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: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Richard Dawkins vs The Pope
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 1 of 47 (555256)
04-12-2010 8:50 PM


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:
There’s one thing I love about prominent soap-box steppers like Richard Dawkins. It’s that they’re very subtle and eloquent with their desires to change the status quo, never once going over the edge for the sake of theatricswhat’s that? He’s calling to arrest the Pope? Well, that’s dandy.
With the recent revelations of the Pope being fallible — and kinda a douchebag — it was only a matter of time before the whining started. But he’s the Pope. It’s kinda a given he’s done some messed up things to secure his position. I personally assume every Pope has killed a man with his bare hands. It’s a good guideline to go by.
I’ve talked to a few Richard Dawkins supporters (read: been lectured), and despite the fact that condescension seems to be built into his writing like power windows, he does often have valid points. Those are often overlooked and masked behind the straining vitriol, but the man has valid points. But calling for the Pope to be arrested over other contemporary very dangerous war criminals is just an easy way to get publicity. Which he shouldn’t be interested in getting. Because he’s very secure in his beliefs and his lifestyle.
Richard Dawkins can’t be dumb enough to think that a campaign to arrest the Pope will actually work. But he can be smart enough to be perpetually trying to pull troll-like publicity stunts to try to sell more books. So kudos to you, crafty Dawkins. Personally, I think the guy who has the keys to the mysteries of the universe wouldn’t dress himself like the best stereotype of a British professor the world could offer.
I just got back. Had to post this for you guys. Anyone else think this is funny?

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by hooah212002, posted 04-12-2010 10:11 PM Taz has replied
 Message 10 by Peepul, posted 04-13-2010 5:26 AM Taz has not replied
 Message 19 by Modulous, posted 04-13-2010 8:37 AM Taz has not replied
 Message 47 by bluegenes, posted 04-17-2010 6:24 PM Taz has not replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 801 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 2 of 47 (555264)
04-12-2010 10:11 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Taz
04-12-2010 8:50 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Taz, posted 04-12-2010 8:50 PM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Taz, posted 04-13-2010 12:21 AM hooah212002 has seen this message but not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 3 of 47 (555287)
04-13-2010 12:21 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by hooah212002
04-12-2010 10:11 PM


hooah writes:
Even funnier is how they are trying to shift the blame onto homosexuals.
Yup.
Error 404 (Not Found)!!1
quote:
Pope's No. 2: Pedophilia linked to homosexuality
By BRAD HAYNES (AP) — 5 hours ago
SANTIAGO, Chile The Vatican's second-highest authority says the sex scandals haunting the Roman Catholic Church are linked to homosexuality and not celibacy among priests.
Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, the Vatican's secretary of state, made the comments during a news conference Monday in Chile, where one of the church's highest-profile pedophile cases involves a priest having sex with young girls.
"Many psychologists and psychiatrists have demonstrated that there is no relation between celibacy and pedophilia. But many others have demonstrated, I have been told recently, that there is a relation between homosexuality and pedophilia. That is true," said Bertone. "That is the problem."
His comments drew angry reactions from Chile's gay rights advocates.
"Neither Bertone nor the Vatican has the moral authority to give lessons on sexuality," said Rolando Jimenez, president of the Movement for Homosexual Integration and Liberation in Chile.
Jimenez also said no reputable study exists to support the cardinal's claims.
"This is a perverse strategy by the Vatican to shirk its own ethical and legal responsibility by making a spurious and disgusting connection," he said.
At least one of the highest-profile pedophiles in the Chilean church victimized young girls, including a teenager who became pregnant.
At the time, the archbishop of the capital, Santiago, received multiple complaints about Father Jose Andres Aguirre from families concerned for their daughters. But the priest known to his parishioners as Father Tato continued serving at a number of Catholic girls schools in the city.
Later the church sent Aguirre out of Chile twice amid abuse allegations. He was eventually sentenced to 12 years in prison for abusing 10 teenage girls.
One of the girls, identified as Paula, said that she and the priest started to have sex when she was 16 and that it lasted until she was 20.
She told the Chilean newspaper La Nacion: "I thought it wasn't that bad to have sex with him because when I told priests about it at confession they just told me to pray and that was it. They knew, and some of them guessed that it was Father Tato. But everyone looked the other way. No one corrected or helped me."
She said one of the priests she confessed to about her sex with Aguirre was Bishop Francisco Jose Cox, who himself was facing allegations of pedophilia.
So you see, it didn't really matter that those priests raped the girls. They were actually homosexuals, so no harm's done

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by hooah212002, posted 04-12-2010 10:11 PM hooah212002 has seen this message but not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 4 of 47 (555289)
04-13-2010 1:11 AM


Diligo Liberi
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!

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by dwise1, posted 04-13-2010 1:20 AM AZPaul3 has replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 5 of 47 (555291)
04-13-2010 1:20 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by AZPaul3
04-13-2010 1:11 AM


Re: Diligo Liberi
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by AZPaul3, posted 04-13-2010 1:11 AM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by AZPaul3, posted 04-13-2010 1:45 AM dwise1 has replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 6 of 47 (555294)
04-13-2010 1:45 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by dwise1
04-13-2010 1:20 AM


Re: Diligo Liberi
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by dwise1, posted 04-13-2010 1:20 AM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by dwise1, posted 04-13-2010 2:22 AM AZPaul3 has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 7 of 47 (555298)
04-13-2010 2:22 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by AZPaul3
04-13-2010 1:45 AM


Re: Diligo Liberi
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, FWIW
One 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")
PPS
In 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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by AZPaul3, posted 04-13-2010 1:45 AM AZPaul3 has not replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 801 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 8 of 47 (555305)
04-13-2010 3:28 AM


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Flyer75, posted 04-13-2010 4:17 AM hooah212002 has replied

  
Flyer75
Member (Idle past 2423 days)
Posts: 242
From: Dayton, OH
Joined: 02-15-2010


Message 9 of 47 (555312)
04-13-2010 4:17 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by hooah212002
04-13-2010 3:28 AM


A history of crime
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by hooah212002, posted 04-13-2010 3:28 AM hooah212002 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by hooah212002, posted 04-13-2010 8:18 AM Flyer75 has not replied

  
Peepul
Member (Idle past 5018 days)
Posts: 206
Joined: 03-13-2009


(1)
Message 10 of 47 (555323)
04-13-2010 5:26 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Taz
04-12-2010 8:50 PM


quote:
I just got back. Had to post this for you guys. Anyone else think this is funny?
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.

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 11 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 04-13-2010 5:47 AM Peepul has replied
 Message 13 by Wounded King, posted 04-13-2010 5:57 AM Peepul has not replied
 Message 26 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-14-2010 1:50 AM Peepul has not replied

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


Message 11 of 47 (555325)
04-13-2010 5:47 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. 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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Peepul, posted 04-13-2010 5:26 AM Peepul has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Peepul, posted 04-13-2010 5:56 AM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has replied
 Message 24 by Hyroglyphx, posted 04-13-2010 7:43 PM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has replied

  
Peepul
Member (Idle past 5018 days)
Posts: 206
Joined: 03-13-2009


(1)
Message 12 of 47 (555326)
04-13-2010 5:56 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee
04-13-2010 5:47 AM


quote:
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?
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.

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 14 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 04-13-2010 6:49 AM Peepul has replied
 Message 23 by Taq, posted 04-13-2010 12:56 PM Peepul has not replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 13 of 47 (555327)
04-13-2010 5:57 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Peepul
04-13-2010 5:26 AM


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

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

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


Message 14 of 47 (555331)
04-13-2010 6:49 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Peepul
04-13-2010 5:56 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Peepul, posted 04-13-2010 5:56 AM Peepul has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Peepul, posted 04-13-2010 6:58 AM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has replied

  
Peepul
Member (Idle past 5018 days)
Posts: 206
Joined: 03-13-2009


(1)
Message 15 of 47 (555333)
04-13-2010 6:58 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee
04-13-2010 6:49 AM


quote:
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.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 04-13-2010 6:49 AM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 04-13-2010 7:49 AM Peepul has not replied
 Message 18 by hooah212002, posted 04-13-2010 8:20 AM Peepul 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