by all means arrest her as well.
I personally belive much is being lost in the "religious vs athiest" debate,it's irrelavent...the question should clearly be "Did the Pope cover up/protect sexual predators",if so then he should be prosocuted.
George Spiggott wrote:]If HRH were directly involved (as Dawkins alleges the Pope is) then I have no problem with that. The monarch isn't above the law and should not be. It's perfectly acceptable to replace bad monarchs with good ones. Of course no such allegations have been made against HRH so it's a moot point.
She is the head of the Anglican Communion. Benedict XVI is the head of the Catholic Communion. Dawkins sees no need to investigate what these titles mean, what structures are actually involved, how the real people who were part of these cases made decisions and why. The story is transparent: Dawkins wants to discredit the Pope; the (trumped up) charges are just an excuse. (In Dawkins book [literally], there is no such thing as a good pope.) If anyone took Elizabeth II seriously as the head of the Anglican Church, I'm sure she'd also be on his hit list. It would have nothing to do with being a good monarch or a bad one.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
FITZZ wrote:I personally belive much is being lost in the "religious vs athiest" debate,it's irrelavent...the question should clearly be "Did the Pope cover up/protect sexual predators",if so then he should be prosocuted.
The answer, with regard to the case of Fr. Lawrence Murphy, is "absolutely not."
FITZZ wrote:I personally belive much is being lost in the "religious vs athiest" debate,it's irrelavent...the question should clearly be "Did the Pope cover up/protect sexual predators",if so then he should be prosocuted.
The answer, with regard to the case of Fr. Lawrence Murphy, is "absolutely not."
And if that's the case,then by all means the Pope should certianly be left alone,unless there exist some other cases in wich he may have acted in a "criminal manner".
My point is..the issue should not be one of "athiest church bashing" or "religious solidarity",it should be an issue of "was there a crime commited",if not then it should be a dropped...if so,then the person resposiable,reguardless of standing or posistion should have to deal with the consequense of their actions.
I agree with you, FITZZ, and commend you for trying to give the thread some rational legs to stand on. Unfortunately and ironically, rationality is apparently the last thing Mr. Dawkins is concerned about when planning his abusive use of the soapbox. To respond more directly to your point, the Pope has not engaged in any criminal activity as defined by the laws of the United States or Germany or the norms set by the United Nations.
Manchu wrote:I agree with you, FITZZ, and commend you for trying to give the thread some rational legs to stand on. Unfortunately and ironically, rationality is apparently the last thing Mr. Dawkins is concerned about when planning his abusive use of the soapbox. To respond more directly to your point, the Pope has not engaged in any criminal activity as defined by the laws of the United States or Germany or the norms set by the United Nations.
In that case Mr. Dawkins should go else where to "pedal his papers" ...and I'm an athiest saying this.
I really don't see how this doesn't boil down to Mr. Dawkins wanting someone who he disagrees with to be arrested on the grounds of their disagreement.
Squig_herder wrote:I never said it was the sole root, or anything along those lines, I am saying that the church has not taken any responsibility for crimes committed by the church itself or the people working under its orders. It has harboured paedophiles and dont been prosecuted by the law for it because they seem to think they are above the law. What about the mass murder of "witches" or "Heretics", no sorry, no formal apology each like the Japanese, no the church turned god mode on and the rest of the world can't touch they seem to think, well im glad the law is catching up with them.
The myth of the persecution of thousands of witches has little to with reality, and even less to do with the Catholic Church. Catholic persecution was predominantly towards the Jews and Muslims.
Squig_herder wrote:Rebutting point 1 if I may: For along time, the church silenced (in which ever means they saw fit) scientists of the time for proving science to the world around, showing truth and the church didn't want truth
Galileo was not the only scientist arguing the Earth orbited the Sun, others went unpunished and in some cases were even sponsored by the Church. While his apparent heresy of saying the Earth orbited the Sun was the reason given for his punishment, that was only because it was politically easier to make that charge stick.The imprisonment of Gallileo was about him insulting the Pope. You should look it up, it's an interesting story.
mattyrm wrote:Let me get this straight, Dawkins is a tool because he wants to get a man who enabled child rape punished? Sorry religious chaps, but this sickens me utterly. Go watch some of the victims testimonies on youtube (i wont link because it gets the thread instacensored if people say bad things about religion) and I will bow out of this thread while i have the will power to remain civilised and you guys can get back to defending the pope. Awesome.
I can only assume that people aren't aware of what the Pope specifically did to cover up the actions of paedophiles, and are just coming in here to have a go at Dawkins. The alternative is to think they actually believe someone should be exempt from legal action over covering up paedophilia.
corpsesarefun wrote:No dawkins is a tool for not thinking his plan out propperly, the pope is a recognised head of state.
The diplomatic immunity of dignatories from the Catholic Church is not as clear as you assume, as the Catholic Church is not a nation state.
Regardless, there's no actual plan here to arrest the Pope on his arrival - that'd be silly. There is a plan to raise awareness on what the Catholic Church and the Pope did to cover up what happened.
wizard12 wrote:If a close member of the familly goes and kills/rapes/burgles someone, you don't go around screaming at the top of your lungs that the member of the familly if a murderer/rapist/robbber because people will think your famillies completly bad while most of your familly work for charities. No you want to keep it on the quiet.
When that family has around a million members and is entrusted by the victims to work on their behalf the analogy starts to fail pretty badly.
Manchu wrote:I really don't see how this doesn't boil down to Mr. Dawkins wanting someone who he disagrees with to be arrested on the grounds of their disagreement.
Well,perhaps Mr.Dawkins honestly belives that there was a crime commited,and belives he is attempting to "right a wrong",wich I would see as comendable.
However,if there exist no evidence to substantiate his claims/belife he should drop the whole mess.
On the other hand,Mr. Dawkins may simply be trying to "discredit" the Catolic church by "any means possiable",in wich case,despite my agreeing with some of his points of view,makes him a tool.
FITZZ wrote: Well,perhaps Mr.Dawkins honestly belives that there was a crime commited,and belives he is attempting to "right a wrong",wich I would see as comendable.
However,if there exist no evidence to substantiate his claims/belife he should drop the whole mess.
On the other hand,Mr. Dawkins may simply be trying to "discredit" the Catolic church by "any means possiable",in wich case,despite my agreeing with some of his points of view,makes him a tool.
There's certainly grounds that there was a conspiracy to conceal a crime. Whether or not it's sufficient for a court I don't know, but I can't see how anyone that knows the details of the case would believe that there was no case to answer.
The issue is whether the Pope is a granted diplomatic immunity as a result of his position.
Needless to say, I did NOT say "I will arrest Pope Benedict XVI" or anything so personally grandiloquent. You have to remember that The Sunday Times is a Murdoch newspaper, and that all newspapers follow the odd custom of entrusting headlines to a sub-editor, not the author of the article itself.
What I DID say to Marc Horne when he telephoned me out of the blue, and I repeat it here, is that I am whole-heartedly behind the initiative by Geoffrey Robertson and Mark Stephens to mount a legal challenge to the Pope's proposed visit to Britain. Beyond that, I declined to comment to Marc Horne, other than to refer him to my 'Ratzinger is the Perfect Pope' article here: http://richarddawkins.net/articles/5341
Here is what really happened. Christopher Hitchens first proposed the legal challenge idea to me on March 14th. I responded enthusiastically, and suggested the name of a high profile human rights lawyer whom I know. I had lost her address, however, and set about tracking her down. Meanwhile, Christopher made the brilliant suggestion of Geoffrey Robertson. He approached him, and Mr Robertson's subsequent 'Put the Pope in the Dock' article in The Guardian shows him to be ideal:
http://richarddawkins.net/articles/5366 The case is obviously in good hands, with him and Mark Stephens. I am especially intrigued by the proposed challenge to the legality of the Vatican as a sovereign state whose head can claim diplomatic immunity.
Even if the Pope doesn't end up in the dock, and even if the Vatican doesn't cancel the visit, I am optimistic that we shall raise public consciousness to the point where the British government will find it very awkward indeed to go ahead with the Pope's visit, let alone pay for it.
I just thought of something. If Dawkins does this and succeeds, apart from the publicity he can't win. There is a high chance the Pope will go "I forgive you" in which case all people religious or not will all learn about a massively religious value, forgiveness (I'm not saying you need to be religious to be forgiving here). If he doesn’t well, the Catholic Church gets loads of publicity (Even though it’s of the bad kind.) and Dawkins gets one of the world’s largest religions to turn against him. (Well done Dawkins, now you can't go to Ireland, Italy, Spain and don't get me started on countries South America and Africa plus others elsewhere.)
Oh yes, and squig hunter, I concede to your superior wit and intelligence (well, as much as one can do on the internet)
Orlanth wrote:As for why Dawkins picks fights, the sad fact is atheism is a religion and it attractse its share of fanatics. Some atheists might be able to let go, but they would not really be atheists then, just people who dont beleive and dont think about it much. Those who dont beleive and do think about it alot get drawn into relgious debate no less fervently than any theist, and often a lot nastier. I have met enough atheist Taliban on these forums, who troll you no matter how polite and logically placed your comments. That is no shock to me. What is slightly more disturbing is that it looks like Dawkins is possibly getting radicalised. I respect Dawkins for trying to stick to the issues, I hope reports about him have been miscommunicated. The world is a safer place when one of the formost atheist apologists is not a raving fundamentalist; we need level heads to be leading the debate at both ends.
Ok sorry i cant let that one go.
First of all, Atheist Taliban? I use that word to refer to people like you, and you saying it about the non religious is pretty much every single kettle in the world calling every pot in the universe black.
If you are one of the very rare atheists who is indoctrinated by your family or some such close relatives, then i suppose it would be acceptable to use it. But that is extremely rare. Most people in the UK and certainly almost all of my social circle are like me, you know.. Church of England, got Christened just because its the done thing but your parents dont really care. Never mention or talk or care about Religion, and then you grow up and get to your twenties and realise that Religious Zealots are essentially screwing the world because THEY get brainwashed as a child. Taliban?! The Taliban are religious. Its ridiculous you even daring to use the term. And before we carry on, can you just remind me what it was you said last time? Something about physically talking to God in your mind wasnt it? And you want to call non religious critical thinking people "The Taliban" eh?
Watch that video. Then tell me it is somehow "wrong" to criticize the Pope. And condemn the filth that did those things to that poor man.
How many Religious people are "raised" religious? Barring personal tragedy it is almost all of them. You are a Devout Christian because you were raised to be one. And you DARE to call people like me, who just didnt care at all or even think about it until the twin towers got knocked down, Taliban?!
Your attitude is truly sickening. You defend this type of gak because you too are hard wired to do so. If you were raised in a Madrassa In Afghanistan you would be willing to blow yourself up. Its the exact same thing.
Criticize a decent law abiding citizen (Dawkins) because he condemns child abuse and wants to see the Pope charged? Please.. explain that to me. Why?!
If i criticized Ian Huntley you wouldnt slag me off would you? But just because Dawkins is having a dig at someone in your "gang" your slating the man?
Its genuinelly appalling behaviour Orlanth and you know it.
Take a deep breath and try to think critically.
What would a Non Christian do?
Who would he criticize?
The somewhat strident old Biology Proffessor for trying to boldy have a public figure charged...
Sorry, but the Pope is an international leader and considered a diplomat so he is immune to arrest till he steps down from his position. Complain all you want but he can't be arrested even if he is diddling a kid in the popemoblie.
Yeah Pip. I dont actually agree with Prof Dawkins on this issue, as im a good old fashioned cynic.
Life aint fair, the pope wont get his commupence, and the MPs will keep robbing us, and the good die young etc etc etc
I dont worry about social crusades generally cos im well aware it makes hardly any difference, so of course i am well aware nothing will happen to the pope.
Doesnt mean we have to like though does it?
If i was a man given to emotional responses that video above could almost move me to tears. Sure i know nothing is gonna happen to the Pope. But you have to be made of stone (Or a Christian) not be angry about it.
Manchu wrote:I agree with you, FITZZ, and commend you for trying to give the thread some rational legs to stand on. Unfortunately and ironically, rationality is apparently the last thing Mr. Dawkins is concerned about when planning his abusive use of the soapbox. To respond more directly to your point, the Pope has not engaged in any criminal activity as defined by the laws of the United States or Germany or the norms set by the United Nations.
isnt trying to cover up child abuse illegal too? i mean: if i turn off the alarm in a store for you but only you take money from the safe (i dont) that still is illegal isnt it?
1) Lots of people are forgetting that, at least in the states, covering up a crime is illegal. You are considered an accessory to said crime. If you know someone is molesting kids and say nothing and it's brought up later in court you go to prison yourself. The Pope knowingly covered up the fact that certain Priests were molesting kids. That makes him an accessory by all legal definitions of the word "accessory" and his old wrinkly ass should be in prison for it, or very least be forced to step down and become a commoner.
2) Diplomatic Immunity. That "privilege" is the biggest crock of gak ever. "Oh look at me, I'm the Pope. I'm doing 120 on the freeway here in California and I can get away with it because I'm immune to arrest while over here". "Look at me. I'm the Prince of Egypt. I can shoplift in plain sight from Zales and nobody can touch me because I'm a diplomat, therefore I'm above the law."
Meh, those 2 things are what's wrong with this mess with the Pope.
I know it's a religious thing but perhaps if Priests were allowed to marry and/or poke women they wouldn't get the urge to poke little boys in the butt with their "staff".
Just saying.
Hey folks, let's not turn this into a Religion vs. Atheism thread. It shouldn't be one. Human life should be the most inportant thing in this instance, and the sexual assault of a child is one of the most dehumanising crimes a person can commit.
Treating an innocent child as a sexual object.
Think about that for a second.
Absolutely sickening isn't it? As a father, my anger for the perpetrators of such crimes knows no rationality - I would certainly be capable of violence towards such people. For me, this supposed 'Dawkins vs. The Pope' thing is sideshow - we should not, SHOULD NEVER lose sight of the real issue: Accountabilty. The people responsible for these heinous acts should be dragged into the light of justice, and the people who enabled them by relocating/covering up the perpetrators, are just as guilty in my eyes.
1) Lots of people are forgetting that, at least in the states, covering up a crime is illegal. You are considered an accessory to said crime. If you know someone is molesting kids and say nothing and it's brought up later in court you go to prison yourself. The Pope knowingly covered up the fact that certain Priests were molesting kids. That makes him an accessory by all legal definitions of the word "accessory" and his old wrinkly ass should be in prison for it, or very least be forced to step down and become a commoner.
In the UK you can either be tried as an accomplice to the crime or simply for obstruction of justice for covering a crime up.
Either way he should be held legally for "something". feth his Pope status. Only one being is above the law. Everyone else is here to do His bidding and I'm pretty sure that He does not condone His servants molesting kids. If He did there wouldn't be laws against it.
Fateweaver wrote:Either way he should be held legally for "something". feth his Pope status. Only one being is above the law. Everyone else is here to do His bidding and I'm pretty sure that He does not condone His servants molesting kids. If He did there wouldn't be laws against it.
Albatross wrote:Hey folks, let's not turn this into a Religion vs. Atheism thread. It shouldn't be one. Human life should be the most inportant thing in this instance, and the sexual assault of a child is one of the most dehumanising crimes a person can commit.
Treating an innocent child as a sexual object.
Think about that for a second.
Absolutely sickening isn't it? As a father, my anger for the perpetrators of such crimes knows no rationality - I would certainly be capable of violence towards such people. For me, this supposed 'Dawkins vs. The Pope' thing is sideshow - we should not, SHOULD NEVER lose sight of the real issue: Accountabilty. The people responsible for these heinous acts should be dragged into the light of justice, and the people who enabled them by relocating/covering up the perpetrators, are just as guilty in my eyes.
100% correct my friend,and basicly what I've been saying since my first post in this thread.
This should not be a "Christian vs Atheist" issue,the issue should be "what are the facts" and who,if anyone,is guilty of these horrible acts/covering them up.
JEB_Stuart wrote:
The Holy See, which is a different entity, but exercises all authority of the Vatican City State, is not a nation, but still recognized as an international authority. This was reconfirmed in 2004 unanimously by the United Nations. Since His Holiness is the Sovereign of a recognized nation, their point is moot...
Diplomatic immunity does not extend to all state officials, nor is it a uniform law.
Fateweaver wrote:Either way he should be held legally for "something". feth his Pope status. Only one being is above the law. Everyone else is here to do His bidding and I'm pretty sure that He does not condone His servants molesting kids. If He did there wouldn't be laws against it.
Yeah sorry alb for almost derailing, but Orlanth gets my back up and i feel an urge to respond on the behalf of the non believers.
FW is spot on (with regards to nobody being above the law anyway!)
Screw his status, like the old guy in the video says (not this one, the one above!) If thats the law, then change the law. A diplomat is a human being same as me.. i dont see why they should be allowed to get away with anything.
mattyrm wrote:
Screw his status, like the old guy in the video says (not this one, the one above!) If thats the law, then change the law.
There are a number of circumstances under which diplomatic immunity has, historically, been considered void. These are generally violent crimes, and major traffic incidents. Whether or not conspiracy would be considered an acceptable addition will depend largely on the political relations between the two states in question, as well as issues internal to the host nation.
Orlanth wrote:As for why Dawkins picks fights, the sad fact is atheism is a religion and it attractse its share of fanatics. Some atheists might be able to let go, but they would not really be atheists then, just people who dont beleive and dont think about it much. Those who dont beleive and do think about it alot get drawn into relgious debate no less fervently than any theist, and often a lot nastier. I have met enough atheist Taliban on these forums, who troll you no matter how polite and logically placed your comments. That is no shock to me. What is slightly more disturbing is that it looks like Dawkins is possibly getting radicalised. I respect Dawkins for trying to stick to the issues, I hope reports about him have been miscommunicated. The world is a safer place when one of the formost atheist apologists is not a raving fundamentalist; we need level heads to be leading the debate at both ends.
Ok sorry i cant let that one go.
First of all, Atheist Taliban? I use that word to refer to people like you, blah blah blah...
This is exactly why they want to shut down this type of discussion in the forum. Can we calm down a bit?
Orlanth wrote:As for why Dawkins picks fights, the sad fact is atheism is a religion and it attractse its share of fanatics. Some atheists might be able to let go, but they would not really be atheists then, just people who dont beleive and dont think about it much. Those who dont beleive and do think about it alot get drawn into relgious debate no less fervently than any theist, and often a lot nastier. I have met enough atheist Taliban on these forums, who troll you no matter how polite and logically placed your comments. That is no shock to me. What is slightly more disturbing is that it looks like Dawkins is possibly getting radicalised. I respect Dawkins for trying to stick to the issues, I hope reports about him have been miscommunicated. The world is a safer place when one of the formost atheist apologists is not a raving fundamentalist; we need level heads to be leading the debate at both ends.
Ok sorry i cant let that one go.
First of all, Atheist Taliban? I use that word to refer to people like you, blah blah blah...
This is exactly why they want to shut down this type of discussion in the forum. Can we calm down a bit?
People of Dakka:
Before this gets any farther, I have a few questions. As one poster mentioned earlier, what are the facts?
1) Catholic Clergy have abused children
2)Other people, also, have abused children.
Can anyone give a linky to an actual article where it details, with as little bias as possible, exactly how the pope covered this up? All I've found is gak.
PS: The Catholic Church believes that the Pope is infallible in the teaching of Catholic Doctrine. This is totally different from how one should react when child abuse is happening, or what colour of socks to wear on Tuesdays. Let's get realistic here, folks.
Edit: oh yes, I have a quick quesion for people who know about law. If a person who is employed by a country overseas and isn't acturly a citzen of that country. Does the contry that employs them have to deal with any crime they commit?
I know that in Japan that the police have the power to pick me up off of the street, detain me for 23 days without legal counsel or charge on their own discretion. They do permit translators to be in the interrogation room, but they are their translators. I think basically, wherever you live or are at any given moment, the law of the land applies to you. Admiralty law, the law of the sea is totally different. Google Jordan Maxwell and find out all about that.
Fateweaver wrote:I answer that challenge at 20 paces with pistols.
9mm or .45? Your choice good sir.
You think that will work? you gotta nuke it from orbit... its the only way to be sure.
Fun, fun, fun. But seriously, does anyone have the location of an article I can read about this which will detail the offense, rather than talking about it in passing?
As soon as they cart off the pope they're going to have to throw Vladimir Putin, Wen Jiabao, dick cheney, Tony Blair, and pretty much every other foreign leader in the same box.
This is all a moot point and Dawkins is an unbelievable tool.
Nightwatch wrote:People of Dakka:
Before this gets any farther, I have a few questions. As one poster mentioned earlier, what are the facts?
1) Catholic Clergy have abused children
2)Other people, also, have abused children.
Can anyone give a linky to an actual article where it details, with as little bias as possible, exactly how the pope covered this up?
Of course not.
It's why no serious action has been taken on the subject. The fact that Richard Dawkins is still trying to make a big deal out of it, to me, shows that it's poppycock.
It's like the whole "Dubyuh stole the election" argument. It wasn't Democratic Senators and Congressmen bringing that up, it was people far outside that didn't like the reality of the situation.
The only people that lose are the kids that got molested and that's a bit heartbreaking when you think about it, and it's just as despicable to use their pain for publicity as it was to cover the crime in the first place.
ShumaGorath wrote:As soon as they cart off the pope they're going to have to throw Vladimir Putin, Wen Jiabao, dick cheney, Tony Blair, and pretty much every other foreign leader in the same box.
This is all a moot point and Dawkins is an unbelievable tool.
Your forgetting George dubya bush jr, Tony blair was nowt but his lapdog.
Fateweaver wrote:Yes, because arresting someone for covering up molestation is poppycock.
Unless it's proven, it is. Nice strawman. Perhaps if you read the thread more closely you'd know exactly where my morals lie.
Must be my foolish belief that someone is innocent until proven guilty.
Er.... Yes, and in order to check if someone is guilty, you have to have a trial...... but were not allowed to have one for the Pope because he is just too awesome? Is that your argument?
I must add, i dont agree with Dawkins on this issue either. I long ago accepted that the Religious run the world and there is no changing it. I dont like it, but i know the limits of our power. They arent going to be able to drag the Vatican down and I dont see the point in having a go at the Pope either, so i could agree with you. But guys like you slamming a guy like Dawkins merely because he wants a man who may have been complicit in child abuse to be accountable.. thats just.. wrong man.
Remain disinterested by all means, but calling Dawkins names because he wants to see the guy investigated for something as horrible as child rape just seems.. wrong to me.
Entirely expected by cynical secular types like me, but still wrong.
Remain disinterested by all means, but calling Dawkins names because he wants to see the guy investigated for something as horrible as child rape just seems.. wrong to me.
Can I call him names for being a moneygrubbing douche, a gak scientist, and a god awful philosopher that caters to intellectual voids in much the same way as ann coulter?
It's worth noting, it has nothing to do with trying to nail Ratzinger because he is the Pope - as far as I can tell it's more because he was in charge of supposedly dealing with this sort thing many years ago, and that there is evidence he covered up certain things back then. So it's not him as the Pope being accountable for The Catholic church as a whole with regard to any sex-attacks perpetrated by members of the clergy. He shouldn't be held responsible for all crimes comitted by Catholic priests everywhere. That's daft.
This is actually a very good and objective article but it does not really touch the subject of Fr. Mruphy's canonical trial or the events in Bavaria. I will try and put those facts together for people shortly.
Remain disinterested by all means, but calling Dawkins names because he wants to see the guy investigated for something as horrible as child rape just seems.. wrong to me.
Can I call him names for being a moneygrubbing douche, a gak scientist, and a god awful philosopher that caters to intellectual voids in much the same way as ann coulter?
Sure. Just base those assertions on something. I would be interested to know what qualifies you to comment on his abilities as a scientist, for example.
Orlanth wrote:As for why Dawkins picks fights, the sad fact is atheism is a religion and it attractse its share of fanatics. Some atheists might be able to let go, but they would not really be atheists then, just people who dont beleive and dont think about it much. Those who dont beleive and do think about it alot get drawn into relgious debate no less fervently than any theist, and often a lot nastier. I have met enough atheist Taliban on these forums, who troll you no matter how polite and logically placed your comments. That is no shock to me. What is slightly more disturbing is that it looks like Dawkins is possibly getting radicalised. I respect Dawkins for trying to stick to the issues, I hope reports about him have been miscommunicated. The world is a safer place when one of the formost atheist apologists is not a raving fundamentalist; we need level heads to be leading the debate at both ends.
Ok sorry i cant let that one go.
First of all, Atheist Taliban? I use that word to refer to people like you, and you saying it about the non religious is pretty much every single kettle in the world calling every pot in the universe black.
Ok lets go through this. yes there is an 'atheist Taliban' just as there is a 'Labour Taliban'. I got that one from you found it true and used it. There are atheists out there who will hate relgious people with a passion, troll them at every opportunity and twist any reasoned word. I make level fair comments and will listen to level fair comments in turn but no. I get ad hominem attacks.
After all what is all this 'people like me'? Are you saying all reglious apologists are fanatics. I don't troll my religion, never did. I speak plainly and with logic, you might not agree with my logic but that is not the criteria for logical argument. Critique my standpoint rather than get anygry and I will calmly state my case, as I always have.
Atheist Taliban is a fair comment because some will not accept ANY pro theist argument and will rile against any word not matter how reasoned. I hope you dont join them, they are not nice people. I remember mentioining on another thread that a friend of mine in Watford in the 90's was stabbed to death FOR BEING A CHRISTIAN. I last saw her an hour before she was martyred. Not for doing anything wirth it at the time, except refusing to renounce her faith at knifepoint. Just being a Christian angers some people as and of itself, that type of unreasoned hatred is what the Taliban are known for and yes atheist Taliban exist. yes some Moslem extermisits will kill you for being Christian, but it wasnty a relgious person that time. Fortunately such events are very rare, but it does happen, even in the UK from time to time.
Here is your comment from another thread:
mattyrm wrote:
Its not that they have a low IQ, its that their parents train them this way. I live in Middlesbrough, and we have a "Labour Taliban" that will vote for them until they die. No matter what they do. Their Dads tell them about Thatcher crushing the miners every day and they grow up to support Labour regardless of current events. Once the neural fibres harden there is no turning back. If you can brainwash a kid to volutarily blow himself up, you can get him to vote for your party of choice with consumate ease.
Why the flip are you getting angry at me if you can write what you write? I agree with you, some people are blinded to how much damage Brown has caused and will vote fanatically for Labour because they remember Thatcher. But nowhere do I assume you think them all religious, or Moslem or suicide bombers or anything else other than Labour voters, which is their right.
(For the record I criticise Labour and Labour voters but don't criticise peoples inherent right to be Labour voters. Go ahead and vote Labour if you really think it is for the best.)
mattyrm wrote:
Watch that video. Then tell me it is somehow "wrong" to criticize the Pope. And condemn the filth that did those things to that poor man.
I watched your video, and know more about this type of issue than you might realise. I met a women writer brought up in an Irish convent and her story matched his. It was an interesting two hours, we got on well enough and her testimony shocks me still. Some points:
1. The Irish Church has a lot to answer for, but do not accuse all catholics of this, let alone all Christians.
2. The Irish government has been at the forefront of the cover up, even more than the church in Ireland. The woman I met was refused state compensation without a waiver and it was the government not the church who forced her into that. Yes the church was behind the government but the point remains this is not just a Catholic church issue. it goes much deeper.
3. The current pope was not an Irish prelate, he spent his years in Germany and Italy (after 1982). He is not alleged to gave committed abuses.
4. The worst you have on him is trying to stem the tide of PR disasters caused by exposure of parts of the church.
mattyrm wrote:
How many Religious people are "raised" religious? Barring personal tragedy it is almost all of them. You are a Devout Christian because you were raised to be one. And you DARE to call people like me, who just didnt care at all or even think about it until the twin towers got knocked down, Taliban?!
So are hardline Brown voters Taliban also? No. Calm down please. I can use the same political allegories you do. Besides I was not raised a Christian, I became one of my own free will. Why assume those who are devout are raised that way, is it so you can assume we had no thought in the process. Sorry I walk to God with my eyes open and a fresh and hungry mind.
mattyrm wrote:
Your attitude is truly sickening. You defend this type of gak because you too are hard wired to do so. If you were raised in a Madrassa In Afghanistan you would be willing to blow yourself up. Its the exact same thing.
I hope not, I am a decent man and not given to such hatreds. Though I might be fervent Moslem by now, that much I do admit. However what turns a man into a monster is the society he lives in. If the human monster is your definition of 'Taliban' then those who put on the SS uniform are in many ways perfect examples of atheist Taliban. atheism was a credence of the French Revolutionary Government under the Terror (Madama Guillotine), the Soviet Union, Khmer Rouge, Nazism, all atheist based philosophies. Atheist dogmatists as evil than the Taliban exist, and many of them are far worse.
mattyrm wrote:
Criticize a decent law abiding citizen (Dawkins) because he condemns child abuse and wants to see the Pope charged? Please.. explain that to me. Why?!
Because Dawkins is not after the guilty, he is after the publicity. If you believe the pope is a kiddie fiddler then come out and say it, show us your evidence. He was not Pope when these scandals broke, he was never in command of the Church in Ireland. I mean it makes as much sense to arrest the Queen for the massacres done in the monarchs name by Victorian soldiers in Africa.
mattyrm wrote:
If i criticized Ian Huntley you wouldnt slag me off would you? But just because Dawkins is having a dig at someone in your "gang" your slating the man?
I am a protestant. The Pope would not even consider me part of his gang, also if you pointed out the priests who did the crime I would want them tried as much you. In fact more than because they bring shame to the church and lead people astray.
I remember talking about my own sisters experiences in a Catholic convent in the 60's, she is about the same age as the man we saw on the video. Nothing happened to her, she was there because my mother was divorced because her first husband was very abusive. She was destitute and could not raise her daughter. So she went to the nuns who educated her, mother was never Catholic and was divorcee to boot, but the nuns accepted my sister and cared for her. You see they are not all monsters but the convent was in Coventry not Ireland. Abuse in Irish convents and clerical schools was so prolific that I have come to believe that the majority of boys and girls in their care were abused. This has been sat on by the Catholic church and Irish government both for a very long time.
What is the Pope to do? He is not responsible for the mess, but he is responsible for fixing it. This story has been brewing for decades, it broke surface on his watch. The Catholic church in Germany like that in the UK is unsullied, yes crooked priests are found but we find crooked people in all professions and by and large they are dealt with. What is the Pope to do? The Vatican has sat on this for decades at the very least, and I suspect a whole lot longer. One cancerous cell threatens to taint the entire wagon. Continuing the cover up is the cowards way out but understandable. After all look what has happened right here on this thread:
People assuming all Catholics are paedos, people accusing Christians in general as apologists for paedos. Frankly I should be the one to get angry. I do not stomach paedophilia and will never condone it. But apparently you prefer think we are all part of the same 'gang', all joining in on a cover up, and because we are assumed to be brought up this way and not thinking for ourselves. I refuse to get angry with you, but i must challenge these comments.
If we are to be faced with such hysterical accusations I can understand the Popes need for damage limitation.
mattyrm wrote:
Take a deep breath and try to think critically.
What would a Non Christian do?
Who would he criticize?
The somewhat strident old Biology Proffessor for trying to boldy have a public figure charged...
Or the man who ENABLED child rape.
The honest man, Christian or not would criticise the priests who committed the crime, and not knee jerk any convenient catholic who comes along.
Remain disinterested by all means, but calling Dawkins names because he wants to see the guy investigated for something as horrible as child rape just seems.. wrong to me.
Can I call him names for being a moneygrubbing douche, a gak scientist, and a god awful philosopher that caters to intellectual voids in much the same way as ann coulter?
Sure. Just base those assertions on something. I would be interested to know what qualifies you to comment on his abilities as a scientist, for example.
How about the fact that after The Extended Phenotype he stopped writing scientific books and just started raking in money by lambasting religion and folk medicine? He hasn't really done anything of scientific merit in like 30 years. You can notice the same trend in his documentaries, choices of interview venues, and pretty much everything else in his life. The man is a machine for making money off the the counter-religion secular movement, and it's all he does. His science when he does so isn't even very good at that, and his books are full of logical holes and (ironically) leaps of faith connecting causal relations in historical events and social problems.
My only real problem with Dawkins is the people he chooses to debate with on his documentaries. As I stated at the start of this thread 12 hours ago (ooh, religious thread still going after 12 hours, good work people ), some of his conversations really are like shooting fish in a barrel.
In his documentary, the Root of all Evil, he interviewed an islamic fundamentalist who thought suicide bombing was justified and that scantily clad women were whores who would burn in hell. This approach to 'proving your point' is kind of cheating in my book. Why not interview some of the moderate muslims in this country? Because they're not remotely evil and don't make good television.
I will give him points for debating Rowan Williams (Archbishop of Cantebury and pretty intelligent bloke) into an uncomfortable silence on evolution though.
It's a shame that the ignore function doesn't alSo ignore the stuff I see in quotes.
All I'm going to say is that I believe that there is a fundamental problem with an organization, when it is actively covering up and protecting child rapists. Also, I think that Dawkins is a sensationalist, as much as any televangelist is.
Father Lawrence Murphy was chaplain and eventually director for St. John’s School for the Deaf in St. Francis, WI, (a suburb of Milwaukee) between 1950 and 1974. This was his only official assignment as a priest throughout his lifetime. Fr. Murphy is suspected of having molested some two hundred postpubescent boys (as alleged by plaintiffs in a recent lawsuit against the Archdiocese of Milwaukee). Fr. Murphy has been described by co-workers and even his own victims as being beloved by the children of St. John’s, which contributed to the hesitance of some victims (who genuinely liked Fr. Murhphy) in coming forward. During the mid-1970s, some of the victims decided to report the abuse to the civil authorities resulting in an investigation and public lawsuit that was ultimately dropped.
At that point, Archbishop Cousins of Milwaukee removed Fr. Murphy not only from St. John’s school but also from the Archdiocese of Milwaukee. Fr. Murphy was informally exiled to the Diocese of Superior where he could live with his mother. He was allowed to serve as an unofficial assistant to a parish priest in Bounder Junction. He lived in Bounder Junction until his death in 1998. There were no further reports of sexual abuse although since the publication of the NY Times article at least two men have claimed that they were abused by Fr. Murphy during this period.
By 1993, men who claimed to have been abused by Fr. Murphy during the late 1960s and early 1970s began to come forward. The Archdiocese of Milwaukee reacted by re-investigating Fr. Murphy. Beginning in 1995, he was interviewed by representatives of the Archdiocese and by three psychologists specializing in pedophilia. (During this time, Fr. Murphy’s ministry was restricted.) As a result of the investigation, Archbishop of Milwaukee Rembert Weakland discovered that Fr. Murphy had solicited sexual contact with one boy in the confessional.
Archbishop Weakland sent a letter with details about Fr. Murphy’s case and a request for guidance concerning technical jurisdiction to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF). Unlike sexual abuse more generally (which is handled in the diocese where it happens), the particular offense of solicitation o sex during the sacrament of confession could fall under the special jurisdiction of the CDF, an important dicastery (a kind of administrative office) of the Roman Curia charged with promoting and safeguarding matters of doctrine regarding faith and morals. The usual business of the CDF is studying areas of theological contention, most notably ensuring that the work of Catholic theologians is orthodox. Jospeh Cardinal Ratzinger was the Prefect, or head, of this Congregation between 1981 and 2005. Its secretary, a kind of second-in-command, was Tarcisio Cardinal Bertone during that period.
There was no immediate response from the CDF. Archbishop Weakland convened a secret tribunal in accordance with canon law to deal with Fr. Murphy’s case. Generally speaking, this was the canonically appropriate action and Archbishop Weakland did not require permission from the CDF to undertake this course. The "secrecy" of such proceedings does not prevent reporting allegations of priests' criminal behavior to civil authorities. (Archbishop Weakland has not commented about why he did not do so.) The only problem was that, just as in civil law, there are canonical statutes of limitation. Archbishop Weakland was determined to proceed against Fr. Murphy despite this and requested that the technicality be dispensed.
Cardinal Bertone eventually responded to Archbishop Weakland’s letter, instructing the Archbishop to continue the trial regardless of the "statute of limitation." In the meantime (over a year after Archbishop Weakland's first letter to the CDF), Fr. Murphy had suffered a series of strokes and wrote to the CDF asking that the proceedings against him be suspended. Cardinal Bertone agreed to the suspension in light of the passage of two decades, the lack of accusations throughout that period, the fact that Fr. Murphy was already living in seclusion and that his public ministry was restricted, and Fr. Murphy’s poor health. Archbishop Weakland and Coadjutor Bishop Rafael Fliss (of the Diocese of Superior), who was at that time involved with handling Fr. Murphy’s trial, protested this decision. Fr. Murphy died four months later in 1998.
Fateweaver wrote:Yes, because arresting someone for covering up molestation is poppycock.
Unless it's proven, it is. Nice strawman. Perhaps if you read the thread more closely you'd know exactly where my morals lie.
Must be my foolish belief that someone is innocent until proven guilty.
Er.... Yes, and in order to check if someone is guilty, you have to have a trial...... but were not allowed to have one for the Pope because he is just too awesome? Is that your argument?
I don't know how you would possibly even infer that to be my argument.
If there is probable cause for arrest and trial, then by all means someone should carry on with it. If not, whatever quarrel Mr. Dawkins has with the Pope would be their business. I'm not Catholic or even particularly religious, but then again I don't have an axe to grind against religious institutions. See my posts above for my opinion on child molesters, if that's still a question.
Orlanth wrote:The honest man, Christian or not would criticise the priests who committed the crime, and not knee jerk any convenient catholic who comes along.
generalgrog wrote:
All I'm going to say is that I believe that there is a fundamental problem with an organization, when it is actively covering up and protecting child rapists. Also, I think that Dawkins is a sensationalist, as much as any televangelist is.
GG
I think that's a slight overstatement - populist, definitely - but sensationalist is a bit strong.
Shuma wrote:
How about the fact that after The Extended Phenotype he stopped writing scientific books and just started raking in money by lambasting religion and folk medicine? He hasn't really done anything of scientific merit in like 30 years. You can notice the same trend in his documentaries, choices of interview venues, and pretty much everything else in his life. The man is a machine for making money off the the counter-religion secular movement, and it's all he does. His science when he does so isn't even very good at that, and his books are full of logical holes and (ironically) leaps of faith connecting causal relations in historical events and social problems.
Well, he's a science writer who aims his books at the popular market. Problem? You're like those people who criticise Britney Spears for being 'commercial' - well, 'duh'.
I asked you to base your assertions on something, but all you did was state your opinion. Which is cool, but let's not pretend we're doing anything other than swapping opinions here.
Well, he's a science writer who aims his books at the popular market. Problem? You're like those people who criticise Britney Spears for being 'commercial' - well, 'duh'.
I asked you to base your assertions on something, but all you did was state your opinion. Which is cool, but let's not pretend we're doing anything other than swapping opinions here.
Do you seriously want me to crack open the god delusion and get into the supposition that religion has a causal relationship to violence and systematic repression and oppression? I stated an opinion because this isn't a thread about richard dawkins body of work. It's about him being a giant ass and wanting to somehow arrest the pope.
If you want a discussion on the concepts behind religious organization causing systemic harm to civilization than start one. I've got too much gak to do to get into one here.
I think that's a slight overstatement - populist, definitely - but sensationalist is a bit strong.
Lets pretend for a moment that political populism isn't sensationalism and just think. How is richard dawkins populist exactly? Since were asking for "more than opinions" here, go ahead and work on that for a bit.
Shuma wrote:Do you seriously want me to crack open the god delusion and get into the supposition that religion has a causal relationship to violence and systematic repression and oppression? I stated an opinion because this isn't a thread about richard dawkins body of work. It's about him being a giant ass and wanting to somehow arrest the pope.
...and I thought your reasons for thinking he was a giant ass were partly due to your perception of his body of work as being poor in your (not at all humble) opinion? I've read 'The God Delusion' - don't make the mistake of thinking that I consider anything that Dawkins writes to be gospel.
If you want a discussion on the concepts behind religious organization causing systemic harm to civilization than start one. I've got too much gak to do to get into one here.
Yet, here we are...
Lets pretend for a moment that political populism isn't sensationalism and just think. How is richard dawkins populist exactly? Since were asking for "more than opinions" here, go ahead and work on that for a bit.
The problem with quickly searching for the meaning of words on wikipedia is that you often miss the point of the statement the other person is making entirely. Cultural populism in mass mediated forms of cultural text is not the same thing as political populism. But you knew that, I'm sure. His books are aimed at the mass market, at the people. At the populus. As such, his work is often delivered in 'plain english', at least in relative terms. It is also mostly aimed at readers who are not studying post-grad evolutionary biology, as shocking as that might seem. Now, if that's your level then what did you realistically expect from an off-the-shelf science book?
But of course, that isn't your level is it? You just have an exceptionally high opinion of yourself.
As for sensationalism, compared to a televangelist (which is the example GG cited) he is nowhere near that level - his work is designed to have mass appeal. He has yet to write a book entitled 'Why Religion Leads to Paedophilia'. THAT would be sensationalist, IMO.
...and I thought your reasons for thinking he was a giant ass were partly due to your perception of his body of work as being poor in your (not at all humble) opinion? I've read 'The God Delusion' - don't make the mistake of thinking that I consider anything that Dawkins writes to be gospel.
I can't think that he is alltogether a bad scientist, author, and that his body of work is poor?
Yet, here we are...
You started the thread?
The problem with quickly searching for the meaning of words on wikipedia is that you often miss the point of the statement the other person is making entirely. Cultural populism in mass mediated forms of cultural text is not the same thing as political populism. But you knew that, I'm sure.
Or you're just misusing the term populism in an attempt to use it as a descriptor for someone that attempts to work within the appeal of a broad audience.
At the populus. As such, his work is often delivered in 'plain english', at least in relative terms. It is also mostly aimed at readers who are not studying post-grad evolutionary biology, as shocking as that might seem. Now, if that's your level then what did you realistically expect from an off-the-shelf science book?
Probably in the part where he's called an world renouned evolutionary "scientist". I get tripped up though when he has no modern relevant body of work and dozens of psuedoscience works involving teardowns of popular high society "villains" and yet is defended as an enlightened scientist.
But of course, that isn't your level is it? You just have an exceptionally high opinion of yourself.
I'm a genius polymath who can shoot threes from halfcourt.
As for sensationalism, compared to a televangelist (which is the example GG cited) he is nowhere near that level - his work is designed to have mass appeal. He has yet to write a book entitled 'Why Religion Leads to Paedophilia'. THAT would be sensationalist, IMO.
...
Ok.
Wait a second.
Lemme catch up here.
ATTEMPTING TO ARREST THE POPE, THE LIVING GOD OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, FOR EXTRANEOUS EXTENUATING REASONING, AND AGAINST UNITED NATIONS GIVEN POLITICAL IMMUNITY isn't sensationalist?
I thought the main theme in 'The God Delusion' was that religion lead to conflict. By it's nature, religion precludes fundamental debate. Science on the other hand encourages debate. Maybe we read different copies
IMHO Dawkins is a bit of a megalomaniac who really needs to get off his high horse and return to a lower-profile mode of existence. However, with the proposed arrest of Joseph Alois Ratzinger he has actually made a good point: Regardless of his current elevation, this man may well be complicit in the cover-up of the rape of young boys. There is evidence pointing to it and surely a short Q&A session with the authorities would be good for all concerned? No. He is the Pope; and therefore cannot be challenged as he is some kind of wonder being.
What really gets on my tits in this thread though is people using it to slap down Dawkins, when the real issue is the rape of young boys.
Albatross wrote:He has yet to write a book entitled 'Why Religion Leads to Paedophilia'. THAT would be sensationalist, IMO.
Actually, a major theme in The God Delusion is that religion necessarily leads to violence.
That's a loaded statement. Religion (amongst other things) CAN lead to violence, but I would hardly say that's central to the book. It's a book which attempts to present arguments against the existence of god/s (or rather, arguments against the arguments for...) and the continued utility of religion in the present day. With that in mind, elements of it will naturally strike certain people as being inflammatory - that's unavoidable. I don't think he necessarily sets out to shock, though - it's not exactly anti-religious 'pornography', and I don't think he comes across as particularly mean-spirited.
J.Black wrote:
What really gets on my tits in this thread though is people using it to slap down Dawkins, when the real issue is the rape of young boys.
Get some perspective.
Some would say that the two concepts aren't mutually exclusive.
ShumaGorath wrote:
I can't think that he is alltogether a bad scientist, author, and that his body of work is poor?
Opinion
You started the thread?
Fact
Or you're just misusing the term populism in an attempt to use it as a descriptor for someone that attempts to work within the appeal of a broad audience.
Opinion
Probably in the part where he's called an world renouned evolutionary "scientist". I get tripped up though when he has no modern relevant body of work and dozens of psuedoscience works involving teardowns of popular high society "villains" and yet is defended as an enlightened scientist.
Opinion
I'm a genius polymath who can shoot threes from halfcourt.
Joke? Or a cunning use of double-secret-irony?
Ok.
Wait a second.
Lemme catch up here.
ATTEMPTING TO ARREST THE POPE, THE LIVING GOD OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, FOR EXTRANEOUS EXTENUATING REASONING, AND AGAINST UNITED NATIONS GIVEN POLITICAL IMMUNITY isn't sensationalist?
J.Black wrote:I thought the main theme in 'The God Delusion' was that religion lead to conflict. By it's nature, religion precludes fundamental debate. Science on the other hand encourages debate. Maybe we read different copies
No we read the same copy, I'm sure. You just didn't read my post very carefully, my friend. I said "a major theme" not the "main theme." Although the idea that violence and religion are inextricably linked underlies Dawkins's entire book, it is most prominently treated in Chapters 7 - 9.
Regardless of his current elevation, this man may well be complicit in the cover-up of the rape of young boys. There is evidence pointing to it and surely a short Q&A session with the authorities would be good for all concerned? No. He is the Pope; and therefore cannot be challenged as he is some kind of wonder being.
Actually, no one (with the possible exception of Richard Dawkins, his cohorts, and our own mattryrm) has suggested that being the pope makes someone above the law. I think that you are the one who lacks perspective in this case, J.Black. Particularly, a factual perspective. As with many, many news stories, the audience in this case (including you, it would seem) has decided to get very angry about something that they have almost entirely made up in their own heads without referencing facts. If the pope or any Catholic hierarch has broken the law by all means let him answer to such offense. But there is no such offense in reality, only that dreamed up by those who would--on some level--be gratified to fulfill their fantasy of smashing authority figures with whom they do not agree or generally do not like.
I may be making too many assumptions about your post here. If your only point is "everyone is subject to the law" then you won't find any argument here, I would think.
...and I thought your reasons for thinking he was a giant ass were partly due to your perception of his body of work as being poor in your (not at all humble) opinion? I've read 'The God Delusion' - don't make the mistake of thinking that I consider anything that Dawkins writes to be gospel.
I have read it too, and was not impressed with his logic, and even less by the chapter quotes. However despite the ideological differences Dawkins attempts to put forward his principles in a fair and logical method. For this I respect him. His written works are not works of hate, though other lesser men use them to bash people with, ironically just as some use religious texts.
People like Dawkins help theistic/atheistic arguments because they show that irreconcilable differences need not lead to conflict. A good pointer to this is the Atheist Society bus campaign during Christmas two years ago that Dawkins and others were a part of. It said IIRC 'God probably doesn't exist, so get on and enjoy your life.'
That was a fair thing to say. Relational comments such as "probably..." or "We beleive that...." make a good suffix to religious claims for and against. Some criticised the message for not giving enough hope for non beleivers, but the restraint from definitive comments in favour of relational comments made the message inoffensive to any not deliberately seeking offense.
As intolerance to religious issues rears its ugly head this method of prosthelytizing is needed as an example to both sides. Which is why I am hoping Dawkins does nothing foolish to damage his reputation for fair and calm campaigning of his point of view. Frankly I think this declaration has been made because unlike other persons who have tried to arrest diplomets visiting the UK Dawkins is making sure he cannot get anywhere near the Pope, which security will now guarantee so he can claim he was prevented from carrying out his 'civic duty'.
In 1999 Peter Tatchell, a gay rights hothead, tried a citizens arrest of Robert Mugabe during a visit to the UK and then later in the Netherlands. While I am critical of Blair for letting that **** into the country, and would gladly see him under lock and key trying to arrest someone on a public vicist was wrong, and got nowhere.
The pope is not culpable for the child porn abuse unlike Mugabes culpability for abuses in Zimbabwe, so if Tatchell failed why should a smarter more restained man like Dawkins even try. Especially because unlike Mugabe the Pope still has friends.
ATTEMPTING TO ARREST THE POPE, THE LIVING GOD OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, FOR EXTRANEOUS EXTENUATING REASONING, AND AGAINST UNITED NATIONS GIVEN POLITICAL IMMUNITY isn't sensationalist?
Perhaps maybe he feels signing a letter basically siding with a man who was molesting children is worthy of legal prosecution.
Diplo or political immunity is BS. The Queen of England comes to the US and shoplifts a $20k ring from Zales should have her ass thrown into a US prison. A Pope covers up and basically lies by signing a letter disavowing knowledge of claims of child abuse by a fellow priest ought to be held accountable for it.
Abuse has no statute of limitations. Covering up abuse shouldn't either.
I may be making too many assumptions about your post here. If your only point is "everyone is subject to the law" then you won't find any argument here, I would think.
You are making a few too many squire. "Everyone is subject to law" should be the case, sadly it is not. Whilst I'm sure the Pope is still technically subject to the rules the rest of us have to abide by, it would be pretty naive to believe that he doesn't have some kind of unofficial immunity to investigation. If even our spiv politicians can evade fraud charges for stealing money from taxpayers, the scope for the amount of abuse the Pope can get away with must be massive. Dawkins - though i believe he is only doing it to sate his own ego- is simply making it a point for discussion. Hence this thread
You know, people, I did take the time to write up a detailed description of the Fr. Murphy case. If you (plural) want to keep saying things that are factually inaccurate, no one can stop you. Just know that you don't even need to click out of this thread (other than fact checking me) to get a pretty much full account of what happened and how the current Pope was involved. There can be no excuse at this point for posting totally erroneous accusations and demanding someone's arrest for charges that you have drummed up in your own head or simply bought into from reading/viewing/listening to a headline/soundbyte.
Shuma wrote:
I can't think that he is alltogether a bad scientist, author, and that his body of work is poor?
Yes. Be my guest. I was simply asking what you were basing that on, and you replied with what amounted to 'I don't like his books/TV programs'. You should have just said that in the first place.
Or you're just misusing the term populism in an attempt to use it as a descriptor for someone that attempts to work within the appeal of a broad audience.
Oh no you don't! I'm not falling for that...
I'm a genius polymath who can shoot threes from halfcourt.
...but you also have the personality of a 'pre-menstrual' 14-year old girl. Y'know, just to balance it out.
Ok.
Wait a second.
Lemme catch up here.
ATTEMPTING TO ARREST THE POPE, THE LIVING GOD OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, FOR EXTRANEOUS EXTENUATING REASONING, AND AGAINST UNITED NATIONS GIVEN POLITICAL IMMUNITY isn't sensationalist?
Well, according to the sources cited in this very thread, he (Dawkins) isn't personally, and he (The Pope) isn't actually. But bold letters are fun.
J.Black wrote:"Everyone is subject to law" should be the case, sadly it is not. Whilst I'm sure the Pope is still technically subject to the rules the rest of us have to abide by, it would be pretty naive to believe that he doesn't have some kind of unofficial immunity to investigation. If even our spiv politicians can evade fraud charges for stealing money from taxpayers, the scope for the amount of abuse the Pope can get away with must be massive.
So you're angry because it is theoretically possible that the Pope may have done bad things and may be getting away with it given that secular politicians sometimes do bad things and get away with it? That's pretty weak.
Shuma wrote:
I can't think that he is alltogether a bad scientist, author, and that his body of work is poor?
Yes. Be my guest. I was simply asking what you were basing that on, and you replied with what amounted to 'I don't like his books/TV programs'. You should have just said that in the first place.
Or you're just misusing the term populism in an attempt to use it as a descriptor for someone that attempts to work within the appeal of a broad audience.
Oh no you don't! I'm not falling for that...
I'm a genius polymath who can shoot threes from halfcourt.
...but you also have the personality of a 'pre-menstrual' 14-year old girl. Y'know, just to balance it out.
Ok.
Wait a second.
Lemme catch up here.
ATTEMPTING TO ARREST THE POPE, THE LIVING GOD OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, FOR EXTRANEOUS EXTENUATING REASONING, AND AGAINST UNITED NATIONS GIVEN POLITICAL IMMUNITY isn't sensationalist?
Well, according to the sources cited in this very thread, he (Dawkins) isn't personally, and he (The Pope) isn't actually. But bold letters are fun.
Since I couldn't find it looking through this thread, I thought I'd point out that the Times is a Murdoch paper and not known for...having all that much truth in its sensationalist headlines.
Here's a bit about what Dawkins/Hitchens are actually trying to do, and how it has absolutely nothing to do with arresting the pope.
Albatross wrote:He has yet to write a book entitled 'Why Religion Leads to Paedophilia'. THAT would be sensationalist, IMO.
Actually, a major theme in The God Delusion is that religion necessarily leads to violence.
That's a loaded statement. Religion (amongst other things) CAN lead to violence, but I would hardly say that's central to the book. It's a book which attempts to present arguments against the existence of god/s (or rather, arguments against the arguments for...) and the continued utility of religion in the present day. With that in mind, elements of it will naturally strike certain people as being inflammatory - that's unavoidable. I don't think he necessarily sets out to shock, though - it's not exactly anti-religious 'pornography', and I don't think he comes across as particularly mean-spirited.
I can help clarify that further. Violence and religion is not related to any truth in religion.
Let us assume for sake of argument there was a one true faith with a true source. Many theists think this is true anyway including myself but for the sake of the argument let us assume this was a given. Who runs that one true faiths church? Possibly in the first generation true followers of the true source, let us assume they were all genuinely holy and without error. Many theists think this is true anyway excluding myself but for the sake of the argument let us assume this was a given. The second generation is bigger and is led by those who knew said followers and were taught good doctrine by them because the first generation followers were true. By the third generation those who knew the true source had all died and gone to the faiths paradise and the church is getting bigger. Human frailty steps in. A few generations down the line and the religion is getting very big and is no longer necessarily run by faithful people because its powerful enough to be worth considering joining to lead in the same manner as a politician.
So even if the faith is true and goodly eventually as it grows it will attract politicians who will see church leadership as a means to power, also others who see church leadership as a means to wealth. This is a failing of human not divine nature and is systemic to all human organisations. So long as we have a human race ruling itself this problem will occur. Once you add on a whole lot of other mutually exclusive faiths, with the logical guarantee that at least some of them are false, all led by human leaders who are susceptible to political or monetary corruption you are going to have problems.
Thus Dawkins has a point. However taking that point to a logical conclusion of doing away with relgion is counterproductive because the cause of the problem is not religion but the tendency for organisational corruption in man through greed and human weakness which takes form in any human organisational structure. As humans are pack animals we will only reorganise ourselves in other groups equally suseptible to political corruption if denied relgion, except such groups may well lack the beneficial side effects of the morally restrained forms of religion which also have the tendency to manifest. It also removes our free will to choose religion as a paradigm should we wish to do so.
Thus even if religion is true corruption will eventually occur, and even if religion is false removing it will not sort out humanity's problems.
Yes. Be my guest. I was simply asking what you were basing that on, and you replied with what amounted to 'I don't like his books/TV programs'. You should have just said that in the first place.
I told you what I was basing them on. I stated earlier in the thread that his logic was poor and that he is not a particularly accomplished scientist. His writing is poor (opinion) he is not a very accomplished scientist (fact).
I'm not sure what kind of magic zeppelin you expected to land in your front yard and release 30 peer reviewed scientists that will debate with you the finer points of generational sociological dependencies, but mine uses prop engines. So it will take weeks to reach you in the UK.
...but you also have the personality of a 'pre-menstrual' 14-year old girl. Y'know, just to balance it out.
God works in mysterious ways.
Well, according to the sources cited in this very thread, he (Dawkins) isn't personally, and he (The Pope) isn't actually. But bold letters are fun.
And yet it's been released to the press in just such a way as to make people think that.
Haha, this post had me rolling on the floor.
Yes, it had a picture of a cat on it. Good job gold star!
Albatross wrote:He has yet to write a book entitled 'Why Religion Leads to Paedophilia'. THAT would be sensationalist, IMO.
Actually, a major theme in The God Delusion is that religion necessarily leads to violence.
That's a loaded statement. Religion (amongst other things) CAN lead to violence, but I would hardly say that's central to the book. It's a book which attempts to present arguments against the existence of god/s (or rather, arguments against the arguments for...) and the continued utility of religion in the present day. With that in mind, elements of it will naturally strike certain people as being inflammatory - that's unavoidable. I don't think he necessarily sets out to shock, though - it's not exactly anti-religious 'pornography', and I don't think he comes across as particularly mean-spirited.
I can help clarify that further. Violence and religion is not related to any truth in religion.
Let us assume for sake of argument there was a one true faith with a true source. Many theists think this is true anyway including myself but for the sake of the argument let us assume this was a given. Who runs that one true faiths church? Possibly in the first generation true followers of the true source, let us assume they were all genuinely holy and without error. Many theists think this is true anyway excluding myself but for the sake of the argument let us assume this was a given. The second generation is bigger and is led by those who knew said followers and were taught good doctrine by them because the first generation followers were true. By the third generation those who knew the true source had all died and gone to the faiths paradise and the church is getting bigger. Human frailty steps in. A few generations down the line and the religion is getting very big and is no longer necessarily run by faithful people because its powerful enough to be worth considering joining to lead in the same manner as a politician.
So even if the faith is true and goodly eventually as it grows it will attract politicians who will see church leadership as a means to power, also others who see church leadership as a means to wealth. This is a failing of human not divine nature and is systemic to all human organisations. So long as we have a human race ruling itself this problem will occur. Once you add on a whole lot of other mutually exclusive faiths, with the logical guarantee that at least some of them are false, all led by human leaders who are susceptible to political or monetary corruption you are going to have problems.
Thus Dawkins has a point. However taking that point to a logical conclusion of doing away with relgion is counterproductive because the cause of the problem is not religion but the tendency for organisational corruption in man through greed and human weakness which takes form in any human organisational structure. As humans are pack animals we will only reorganise ourselves in other groups equally suseptible to political corruption if denied relgion, except such groups may well lack the beneficial side effects of the morally restrained forms of religion which also have the tendency to manifest. It also removes our free will to choose religion as a paradigm should we wish to do so.
I think this a reasonable position for a person of faith to take. However, for people who don't accept or even consider the the existence of 'the divine', all we see is a human organisation, with all the flaws that entails, which is predicated upon the inherent infallibility of said organisation, i.e The Catholic (the only, the universal, the all-encompassing) Church. This is problematic.
lambadomy wrote:Since I couldn't find it looking through this thread, I thought I'd point out that the Times is a Murdoch paper and not known for...having all that much truth in its sensationalist headlines.
Here's a bit about what Dawkins/Hitchens are actually trying to do, and how it has absolutely nothing to do with arresting the pope.
This, or something to this effect, has actually already been posted.
@Albatross: I know you must have considered that what you think the Catholic Church might not be synonymous with what the Catholic Church actually is. I would suggest learning about the institutional Church on its terms and I think you will find a lot less absolute claims and a lot more contingent claims (appropriate to a human institution) than you seem to suggest. And if you know this already, then I think it's something of a shame that you are posting as if it is not the case.
Shuma wrote:I told you what I was basing them on. I stated earlier in the thread that his logic was poor and that he is not a particularly accomplished scientist. His writing is poor (opinion) he is not a very accomplished scientist (fact).
The part in bold is opinion. I have a funny feeling this thread could develop into:
Manchu, I read your post on Father Murphy, and I found to be incredibly thorough and worthwhile. Kudos to you for taking the time to do that. I should have said this when I first read it, but I am not always the quickest to post.
Shuma wrote:I told you what I was basing them on. I stated earlier in the thread that his logic was poor and that he is not a particularly accomplished scientist. His writing is poor (opinion) he is not a very accomplished scientist (fact).
The part in bold is opinion. I have a funny feeling this thread could develop into:
Thanks, JEB. I'd like to eventually do the same thing for the Bavarian cases but the documents are harder to get a hold of and are not always translated into English. (Plus, no one here really seems to be getting any use out of it--although that only confirms the unsurprising hypothesis that people make their judgement by the end of the headline rather than using the article as a departure point for further research.) The case of Father Kiesle is pretty well summarized by the BBC article posted by mattryrm: basically, a priest is being defrocked for sex abuse and Cardinal Ratzinger says that this is a very severe punishment so they should be careful about inflicting it on someone. Scandal points: 0
I think this a reasonable position for a person of faith to take. However, for people who don't accept or even consider the the existence of 'the divine', all we see is a human organisation, with all the flaws that entails, which is predicated upon the inherent infallibility of said organisation, i.e The Catholic (the only, the universal, the all-encompassing) Church. This is problematic.
Well this is the dichotomy. I added a line to clrify while you were posting frankly the societal problems caused by relgions are going to occur whether or not relgion is benign and will be guaranteed to remanifest if relgion is done away with.
The most problematic thing would be doing away with religion to begin with. There are rather a lot of religions, some race based. The violence ensured while trying to get rid of relgion as expressed under Communism and similar dogmas eclipses the bloodshed of religious wars and does not advance humanity at the conclusion.
Thus eliminating religion as a means of establishing world peace is not only a futile but a counterproductive aim doomed to end in further bloodshed and misery.
Dawkins would likely be willing to admit there are some organisations of theists who have a tendency towards pacifistic lives and others who do so as individuals under the title of religion. Thus there are grounds to say that overall allowing religion to remain is the option that provokes the least number of violent responces longterm.
P.S. I have problems with Catholicisms claim to 'infallibility' as common to most Prods. My argument is not a support of Catholicism as a critique of Dawkins dismissal of faith groups as causes of violence. when it comes to Papal doctrines I do not see eye to eye with my brothers in the Catholic faith.
J.Black: No, no. I'm sorry for coming across as condescending, I definitely should have phrased my response more clearly. I am tying to say that there is no evidence that the Pope has done anything legally objectionable nor is there evidence that he has tried in the past or is currently trying to cover up any wrong doing on his own part or on the part of others. Being mad that the Pope is above the law is therefore entirely hypothetical. It's like me being mad that the US would invade the UK. Yes, I suppose that such and action could theoretically be taken but it has not so what justification for this anger?
Manchu wrote:@Albatross: I know you must have considered that what you think the Catholic Church might not be synonymous with what the Catholic Church actually is. I would suggest learning about the institutional Church on its terms and I think you will find a lot less absolute claims and a lot more contingent claims (appropriate to a human institution) than you seem to suggest. And if you know this already, then I think it's something of a shame that you are posting as if it is not the case.
Um, are you aware that I was raised Catholic and that half my family are devout Irish Catholics? Is the above post related to this?:
I think this a reasonable position for a person of faith to take. However, for people who don't accept or even consider the the existence of 'the divine', all we see is a human organisation, with all the flaws that entails, which is predicated upon the inherent infallibility of said organisation, i.e The Catholic (the only, the universal, the all-encompassing) Church. This is problematic.
Note that I refer to what non-believers SEE, not what IS. The view from inside is probably somewhat different, from your perspective that is, but for many people the image is that The Catholic Church is the only TRUE church - I am related to people who believe this, and (very) distantly related to a person who killed people as a result of this belief. To some people it's more than a faith, it's an ethnicity. All I said was that it was problematic, and it most definitely is. That much is undeniable. But that isn't a value judgement - value judgements are irrelevant at this point, and unhelpful in the extreme.
Seriously mate, I'm not angry about this. It's not me who was raped after all. What I'm trying to say is that these horrible cases have happened and there have been cases where the CDF has done it's utmost to sweep things under the carpet by moving the abuser in question to a different area. As the current Pope was head of the CDF for a while, surely he could help to shed some light on what, exactly, the feth this group was thinking when it tried to obfuscate cases of (suspected)rape?
I think Dawkins is daft to try and arrest the Pope, but his high profile might well bring enough scrutiny on the CDF to force some truth and accountability.
Many bigots look at homosexuals as degenerates opposed to the social and economic wellbeing of traditional families. No reasonable person would lend this perspective credence simply because it is held. If anything, it is a testament to the ignorance of those who hold it, revealing that they are not interested in learning about something they disagree with on its own terms. Similarly, many non-believers (and just as many Protestants) look at the Catholic Church as a mostly corrupt institution making wild claims about its infallibility. Well, this also only tells us about the person making the claim and not the subject of the claim at all. It does not matter whether the people who hold this opinion are themselves Catholic or not. So-called "cradle Catholics" are often the most inaccurate sources for information about the Catholic Church. (My fiancee once argued for hours with a gaggle of cradle Catholics who insisted that belief in the True Presence was not taught by the Church. :\ ) I do not use the comparison with anti-homosexual bigots lightly. Many Catholics think these things about homosexuality and claim that such positions are "Catholic." This is patently false. The truth is that many Catholics--just like the larger slice of "regular folks" that they fall into--confuse their politics with their faith.
Just let priests stick their "Rod of Salvation" into females and problem solved.
Sure it changes tradition but I'm sure when those stipulations were enacted the founding Churches/Pope at the time didn't think not being allowed to lay pipe into girls/men over the age of 18 would make priests want to do that to little boys.
@Manchu - Again, no value judgement here - merely stating the fact that there are certain perceptions, and that those perceptions are problematic. I'm no theologian, and don't claim to be.
I think this a reasonable position for a person of faith to take. However, for people who don't accept or even consider the the existence of 'the divine', all we see is a human organisation, with all the flaws that entails, which is predicated upon the inherent infallibility of said organisation, i.e The Catholic (the only, the universal, the all-encompassing) Church. This is problematic.
Note that I refer to what non-believers SEE, not what IS. The view from inside is probably somewhat different, from your perspective that is, but for many people the image is that The Catholic Church is the only TRUE church - I am related to people who believe this, and (very) distantly related to a person who killed people as a result of this belief. To some people it's more than a faith, it's an ethnicity. All I said was that it was problematic, and it most definitely is. That much is undeniable. But that isn't a value judgement - value judgements are irrelevant at this point, and unhelpful in the extreme.
So what you are saying is that you are simultaneously trying to put across the points of hardcore Catholics and atheists. Ok, i am not sure if that works but please tell me when and where you are wearing each hat as appropriate so that I can grap your logic. Despite the thread title I am avoiding factionalising the religious debate and sticking with generic theist vs atheist theory because yes it is unhelpful for denominations to critique each other. it is uhelpful because while a generic theist aergument can be logically put forward specific denominational arguments are based around specific historical documents and events while are often more cultural than theological in nature.
I believe in Biblical Christianity, and believe that Christian brothers should 'dwell in unity' as God commands. For that matter my rough doctrines a form of Protestant, and would clearly be seen as one by Catholics. Sadly anyone who considers themselves one or the other is missing the point. We are either followers of Jesus or are not, further definitions are irrelevant. Denominational conflict is directly against the plain text of the message read in churches on both sides. I find this illogic distressing and choose to always consider Catholics my brothers even if this view is not reciprocated, fortunately Catholics (and Protestants) where I have lived are not as hardcore as in some places and have good relations with each other. So my tolerance has yet to be truly tested in this respect.
J.Black wrote:I think Dawkins is daft to try and arrest the Pope, but his high profile might well bring enough scrutiny on the CDF to force some truth and accountability.
"Truth and Accountability" have been the watch words of Pope Benedict's attitude regarding sex abuse by clerics. I cannot say with absolute confidence that this was the case during the preceeding reign. As Prefect of the CDF, Cardinal Ratzinger tried to investigate many cases of sexual abuse--only to be frustrated. The highest profile and most deeply shameful case of all was that of Marcel Maciel Degollado. If you want to see how Ratzinger deals with such things contrast what was done in this case before he became pope with what happened after he became pope.
J.Black wrote:... these horrible cases have happened and there have been cases where the CDF has done it's utmost to sweep things under the carpet by moving the abuser in question to a different area. As the current Pope was head of the CDF for a while, surely he could help to shed some light on what, exactly, the feth this group was thinking when it tried to obfuscate cases of (suspected)rape?
I think Dawkins is daft to try and arrest the Pope, but his high profile might well bring enough scrutiny on the CDF to force some truth and accountability.
Call me the eternal optimist.....
I've been thinking along these lines as well,perhaps something "good" can come from the whole situation.
Manchu wrote:Many bigots look at homosexuals as degenerates opposed to the social and economic wellbeing of traditional families. No reasonable person would lend this perspective credence simply because it is held.
But calling people bigots is just another form of bigotry surely?
If anything, it is a testament to the ignorance of those who hold it, revealing that they are not interested in learning about something they disagree with on its own terms.
This pretty sums up religion don't you think?
Similarly, many non-believers (and just as many Protestants) look at the Catholic Church as a mostly corrupt institution making wild claims about its infallibility.
Honestly; most non-believers i know don't really care.
Well, this also only tells us about the person making the claim and not the subject of the claim at all. It does not matter whether the people who hold this opinion are themselves Catholic or not. So-called "cradle Catholics" are often the most inaccurate sources for information about the Catholic Church.
Is that because they can be dismissed under the nice headline of 'Cradle Catholic'? Rather than treat them as individuals with a question?
(My fiancee once argued for hours with a gaggle of cradle Catholics who insisted that belief in the True Presence was not taught by the Church. :\ ) I do not use the comparison with anti-homosexual bigots lightly. Many Catholics think these things about homosexuality and claim that such positions are "Catholic." This is patently false. The truth is that many Catholics--just like the larger slice of "regular folks" that they fall into--confuse their politics with their faith.
This is a good point. Faith does not preclude politics and vice versa. I will point out that most of the people i know (and by most, i mean the vast majority) do not have 'faith' thus making politics at once clearer and mutually exclusive (to the point where a 'faith' based point of view is rejected out of hand). This is a flaw we are working on.
Orlanth wrote:So what you are saying is that you are simultaneously trying to put across the points of hardcore Catholics and atheists. Ok, i am not sure if that works but please tell me when and where you are wearing each hat as appropriate so that I can grap your logic.
Not...really. My point was that many atheists have a certain perception of The Catholic Church, and that some Catholics reinforce that perception through their actions and behaviour. That's all. I don't think that's unreasonable.
Manchu wrote:Many bigots look at homosexuals as degenerates opposed to the social and economic wellbeing of traditional families. No reasonable person would lend this perspective credence simply because it is held.
But calling people bigots is just another form of bigotry surely?
Is calling a grape a grape a form of bigotry? Is calling a tree a tree a form of bigotry? If something meets the definition of said thing, it isn't bigoted to use the prescribed terminology. If someone meets the definition of a bigot, noting that that is what they are isn't bigoted, it is observation.
Something good can come from this situation. There need to be reforms in the Church. The culture of clerical authority needs to be done away with forever. The Church needs to totally accept that the secular world is not out to destroy it and so become entirely transparent. Probably most of all, our seminaries need to be completely rethought and reformed. Sadly, irresponsible reporting in the media and rabid ignorance among its audience will only convince the hierarchy that they are right about the secular world and so need to batten up the hatches even tighter. One cleric who has always viewed the modern world with a good deal more charity than perhaps it deserves is now serving as pope. One wonders if he will be able to prevail against the growing mood in the Curia that the modern world acts always in bad faith and should be utterly rejected.
Manchu wrote:Many bigots look at homosexuals as degenerates opposed to the social and economic wellbeing of traditional families. No reasonable person would lend this perspective credence simply because it is held.
But calling people bigots is just another form of bigotry surely?
Is calling a grape a grape a form of bigotry? Is calling a tree a tree a form of bigotry? If something meets the definition of said thing, it isn't bigoted to use the prescribed terminology. If someone meets the definition of a bigot, noting that that is what they are isn't bigoted, it is observation.
OK, I'm slightly out of line here :S
In my defense, the original quote is along the lines of: 'Many Bigots have-insert bigoted point of view here- opinions. I was simply extending the rhetoric.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manchu wrote:Something good can come from this situation. There need to be reforms in the Church. The culture of clerical authority needs to be done away with forever. The Church needs to totally accept that the secular world is not out to destroy it and so become entirely transparent. Probably most of all, our seminaries need to be completely rethought and reformed. Sadly, irresponsible reporting in the media and rabid ignorance among its audience will only convince the hierarchy that they are right about the secular world and so need to batten up the hatches even tighter. One cleric who has always viewed the modern world with a good deal more charity than perhaps it deserves is now serving as pope. One wonders if he will be able to prevail against the growing mood in the Curia that the modern world acts always in bad faith and should be utterly rejected.
You are quite correct sir.
Unfortunately, the first religion to become 'totally transparent' will also be made a mockery of in the press. I guess they could see this as some kind of martyrdom but the loss of 'ka-ching' that would inevitably ensue seems to have put most of them off so far.
I don't think i agree that the current holder of the world's most exclusive hat is the best person to lead the catholic church out of the dark ages (he is far too conservative to appeal to anyone outside of the church) but, you may have a more likely candidate just around the corner.
Honestly I doubt His Holiness is will be able to push the Curia in any substantive direction Manchu. I admire Benedict XVI quite a bit, and nearly converted to Catholicism because of his brilliance as a theologian, but I think that his election so late in his life will mean that any efforts he would like to see take place will simply be ignored or met with great resistance.
I would like to point something out that has been bothering me in this thread, and generally in the "real world". The term "catholic" simply means universal, in relation to the Christian Church, the Catholic Church would include the "priesthood of all believers", including the believers from protestant and eastern orthodox denominations. Not just the church organization headquarted in Rome, A.K.A. The Roman Catholic Church.
Also the term protestant simply means that we are in protest to certain beliefs held by the Roman Catholic Church, it doesn't mean we believe that they are the boogeyman or that all of them are heretics.
generalgrog wrote:I would like to point something out that has been bothering me in this thread, and generally in the "real world". The term "catholic" simply means universal, in relation to the Christian Church, the Catholic Church would include the "priesthood of all believers", including the believers from protestant and eastern orthodox denominations.
Agree 100%, don't see why that would bother you too much about this thread.
@JEB. Agree. Actually, BXVI's recent appointment for the Archdiocese of LA has greatly unsettled me in this regard.
generalgrog wrote:I would like to point something out that has been bothering me in this thread, and generally in the "real world". The term "catholic" simply means universal, in relation to the Christian Church, the Catholic Church would include the "priesthood of all believers", including the believers from protestant and eastern orthodox denominations. Not just the church organization headquarted in Rome, A.K.A. The Roman Catholic Church.
Also the term protestant simply means that we are in protest to certain beliefs held by the Roman Catholic Church, it doesn't mean we believe that they are the boogeyman or that all of them are heretics.
GG
Actually you aren't being 'real world', you are being technical. In the real world if you point at someone that people know is a Baptist Minister and say "oh look, a Catholic" they are going think you are an idiot because that is not even close to the common, every day use for the majority of people.
No, I think he meant the technical, past, or perhaps even academic use. The language has evolved and so have the way people use them. Probably because of all the conflicts between the 'protestants and Roman Catholics the word doesn't really have the same appeal, or sense of unification when you are trying to kill one another.
Manchu wrote:@JEB. Agree. Actually, BXVI's recent appointment for the Archdiocese of LA has greatly unsettled me in this regard.
I have been disturbed with the state of the Church, ie catholic, as a whole in Southern California. The recent announcement of Card. Mahoney's replacement is just another event in a string of incidents that has been needling at my mind and Faith. I am sure you heard of the Episcopal Diocese of LA's recent controversy, and of course the extreme rise in Fundamentalism in the area. This has all served to make me a bit antsy concerning the future role for the Church in SoCal...
I think Ahtman has understood me correctly, and I understand his point. Although I think he is ascribing levels of understanding here. People in ministry understand what "catholic" means, while uninformed or understudied layity might not, and therefore will only apply the term "catholic" to describe Roman Catholics. So I believe he is correct, and I also think it's a shame that such disunity exists(in regards to people killing one another).
GG
edit..actually now that I reread both posts, your both right. :-) I was refering to the real world in the sense of my everyday life apart from the internet.
ShumaGorath wrote:As soon as they cart off the pope they're going to have to throw Vladimir Putin, Wen Jiabao, dick cheney, Tony Blair, and pretty much every other foreign leader in the same box.
This is all a moot point and Dawkins is an unbelievable tool.
Thing is, when people on dakka say 'he's the pope and has diplomatic immunity' and Geoffrey Robertson says 'there's limits to diplomatic immunity and those limits might not extend to sort-of-but-not-quite state like the Vatican' I'm inclined to think Mr Robertson might know a bit more about the issue. QC. Internationally recognised human rights lawyer. Had his own tv show for a while. He's a smart dude and he does this for a living, we're people on the internet.
And a world in which Putin became liable for his crimes is a better world than this one.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Albatross wrote:
Shuma wrote:I told you what I was basing them on. I stated earlier in the thread that his logic was poor and that he is not a particularly accomplished scientist. His writing is poor (opinion) he is not a very accomplished scientist (fact).
The part in bold is opinion. I have a funny feeling this thread could develop into:
@Sebster: As the head of a state, the Vatican City State, that is recognized by the UN and has relations with nearly every country on the planet, I would say that he has the privilege of diplomatic immunity. At least he will in the UK, especially as he is there to promote a British theologian...
JEB_Stuart wrote:@Sebster: As the head of a state, the Vatican City State, that is recognized by the UN and has relations with nearly every country on the planet, I would say that he has the privilege of diplomatic immunity. At least he will in the UK, especially as he is there to promote a British theologian...
Except it's status as a state is pretty dubious. As an actual state it was extinguished in 1870, only to be reformed as an entity by Mussonlini - could Saudi Arabia declare Mecca a state tomorrow, and see it's officials granted diplomatic immunity? The Vatican occupies .17 of a square mile, and has 900 citizens. It is not recognised by the UN as a state, it was in fact refused membership and instead granted observer status, which allows it to give speaches but do little else.
I don't know the answer the question, I dare say until the issue is seen in the courts no-one will know for certain, but I accept that when internationally renowned lawyers put forward the above I figure they've probably got something close to a case (my point above was a paraphrasing of Robertson's Guardian article that started this whole thing).
Not that it actually matters. Facilitating widespread or systemic child abuse is a crime that can be pursued in the International Criminal Courts, and that court does not recognise diplomatic immunity.
I think the Vatican's status as a nation state and as a permanent observer at the UN is well-established in international law. This is, for example, why most countries in the world send ambassadors to and receive ambassadors from there. Or maybe all the International Law classes I took in law school were totally wrong. There was a movement to have the Vatican thrown out of the UN called SeeChange but it seems to have fallen to the wayside.
Actually, that court only has jurisdiction over those who recognize its rather narrow jurisdiction. The Holy See happens to be one sovereign nation that does, however, given that it participates in the international legal system in good will. But we still need a crime. All anyone has are baselss--and I mean baseless on their face, if you bother to look into any of it--accusations that are pretty much just petulant personal attacks.
Manchu wrote:I think the Vatican's status as a nation state and as a permanent observer at the UN is well-established in international law. This is, for example, why most countries in the world send ambassadors to and receive ambassadors from there. Or maybe all the International Law classes I took in law school were totally wrong. There was a movement to have the Vatican thrown out of the UN called SeeChange but it seems to have fallen to the wayside.
Being a permanent observer in the UN means they get to contribute speaches and sign some treaties (including the one on the rights of the child, ironically enough). It does not make you a nation state. Many countries send and receive ambassadors, but that has everything to do with politics and nothing to do with actually being a nation state. Do these ambasadors negotiate terms of trade, do they protect the rights of Vatican citizens who have moved to other countries. Do they seek treaties for mutual protection with the 900 citizens of the Vatican?
Or do they hear the political and philosophical views of the Vatican, believing they represent the beliefs of a majority of the Catholic citizenry of their country? Is the Vatican important because of its 900 members, or because of the importance it holds to the billion odd Catholics who are members of other countries?
It's claim as a nation state is not as certain as people have simply assumed in this thread.
Actually, the Vatican does have treaties with Italy dealing with its defense among other things. It has many other treaties with other states regarding the treatment of Catholics in those states.
No, it isn't. And when there's renowned lawyers in international law arguing it isn't, your statements are really, really irrelevant.
Seriously, dude, it's okay to have an opinion on the issue, you could well be right. But to simply state that you know how a contentious area of international law must be is silly.
Actually, the Vatican does have treaties with Italy dealing with its defense among other things. It has many other treaties with other states regarding the treatment of Catholics in those states.
Treaties on the treatment of the citizens of the other country. Of those citizens, in their country. Because the power and relevance of the Vatican is beyond national borders. Because it doesn't represent the interests of just it's 900 citizens. Which really, really doesn't help it's claim that it is a nation state.
If Saudi Arabia declared Mecca a nation tomorrow, just as Mussolini claimed for the Vatican, would it be?
Manchu wrote:The Holy See happens to be one sovereign nation that does, however, given that it participates in the international legal system in good will.
Neither the Holy See, nor the Vatican are signatories of the Rome Statute. Therefore neither is subject to the International Criminal Court.
Manchu wrote:
But we still need a crime. All anyone has are baselss--and I mean baseless on their face, if you bother to look into any of it--accusations that are pretty much just petulant personal attacks.
The ICC does not have retroactive jurisdiction. Even if there were a crime, it is unlikely that there would be enough significant evidence to prosecute a case under the auspices of 'crimes against humanity'. Moreover, any prosecution would involve the Catholic Church as a whole, not just the current Pope.
sebster wrote:And when there's renowned lawyers in international law arguing it isn't, your statements are really, really irrelevant.
There are many more renowned lawyers who have no political interest in abusing international law in order to make a statement who acknowledge the sovereignty of the Vatican. Besides them, there are 71 nations who send ambassadors to the Vatican, including three of five permanent security council members, and maintains diplomatic relations with a further 106 nations. When the SeeChange movement worked to have the Vatican removed from its permannet observer status, the UN members voted unanimously to expand the Vatican's status. So you see, I am not being silly when I say that the sovereignty of the Vatican is a really, really well-settled point. Nor am I actually telling you what my opinion is.
Vatican City is the sovereign territory of the Holy See. It is clearly not a nation-state, as the nearest thing to a nation with which it is associated is not under the authority of the governing body that is the Holy See. Most people will call The Vatican, by convention, a city-state, but even that particular moniker is unsatisfying given the extensive extraterritorial authority of the Holy See.
The difficulty inherent in classifying the amalgamated Vatican City/Holy See is the primary source of consternation for scholars of international law. The main dispute being between those who wish classify the Holy See as the especially influential government of an unusually small territory, and those who wish to consider the Holy See as a sort of NGO that has been granted unusual privileges within its headquarters.
Of course, the easy answer is that the Catholic Church enjoys a unique position by dearth of its historical importance, and attempting to place squarely it into one category or another is bound to miss at least some important elements of the issue.
Yes, the Vatican City State is a territory that has only existed since 1929 upon the signing of the Lateran Treaty with Italy. That treaty recognizes the soverignty of the Holy See. (I was using them interchangably for the purposes of this thread. Just as one does not need to know about photons to tell night from day, the technicalities did not seem necessary until this well-settled point was problematized.) It is not an NGO in anyone's mind but lobbyists seeking to change the status quo.
Orlanth, i will reply more fully when im not on my phone, but basically the point of my 'Taliban' argument is basically that people are brought up to believe something from a young age. Ergo you get 'labour taliban' because some people who have little knowledge (i argue with them in the pub all the time :-) )of politics admit they vote for them because 'my dad wouldnt be happy if i didnt' or 'i always have done'. I conceded that there may be some atheists that are trained in such a way, but the overwhelming majority are not raised to be anti theistic. And Shuma, mate, i know your a very typical internet intellectual, and i can agree with many of the things you said about RD, but really. Dawkins is a gak scientist? The man who wrote The Selfish Gene is a gak scientist? Find me a great one who calls him gak. Please. One of the seminal works in the subject, one of the books that is recommended reading for anyone studying evolutionary biology from Cambridge to Harvard. The man who coined the term MEME, who was invited to give The Farraday Christmas lectures, is a gak scientist, because legendary dakka troll Shuma says so. Even if you were a nobel prize winning researcher i would still humbly disagree and link some things that other great Scientists and professors from world top 100 universitys said about him, but your just a student who likes to try and 'win' ultimately pointless debates on dakkadakka.com. I actually feel sorry for Dawkins, because he is now known merely as an atheist, and his other achievements seem to have been forgotten. But an internet warrior still in college calling a man with his track record a 'gak scientist' is truly laughable.
Manchu wrote:So you see, I am not being silly when I say that the sovereignty of the Vatican is a really, really well-settled point. Nor am I actually telling you what my opinion is.
No, the issue is not settled, it's highly contentious. You have to realise you're just some guy on the internet saying 'this much debated issue is actually really simple and here's the one true answer'.
I'll defer to Dogma on the issue and his very informative post above, and figure I probably should have just left it to him in the first place.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
mattyrm wrote:Orlanth, i will reply more fully when im not on my phone, but basically the point of my 'Taliban' argument is basically that people are brought up to believe something from a young age. Ergo you get 'labour taliban' because some people who have little knowledge (i argue with them in the pub all the time :-) )of politics admit they vote for them because 'my dad wouldnt be happy if i didnt' or 'i always have done'. I conceded that there may be some atheists that are trained in such a way, but the overwhelming majority are not raised to be anti theistic.
Do you think assigning the moniker 'taliban' to people who loyally vote for a political party or people who hold other strong views given to them from childhood is all that useful?
Really, if you're not blowing up centuries old Buddhist statues and stoning women for leaving the house unaccompanied I don't think taliban really applies.
sebster wrote:You have to realise you're just some guy on the internet saying 'this much debated issue is actually really simple and here's the one true answer'.
The "that's just your opinion" tactic doesn't work so well when applied to facts. I really don't see how you're making this out to be my issue and not addressing the countries who send and receive diplomatic missions, the relationship to the UN, and the participation in international law as a treaty signatory. I guess we will have to leave it at that.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Well, one last thing. Maybe read this?
Manchu wrote:
It is not an NGO in anyone's mind but lobbyists seeking to change the status quo.
It also isn't a state. It may be recognized as a sovereign territory, and that may be denoted as a state for the sake of convenience, but the conventional treatment of the Church and its dignitaries differs significantly from that of all other states. Indeed, the Holy See does not even consider itself to be a state.
For completeness' sake: The NGO theory arises from the fact that the only criterion for state-hood which the Holy See does not fulfill is the possession of a permanent population. Since there can be no governance without a population, the Holy See can be consider Non-Governmental. However, that status does not impinge on its sovereignty.
dogma wrote:It also isn't a state. It may be recognized as a sovereign territory, and that may be denoted as a state for the sake of convenience, but the conventional treatment of the Church and its dignitaries differs significantly from that of all other states. Indeed, the Holy See does not even consider itself to be a state.
The Holy See s referred to as a state by the UN. Whether there is more to the story is without doubt true. That information is not pertinent to sebster's objection about the sovereignty of the Holy See based on the ravings of Geoffery Robertson. The bottom line is that the Holy See has legal personality in international law and sovereignty in the Vatican City State. Whether this arises sui generis or as a practical result of recognition is beside the current point.
For completeness' sake: The NGO theory arises from the fact that the only criterion for state-hood which the Holy See does not fulfill is the possession of a permanent population. Since there can be no governance without a population, the Holy See can be consider Non-Governmental. However, that status does not impinge on its sovereignty.
This argument is erroneous on its face because another of the four requirements of the treaty of Vienna (and the tradition it is based on) is having a stable government capable of carrying out diplomatic relations. The NGO theory is a political position taken up by people who want the Holy See kicked out of the UN, a movement supported by no state.
Manchu wrote:The "that's just your opinion" tactic doesn't work so well when applied to facts.
If I'd made the argument that it was just your opinion then you'd have a point. But I didn't, and I don't know how you contorted this conversation to think that I did.
I really don't see how you're making this out to be my issue and not addressing the countries who send and receive diplomatic missions, the relationship to the UN, and the participation in international law as a treaty signatory. I guess we will have to leave it at that.
I pointed out that it is a very complicated issue where both sides have strong arguments. You keep mentioning diplomats and special observer status as though those two things makes a nation.
Dude, think about it. Nation states are members of the UN. They get a vote and everything. The Holy See is given special observer status, which as pointed out a whole lot of times in this thread, is not the same as being a member nation. It means they get to debate issues in the UN, which is a greater status than that given to most bodies, but massively less than the power granted to actual nations.
Trying to establish that something is a nation state because it is granted status in the UN that is specifically not equal and notably inferior to the status given to nation states is moon logic.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manchu wrote:That information is not pertinent to sebster's objection about the sovereignty of the Holy See based on the ravings of Geoffery Robertson.
Looks. Ponders.
Alright, I can see this is a waste of time. Good evening all.
Well may the pope defy “the petty gossip of dominant opinion.” But the Holy See can no longer ignore international law, which now counts the widespread or systematic sexual abuse of children as a crime against humanity. The anomalous claim of the Vatican to be a state—and of the pope to be a head of state, and hence immune from legal action—cannot stand up to scrutiny.
...In the U.S., 11,750 allegations of child sex abuse have so far featured in actions settled by archdioceses (in Los Angeles for $660 million and in Boston for $100 million), but some dioceses have gone into bankruptcy and some claimants want Vatican accountability—two reasons to sue the pope in person. But in 2005, a test case in Texas failed because the Vatican sought and obtained the intercession of President George W. Bush, who agreed to claim sovereign (i.e., head of state) immunity on the pope’s behalf. Bush lawyer John B. Bellinger III certified that Pope Benedict XVI was immune from suit “as the head of a foreign state.”
The third Mr. Bellinger is notorious for his defense of Guantanamo and Bush administration torture policies, and his opinion on papal immunity is even more questionable. It hinges on the assumption that the Vatican or its metaphysical emanation, the Holy See, is a state. But the Papal States were extinguished by invasion in 1870 and the Vatican was created by fascist Italy in 1929 when Benito Mussolini endowed this tiny enclave—0.17 of a square mile containing 900 Catholic bureaucrats—with “sovereignty in the international field... in conformity with its traditions and the exigencies of its mission in the world.”
The notion that statehood can be created by another country’s unilateral declaration is risible. If it weren’t, Iran could make Qom a state overnight and the U.K. could launch the city of Canterbury on to the international stage by the same process. But it did not take long for Catholic countries to support the pretentions of the Holy See, sending ambassadors and receiving Papal Nuncios in return. Even the U.K. maintains an apostolic mission that, until 2005, was always filled by British Catholics.
The U.N. at its inception refused membership to the Vatican (U.S. Secretary of State Cordell Hull said emphatically that it could never attain statehood) but has allowed it a unique and anomalous “permanent observer status,” permitting it to become signatory to treaties like the Law of the Sea and (ironically) the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and to speak and vote at U.N. conferences, where it promotes its controversial dogmas on abortion, condoms, and homosexuality. This has involved the U.N. in blatant discrimination on grounds of religion, as other faiths are unofficially represented, if at all, by NGOs. But it has encouraged the Vatican to claim statehood—and the immunities from liability that attach to heads of state.
...
At the very least I have an incredibly hard time NOT taking what this man is saying seriously. A very educated person on the short of it.
Manchu wrote:
That information is not pertinent to sebster's objection about the sovereignty of the Holy See based on the ravings of Geoffery Robertson. The bottom line is that the Holy See has legal personality in international law and sovereignty in the Vatican City State. Whether this arises sui generis or as a practical result of recognition is beside the current point.
I didn't see him object to the idea that the Holy See holds sovereignty over Vatican City. I saw him object to the idea that The Vatican/Holy See amalgamation constitutes a nation-state. Unless I missed something, it looks like this whole conversation is built on miscommunication.
I can't think of any way that The Vatican/Holy See could be considered to be a nation-state, and denying it that status certainly does not necessarily deny it sovereignty.
Manchu wrote:
This argument is erroneous on its face because another of the four requirements of the treaty of Vienna (and the tradition it is based on) is having a stable government capable of carrying out diplomatic relations.
As far as I know, the Congress at Vienna (and the various Vienna Conventions) do not deal in declarative theories of statehood. The most authoritative document in that regard is the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States, which broadly requires 'government' in order for an aspiring body to be considered as a state. Since the lack of a permanent population is a self-evident characteristic of Vatican City it should come as no surprise that an argument of classification would work to expound on the natural consequences of that characteristic.
Note that government is not a prerequisite for international (or, more properly, inter-actoral) relations.
Manchu wrote:
The NGO theory is a political position taken up by people who want the Holy See kicked out of the UN, a movement supported by no state.
That would be a poor argument then, as there are several NGOs that enjoy a status equivalent to that of the Holy See. There is no reason to suppose that the Holy See would be removed from the UN were it to lose its recognition as a state, or even that its position would be somehow diminished.
Commander Endova wrote:A sarcastic "terrific" from me. I'm an atheist, and in my perfect world, there'd be no religion, or at least, predominant secularism. Still, this is hardly the right way to go about getting our point across.
I'd like to congratulate Mr. Dawkins for making us atheists everywhere look like tools for 2 reasons.
1. Trying to arrest the pope. Good luck buddy.
2. Announcing to the world that you're trying to arrest the pope. There's definitely no one in the Vatican, or in the pope's security detail, that can use the internet.
Le sigh...
I am just hoping he runs into the Westboro Church crowd. They could sue each other into oblivion. Good times. Good times.
Why does Dawkins waste time picking fights instead of enjoying his wonderful, fleeting existence?
He earns his money, fame and power by being a high-profile foil to religion. That is it folks, he is motivated by the Other Golden Rule. Whoever has the Gold makes the Rules. This same worldview has motivated virtually every war and crime throughout our human history.
I do not buy what Dawkins sells. Certainly, that is fine by him. He markets his product to the young, hard man shouting in the street, "gonna take on the world some day" with blood on his face and waving his banner all over the place. I have grown out of that phase. Enjoy your turn kids.
sebster wrote:Alright, I can see this is a waste of time.
I reluctantly agree. Ah well.
dogma wrote:Since the lack of a permanent population is a self-evident characteristic of Vatican City it should come as no surprise that an argument of classification would work to expound on the natural consequences of that characteristic.
Self-evident it was not when you yourself concluded that the only condition that the Holy See did not meet was its lack of permanent population. The Holy See does certainly have a government, a defined territory, and the capacity to enter relations with other states.
dogma wrote:. . . there are several NGOs that enjoy a status equivalent to that of the Holy See.
Unless you're talking about the UN itself or some other treaty body, I do not think this is true.
He earns his money, fame and power by being a high-profile foil to religion. That is it folks, he is motivated by the Other Golden Rule. Whoever has the Gold makes the Rules. This same worldview has motivated virtually every war and crime throughout our human history.
Yea, it also motivated almost the entire Christian religion in olden days.
I'm really sorry if this point has been made already, I honestly rarely do this, but the first few pages of this thread were maddeningly circular and repetitive.
However.
If Dawkins is so concerned about the scandal in the catholic church, why is he only going after the pope? The fact is the catholic church in Ireland and other countries would never have gotten away with it without collusion from State governments, who bear at least equal blame and take barely any heat.
And you know, someday I'd like to read 10 posts into a thread like this without some sort of sweeping generalisation. I mean, we can all ignore them, but maybe people should stop MAKING THEM and instead try for specific criticisms that are addressed to specific people and organisations, linked to real events that you can point out.
Next time I read "Yeah, like, modern religion causes wars and murders more than ANYTHING" I'm going to eat my shift key.
I'm not opposed, because sometimes people post actually interesting stuff here too.
I just can't fathom how people think comments like that are going to go anywhere good.
I've been pondering my debate with sebster all morning and I (perhaps finally) see the point he's making. Suffice it to say that I don't think Robertsons's hope of piercing Ratzingers immunity, even if he did manage to construct a cogent legal claim (which I will continue to affirm that he cannot), will gain any traction outside of the narrow circle he travels in and that his motives for attempting as much seem professionally questionable .
Manchu wrote:
Self-evident it was not when you yourself concluded that the only condition that the Holy See did not meet was its lack of permanent population. The Holy See does certainly have a government, a defined territory, and the capacity to enter relations with other states.
I only stated that the lack of a permanent population was self-evident. I should have said that the lack of permanent population is the only condition for statehood which the Holy See explicitly does not meet. The argument I'm describing then goes on to postulate that any given actor cannot be said to govern territory if that territory does not have a permanent population. I do not necessarily agree with that argument, but I do see the merits of the position.
As I said above, I favor the position that the Holy See constitutes a special case in international relations. It is not a state, or an NGO, but an international religious organization with a special role in the political order due to its privileged historical position. For all intents and purposes the Holy See is the Holy See, there is nothing else like it.
Manchu wrote:
Unless you're talking about the UN itself or some other treaty body, I do not think this is true.
I am indeed talking about the UN, where several NGOs are permanent observers. The point being that the argument for the Vatican's status as an NGO is not based on undermining the authority of the Catholic Church. In fact, its generally more about enhancing the authority of NGOs.
Da Boss wrote:
However.
If Dawkins is so concerned about the scandal in the catholic church, why is he only going after the pope? The fact is the catholic church in Ireland and other countries would never have gotten away with it without collusion from State governments, who bear at least equal blame and take barely any heat.
The more you read about the abuse in Irish church convents you more you will notice how true that is. However the Irish government is doing what it can but is walking a moral tightrope not of their own making.
The Irish government has been at the centre of the modern cover up, far more than the church. To make matters worse from the witness I spoke to it was known about at the time. While some priests were evil and others not, abusive priests had a lot of backing from a society that prefered to do more than look the other way.
I was told that some of the orphans tried to escape, and other tried to get help, but they were brought back to their abusers BY THE POLICE. While this is inexcusable I can understand it, the events at the orphanages were so horrible that the authorities including government, church, police and social services were in denial. This is what is so horribly damaging? As the gentleman mattrym posted the video of said, victims don't want money they want recognition, I can see that because for the whole of their lives their abuse has been denied, and by more than just the church.
The Irish government has done what it thinks it can. The methods are harsh and remorseless but I can understand the cold logic behind them. Victims can get compensation, if they sign a waiver that gags them. Some accept some refuse, I can see why some refuse, they deperately need to be beleived like all victims of sex abuse. IIRC a few of the priests were defrocked and some charged though most were dead by the time action was first taken in the 90's. Why be so horribly vile to these victims? Why force them to face a panel of hostile lawyers at the inquests? Because this goes beyond embarrasing the church or the Pope or the party or the government. The horrible truth is too many people knew what was going on, but noone stopped these lives from being ruined. There was more than just neglect there was collusion, every time a pleading child was brought back to his abusers by the police or local authorities.
This sorry tale is not just a blight on the Catholic church, the church can survive that as while the priests are rotten in some parts in others they do good work. The true price to pay will be paid by the Irish people who will live with a shame similar to the shame the Germans are forced to bear. Paedophile guilt is like holocaust guilt it will taint the psyche of the Irish people even to generations who have no culpability for the crimes committed. I can see why the Irish government, who are not responsible for the actions of their predecessors, are trying all they can to save the good name of their nation and people and want desperately for this story to go away before it hurts Ireland was a whole. Opening this door will hurt Ireland like opening the doors of Belsen hurt Germany. This I beleive is why the previous Pope John Paul II, who was a goodly man by all accounts, said nothing for the greater good (no puns please) of the Irish church and Irish people.
So along come those who want to call the Pope to account publically and loudly not only have they got the wrong guy but they have the wrong motive. It's a great excuse to bash the Catholics for some, its an expedient beatstick for which others have to pay for the grandstanding of the public complainers. This is too convenient an opportunity to bash Catholics or even Christians or religion in general for persons with unrelated issues and is too tempting for some, which is selfish to the extreme. After all we don't see Dawkins et al helping victims, just capitalising on them.
This victims need quiet help; an apology, recognition that they are not liars and support. This should not be the political football, not only are the culprits mostly dead, the victims not helped by a general Catholicism bash and the whole of Ireland risks being dragged through the mud. This issue is of too great an importance that outsiders really ought to do some shutting up and let the Irish decide how to deal with their own dirty laundry in their own time.
Who steals my purse steals trash;...
But he that filches from me my good name
Robs me of that which not enriches him,
And makes me poor indeed. Othello Act 3, scene 3
Bloody right Orlanth. I personally don't feel a lot of guilt about it, I was born after the worst of it and I don't feel responsible. What I do feel is disgust and anger at those who let it happen.
The church did a lot wrong in ireland on it's own (paedophillia aside), don't get me wrong, but the government is equally culpable.
Agreed with all else.
No no, Richard Dawkins arresting the Pope is inherently hilarious. It could only be funnier if when it happens, His Holiness exclaims "Rats, it's the Fuzz! Let's cheese it!" and a high speed Popemobile chase ensues.
Da Boss wrote:No no, Richard Dawkins arresting the Pope is inherently hilarious. It could only be funnier if when it happens, His Holiness exclaims "Rats, it's the Fuzz! Let's cheese it!" and a high speed Popemobile chase ensues.
No, you need a Benny Hill soundtrack to top off the chase. Just saying.
He used to have a show that was basically PR entrapment to the highest standards and has led to one man killing himself and lots more wrongfully accused of being molesters/predators.
It was cancelled and for good reason. I hate pedo's more than the next guy but that show had such a blatant disregard for legalities and pursuit of justice that even he admitted the show stepped on a few wrong toes a few times.
It seems to me that you were expressing absolute faith that he'd suceed without any evidence. Seems sorta fanatical to me.
Am I interpretting you incorrectly?
I respect him, moderately, as a scientist. I think he's out of his depth commenting on social issues and theology though, and frankly though I am agnostic I find him highly irritating.
Holy Smoke (pun intended), is this thread still going? Been at work all day finishing an essay on trams, so no time for the Pope vs Dawkins debate I started. I will however offer my hearty congrats to my fellow Off Topic contributors that this potentially flammable thread has managed to stay unlocked. We'll keep political/religious discussions on OT yet
Like i said, if the story is true (believe the times if you must) they will have their reasons for doing it and I'm sure they'll know exactly what the laws / rules are regarding the issue. As i am no advocate of the law, I take no interest in them.
Da Boss wrote:It seems to me that you were expressing absolute faith that he'd suceed without any evidence. Seems sorta fanatical to me.
Am I interpretting you incorrectly?
I respect him, moderately, as a scientist. I think he's out of his depth commenting on social issues and theology though, and frankly though I am agnostic I find him highly irritating.
My evidence is having read all (i believe) of his papers and books on many subjects. So when I say he will succeed, I mean it in the terms he will achieve whatever goal he has set out to. (Getting the pope arrested probably isn't the goal).
Emperors Faithful wrote:Y'know, when I first read this thread I thought the title was "Dakka plans to arrest the Pope."
Then we spirit him away to Frazzled's underground lair and hold him for ransom.
You mean pay us two million Euro or we let him go?
They might even pay a bonus to keep Frazzie in there too.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Fateweaver wrote:He used to have a show that was basically PR entrapment to the highest standards and has led to one man killing himself and lots more wrongfully accused of being molesters/predators.
It was cancelled and for good reason. I hate pedo's more than the next guy but that show had such a blatant disregard for legalities and pursuit of justice that even he admitted the show stepped on a few wrong toes a few times.
Thanks for the answer. Just looked up the show on YouTube. Interesting job, but how did it show false positives?
Yes yes my GoogleFu is fine.
Try to be a little less patronising please, without having seen the show there was no way I could reference the 'motivational' comment to the face, or now it was his TV tagline rather than just someones comment.
Is he going to arrest the Taoiseach on his next state visit too?
If not, then this really is just his bias against religion, and not any honest attempt at justice.
Da Boss wrote:Is he going to arrest the Taoiseach on his next state visit too?
If not, then this really is just his bias against religion, and not any honest attempt at justice.
He's the prime minister of ireland- so head of the state that colluded massively with the church since the existence of the Republic.
I mean, if we're not arresting him, I'm fine with arresting the various former Taoiseachs and any Garda Commissioners still knocking about.
More to the point and before we start waiving bells and calling time. Is the Taoiseach accused of a crime in the same manner that the pope is and does Dawkins believe that Ireland's claim to sovereignty is invalid?
Not the current Taoiseach, I'll grant. I'd also need to go look at the reports and so on to be solid on who you could reasonably arrest.
I don't think that invalidates my point though.
Da Boss wrote:Not the current Taoiseach, I'll grant. I'd also need to go look at the reports and so on to be solid on who you could reasonably arrest.
I don't think that invalidates my point though.
They are talking about specific acts by a specific person whereas you seem to be criticizing a general position, not a specific individual
mattyrm wrote:
Quite an amusing read, and if you ask me.. The Pope is a nasty man. I didnt know just how much the guy apparently knew...
Neither did I. I read about the Kiesle case today and he 'smoking gun' letter released pretty much sums it up, it now appears Ratzinger knew and acted directly to collude to obstruct justice and harbour a felon.
However one potential caveat to that. We have not seen the document in its entirity or know what information Ratzinger actually had when he signed. But that is not what bothers me
Hitchens was going on about the churches cover up of the predator Murphy who was charged with looking after several hundred deaf children and is alleged to have abused approximately 200 of them. (see article below) This was brought to the attention of the Vatican only in 1996 long after the priest had retired and two years before he died, yet it was brought to the attention of the US authorities in the 1950's according to the same report Hitchens linked to. Later attempts to alert the authorities in the 90's were rebuffed as quoted below:
They were outraged. They distributed “Wanted” posters with Father Murphy’s face outside the cathedral in Milwaukee. They went to the police departments in Milwaukee, where they were told it was not the correct jurisdiction, and in St. Francis, where the school was located, Mr. Conway said. They also went to the office of E. Michael McCann, the district attorney of Milwaukee County, and spoke with his assistant, William Gardner.
“A criminal priest was an oxymoron to them,” Mr. Conway said. “They said they’ll refer it to the archdiocese.”
We cannot go after the scum who committed the crime, but we are not after them in the cases brought to light. Murphy is dead, and Kiesle was finally convicted and imprisoned. The whole issue is now whether to go after people who helped collude, but Dawkins and Hitchens seem to be only interested in persuing 'justice' if the accused are religious leaders not government officials. This just smacks of partisan point scoring and grandstanding, and is not a search for justice or accountability. Thus the victims are a convenient lever to use for furthering anti-religious agendas. At least those articles from the other side of the Atlantic get the balance right point the finger fairly at all they find (as far as we can see) and the contents of those reports copy-pasted by Dawkins and Hitchens contain the only points of value in their commentaries.
One final point. Why should you find the stories of boys being raped amusing mattyrm? Yes it makes the Catholic church look bad, but do the ends justify those means that much?
Da Boss wrote:Not the current Taoiseach, I'll grant. I'd also need to go look at the reports and so on to be solid on who you could reasonably arrest.
I don't think that invalidates my point though.
They are talking about specific acts by a specific person whereas you seem to be criticizing a general position, not a specific individual
I apologise for not doing it myself, but if you look at the Murphy Report, you'll find a lot of evidence of specific wrongdoing.
I am criticising the position of focusing blame on the church, because it's bollocks.
(I'm not catholic by the way. Definitely not pro-pope. )
Let's get something straight: the pope is not being accused of any actual crime. The pope is being accused of "crimes against humanity" by someone who, despite what I'm sure seem like impressive credentials to people who have no reason to know better, is doing so because he doesn't like popes generally or even Christianity.
Da Boss wrote:Not the current Taoiseach, I'll grant. I'd also need to go look at the reports and so on to be solid on who you could reasonably arrest.
I don't think that invalidates my point though.
They are talking about specific acts by a specific person whereas you seem to be criticizing a general position, not a specific individual
I apologise for not doing it myself, but if you look at the Murphy Report, you'll find a lot of evidence of specific wrongdoing.
I am criticising the position of focusing blame on the church, because it's bollocks.
(I'm not catholic by the way. Definitely not pro-pope. )
I'm just trying to make sure I understand your point clearly. I'm not taking sides on this. Unless Frazz says I have to, of course.
Orlanth wrote:One final point. Why should you find the stories of boys being raped amusing mattyrm?
Don't be so facetious you knew what he meant.
Facetious, treating serious issues with deliberately inappropriate humour, quite the opposite in fact, I don't find this funny. I don't expect mattyrm to be ROFLMAO, but a smug enjoyment of an opponents misfortune is little less unhealthy under these particular circumstances. Sorry I cannot see amusement at any level and not just because I am concerned about what will happen to the Catholic church.
I am seeing too many people from Dawkins onwards capitalising on these misfortunes and I am hoping for a sense of self reflection for people to look at what they hope to see out of all this. After all many of the victims including the one I spoke to and the one mattyrm posted a link do NOT want to be a political football. Listen carefully to what the man is saying on 2:00 to 2:15 of the link
However what do we get if the only motive for dragging up these cases is to use their story as an attempt to make a point. Dawkins land Hitchens ikely dont give a flip about the victims, or they woukld be highlighting the secular abusers related to these cases and I am wondering if some here don't either. Just any excuse to drive a nail into the church.
Manchu wrote:Let's get something straight: the pope is not being accused of any actual crime. The pope is being accused of "crimes against humanity" by someone who, despite what I'm sure seem like impressive credentials to people who have no reason to know better, is doing so because he doesn't like popes generally or even Christianity.
I concur entirely. But in doing so let us not fall into the trap of also saying because its a politically motivated bash on religion there is no case to answer.
Though ironically if matters do come to court somewhere sometime for any of the clerics involved a defense lawyer would likely have a field day raising reasonable doubt regarding the possibility of evidence being contaminated by gross press bias. But then perhaps for Dawkins actually convicting the culprits is not the goal so much as getting to be seen to make the accusation.
Orlanth wrote:I concur entirely. But in doing so let us not fall into the trap of also saying because its a politically motivated bash on religion there is no case to answer.
People like Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and Geoffrey Robertson are ensuring that the Church hierarchy--specifically, the Curia--feels totally confirmed in its antipathy about transparency and suspicion of the media so that no reforms are ever undertaken. Don't get me wrong, sexual abuse in the Church is over. But the causes of that abuse--or rather, the causes for why this remained under the raider within the various chanceries of the world will not be addressed. And that is really the only good thing that could come out of all this. So thanks a lot, Dawkins et al. You fething donkey-caves.
Orlanth wrote:I concur entirely. But in doing so let us not fall into the trap of also saying because its a politically motivated bash on religion there is no case to answer.
People like Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and Geoffrey Robertson are ensuring that the Church hierarchy--specifically, the Curia--feels totally confirmed in its antipathy about transparency and suspicion of the media so that no reforms are ever undertaken. Don't get me wrong, sexual abuse in the Church is over. But the causes of that abuse--or rather, the causes for why this remained under the raider within the various chanceries of the world will not be addressed. And that is really the only good thing that could come out of all this. So thanks a lot, Dawkins et al. You fething donkey-caves.
I hope you meant
and not
I totally agree with you otherwise.
Manchu wrote:People like Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and Geoffrey Robertson are ensuring that the Church hierarchy--specifically, the Curia--feels totally confirmed in its antipathy about transparency and suspicion of the media so that no reforms are ever undertaken..
Sorry but that's a complete cop-out Manchu.
"We are afraid of what people will say, so we won't do the right thing."
You do the right thing because it IS the right thing. Not because of some political calculation.
Also, how do you know that the abuse situation is over? I sure wouldn't leave my sons alone with a Roman Catholic priest.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not on Dawkins side here. Orlanth has pretty much spelled it out.
Manchu wrote:People like Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and Geoffrey Robertson are ensuring that the Church hierarchy--specifically, the Curia--feels totally confirmed in its antipathy about transparency and suspicion of the media so that no reforms are ever undertaken..
Sorry but that's a complete cop-out Manchu.
"We are afraid of what people will say, so we won't do the right thing."
You do the right thing because it IS the right thing. Not because of some political calculation.
Also, how do you know that the abuse situation is over? I sure wouldn't leave my sons alone with a Roman Catholic priest.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not on Dawkins side here. Orlanth has pretty much spelled it out.
GG
How many Roman Catholic Priests do you know? All of those I've met have been wonderful people.
They may be, but that isn't the issue in my mind. The issue is that these scandals have brought such a bad light on the Roman Catholic Priesthood that I personally believe you are taking a risk allowing your child near them unobserved.
GG
edit..and to answer your question I don't know any. They may be perfectly fine fellows in public but in private who knows what they are like.
generalgrog wrote:They may be, but that isn't the issue in my mind. The issue is that these scandals have brought such a bad light on the Roman Catholic Priesthood that I personally believe you are taking a risk allowing your child near them unobserved.
GG
edit..and to answer your question I don't know any. They may be perfectly fine fellows in public but in private who knows what they are like.
The problem with these scandals is that they are made into gross generalizations by the media. Would the bad light they direct towards priests be as harsh if they would stick entirely to the facts? Probably not. The news stories you see and hear generally point this out as behaviour you can expect from any Catholic priest, which simply isn't the case.
You can tell a lot about the state of a person's interior life by observations about what they project to others. Example: Someone with a messy room is likely to be unorganized in their inner convictions and thoughts as well. It is very hard to lead a double life, and what your true thoughts are will leak out and be revealed whether you want them to or not. If a certain Catholic priest looks shifty to you, then by all means, don't hesitate to stay clear. But that can be said of all people, not just priests, and you're running the same risk of leaving your child with a priest you don't know as any other stranger, while leaving your child with a priest you know well will have the same likelihood of molestation as any friend you know as well.
Just wondering: why might it be necessary to leave your children with a priest anyway?
Oh I don't know...altar boys, confessionals, counseling. That's 3 I can think of.
I agree with your point about "how do you trust anyone". However I think the heart of the problem and what makes Roman Catholic priests a different class in my mind is the issue forcing celibacy on the priesthood. That is completly unnatural and, I believe, unbiblical.
Mark 10:6,7 (KJV) But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. 7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife
Gen 2:18(KJV) And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him
1Tim 3:1-4(KJV)(underlines mine)
1This is a true saying, if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
2A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
3Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
4One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
I think that this enforced celibacy can cause spiritual distress, opening the priest up to unnecesary temptations, who may have once had all the best intentions only to turn to evil because he has no outlet for his sexual desires. Also I think it may attract a certain type of individual who is unnatural to begin with. I.E. pedofiles
ll the ordained ministers of the Latin Church, with the exception of permanent deacons, are normally chosen from among men of faith who live a celibate life and who intend to remain celibate "for the sake of the kingdom of heaven."70 Called to consecrate themselves with undivided heart to the Lord and to "the affairs of the Lord,"71 they give themselves entirely to God and to men. Celibacy is a sign of this new life to the service of which the Church's minister is consecrated; accepted with a joyous heart celibacy radiantly proclaims the Reign of God.72
1580 In the Eastern Churches a different discipline has been in force for many centuries: while bishops are chosen solely from among celibates, married men can be ordained as deacons and priests. This practice has long been considered legitimate; these priests exercise a fruitful ministry within their communities.73 Moreover, priestly celibacy is held in great honor in the Eastern Churches and many priests have freely chosen it for the sake of the Kingdom of God. In the East as in the West a man who has already received the sacrament of Holy Orders can no longer marry.
EDIT: quoted from CCC.
Manchu wrote:I've been pondering my debate with sebster all morning and I (perhaps finally) see the point he's making. Suffice it to say that I don't think Robertsons's hope of piercing Ratzingers immunity, even if he did manage to construct a cogent legal claim (which I will continue to affirm that he cannot), will gain any traction outside of the narrow circle he travels in and that his motives for attempting as much seem professionally questionable .
Okay, cool, I think we pretty much agree. I agree that this is not going to end with the Pope being led away in handcuffs - even if it (impossibly) did result in a court rejecting his claimed immunity, all it would mean is the Pope would be unable to travel to certain countries. The result would be almost entirely PR.
The objective here, I believe, is to force the Church into greater transparency and police involvement. When the issue reaches such a scale that there is any talk at all of pursuing legal action against the Pope, then it becomes almost impossible to justify doing anything but hand the future allegations over to the police. Oh, and to challenge the special rights granted to the Church over other bodies.
Orlanth wrote:I concur entirely. But in doing so let us not fall into the trap of also saying because its a politically motivated bash on religion there is no case to answer.
People like Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and Geoffrey Robertson are ensuring that the Church hierarchy--specifically, the Curia--feels totally confirmed in its antipathy about transparency and suspicion of the media so that no reforms are ever undertaken. Don't get me wrong, sexual abuse in the Church is over. But the causes of that abuse--or rather, the causes for why this remained under the raider within the various chanceries of the world will not be addressed. And that is really the only good thing that could come out of all this. So thanks a lot, Dawkins et al. You fething donkey-caves.
I would say the purpose would be to make the internal investigations that allowed for the secrecy and cover-ups to become politically non-viable. Which strikes me as a pretty good idea, and exactly how things are supposed to work - any organisation anywhere that is given trust and power that later goes on to abuse that trust should be challenged, and likely have that trust and power reduced.
Orlanth you know full well what i meant, even this thread refers to Dawkins 'arresting' the pope. I merely meant the whole 'full nelson on the Pope' spirit of the article and not the horrific assault on little boys. No need to be childish just cos were at different ends of the God spectrum is there? Its also rather laughable as clearly it is secular chaps like me who are looking out for the kids. Your lot are allowing your religious feelings to get in the way of your common sense and using this thread to slate an elderly biologist and not a man who was complicit in alerting the authorities to a man who tied up and raped a teenager!
mattyrm wrote:
Its also rather laughable as clearly it is secular chaps like me who are looking out for the kids.
Nope secular folks like you are not trying to help the kids. You called for the arrest of the Pope while we are both unclear on whether he had personally done wrong. Normally justice works by seeing if there is a case to answer first for then calling for specific people to be indited. You (plural) turn a very obvious blind eye to any civic involvement and collusion. You even accused ME of collusion in your earlier rant. Sorry that type of hysteria is dangerous.
Its other types secular and not who are trying to look out for the kids.
mattyrm wrote:
Its also rather laughable as clearly it is secular chaps like me who are looking out for the kids.
Nope secular folks like you are not trying to help the kids. You called for the arrest of the Pope while we are both unclear on whether he had personally done wrong. Normally justice works by seeing if there is a case to answer first for then calling for specific people to be indited. You (plural) turn a very obvious blind eye to any civic involvement and collusion. You even accused ME of collusion in your earlier rant. Sorry that type of hysteria is dangerous.
Its other types secular and not who are trying to look out for the kids.
Okay what I've picked up so far from the religious types / or pro pope guys at least is this. You'd rather have him walk un-questioned while there is a chance that he did it, then actually test this fact in court.
Where as ANY other man who is suspect of this would immediately dragged of. Equals my ass.
Ratzinger? I happen to be reading a book at the moment about child molestation in the Catholic Church, and there are some truly nasty aspects to some of these cases. The Church of Rome has a few really, really sick secrets, but sincerely doubt whether Dawkins and his ivory-tower friends can do much about it. Still, good on them for trying at least. It's more than any of us have done.
Okay what I've picked up so far from the religious types / or pro pope guys at least is this. You'd rather have him walk un-questioned while there is a chance that he did it, then actually test this fact in court.
Where as ANY other man who is suspect of this would immediately dragged of. Equals my ass.
Well most of the other side are not pro-pope, or even catholic in many cases. We are not against arresting people in the church who colluded in child abuse, just want to be sure the right ones are arrested and until very recently it was unclear if the Pope was being targeted because her did something or because he happened to want to come to the UK and is big in the Catholic church. Other commentary on this issue is on whether we legally can due to international law.
Blair invited Robert Mugabe to the UK in 1998, a man on at least a moral par with the worst abusers mentioned in this thread. People tried to arrest him and failed.
Another good question would then be why invite these scum on state visits anyway? But that is a question to be directed at HM Government.
Best we can hope for is to try and force Ratzinger to resign and call on the College of Cardinals to elect a Pope who will reform the Church and do away with the abuse and collusion. This is about right as many have forgotten the focus of the thread is not primarly about kiddie fiddler priests themselves but those who cover up after them. Child abusers belong in prison, people in cover ups belong out of office. This is how it is with secular heirarchies and accountability so the bar should remain the same.
Now if Ratzinger is a child abuser , or is a direct accomplice to another priest doing so then by all means lock him up and throw away the key.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Orky-Kowboy wrote:Ratzinger? I happen to be reading a book at the moment about child molestation in the Catholic Church, and there are some truly nasty aspects to some of these cases. The Church of Rome has a few really, really sick secrets, but sincerely doubt whether Dawkins and his ivory-tower friends can do much about it. Still, good on them for trying at least. It's more than any of us have done.
What I am getting worried about, especially when civic collusion is whitewashed out is that it becomes a beatstick to label and bash religion in general, and Dawkins et al are unlikely to stop at the Catholics. We are seeing the start of that here with the polarisation of belief with a blanket ideology spewed that religious equals closed ranks but secular equals helping hand. Dawkins is UK based and I can see legislation coming from this, and it normally starts with a dogma of blanket labelling, and this is especially dangerous if the civic collusion is masked from the public eye when the bills are passed. Like most of the draconian laws passed once our current government gets a scapegoat the knee jerks, and it jerks hard. I wonder how many church youth groups Catholic or otherwise mostly with very good reputations will be put under the thumb while our largely broken social services continues to faulter cloaked under a new mandate of being better purely because it is secular.
mattyrm wrote:
Its also rather laughable as clearly it is secular chaps like me who are looking out for the kids.
Nope secular folks like you are not trying to help the kids. You called for the arrest of the Pope while we are both unclear on whether he had personally done wrong. Normally justice works by seeing if there is a case to answer first for then calling for specific people to be indited. You (plural) turn a very obvious blind eye to any civic involvement and collusion. You even accused ME of collusion in your earlier rant. Sorry that type of hysteria is dangerous.
Its other types secular and not who are trying to look out for the kids.
Okay what I've picked up so far from the religious types / or pro pope guys at least is this. You'd rather have him walk un-questioned while there is a chance that he did it, then actually test this fact in court.
Where as ANY other man who is suspect of this would immediately dragged of. Equals my ass.
Can you quote someone saying anything close to that?
Manchu put forward a brilliant case as to why Pope Benedict didn't do anything criminal in regard to the Fr. Murphy case, and those such as myself say that if there is anything to these charges that Richard Dawkins inserting himself into the issue just makes it look goofy. Equally sad is the fact that the misbehavior of a few despicable priests makes some people to think that they can paint billions of "religious" people with the same broad brush.
If Glenn Beck was involved in an attempt to arrest a head of state visiting the US it would be equally laughable. If there was probable cause for arrest and the legal authority to do so I imagine that in such a high profile case it would have already happened, or will happen regardless of Mr. Dawkins' involvement. I don't know how much experience everyone has with dealing with courts but this stuff takes a long time. And trying to rush only feths a case up.
Monster Rain wrote:
Manchu put forward a brilliant case as to why Pope Benedict didn't do anything criminal in regard to the Fr. Murphy case, and those such as myself say that if there is anything to these charges that Richard Dawkins inserting himself into the issue just makes it look goofy. Equally sad is the fact that the misbehavior of a few despicable priests makes some people to think that they can paint billions of "religious" people with the same broad brush.
Agreed but there is written evidence that the pope as a Cardinal did help contain the Kiesle case. However this is a resignation issue not an arrest issue. Ratzinger signed the letter, this shows failure of judgement and leadership and he ought to resign.
Orlanth wrote:Agreed but there is written evidence that the pope as a Cardinal did help contain the Kiesle case. However this is a resignation issue not an arrest issue. Ratzinger signed the letter, this shows failure of judgement and leadership and he ought to resign.
As with the FR. Murphy case, Orlanth, the actual story with Kiesle has not been well reported. The truth is that in the years following Vatican II, some thirty thousand Roman rite priests (or more) left religious life (note: they did not lose their faith; they simply did not wish to be priests anymore) and Pope Paul VI (r. 1963 - 1978) granted the dispensations allowing this. Conservatives (which is NOT me saying "bad guy") in the Curia believed this was a portent of crisis and wanted to restrain priests from leaving or at least slow down the rate at which priests were leaving. During the reign of John Paul II (1978 - 2005), it became much more difficult to obtain the dispensation required and nearly impossible for priests under forty years of age. At the time that Kiesle requested to be laicized (or, as the media have improperly called it, "defrocked"), he was 38--hence why Ratzinger mentions his "young age" in the letter you're talking about. So you see, the phrases "good of the universal Church," etc., have nothing at all to do with covering up child abuse but rather have to do with a complicated question of internal policy. But complicated questions of internal policy don't sell newspapers or commercial time, of course.
Automatically Appended Next Post: If you want to know the real story of abuse and corruption in the Church and how the current pope has handled it, I would suggest you read up on the case of Marcel Maciel and the Legionnaires.
Orlanth wrote:Agreed but there is written evidence that the pope as a Cardinal did help contain the Kiesle case. However this is a resignation issue not an arrest issue. Ratzinger signed the letter, this shows failure of judgement and leadership and he ought to resign.
As with the FR. Murphy case, Orlanth, the actual story with Kiesle has not been well reported. The truth is that in the years following Vatican II, some thirty thousand Roman rite priests (or more) left religious life (note: they did not lose their faith; they simply did not wish to be priests anymore) and Pope Paul VI (r. 1963 - 1978) granted the dispensations allowing this. Conservatives (which is NOT me saying "bad guy") in the Curia believed this was a portent of crisis and wanted to restrain priests from leaving or at least slow down the rate at which priests were leaving. During the reign of John Paul II (1978 - 2005), it became much more difficult to obtain the dispensation required and nearly impossible for priests under forty years of age. At the time that Kiesle requested to be laicized (or, as the media have improperly called it, "defrocked"), he was 38--hence why Ratzinger mentions his "young age" in the letter you're talking about. So you see, the phrases "good of the universal Church," etc., have nothing at all to do with covering up child abuse but rather have to do with a complicated question of internal policy. But complicated questions of internal policy don't sell newspapers or commercial time, of course.
Automatically Appended Next Post: If you want to know the real story of abuse and corruption in the Church and how the current pope has handled it, I would suggest you read up on the case of Marcel Maciel and the Legionnaires.
Then we need to see the full transcript of the letter then to be sure of what then Cardinal Ratzinger knew, but there is a world of difference in not releasing priests who would rather pursue alternative careers and retaining a sexual predator who ought never to be have been ordained to begin with.
Orlanth wrote:Then we need to see the full transcript of the letter then to be sure of what then Cardinal Ratzinger knew,
No, we don't. What Ratzinger knew regarding Kiesle's behavior is irrelevant to the question of the policy itself, namely that it had nothing to do with considerations of child molestation. Priests are not employees to be simply hired and fired.
but there is a world of difference in not releasing priests who would rather pursue alternative careers and retaining a sexual predator who ought never to be have been ordained to begin with.
No, there isn't with regard to the actual question: granting dispensations. Orlanth, you're going to have to look at this from the perspective of the Catholic hierarchy if you really want to understand it rather than your own, which is just not the correct frame of reference. What you're doing is something similar to what you often complain of atheists doing to you. I'm not even sure how to respond to the idea of "ought never to have been ordained to begin with."
Orlanth wrote:Then we need to see the full transcript of the letter then to be sure of what then Cardinal Ratzinger knew,
No, we don't. What Ratzinger knew regarding Kiesle's behavior is irrelevant to the question of the policy itself, namely that it had nothing to do with considerations of child molestation. Priests are not employees to be simply hired and fired.
Manchu, I respect your level opinions on this matter. some things can be hidden behind procedures, others shouldn't. Sexual abuse of children is one of the worst crimes you can commit, expediency and policy have to take second place when people like that are brought to the attention of authorities religious or secular.
Manchu wrote:
.... with regard to the actual question: granting dispensations. Orlanth, you're going to have to look at this from the perspective of the Catholic hierarchy if you really want to understand it rather than your own, which is just not the correct frame of reference.
The Catholic heirarchy must follow its rules to be consistent, but it has a higher duty.
Manchu wrote:
What you're doing is something similar to what you often complain of atheists doing to you.
My concern with some of the atheists is the blanket stereotyping of the church and the blatant willingness to selectively pursue wrongdoers depending on their religious status.
Manchu wrote:
I'm not even sure how to respond to the idea of "ought never to have been ordained to begin with."
I partly withdraw that comment. According to some reports on Kiesle, which are admittedly only from what we know of him from the press, there were warning signs about him from an early age. I will however concur that the details about his early life I saw are from biased sources (Hitchens and co) with a track record of misrepresenting these cases.
People who work with children should be vetted. Like any other organisation the Catholic church has a form of selection procedure and while it is unfair to berate them for failing to catch every bad applicant it is still not unfair to think that Kiesle should never have been a priest if he showed paedophilic tendencies from before he was ordained.
However modern ideas of vetting were not available in earlier decades nor are they much good at anything except stirring paranoia. Many of the 'warning signs' of paedophiles are spurious at best but are jumped on by over-reacting social services under the dogma that the ends justify the means and if it potentially stops one offender it is acceptable to falsely label any number of people. The Catholic church needs a clearn up but it needs that particular brand of clean up like a hole in the head. Too many warning signs of a potential predator such as talking to minors were considered innocent in the recent past, let alone back in the 70's and many of them are innocent, but try telling that to a PC witch hunt.
Orlanth wrote:
My concern with some of the atheists is the blanket stereotyping of the church and the blatant willingness to selectively pursue wrongdoers depending on their religious status
Orlanth, i havent blanket stereotyped people with theistic belief, of course no sensible person thinks that any human being is more likely to be a paeodophile if they are religious, if you have taken that from what i have said, then i sincerely apoligse. I do not wish to paint you as being less likely to be moral than anybody else due to your religious beliefs. Certainly in any subject not related to your Theistic beliefs ive found you to be a thoroughly agreeable chap, and i apologise if you took what i said as a personal attack.
Anyway, all i wanted to point out was that if there was a random guy in charge of a large organization or corporation (say Bill Gates for example) who had a guy on his board of executives that was accused of abusing boys in a mirror of this case. And the "head" Mr Gates decided to cover it up in this manner (maybe cos he thought it would make Apple look better or something), and there was a paper trail in this manner with him writing to another executive so you had visible evidence, then you guys would want him to have his fething entirely deserved retribution.
Be honest. You are a tiny bit biased towards that mean old man in the Vatican.
Frankly i think this whole thing is like taking Capone down for Tax Evasion, the man was guilty of cold blooded murder and they got him for Tax Evasion? The Pope has worse things in his CV than this thats for certain, maybe telling Africans that condoms increase the risk of aids?!
Anyway, on topic. As i said. Im not saying your lot arent moral, im saying you let your personal religious feelings cloud your judgement. And you absolutely most certainly do. This thread has been all about slagging Dawkins off and worse still, some folks sticking up for the Pope, and not actually pointing out that Dawkinsn just may have a case. I dont think i agree with him personally, but certainly it should be on the table.
If we were talking about an Atheist who ran a big company and he did the same thing, well, we all know that i wouldnt be defending him.
Maybe because a lack of belief not only lacks the holy books, traditions, practices, buildings and holidays that a Religion does, it doesnt make us feel we have anything in common with other non believers either.
Orlanth wrote:
My concern with some of the atheists is the blanket stereotyping of the church and the blatant willingness to selectively pursue wrongdoers depending on their religious status
Orlanth, i havent blanket stereotyped people with theistic belief, of course no sensible person thinks that any human being is more likely to be a paeodophile if they are religious, if you have taken that from what i have said, then i sincerely apoligse. I do not wish to paint you as being less likely to be moral than anybody else due to your religious beliefs. Certainly in any subject not related to your Theistic beliefs ive found you to be a thoroughly agreeable chap, and i apologise if you took what i said as a personal attack.
Thanks you that. I was a bit offended by your reaction to earlier comments. I don't consider you 'taliban' either, and if I ever did I would have used another term, after all you have seen real Taliban I have not. Apologises for any offense caused including for any mistaken inference that you find child molestation funny.
mattyrm wrote:
Anyway, all i wanted to point out was that if there was a random guy in charge of a large organization or corporation (say Bill Gates for example) who had a guy on his board of executives that was accused of abusing boys in a mirror of this case. And the "head" Mr Gates decided to cover it up in this manner (maybe cos he thought it would make Apple look better or something), and there was a paper trail in this manner with him writing to another executive so you had visible evidence, then you guys would want him to have his fething entirely deserved retribution.
As more is coming out I have come to that conclusion too. Though political retribution is more the case. If a minster covers up a police beating and fails, the policeman is charged with assault and the minister hopefully resigns. The minister is not charged with assault. If the Pope has put his name to documents ordering a cover up and as a result more boys got abused then he should step down. I can imagine a greater good of a cover up if the priest was quietly dealt with and the victims aided, I could even condone that if the dirty washing was cleaned and the dodgy priest held to account quietly.
It pays for me to explain this one more fully:
It also helps victims too. I remember a courts martial in a base in Germany regarding a n issue of prolonged child abuse (I will not be any more specific than that). Some guys in Whitehall wanted a full Old Bailey trial, but the base commander and legal branch wanted to deal with this quietly. There was a public trial and the public could attend but the press were never told and public were asked politely not to turn up for the day when the girls gave their story, to make up for that we were encouraged to turn up for the defence to show that the accused had his full rights under law. It was a very ugly case and would have ran in the tabloids for weeks. justice was done the RMP didnt hold back when they first found out about it, the girls were looked after, the scum got a long sentence, the scum also got enough anonymity to survive his long sentence and the press did not get to drag the victims through the mud while gorging on the story.
Now some of the priests in Ireland were dealt with the same way I heard though a lot later and for different motives.
mattyrm wrote:
Be honest. You are a tiny bit biased towards that mean old man in the Vatican.....
I support the Catholic church as my Christian brothers, when it comes to Catholic doctrine we are poles apart. The trouble is the Protestant/Catholic divide is fraught with derision and histories of violence that I find sickening. Personally I never want to be part of that because it is a descent into madness. just look at the hatreds in Northern ireland. While actually tribal religion is the excuse use to keep the tribes apart, much good work had been done when individual Carths and Prods rise above the dogmas. So I took it on myself not to consider a Catholic as anything other than my 'brother or in Christ', and can find scriptures to back this up.
mattyrm wrote:
... As i said. Im not saying your lot arent moral, im saying you let your personal religious feelings cloud your judgement. And you absolutely most certainly do. This thread has been all about slagging Dawkins off and worse still, some folks sticking up for the Pope, and not actually pointing out that Dawkins just may have a case. I dont think i agree with him personally, but certainly it should be on the table.
Yes I must admit that I am biased towards the Papacy itself, I think less of individual Popes and hadn't given much thought to Pope Benedict. When there was nothing with Ratzingers name on it I was fully supportive because I have been aware of how nasty this issue gets from reports from Ireland and the Irish victim I met. The church is walking a tightrope and the Pope inherited a monstrous position, I have sympathies for that and his position of damage limitation, however sympathy and support are different things.
However all that can change if he is personally culpable regarding cases in Germany and was complicit in not only failing to acty on abuse but permitted sicrcumstances by which the priest re-offended.
mattyrm wrote:
Frankly i think this whole thing is like taking Capone down for Tax Evasion, the man was guilty of cold blooded murder and they got him for Tax Evasion? The Pope has worse things in his CV than this thats for certain, maybe telling Africans that condoms increase the risk of aids?!
Ok , two points you raise here.
The Dogmas: I dont understand the condom ban, well I do but I cannot find ANY scripture that supports a condom ban to which the Catholic church can found its doctrines, but can find references to scripture saying that sex for recreational purposes is acceptable and even encouraged. Its an old dogma that should have disappeared long ago but remains due to inertia. I think Monty Python had this one best, but now is not the time for jokes on that subject. Aids wasnt around then.
The Culprits: Your Capone analogy is interesting but if it is a case of getting Catholicism for what you can then you should also note that Aids denial is also a secular problem, so the trend we are seeing of condemn the priests, but largely ignore the connected secular offenders is echoed here. Many African governments have and some still are caught up in that inconsciable dogma. South Africa being the example most to mind and South Africa is not primarily a Catholic country, things are better now Thabo Mbeke is gone, but the policy though admittedly criticised by opposition leaders was largely changed through unrelated circumstances. Still condemning Catholicism is easy but condemning Nelson Mandela is a whole lot trickier.
mattyrm wrote:
If we were talking about an Atheist who ran a big company and he did the same thing, well, we all know that i wouldnt be defending him.
Maybe because a lack of belief not only lacks the holy books, traditions, practices, buildings and holidays that a Religion does, it doesnt make us feel we have anything in common with other non believers either.
I see this an an olive branch. Saying that there is no connecting culture within atheism for which we can draw an analogy.
Lets put it this way; if Dawkins was exposed for allegedly doing something nasty, would I have to hold a straight face? Most likely yes. Bias is inherent in man, morality comes from choosing to not act on your bias or choosing to act fairly in spite of it.
True enough old chap. Its a normal human thing to be a tad biased i suppose. I do try and remain level headed and mindful of my behaviour though, i mean, even though im a Middlesbrough fan, i dont have a predetermined dislike of the crass,brain-dead, drink-sodden borderline slowed thugs that make up the fanbase of Newcastle United. :-)
My apologies, should have explained. Catechism of the Catholic Church. I would have made a better answer but I was signing off then to leave for the night, and hoped you could decipher my points.
Automatically Appended Next Post: @ Orlanth: The ban isn't just on condoms, but on all such methods that inhibit procreation, or the other aspects of sex.
Basically, sex is seen as open to procreation, pleasurable, and unifying( and with your spouse).If any of the above factors are not present, then it's not right.
I don't know if you've read 1984 by George Orwell, but quite a bit of detail is given to sex, and in it, that sex is also immoral, because while it is open to procreation, the unifying aspect as well as the pleasure were not present.
Family Planning is permitted because it makes use of the natural occurrences in the menstrual cycle, not an artificial aid. It also teaches chastity, because people may have to hold back and not give in to temptation as often.
Hope that helped explain it.
Nightwatch wrote:
@ Orlanth: The ban isn't just on condoms, but on all such methods that inhibit procreation, or the other aspects of sex.
Basically, sex is seen as open to procreation, pleasurable, and unifying( and with your spouse).If any of the above factors are not present, then it's not right.
I don't know if you've read 1984 by George Orwell, but quite a bit of detail is given to sex, and in it, that sex is also immoral, because while it is open to procreation, the unifying aspect as well as the pleasure were not present.
Family Planning is permitted because it makes use of the natural occurrences in the menstrual cycle, not an artificial aid. It also teaches chastity, because people may have to hold back and not give in to temptation as often.
Hope that helped explain it.
Thankyou for that, it clears things up a little even though I disagree with it but I do understand why the Catholic church sticks to its rigid doctrines, some made centuries ago.
What I do not understand is why they chose some of them to begin with. The Bible the plain text contradicts the above concepts is a passage that is not is unclear or hard to interpret, and one most catholics should be familiar with. This makes the Churches position rather curious.
1 Corinthians 7 1-7
Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry.[a] 2But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband. 3The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband's body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. 5Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. 6I say this as a concession, not as a command. 7I wish that all men were as I am. But each man has his own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that.
I chose the easier to read NIV version, it contains no textual corruption from the Catholic Bible, or the Greek, in this passage.
"Textual corruption"? I'd be insulted if we'd never talked of this before, Orlanth.
But as you know, we do not read the Bible in the same way as Evangelicals--and indeed think it is a great error to do so. Even so, I cannot see how that passage from Corinthians has anything to do with contraception. If anything, the message on its face seems to be about monogamy. It is not at all at odds with Catholic social teaching regarding contraception within marriage.
Nightwatch has very accurately if broadly summed up the parameters of Catholic understanding regarding marriage open to procreation being the proper context for sex. The truth is that the teaching regarding contraception (which is only about fifty years old or so) has not been well-received in the West. Africans and Latin Americans have been the most staunchly in favor of that proscription--contrary to mattyrm's implication that Africans might just do whatever the Church commanded, this was their own belief long before Paul VI wrote Humanae Vitae. In fact, the study commissioned by Paul VI to investigate birth control found it to be a perfectly acceptable practice. Although I am not very interested in this topic, and so do not know all the particulars, one worry about teaching that it was okay to use condoms was that Africans and Latin Americans would reject it. In any case, this particular teaching is certainly no infallible doctrine and will probably not survive forever. It has little to do with condoms themselves and more to do with the overarching morality that Nightwatch already summarized.
Manchu wrote:"Textual corruption"? I'd be insulted if we'd never talked of this before, Orlanth.
An entirely necessary caveat I am afraid. To address all readers: Some traditional churches insist on particular translations, notably the king James which is known to be very accurate. NIV (New International Version) modernises the English but does give rise to some small errors which is why some traditional churches will not accept it on principle. If parts are wrong it is not scripture to them. Most are not like that but still churches that use a traditional bible are aided if the NIV is checked first.
By and large this should not be a problem there are a handful of one word errors in the translation that do little to change the meaning the only one i remember is the passage in Revelations refering to the mark of the beast just before the 666 passage. The Greek and King James states the mark is in the hand the NIV states it is on the hand. Simple stuff that doesnt effect much. Most NIV Bibles include a notation at this and other points saying what other bibles translate as.
In some churches the NIV is jokingly refered to as the Nearly Infallible Version.
Manchu wrote:
But as you know, we do not read the Bible in the same way as Evangelicals--and indeed think it is a great error to do so. Even so, I cannot see how that passage from Corinthians has anything to do with contraception. If anything, the message on its face seems to be about monogamy. It is not at all at odds with Catholic social teaching regarding contraception within marriage.
Interpretation is good but interpretation also involves revelation. The main difference is that some denominations have scripture interpreted by a central committee others by individual interpretation. I can see some danger in the latter, but it is also open to 'God speaking through His word'. Meditation on scripture can reveal additional meanings, this requires Holy Spirit guidance and wisdom.
On to the passage. It strongly speaks on monogamy but also focuses on the encouragement of sexual recreation. Note how sexual relations need only to be interrupted in order to focus on God, otherwise it is actually unwise to hold back lest one seek comfort elsewhere. This is clearly about sexual pleasure not procreative sex. As the time for abstinence is laid out, prayer time, then unless one deliberately chooses to pray through a womans fertility pregnancy is as certain as biology allows. Had Paul indicated the scripture to mean must procreate incessently I am sure he would have said so. As (almost) unrestricted is to be encouraged, quite strongly in fact yet the early church were not swarming with children it is not unfair to suggest that contraception was acceptable. Were it not again Paul would have said something.
The only condemnation of contraceptive methods appears in the Book of Genesis and refers to the story of Tamar the daughter of Judah, whose successive husbands were struck dead by God for using the withdrawal method. There is more to the stroy than that, but that is the relevant gist. perhaps the Synod uses that to condemn contraception. However first the story is aetiological and is thus a form of parable for something else, a bit like most of Genesis really. Even if you wanted to take it literally the text states the crime in Gods eyes was not the withdrawal but the denial to give Tamar any children, as opposed to unlimited children. Thus again not condemning contraception per se.
Does this mean that if a wife was childless and wanted children and the husband refused to allow her to get pregnant then he is sinning, the reverse is not necessarily true. But in the ancient world contraception might not have been the womans choice anyway.
Anyway somehow out of all this the Synod worked out the need for a blanket cast condom ban. The logic chain to this conclusion is still missing links, things might be smoother if the mental workings that led to this conclusion were disclosed more fully. We still might not agree, but then at least we could appreciate the churches viewpoint.
Manchu wrote:
Nightwatch has very accurately if broadly summed up the parameters of Catholic understanding regarding marriage open to procreation being the proper context for sex. The truth is that the teaching regarding contraception (which is only about fifty years old or so) has not been well-received in the West. Africans and Latin Americans have been the most staunchly in favor of that proscription--contrary to mattyrm's implication that Africans might just do whatever the Church commanded, this was their own belief long before Paul VI wrote Humanae Vitae. In fact, the study commissioned by Paul VI to investigate birth control found it to be a perfectly acceptable practice. Although I am not very interested in this topic, and so do not know all the particulars, one worry about teaching that it was okay to use condoms was that Africans and Latin Americans would reject it. In any case, this particular teaching is certainly no infallible doctrine and will probably not survive forever. It has little to do with condoms themselves and more to do with the overarching morality that Nightwatch already summarized.
The population bomb is another reason to change viewpoints. Even if we take the divine mandate of 'go forth and multiply and fill the earth', can we now call the earth full and the task acomplished?
As for Church being against contraception.... it's just simple stupidity, I really can't think of any other reason why someone would issue such a thing.
As for Church being against contraception.... it's just simple stupidity, I really can't think of any other reason why someone would issue such a thing.
That isnt fair. The Catholic church doesn't make doctrines at random, and the Synod is filled with smart people. When they do something you can be really certain there is a well thought out reason sometimes historical, sometimes expedient sometimes due to how they interpret scripture. One thing you can be sure of nothing like this happens by accident, the Vatican is a huge institutional monolith that didn't survive intact since the Dark Ages by being stupid.
Orlanth, I will reply to your post more thoroughly later on but need to be off to work atm. Suffice it to say for now that I think you're reading a lot of your own/this time period's ideas and values into the scripture, which is why private interpretation is not okay in the Catholic tradition. As for the teaching prohibiting artificial contraception being unbiblical, there is no need to ahistorically root every teaching into some particular passage of scripture or to imagine that scripture speaks to every conceivable human experience. (This is more of a Muslim belief, I'd say.) Your notion of the monolithic nature of the Vatican is also . . . mistaken. I would suggest reading a new book with the deceptively stupid sounding title "Jesus Wars" by John Philip Jenkins.
But I do know that the EEOC can come a calling if I discriminate based on national origin. I generally view the EEOC Big Uns (ethnicity, national origin, gender, religion) as the Big No Nos however you want to call it.
Except for Liechtenstein of course. Those *&^(^ers will get theirs!!!
I still fail to see how I can be racist towards Englishmen considering that we are essentially the same. The UK, America, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand are all the same place, just with different scenery .
Well ignorance and racism certainly do go hand in hand today. sorry I will nto give examples of how to be racist towards Americans and Aussies, but believe me there are ways. Its not that common I will admit, except 'pom bashing' which can get quite racist at times.
That aside you are trying to bring race into issues of church historicity. a better question is what does the English Reformation have to do with modern church doctrines. stuff that happened in the 16th century is bygones to anyone who is not dragging it up for reasons of inciting racial dissent.
Yep Henry VIII closed the monasteries and took their gold. Who cares. the 21st century has enough problems of its own, if its not an issue in living memory the issue shouldnt exist. If it did we would all be at war, even the Swiss would be at war. And we would be back to killing Frenchies and slapping around Yanks for wasting perfectly good tea.
Im pretty sure Henry and the Pope were not friends. At all. I didn't say anything about English people being unable to practice Catholicism. It was a joke. Why the feth does everyone on Dakka have a fething degree in humor critiquing? Did Henry not make his own church? Did that no feth with the Pope? Did it not undermine the Church? Did it not happen in the 16th Century? Holy fething Christ.
I even fething said: dont take it personally. Should I start all post with the textual specification of the meaning it conveys? This is the OT forum and a wargaming site, get the feth off your high horses.
Marshal2Crusaders wrote:Sweet Tea is applicable all year round.
True Dat. Tradition dictates the best sweet tea is summer though. Just have to remember to have insulin ready because the diabbetic will come instantly. Its so worth it.
Marshal2Crusaders wrote:
I even fething said: dont take it personally. Should I start all post with the textual specification of the meaning it conveys? This is the OT forum and a wargaming site, get the feth off your high horses.
Not accepting that because I didn't take it personally. We took it nationally. More accurately I had to nip this one in the bud, ignorance grows if left unchecked.
I recognised you were possibly trying to be funny but if you are dumb enough to think this is 'only joking' do a long wiki search on religious and long standing historical hatreds in Ireland and former Yugoslavia. Greece and Turkey can get like that too, they are both NATO partners and that is just about the only thing stopping them shelling each other from time to time, they last wanted to have a go at each other in the 70's which is not long ago considering the age of the cassus belli.
People are still getting killed even up to recent times essentially because one tribe hates another tribe for offenses of five or six hundred years ago. Essentially it usually comes down to pig ignorance and bigotry.
Stirring up sentiment because of the 'crimes of Henry VIII' is one of the things that makes a good American catholic boy add money in the tin for the 'cause' in Northern Ireland. I am still not sure if this is where you got your initial ideas from.
I recognised you were possibly trying to be funny but if you are dumb enough to think this is 'only joking' do a long wiki search on religious and long standing historical hatreds in Ireland and former Yugoslavia. Greece and Turkey can get like that too, they are both NATO partners and that is just about the only thing stopping them shelling each other from time to time, they last wanted to have a go at each other in the 70's which is not long ago considering the age of the cassus belli.
People are still getting killed even up to recent times essentially because one tribe hates another tribe for offenses of five or six hundred years ago. Essentially it usually comes down to pig ignorance and bigotry.
Stirring up sentiment because of the 'crimes of Henry VIII' is one of the things that makes a good catholic add money in the tin for the 'cause' in Northern Ireland. I am still not sure if this is where you got your initial ideas from
In spite of being an American, I am fairly well read. I am well aware of the history of most religious/ethnic conflicts (its where I find all info for my Templar fluff, and not to mention the majority of my higher education). If you choose to let my passive blanket humor affect you negatively, then so be it, but Im pretty sure the only reason you are so upset is because, well, its the internet. If you can't be preachy here, where can you? If it bother you so much, I'd invite you to try to actively get involved in your community, spreading the message of tolerance and acceptance across international borders so one day in the future people wont make Catholic vs. Protestant jokes.
You know, I really wouldn't be ashamed to shoot that rifle.
Picking off a terrorist (oh wait, that word is censored). Picking off a non-combatant with dynamite strapped to his chest from 1,000yds with that rifle would be very fitting methinks.
I think I should put an addendum for Marshalls benefit because admittedly the extent to which these hatreds can go is incredulous to those who have not experienced them. I removee it and added it here because my post ha\s already been replied to:
Marshall there are people out there who would quite happily encourage you to hate Henry VIII enough, or go even further back, eight hundred years ago to hate Henry II if it encouraged you in turn to add some coins in the collection box to fund some fanatic to blow up the pub where I drink my beer.
Yes this is highly unlikely, and we are now at peace with most of those who used to do this. But while the hatreds still remain we would rather challenge the senseless stirring of ancient rivalries, especially the religious ones which too many people will not take as a joke but seeth over slowly until a deep boiling hatred emerges.
To say I have never experienced the extent of deep seated prejudices would be less than accurate. To say I have never experienced ANCIENT prejudices would be more accurate. I understand all too well the mean and horrible things people do for ideas, but I think but trivializing them and taking away the importance from those who care about them so deeply, your on the first steps on the path to marginalizing the crazies.
If every time an extremist pipes up he is shouted down and ridiculed mercilessly by people who dont care one way or the other, he will eventually get the picture. Or die.
I dont think you pitch one way or the other, but you do care because its your country. That I understand. To get upset over humor isnt cool, especially because I didnt pick one side.
Even worse is this thread was started because a crazy atheist wants to arrest THE FREAKING POPE. Thats a NoGo and way more offensive than stating the the UK has a torubled history when it comes to Catholics and Protestants. That has to be far more offensive than anything I said. If we tried to arrest the Ayatollah, I think Iranians would get upset.
Marshal2Crusaders wrote:
I dont think you pitch one way or the other, but you do care because its your country. That I understand. To get upset over humor isnt cool, especially because I didnt pick one side.
I have to be cautious. Its a combo of things: an anti-English comment, based on distant history, from a Catholic point of view, from an American rings alarm bells. Yes you may be educated, but there are lots of educated people in the US who really have a very warped idea of the Troubles and are led into religiously spurred Anglophobia.
If you were from Europe or your comment had been about Thatcher, or had been atheistic we would not be having this conversation. The worst thing I could do is say nothing because that was exactly what was done over the last thirty odd years in face of a rising propoganda sourced from the Irish American community. Because the viewpoint was both partisan and very one sided the viewpoint of many Americans regarding the troubles became so warped as to not reflect anything connected to reality. Even moderate Republican groups were alarmed by this. It led to the rise of the term coined initially by the London Irish of Plastic Paddy, someone who is more Irish than the Irish in a romanticised, often highly politicised and sometimes even comically ignorant way. Such people were a much tapped herd for extremists and terrorists and it took 9/11 to teach the US that terrorism wasn't what it was cracked up to be. In all fairness to the US, once that happened support for the IRA dropped to next to nothing overnight, and stayed that way. We haven't forgotten that once the myths were dispelled you watched our backs. Sinn Fein had a shock St Patricks day 2002, and once they were forced to the table for real leaning on the rest was easy and the peace process has held ever since.
Marshal2Crusaders wrote:
Even worse is this thread was started because a crazy atheist wants to arrest THE FREAKING POPE. Thats a NoGo and way more offensive than stating the the UK has a torubled history when it comes to Catholics and Protestants. That has to be far more offensive than anything I said. If we tried to arrest the Ayatollah, I think Iranians would get upset.
Yes the Iranians would and they might not stop to think whether the crazy atheist has a point. I don't think he has a case for what he is trying to do, and certainly dont like the motives. As stated earlier it is at most a resignation pressure issue, not an arrest issue. However from what you are saying I agree it is likely that wouldn't matter much to the folks in Tehran.
In any case finding comparison between the body of the Catholic church and the ummah of Shi'ite Islam is not the most helpful complement you can find.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:But what if it were this Ayatolla? Would Iran still object?
Frazzled, you are crazy like a fox. This maneuver, fellow Dakkatrons, is known as the Texas two-step. Step one: he plants seemingly innocuous statement that is actually a tiny spark; step two: fan flames until he can lock the resulting bonfire. This almost as cunning as the "wiener dog wrap up" where he mentions TBone, thread goes way off topic, and lock results
I find the little side posts to be heat sinks for the thread to post something witty and non offensive, it also gives an opportunity to intersperse dry as toast intellectual commentaries with something more light hearted. We can be fun as well as informative yes..
Frazzie wanted, nay needed to give out warnings because here we are page 10, on a topic of religion, Papal scandal, atheists and paedophiles all in one which has been fully discussed without holding back and with no sniff of a thread lock until now. Some want OT to not post religion and politics, because 'it will end in nothing good' and we are proving with every page of reasoned rhetoric that the reasons for believing that are bunkum.
The answer is not to dodge the issues and provide full concise but unbending answers back to the topics as they arise. You might get rude words at first, but eventually as we have seen most if not all begin to respond in kind. So long as we stick to principles and can 'take it' in turn when our opponents come up with hard comments we cannot adequately answer this will all end well.
I've been following this thread with great interest - there have been some excellent points raised, and it would be a shame to see it derailed by a spot of 'harmless' Brit-bashing.
Besides, in terms of 'fething with the pope', the Germans started it. As usual.
