Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Richard Dawkins vs The Pope
Jumped Up Chimpanzee
Member (Idle past 4942 days)
Posts: 572
From: UK
Joined: 10-22-2009


Message 16 of 47 (555342)
04-13-2010 7:49 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Peepul
04-13-2010 6:58 AM


However, Richard Dawkins is going to be perceived as doing this for ulterior motives, ie driven by his previous deep hostility to the church and not motivated primarily by the need to protect children. I'm not saying what his motives are here, I'm saying how they are going to be perceived.
I see what angle you are coming from, and that is the viewpoint many people have in debate on this issue. But you have to stop and think:
"Why does Dawkins have a deep hostility to religion?"
The answer is because he sees it as a cause of harm! It's precisely because religion is responsible for providing people with a smokescreen to get away with special privilige - including all kinds of abuse!
If religion was a completely benign phenomenen, that caused nobody any harm, then he wouldn't be motivated against religion!
To argue that Dawkins is should not take action against the Catholic Church in this case because he is a known campaigner against religious abuse, is the same as saying that the RSPCA (Royal Society for Protection Against Cruelty to Animals) should not take action against someone for starving their dog, or that Greenpeace should not take action against an oil company for negligently causing polution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Peepul, posted 04-13-2010 6:58 AM Peepul has not replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 802 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 17 of 47 (555345)
04-13-2010 8:18 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Flyer75
04-13-2010 4:17 AM


Re: A history of crime
Yes, I am fully aware that church is a fucked up organization. Especially the one of catholic doctrine.
What I meant to say was that how could we let this blow by in this day and age where the catholic church doesn't have the power it once had. We as a people know better, don't we?

"Some people think God is an outsized, light-skinned male with a long white beard, sitting on a throne somewhere up there in the sky, busily tallying the fall of every sparrow. Othersfor example Baruch Spinoza and Albert Einsteinconsidered God to be essentially the sum total of the physical laws which describe the universe. I do not know of any compelling evidence for anthropomorphic patriarchs controlling human destiny from some hidden celestial vantage point, but it would be madness to deny the existence of physical laws."-Carl Sagan
"Show me where Christ said "Love thy fellow man, except for the gay ones." Gay people, too, are made in my God's image. I would never worship a homophobic God." -Desmond Tutu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Flyer75, posted 04-13-2010 4:17 AM Flyer75 has not replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 802 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 18 of 47 (555346)
04-13-2010 8:20 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Peepul
04-13-2010 6:58 AM


However, Richard Dawkins is going to be perceived as doing this for ulterior motives, ie driven by his previous deep hostility to the church and not motivated primarily by the need to protect children. I'm not saying what his motives are here, I'm saying how they are going to be perceived.
You see anyone else stepping up to the plate to bring these assholes to justice? No. The only people who will do it are the ones who are openly against religion because anyone who is religious is scared.

"Some people think God is an outsized, light-skinned male with a long white beard, sitting on a throne somewhere up there in the sky, busily tallying the fall of every sparrow. Othersfor example Baruch Spinoza and Albert Einsteinconsidered God to be essentially the sum total of the physical laws which describe the universe. I do not know of any compelling evidence for anthropomorphic patriarchs controlling human destiny from some hidden celestial vantage point, but it would be madness to deny the existence of physical laws."-Carl Sagan
"Show me where Christ said "Love thy fellow man, except for the gay ones." Gay people, too, are made in my God's image. I would never worship a homophobic God." -Desmond Tutu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Peepul, posted 04-13-2010 6:58 AM Peepul has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 19 of 47 (555349)
04-13-2010 8:37 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Taz
04-12-2010 8:50 PM


Dawkins to Arrest Pope....well no...
What actually seems to have happened was that Dawkins was speaking with Hitchens. Hitchens suggested a legal challenge. Dawkins thought he might know someone who could help but couldn't remember how to contact them. Hitchens found another person to help. A journalist asked Dawkins about it and Dawkins responded that he supported the initiative. Source
Therefore - OMG - DAWKINS IS GOING TO TOTALLY BREAK THROUGH SECURITY PERIMETERS AND HANDCUFFS THE P0PE!!11 LOLWTFPWND!
Just another example of left wing media bias.
quote:
Needless to say, I did NOT say "I will arrest Pope Benedict XVI" or anything so personally grandiloquent...
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: Page not found | Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science
And the lawyer's position?
quote:
In the US, 11,750 allegations of child sex abuse have so far featured in actions settled by archdioceses — in Los Angeles for $660m and in Boston for $100m. But some dioceses have gone into bankruptcy and some claimants want higher level accountability — two reasons to sue the pope in person. In 2005 a test case in Texas failed because the Vatican sought and obtained the intercession of President Bush, who agreed to claim sovereign (ie head of state) immunity on the pope's behalf. Bush lawyer John B Bellinger III certified that Pope Benedict the XVI was immune from suit "as the head of a foreign state".
Bellinger is now notorious for his defence of Bush administration torture policies. 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 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: Iran could make Qom a state overnight, or the UK could launch Canterbury on to the international stage. 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 UK maintains an apostolic mission.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Taz, posted 04-12-2010 8:50 PM Taz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by hooah212002, posted 04-13-2010 9:34 AM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 802 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 20 of 47 (555367)
04-13-2010 9:34 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Modulous
04-13-2010 8:37 AM


Re: Dawkins to Arrest Pope....well no...
Just another example of left wing media bias.
How is this an example of left wing bias?

"Some people think God is an outsized, light-skinned male with a long white beard, sitting on a throne somewhere up there in the sky, busily tallying the fall of every sparrow. Othersfor example Baruch Spinoza and Albert Einsteinconsidered God to be essentially the sum total of the physical laws which describe the universe. I do not know of any compelling evidence for anthropomorphic patriarchs controlling human destiny from some hidden celestial vantage point, but it would be madness to deny the existence of physical laws."-Carl Sagan
"Show me where Christ said "Love thy fellow man, except for the gay ones." Gay people, too, are made in my God's image. I would never worship a homophobic God." -Desmond Tutu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Modulous, posted 04-13-2010 8:37 AM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by PaulK, posted 04-13-2010 9:37 AM hooah212002 has seen this message but not replied
 Message 22 by nwr, posted 04-13-2010 9:42 AM hooah212002 has seen this message but not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 21 of 47 (555369)
04-13-2010 9:37 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by hooah212002
04-13-2010 9:34 AM


Re: Dawkins to Arrest Pope....well no...
Modulous is joking. The Sunday Times is a right-wing newspaper.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by hooah212002, posted 04-13-2010 9:34 AM hooah212002 has seen this message but not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 22 of 47 (555371)
04-13-2010 9:42 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by hooah212002
04-13-2010 9:34 AM


Re: Dawkins to Arrest Pope....well no...
hooah212002 writes:
How is this an example of left wing bias?
It isn't.
I'm not sure whether Modulous actually meant that, or was saying it tongue in cheek.
It is, however, an example of the media bias toward sensationalism.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by hooah212002, posted 04-13-2010 9:34 AM hooah212002 has seen this message but not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


(1)
Message 23 of 47 (555401)
04-13-2010 12:56 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Peepul
04-13-2010 5:56 AM


It will alienate a lot of people, some of whom up to now have been his allies.
In a round-a-bout way this is exactly what Dawkins is trying to point out. Presumably, no one would be alienated by the idea that Joe Blow Off-The-Street should be arrested for covering up child abuse. If you then feel alienated because it is the Pope perhaps you should think about why you feel the Pope should get a free pass. Dawkins is all but daring people to defend the Pope for covering up child abuse.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Peepul, posted 04-13-2010 5:56 AM Peepul has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 47 (555472)
04-13-2010 7:43 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee
04-13-2010 5:47 AM


Effective or ineffective
It seems kind of unfair if scientists should not be allowed to exercise a democratic right to campaign on whatever issue they choose, just like anyone else; especially if it's decided that men who wear silly hats and believe in sky fairies should be allowed to run a worldwide systematic cover up of sexual abuse of little children.
I don't know anyone that would contend that Dawkins thoughts on the papacy's infatuation for pedophilia is wrong. It's a question of coverage versus content. Sure, he makes a damn good point... in this instance.
The problem is his tendency to equivocate. The priests did this, therefore, the Catholic Church is bad. The Catholic Church is Christian, which therefore makes Christianity bad. Christianity believes in God which makes God bad. People that believe in God are therefore bad.
He has every right to say whatever he wants to say, but Dawkins' singular greatest problem is that he has every appearance of a crusader. So why be surprised that he is caricatured as a crusader when he acts like one?
It's a question of getting one's point of view across productively or counter-productively.

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 04-13-2010 5:47 AM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by anglagard, posted 04-14-2010 2:26 AM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 28 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 04-14-2010 4:53 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 34 by Taq, posted 04-14-2010 12:39 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3101 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


(1)
Message 25 of 47 (555479)
04-13-2010 9:49 PM


Content hidden -- see edit reason. Admin Mod
Edited by AdminModulous, : The image host wasn't pleased with the hotlink so I have removed the image.

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 26 of 47 (555503)
04-14-2010 1:50 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Peepul
04-13-2010 5:26 AM


I think it's a very bad thing for Dawkins to do. It will show all Christians that he has become a crusader against religion in all its forms.
Yeah, it's all gonna come out now. Suddenly all those Christians are going to realize that the world's most prominent atheist is against religion.
This could prove disastrous. But I have a cunning plan. While you distract them, I'll lock the stable door.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Peepul, posted 04-13-2010 5:26 AM Peepul has not replied

  
anglagard
Member (Idle past 837 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


(2)
Message 27 of 47 (555509)
04-14-2010 2:26 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Hyroglyphx
04-13-2010 7:43 PM


A Determinative Question at the Very Root of Morality Itself
Hyroglyphx writes:
It's a question of getting one's point of view across productively or counter-productively.
My brother-in-law committed suicide by proxy (drank himself to death) because he was molested by Catholic priests as a teenager.
I have no more hope that the perpetrators or their allies be brought to justice than any other international criminal currently in power.
However, I am glad that because some of us have something called 'morality' be they atheists or theists or those less easily described, we are compelled to denounce this crime against humanity.
There is no excuse for such long lasting psychological damage to individuals, and there is no excuse for silence in the face of evil.
I completely suport the actions of Dawkins and Hitchens in this matter and my only question to them is "what can I do to help?"
Edited by anglagard, : Correct spelling of determinative in title

The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas - uncertainty, progress, change - into crimes.
Salman Rushdie
This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It’s us. Only us. - the character Rorschach in Watchmen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Hyroglyphx, posted 04-13-2010 7:43 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Hyroglyphx, posted 04-14-2010 7:07 AM anglagard has not replied

  
Jumped Up Chimpanzee
Member (Idle past 4942 days)
Posts: 572
From: UK
Joined: 10-22-2009


Message 28 of 47 (555537)
04-14-2010 4:53 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Hyroglyphx
04-13-2010 7:43 PM


Re: Effective or ineffective
The problem is his tendency to equivocate. The priests did this, therefore, the Catholic Church is bad. The Catholic Church is Christian, which therefore makes Christianity bad. Christianity believes in God which makes God bad. People that believe in God are therefore bad.
Where did you get the above idea? I don't think Dawkins has ever made the above argument, although many of his critics may have implied that he has to throw up yet another smokescreen.
Dawkins is quite clear in his writings that he is very strongly against people being indoctrinated with religious beliefs. He often expresses sympathy for those who have been led to believe in various religions and the emotional problems that has caused them. I have never heard him criticise a "regular" christian for holding a belief that they have been indoctrinated with, because he understands extremely well how easy it is to indoctrinate people, especially children. He admits he believed in god himself as a child.
His criticisms are against the system and the individuals responsible for the indoctrination, especially where he sees they are using it to gain power and influence over others.
It is clear from the many debates I have seen on this subject, that even many atheists feel uneasy about the idea of the pope being prosecuted. It's because we have pussy-footed around religion for far too long. There has to be a time when we break the spell. It will undoubtedly ruffle a lot of feathers, and may well cause a backlash of sorts, but in the long run I think it will only be a good thing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Hyroglyphx, posted 04-13-2010 7:43 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 29 of 47 (555556)
04-14-2010 7:07 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by anglagard
04-14-2010 2:26 AM


Re: A Determinative Question at the Very Root of Morality Itself
My brother-in-law committed suicide by proxy (drank himself to death) because he was molested by Catholic priests as a teenager.
Not to sound insensitive towards your family, but I suspect your brother-in-law drank himself to death because he was, above all things, an alcoholic. I was molested as a child too by a neighbor. If pedophilia automatically leads to overdose, I'd have been dead a long time ago.
I have no more hope that the perpetrators or their allies be brought to justice than any other international criminal currently in power.
As do I. I also hope they place them in general population too
I completely suport the actions of Dawkins and Hitchens in this matter and my only question to them is "what can I do to help?"
I agree with them that their stature and clout offer them an opportunity to have a voice with a lot of reach. But are they protesting pedophilia in general or priests who perform pedophilia? Because if it's the latter, then it is not nearly as much about the victims than it is another reason to wage war on religion. Isn't that the real motivation here? What they choose to protest against is what is suspect.
I have the same visceral reaction towards the Catholic Church as they do. I think the papacy manufactures problem like this by disallowing people to be priests unless they become celibate. In that way they have tied up heavy loads of burden to be foisted upon people unnecessarily. Even Paul said that it is better to marry than burn with passion.
I want to vomit when I see all the gold in the Vatican, when I see how it operates more like a corporation than a community, etc. But Dawkins takes it to another level where all religion is unilaterally attacked. In that way I think it tends to undermine his own goal because his intolerance towards religion, just for being a religion, seems to make him drink from the same pool of fanaticism.

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners." -- Charlton Heston

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by anglagard, posted 04-14-2010 2:26 AM anglagard has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Taz, posted 04-14-2010 8:33 AM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 31 by Granny Magda, posted 04-14-2010 10:21 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3292 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 30 of 47 (555567)
04-14-2010 8:33 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by Hyroglyphx
04-14-2010 7:07 AM


Re: A Determinative Question at the Very Root of Morality Itself
Hyro writes:
Not to sound insensitive towards your family, but I suspect your brother-in-law drank himself to death because he was, above all things, an alcoholic. I was molested as a child too by a neighbor. If pedophilia automatically leads to overdose, I'd have been dead a long time ago.
Different people react to different things differently. You kinda sound like a creationist when you said that. You can do a search and see for yourself. One of the most widely used "evidence" against evolution is that they don't believe it therefore it's not true.
The last time someone's brain got blown off with a gun and the brain and blood splattered all over us, the woman next to me was hysterical. Me? I calmly talked on the phone to instruct them where to go... we were out in the middle of no where. From my point of view, that woman should have remained calm. From her view, I should have been hysterical and screaming and crying.
But Dawkins takes it to another level where all religion is unilaterally attacked.
I keep hearing this sort of thing from you. From what I have read and heard from the guy, I don't think he's attacking religion at all. Or are you using the fallacy of the middle ground?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Hyroglyphx, posted 04-14-2010 7:07 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Hyroglyphx, posted 04-14-2010 1:19 PM Taz has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024