|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Richard Dawkins vs The Pope | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3322 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
I was on my way back to Illinois from Texas recently when I heard the news about the Pope possibly getting arrested in the UK.
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=123141§ionid=351... http://www.manolith.com/...-dawkins-wants-to-arrest-the-pope
quote: I just got back. Had to post this for you guys. Anyone else think this is funny?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hooah212002 Member (Idle past 832 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: |
Yes. I ROFL'd at the Catholic Church raping little kids, then covering it up for decades, THEN the head of said church pulling strings for the cardinals so they could continue fucking little boys. Even funnier is how they are trying to shift the blame onto homosexuals.
Yes, I find it amusing that it takes Richard Dawkins to stand up to the cretin because no one else has the balls to. Maybe we should just let the priests keep fucking little kids? No one will say anything, right? "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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3322 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
hooah writes: Even funnier is how they are trying to shift the blame onto homosexuals. Yup. Error 404 (Not Found)!!1
quote:So you see, it didn't really matter that those priests raped the girls. They were actually homosexuals, so no harm's done
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8564 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
I'd be interested to know if Britain has an International Crime Law like Spain that allows them to try crimes not committed within their sovereign territory. If so, I'd say go for it. It is a crime in itself to conceal a crime and Cardinal Joe Ratzinger may certainly be guilty of that in two German and one American cases. If they could find a British case where he was directly involved in the dismissal of punishment and failure to notify local authorities this would be even better.
I don't hold out much hope for such a move on the UK's part, nor any other authorities part but, good god what a show that would be. Walking into the Old Bailey in his flowing white robes with his hands cuffed behind his back. Papal mugshots on the internet. How delicious!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
An article linked to through AOL (yeah, great source!) cited precedents such as Gen. Pinochet who was arrested and extradited for crimes committed in Chile and a former Israeli prime minister whose arrest was requested by Palestinians (she cancelled her visit to the UK). Furthermore, the Pope is not officially a head of state, which weakens any claim of immunity.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8564 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Furthermore, the Pope is not officially a head of state, which weakens any claim of immunity. This may be technically true but the sui generis personality recognized by most nations on the planet, as well as the UN itself, for the Holy See make such immunity a practical necessity to recognize and extend. Edited by AZPaul3, : clarification
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
FWIW, this article (no longer linked to for the moment) stated that the UN only recognizes him as "an observer". Seems the US had blocked the vote to make him a head of state -- somewhere recently I read that Vatican City was brought into existence by Mussolini (in 1929, as I just found out).
Of course, as I learned the hard way in the Boy Scouts religious discrimination cases, justice rarely prevails; politicians will do what they deem to be popular. Though, considering how unpopular Catholicism has traditionally been in the UK ... . PS, FWIWOne of the news items tonight was the Vatican coming out with a policy to crack down on sex abuse. Back when I was an adult leader in Boy Scouts (officially until 1991, at which time I fell victim to their religious discrimination thanks to their CompuServe spy -- they actually presented printouts of CompuServe postings as evidence in Federal Court -- and despite my minister, the only one whose word counted in these matters (according to officially published BSA policy) having testified in writing, twice, that I do indeed do my "duty to God" in accordance with my religion (Unitarian-Universalism) -- see why I have my attitude about justice?) , one of the really big and important training evolutions that an adult leader had to go through was the "Youth Protection Program" -- BTW, a damned idea, even though it was obviously instituted for dubious reasons. Though the more experienced leaders referred to it as "getting yourself youth-protected" (also an extremely wise point), meaning that there are so many stupid mistakes you could make to compromise yourself that this training made you aware of so that you would know to avoid them. As a Chinese co-worker once told me: "Do not tie your shoes in a watermelon patch" -- if you are walking through somebody else's watermelon patch and you bend down to tie your shoes, then it will appear that you are stealing one of his melons -- final translation: Do not do anything, no matter how innocent, that could ever possibly been seen as guilty. OK, the thing is that while BSA circa 1991 was being so "pro-active" in this regard, in reality they were just covering their butts. Their conduct before that program was to use their lawyers to protect the leaders being charged with child abuse. Their head attorney (whom I've had the personal displease of having seen twice, both in the Walsh and the Randall cases) even claimed that those abused boys "invited what was done to them", something that our "Youth Protection" training told us was a complete and utter lie. Furthermore, BSA had (as of 1991; I would assume that it's still true) refused to share their child-abuse information with any other agencies, such as Big Brothers. IOW, the Vatican's "new policy" is obviously nothing more than CYA ("cover your actions/assets/whatever-else-you-hold-near-and-personally-dear") PPSIn the program I had seen about the earlier BSA legal actions, the abusers told of how they were drawn back to the program in their desire to do right, to make up for what they had done wrong, only to fall to tempation yet again. Same thing as with the priests? Edited by dwise1, : PS
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hooah212002 Member (Idle past 832 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: |
I really don't understand how this is seen as anything less than criminal. How can we even accept any level of apologetics? These low lifes abused CHILDREN. Worse, they are in a position to mentor and console the children they are destroying. It is a sad state of affairs that there is any level of acceptance of the twisting of words solely because they are "men of god".
Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given. "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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Flyer75 Member (Idle past 2454 days) Posts: 242 From: Dayton, OH Joined: |
Hooah,
You do realize that this is nothing "new" for the Catholic church right? Throughout it's history it's committed atrocicities against all of humanity. It burned reformers at the stake for simply giving the Bible to the common people. It made the commoners pay what little money they had to the "church" for the forgiveness of sins. This latest scandal is par for the course for the "Holy" Church.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peepul Member (Idle past 5049 days) Posts: 206 Joined:
|
quote: No, not at all. 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. They will then be able to write him off as a scientist. I can't believe he would be so stupid. I think he has lost perspective here. Best to leave this to purely political campaigners such as Hitchens.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jumped Up Chimpanzee Member (Idle past 4973 days) Posts: 572 From: UK Joined: |
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. They will then be able to write him off as a scientist. Richard Dawkins is at least 70 now, I think, and formally retired as a scientist. Anyway, I see no reason at all why he shouldn't be free to campaign on whatever issues he likes, whether or not he is retired. What has it got to do with anything that he is or was a scientist? 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. It's fantastic that he has the courage to make this stand, and frankly shameful that the rest of us didn't even think to do so. We all have knowledge of this widespread atrocity, so we all have a responsibility to alert the legal authorities to the perpetrators and their crimes.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peepul Member (Idle past 5049 days) Posts: 206 Joined:
|
quote: Well of course he's free to do whatever he likes! But if one of his aims is to defend science and defeat creationism this won't help. It will alienate a lot of people, some of whom up to now have been his allies. But maybe defending evolution isn't his main aim anymore. The fact that he is/was a scientist gives him great credibility in the evolution debate. Much more than Hitchens say. If he acts in a way that makes him look like a student politician then he weakens that credibility.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
I don't think Richard Dawkins has ever had being a scientist as his foremost merit. What Dawkins has done very well is to popularise evolutionary biology in several books. It isn't as if he came up with all the theories that he describes in those books.
It wouldn't really matter if Dawkins had never been in a lab in his life or ever done any field work, his books are still well written and give a good insights into of a number of elements of evolutionary biology. I also don't see why a scientist should recuse themself from political activism, perhaps if more scientists took an active interest in politics we might see more attention paid to getting science funding back as an important issue that the political parties actually cared about, or at least get some indication that politicians don't just see science as convenient window dressing to drape over the policies they want to rubber stamp to keep Rupert Murdoch happy. TTFN, WK
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jumped Up Chimpanzee Member (Idle past 4973 days) Posts: 572 From: UK Joined: |
Well of course he's free to do whatever he likes! But if one of his aims is to defend science and defeat creationism this won't help. It will alienate a lot of people, some of whom up to now have been his allies. But maybe defending evolution isn't his main aim anymore. I still don't understand why any civilised law-abiding person would be against anyone else from taking a stand against a systematic cover up of child abuse. Who needs friends or allies who would be against taking a stand in a case such as this? This case of abuse is a prime example of exactly why Dawkins and others are so opposed to the power that irrational belief can wield in society. It would be perverse and hypocritical of Dawkins not to make this stand in this case.
The fact that he is/was a scientist gives him great credibility in the evolution debate. Much more than Hitchens say. If he acts in a way that makes him look like a student politician then he weakens that credibility. Again, I couldn't disagree more. I agree with Wounded King that if respected scientists campaign on a particular issue, that should lend credibility to the cause. I fail to see how a respected scientist campaigning on an issue could harm the cause. The implication of what you are saying is that someone who campaigns for bringing to justice perpetrators of a foul crime is bringing disrepute upon themselves and therefore any other cause they may support. I can't see how that makes any sense. If I was undecided about the Evolution/Creation debate, and I heard that the supporters of Evolution Theory were also campaigning against paedophiles, whereas supporters of Creation Theory were campaigning in support of protecting paedophiles, it would only make me think that the Evolutionists were more capable of thinking the right way. If it affected my opinion in the Evolution/Creation debate, it could only be in favour of Evolution.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peepul Member (Idle past 5049 days) Posts: 206 Joined:
|
quote: Ah - I understand your thinking. I'm coming at it from a different perspective. This is a terrible thing and those responsible for it must be brought to justice - we agree about that. 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. This perception will weaken his credibility as an advocate of evolution, in my view.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024