Richard Dawkins to citizen arrest the Pope

[Atlas79]

Holy crap, just realized I could've been off making money during this time. Adios.

 

[bellenuit]

Do note he spends more time criticizing the religion resposible (with Judeoism) for creating civilization in which freedom & prosperity is possible. Atheist societies are not exaimed, and there are many on record: Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany, North Korea, Cuba, etc. Oh no wait - these places aren't atheist, they worship the state, the dear leader, the Man of Steel, the Fuhrer. That's what happens when you take out respectable religion - the state and a dictator replaces it. Happy accident? Now why do you suppose there is such a sustained attack on Christianity, then, if to remove it leads to a small elite grabbing total power? Coincidence, it must be.

Also, I have not heard much about this fascist speaking about a certain religion which advises its followers to strap bombs to themselves, and to their own children, to kill unbelievers. In PC land, it is not permissible to criticize that religion.

By attacking Christianity, this useful idiot is helping weaken a bastion of resistance to the religion which will, once it dominates, gladly cut the head off of atheists as well as any other opponent.

All "militant atheists" are doing similarly stupid and (in the long run) self destructive things. Guess they want their daughters in Bhurkas one day? They're going the right way about it.

Atlas, you are falling in to the trap that I mentioned in my last post of assigning the agenda of individual atheists to atheism itself. You are also crediting Judea-Christendom solely with creating civilisation in which freedom & prosperity is possible. I'm sure the Greeks would have something to say about that. And interestingly you would be seen as a "sort of atheist" (in their eyes) when it came to belief in their gods.

Now why do you suppose there is such a sustained attack on Christianity, then, if to remove it leads to a small elite grabbing total power?

That is a valid point and is certainly the motivation of many of the crack pot dictators you mentioned, at least some of whom happened to be atheists. They attacked the respective religious institutions in their domains because they saw them as an alternative power base in society and could prove an obstacle to the dictators efforts to obtain absolute control. But that was a political agenda, not a religious agenda or agenda of atheism (which as discussed before has none). There have been many other dictators who had a religious persuasions of some sort who have also done exactly the same. Because Stalin and Hitler were both atheists (though there is doubt about the latter) is as irrelevant to the argument as the fact that they both had moustaches. Many good people who opposed these dictators were also atheists (and had moustaches). The fact that politicians use or abuse religion is nothing new.

Also, I have not heard much about this fascist speaking about a certain religion which advises its followers to strap bombs to themselves, and to their own children, to kill unbelievers. In PC land, it is not permissible to criticize that religion.

I can only conclude from that remark you have very little exposure to Dawkins writings or lectures. Dawkins (Hitchens and Harris too) have constantly condemned the teachings of Islam and regard Christianity as not in the same league when it comes to the evil inherent in some religions.

 

[overhang]

For atheists who supposedly base beliefs on evidence, you guys don't read sources very objectively. No one here is defending child molestation. No one. Yet your repeated tactic is just to act as though any opposition is doing just that.

Earlier I linked to an article showing that the clergy don't abuse children at a higher rate than the general population. Which would hardly translate to "systematic". You have your atheist religious faith blinders on and missed it.

You have completely missed the point, it wouldn't matter if only 1 priest had sexually abused a child its that the priest represents the church and the church proceeded to cover this up. As Timmy summed up, any other organization would be held accountable and the RCC is no exception to this.

 

[SmellyTerror]

Have you read Mein Kampf? A copy sits on my shelf. Not much Christianity in it.
...
ALL the statist mass murdering dictators of the last century were atheist leftists.

Hitler was a leftist? Well bugger me.

I think you'll find that murdering dictators are against anything that represents a competing power base, and hence organised religion is an obvious target. Hence also unions, other political parties, popular policial figures (even allies), war heros, large minorities, journalists, etc. All of these are common targets of murderous dictators.

But don't let me challenge your shallow world view. That crazy leftist atheist Hitler, leftistly introducing facism and atheistically praising god.

You've got Mein Kampf? Goodo. Have a little flick to page 562 (depending on edition): "The folkish-minded man, in particular, has the sacred duty, each in his own denomination, of making people stop just talking superficially of God's will, and actually fulfill God's will, and not let God's word be desecrated. For God's will gave men their form, their essence and their abilities. Anyone who destroys His work is declaring war on the Lord's creation, the divine will.”

Or hell, page 214: "What we must fight for is to safeguard the existence and reproduction of our race and our people, the sustenance of our children and the purity of our blood, the freedom and independence of the fatherland, so that our people may mature for the fulfillment of the mission allotted it by the creator of the universe.”

...or page 436: "It may be that today gold has become the exclusive ruler of life, but the time will come when man will again bow down before a higher god.”

Bloody atheist. Turned me into a NEWT, he did.

Now you can argue that Hitler wasn't actually Christian, but he sure as hell showed no sign of being an athiest.

 

[Fishbulb]

These forums are full of people who know much more about everything than everyone else does.

Apparantly, even history books can lie.

Let's just stick to the facts. Fact is, the pope needs to be brought to justice if he was involved in the cover up of any child molesting activities.

Fact is, the offending "priests" should be de-frocked and face charges.

 

[Tink]

Hitler denounced any religious faith at an early age. Have you read Mein Kampf? A copy sits on my shelf. Not much Christianity in it.

His faith was statist socialism. He spoke of making a pagan "god of war" the official religion, but never got around to it. So he played the Reich's messiah himself.

That happens, when you eradicate the idea of a higher-than-man god.

I have heard Dawkins puke up that lie too, when squirming away from being confronted with the fact that ALL the statist mass murdering dictators of the last century were atheist leftists. Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, on and on, ALL of them.

They kill of religion so that there can be no higher law than their own. If people took "Thou shalt not kill" too seriously, it would not be much use to Kim Jong Il. No?

Good post Atlas

Ban all religious leaders out of your country and see what happens

 

[SmellyTerror]

Good post Atlas

Ban all religious leaders out of your country and see what happens

You read my post that ripped his post up, right?

Hitler didn't ban religious leaders. He actively courted the Catholic Church because they weren't a threat to his power base.

History. It's totally right there in books and stuff.

 

[explod]

Eradicate all of it...?

Okay, starting where, and how?

And why do you feel "ethics and truth" are the domain of atheists and never of religion? I have provided examples of atheist states, you haven't responded.

The atheists states you mention were extreme on dogma and of controlling the people as is religion.

It is all about control and a great book, the lifetime work of an historian/philosopher by the name of Frazer of Oxford scholarship, wrote the "Golden Bough" which put together the basics of ritual and religion back into antiquity makes clear the purpose of religion.

 

[Atlas79]

You have completely missed the point, it wouldn't matter if only 1 priest had sexually abused a child its that the priest represents the church and the church proceeded to cover this up. As Timmy summed up, any other organization would be held accountable and the RCC is no exception to this.

I am telling you it is a SOCIETAL problem, not something systemic to the catholic church, and the way SOCIETY handled it was how the church handled it. It was a hidden phenomenon until recent times. It was something little understood, little talked about.

I agree that coverups of individual criminal acts is a very wrong thing to do.

I disagree with individual criminal acts being used politically, ideologically, to deliberately smear religion in general, or the religious philosophy which in no way pardons such acts.

 

[GumbyLearner]

The atheists states you mention were extreme on dogma and of controlling the people as is religion.

It is all about control and a great book, the lifetime work of an historian/philosopher by the name of Frazer of Oxford scholarship, wrote the "Golden Bough" which put together the basics of ritual and religion back into antiquity makes clear the purpose of religion.

I think explod has made a good point here. Control and power are maintained either via extreme dogma and/or religion. And many have experienced much suffering under usually either or sometimes both.

As a primary school kid, I was frequently bashed black and blue and terrorized by a mass-observing Catholic Man. But I've never held that against the Catholic Church or the Pope. Some people are just assholes that's life.

 

[Tink]

You read my post that ripped his post up, right?

Hitler didn't ban religious leaders. He actively courted the Catholic Church because they weren't a threat to his power base.

History. It's totally right there in books and stuff.

Isnt that what Dawkins is trying to do - make the Pope cancel his trip or he wants to arrest him in Britain????

same saga

 

[Atlas79]

Atlas, you are falling in to the trap that I mentioned in my last post of assigning the agenda of individual atheists to atheism itself. You are also crediting Judea-Christendom solely with creating civilisation in which freedom & prosperity is possible. I'm sure the Greeks would have something to say about that. And interestingly you would be seen as a "sort of atheist" (in their eyes) when it came to belief in their gods.

That's precisely what atheists are doing to the church and religion in general. I am trying to point out how wrong that is to do by doing the same thing to atheists.

But it is the effect, not the intent, that matters. If Dawkins has the best of intentions in all the world (which he doesn't, in my view), the effect of what he does is to weaken one of the pillars of morality which keeps many hostile societal forces at bay. Business / government / religion. The three pillars. Remove any one, and you get tyranny. They balance the whole structure between them.

That is a valid point and is certainly the motivation of many of the crack pot dictators you mentioned, at least some of whom happened to be atheists. They attacked the respective religious institutions in their domains because they saw them as an alternative power base in society and could prove an obstacle to the dictators efforts to obtain absolute control. But that was a political agenda, not a religious agenda or agenda of atheism (which as discussed before has none). There have been many other dictators who had a religious persuasions of some sort who have also done exactly the same. Because Stalin and Hitler were both atheists (though there is doubt about the latter) is as irrelevant to the argument as the fact that they both had moustaches. Many good people who opposed these dictators were also atheists (and had moustaches). The fact that politicians use or abuse religion is nothing new.

Again, intention matters not. Effect: remove religion. People still worship - the state and dear leader. It's what happens. It's not an accident. A moral society would not accept immoral leaders.

I am not talking about a matter as trivial as a mustache, as pretty as you may find the analogy it's not relevant. We are talking belief systems, aka thought systems. Take away the idea that there is a higher law than the political ruler, and his rule becomes divine. Kim Jong Il is portrayed as a god. It's not an accident. All the propoganda posters from all the eras look very similar. It is deliberate.

 

[SmellyTerror]

Isnt that what Dawkins is trying to do - make the Pope cancel his trip or he wants to arrest him in Britain????

same saga

Me: Hitler courted the Catholic Church.

You: isn't that what Dawkins is trying to do?

Me: uh...... no. Not really.

"Courted" kinda means "sucked up to". As in "Hitler sucked up to the Catholic Church". For reference, trying to arrest someone is not sucking up to them.

Here, this might help: http://dictionary.reference.com/

 

[Tink]

Well we arent talking about Hitler, we are talking about the here and now.

Dawkins is trying to ban the Pope from Britain is he not??

 

[Atlas79]

Hitler was a leftist? Well bugger me.

I think you'll find that murdering dictators are against anything that represents a competing power base, and hence organised religion is an obvious target. Hence also unions, other political parties, popular policial figures (even allies), war heros, large minorities, journalists, etc. All of these are common targets of murderous dictators.

But don't let me challenge your shallow world view. That crazy leftist atheist Hitler, leftistly introducing facism and atheistically praising god.

Yes, orangized religion is an obvious target, except when it can be used as a tool for the state, like the Russian orthodox church. All those types in your list are not just targets, they are targets if they cannot prove themselves useful tools. Dictators use religious language, imagery. They use journalists, unions, other political parties, popular figures. All of that.

You slip in the abuse - why? What's shallow about my views? I could call you historically ignorant to an embarrassing degree except I'm too nice. Hitler was indeed a lefty. Want a lecture on the political spectrum? I'd give it but it'd piss you and everyone else off. The only person to Hitler's left was Stalin (the only real difference, Hitler allowed some ownership of property as long as you did what he said.) The word "socialist" alone = lefty. Nazi = national socialist workers party.

He was also indeed an atheist. Very, very much so.

You've got Mein Kampf? Goodo. Have a little flick to page 562 (depending on edition): "The folkish-minded man, in particular, has the sacred duty, each in his own denomination, of making people stop just talking superficially of God's will, and actually fulfill God's will, and not let God's word be desecrated. For God's will gave men their form, their essence and their abilities. Anyone who destroys His work is declaring war on the Lord's creation, the divine will.”

Or hell, page 214: "What we must fight for is to safeguard the existence and reproduction of our race and our people, the sustenance of our children and the purity of our blood, the freedom and independence of the fatherland, so that our people may mature for the fulfillment of the mission allotted it by the creator of the universe.”

...or page 436: "It may be that today gold has become the exclusive ruler of life, but the time will come when man will again bow down before a higher god.”

Bloody atheist. Turned me into a NEWT, he did.

Here is what you don't understand - Hitler means a different thing by "God" than you or I do. For many politicians, "God" is a useful rhetorical device, nothing more. (Hence, no credible religious leaders to hold them to account for the term's use = they have free reign to USE people's religious impulses for their own goals.)

When Hitler talks about God's will, he means HIS OWN will. Which of course is divine. For in the state he created, HE is god. Is he not? What scriptures, what commandments, did he answer to but his own? The word on his lips was at best meaningless. You cannot equate it with what a Christian refers to. Dawkins does because he knows he is very weak on the political report cards of your average genocidal dictator and it's the best he can do. Must you accept everything he says in blind faith? That's what religious whackos do

 

[explod]

People respond subconsciously to symbols, Hitler the swasticker, Religion the criciform. They are signifiers and begin with a significant event.

Dawkins if you read him with an open and objective mind has a good message. He is not down on all of the mechanisims of Christian values, he is down on the fairy tales as enumerated above in other posts.

His idea to have the Pope arrested is the creation of a significant event, gee it has us talking and thinking at a great pace. And only good will come from us thinking and looking outside the square; for ourselves as individuals

 

[Atlas79]

I think explod has made a good point here. Control and power are maintained either via extreme dogma and/or religion. And many have experienced much suffering under usually either or sometimes both.

As a primary school kid, I was frequently bashed black and blue and terrorized by a mass-observing Catholic Man. But I've never held that against the Catholic Church or the Pope. Some people are just assholes that's life.

Yes - people will always worship, it is part of us (even atheists have faith in their dogma, it's all through this thread.) Which is why the established dogma & religion of Christianity (evolved from more bloody times, to something now stable and benign), is FAR preferable to what would emerge from the vacuum if you removed it. I can only point again to examples of when it was removed, and what resulted. Usually genocide and a dictator. I'd prefer to live next to Ned Flanders, even if he is a pain in the ****.

 

[Solly]

Sometimes you've just got to feel for an old warrior on the front line, where the tread really does meet the road.

http://twitter.com/FatherBob/status/12017180690

 

[explod]

Sometimes you've just got to feel for an old warrior on the front line, where the tread really does meet the road.

Absolutely, witnessed him baptising a Grandson a few years ago and regard him as one of lifes gentlemen. And we need these backstops for major events in our lives and feel sure it could be made to work well without the need of the fairy tales and dogma.

Old Parish Priest I used to serve the alter with as a boy was a very similar type, a very good man adn a real helper of the downtrodden without favour.

But the pomp and laws based on fairy tales and repetitative stories designed to indoctrinate need to go. The bible is a fairy tale. We need to grow up.

 

[Atlas79]

Can you give an example or two, explod, of the kinds of laws you refer to which need to go so urgently?