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.

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.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8612457.stm

There you go NW. No nonsense report that.

Yes, because arresting someone for covering up molestation is poppycock.

Hmm, the attitude some posters have on here makes me wonder where their morals lie.

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.

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.

Monster Rain wrote:

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.

mattyrm wrote:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8612457.stm

There you go NW. No nonsense report that.

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.

ShumaGorath wrote:

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.

mattyrm wrote:

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.

I'll affirm the notion that Dawkins is a terrible philosopher. His argument against Non-Overlapping Magesteria is particularly poor.

Albatross wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

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.

GG

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.

mattyrm wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

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.

QFT

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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Populism

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.

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.

...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.

Get some perspective.

ShumaGorath wrote:I'm a genius polymath who can shoot threes from half-court.

You should join our club. We have t-shirts and mugs for a minimal price...

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.

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.

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.

Its a thread about what dawkins is doing, not about what the pope may of known happened. There were threads about what occured there already.

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?

Strawman fail.

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.

Albatross wrote:

...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.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1204719.stm

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.