Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

ShumaGorath wrote:

...

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?

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.

Manchu wrote:

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.

Albatross wrote:

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.

Haha, this post had me rolling on the floor.

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.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/04/you_cant_trust_a_murdoch_paper.php

Albatross wrote:

Manchu wrote:

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!

Orlanth wrote:

Albatross wrote:

Manchu wrote:

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.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/04/you_cant_trust_a_murdoch_paper.php

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:

Yes

No

Yes

No

YES!

NO!

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.

With Shuma involved it will develop into:

I'm right.

No.

Yes I am.

No.

Yes I am. I'm not Fateweaver so therefore I'm right.

No.

Yes. I voted for Obama so I'm right.

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:

Yes

No

Yes

No

YES!

NO!

YES!

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

Albatross wrote:

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.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
heh, bizarre posting error xD

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.

Call me the eternal optimist.....

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.

Albatross wrote:

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.

J.Black wrote:

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.