Richard Dawkins to citizen arrest the Pope

[SmellyTerror]

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??

Actually, when I said "Hitler did these things" I was, in fact, talking about Hitler.

I will try to be less subtle in future.

The word "socialist" alone = lefty. Nazi = national socialist workers party.

Ha ha HAAAA!!! And the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is democratic!

And you call me historically ignorant. Golden. Just golden.

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. When Hitler talks about God's will, he means HIS OWN will.

So when he said "I'm Catholic", he was in fact saying "I'm actually a crypto-atheist"? See, I can tar pretty much anyone that way. Stalin? He was Buddhist! Yeah, all that stuff about communism? What he REALLY meant by communism is Bhuddism. See? It all makes sense.

So when he said he was chosen by a higher power, what he meant was that he is a higher power to himself and chose himself to serve himself to carry out his own will on earth.

Complicated bloke.

From The Speeches of Adolf Hitler: April 1922-August 1939:

"My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was his fight against the Jewish poison. Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed his blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice. And as a man I have the duty to see to it that human society does not suffer the same catastrophic collapse as did the civilization of the ancient world some two thousand years ago — a civilization which was driven to its ruin through this same Jewish people."

Oh that wacky Hitler, getting his words all mixed up! What he ACTUALLY meant was....

So you can call him an atheist because he did bad stuff. You can point to anyone who does bad stuff and say "he must have been an atheist because he did bad stuff".

Then you can say that atheism is bad because it makes people do bad stuff. Look! All of those guys who did bad stuff were atheists.

Awesome circular argument.

There is not the slightest evidence that Hitler was an atheist. None. How this idiocy is repeated over and over is beyond me. How you can be so arrogant to say "Oh, I'VE got Mein Kampf on my bookshelf, and he's an atheist (and I'm terribly clever, don't you know)" when the book is chock full of god, is just staggering. However you want to argue that Hitler didn’t believe in god, Mein Kampf is the not the kind of evidence you use if you have the slightest idea what you’re talking about.

Ultimately we will never know what he actually believed. But we can see, very clearly, that he made every effort to look Christian. So maybe we can speculate that he was secretly an atheist. But those guys operating the ovens all thought they were working for a Christian.

The wild-ass assertion that Hitler was an atheist and Nazi Germany an atheist society is just that: bald-faced invention.

Must you accept everything he says in blind faith? That's what religious whackos do

I believe you were the one who went to Mein Kampf as a source...

 

[explod]

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

We need to go to basic ethics and each one needs to be qualified for a reason based on common sense and in line with current community standards. We do not need to back them with threats of hell or fairy tales. As far as writing a proper constitution I know of many masters of theology, and you do too, who are much better equipped than I to work out the fine print.

 

[spooly74]

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

same saga

Is there a case for him to be arrested, Tink, regardless of who wants to do it?

The facts are as clear as they are damning. From the documents, the priest fits exactly the model of arrested development I sketched out here. He seems to have been pressured by a bossy mother to become a priest, and was interested only in hanging out with children around the ages of 11 to 13 (the age of the boys he raped). He had no genuine impulse to ordination, but the church was so desperate for priests he was acceptable.

When confronted with the charges, the priest pleaded no contest to tying up and raping two pre-teen boys in 1978 in the rectory of Our Lady of the Rosary Church in Union City. There were, apparently, several more victims. There was no dispute as to his guilt. The priest, Stephen Kiesle, personally requested he be defrocked. His legacy is horrifying:.

....


Yet, this rapist was subsequently allowed back into the parish where he tied up and raped children seven years later as a volunteer youth minister. Even after his eventual defrocking, in 1987, he continued to work with children at the parish for another year.

Whose fault was this? In this case, it is absolutely clear that his remaining a priest was entirely the fault of the Vatican, and the person directly responsible for the delay in defrocking him was Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI. Kiesle himself requested he be defrocked. The local bishop desperately wanted him to be defrocked and petitioned Raztinger first in 1981 that it happen expeditiously. The bishop, knowing that what the hierarchy cared about was bad press, not the protection and welfare of children, argued that there would be more "scandal" if the priest were kept in ministry than if he were fired:

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/04/the-third-strike.html

Looks like the bishop was spot on.

opcorn:

 

[Atlas79]

We need to go to basic ethics and each one needs to be qualified for a reason based on common sense and in line with current community standards. We do not need to back them with threats of hell or fairy tales. As far as writing a proper constitution I know of many masters of theology, and you do too, who are much better equipped than I to work out the fine print.

Mate, you talked about laws that had to be changed because they were bible-influenced. Now you're being pretty vague when asked for specifics.

 

[explod]

Mate, you talked about laws that had to be changed because they were bible-influenced. Now you're being pretty vague when asked for specifics.

Nonsense, "Though shalt not kill" or "Covet they neighours wife" need to be in, laws do not need to be changed but the premise of a God behind them do. Man by nature tries to be good and with a proper education, freedom and the correct mentorship he will be. Most religeon does that now but falls down because they hang onto dogma dreamt up in antiquity, it is no longer relevant. In saying that I do not profess to know the answers, surely the clergy would be most willing to change towards relevance if the draconian leaderships bogged down in maintaining the antiquated would allow it.

 

[Atlas79]

Actually, when I said "Hitler did these things" I was, in fact, talking about Hitler.

I will try to be less subtle in future.


Ha ha HAAAA!!! And the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is democratic!

And you call me historically ignorant. Golden. Just golden.


So when he said "I'm Catholic", he was in fact saying "I'm actually a crypto-atheist"? See, I can tar pretty much anyone that way. Stalin? He was Buddhist! Yeah, all that stuff about communism? What he REALLY meant by communism is Bhuddism. See? It all makes sense.

Hillarious - so you will take the word of a genocidal dictator at face value?

You don't suppose he was, oh, maybe trying to fool people? Get legitimacy, get trust...?

You're talking about a man who marched millions of people to death in gas chambers. He told lots of those they were going to get hot showers. For, um, trust & legitmacy.

He wouldn't have the audacity to LIE, would he?

Sorry mate but if you want to throw stones at someone who has at least a rudimentary knowledge of a subject, when you don't, you're going to look silly.

Oh that wacky Hitler, getting his words all mixed up! What he ACTUALLY meant was....

So you can call him an atheist because he did bad stuff. You can point to anyone who does bad stuff and say "he must have been an atheist because he did bad stuff".

Then you can say that atheism is bad because it makes people do bad stuff. Look! All of those guys who did bad stuff were atheists.

Awesome circular argument.

What he actually meant was to deceive anyone who might be listening. You are talking about one of history's most notorious liars.

Maybe you have another transcript of Honest Adolf's speeches which reads:

"I am a murderous dictator who in a few short years shall transform your country into a hell you will barely recognize. My henchmen will kick down your doors in the dead of night, will take your neighbours off to camps, will exterminate millions of people, start an enormous world war..." etc etc etc?

Or would he... um... say... pretend to be a nice guy who had your best interests at heart, keep all that stuff quiet, and tell you whatever you wanted to hear to keep you from acting to prevent him? Eg, say he is a moral Christian man?

My earlier post - I think you missed it. The part where it said dictators USE religious language, imagery, suggestion, even intonations in speech, for that very purpose.

And your idea? Discredit, do away with, genuine religions which would PREVENT them from getting away with it.

 

[Atlas79]

Nonsense, "Though shalt not kill" or "Covet they neighours wife" need to be in, laws do not need to be changed but the premise of a God behind them do. Man by nature tries to be good and with a proper education, freedom and the correct mentorship he will be. Most religeon does that now but falls down because they hang onto dogma dreamt up in antiquity, it is no longer relevant. In saying that I do not profess to know the answers, surely the clergy would be most willing to change towards relevance if the draconian leaderships bogged down in maintaining the antiquated would allow it.

Okay so if the laws stayed the same but we added a bit that said, "by the way it's not cause god said so," you're cool with it?

If yes, the laws are the same though, so what's the diff? Why the urgency & upheaval?

I'd also suggest danger in calling for drastic change of details you're not familiar with, & letting "whoever" do the fine print. You know what they say, Devil's in the details

 

[Solly]

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

This may be a good place to start the review.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/236788/Code-of-Canon-Law-1983

Can anybody offer any suggestions ? !

 

[Atlas79]

I asked the guy hysterically shouting for change (in bolds) what changes specifically he meant.

His answer: "I dunno."

 

[SmellyTerror]

Hillarious - so you will take the word of a genocidal dictator at face value?

You don't suppose he was, oh, maybe trying to fool people? Get legitimacy, get trust...?

You're talking about a man who marched millions of people to death in gas chambers. He told lots of those they were going to get hot showers. For, um, trust & legitmacy.

He wouldn't have the audacity to LIE, would he?

Sorry mate but if you want to throw stones at someone who has at least a rudimentary knowledge of a subject, when you don't, you're going to look silly.

YOU used Mein Kampf as evidence that he was an atheist. YOU DID. Do you know who wrote Mein Kampf? I'll give you a hint: it wasn't Rommel.

C'mon, show us your rudimentary knowledge of the subject. Name that author you treated as a reliable source on the religious beleifs of Hitler. I'm sure it's on wikipedia somewhere.

Sorry, but I've got to quote you again:

Hitler denounced any religious faith at an early age. Have you read Mein Kampf? A copy sits on my shelf.

How in the name of the flying spaghetti monster does that match what you're saying now - or, indeed, REALITY? How is constantly praising the word of god "denouncing any religious faith"?

What he actually meant was to deceive anyone who might be listening. You are talking about one of history's most notorious liars.

Maybe you have another transcript of Honest Adolf's speeches which reads:

"I am a murderous dictator who in a few short years shall transform your country into a hell you will barely recognize. My henchmen will kick down your doors in the dead of night, will take your neighbours off to camps, will exterminate millions of people, start an enormous world war..." etc etc etc?

Or would he... um... say... pretend to be a nice guy who had your best interests at heart, keep all that stuff quiet, and tell you whatever you wanted to hear to keep you from acting to prevent him? Eg, say he is a moral Christian man?

My earlier post - I think you missed it. The part where it said dictators USE religious language, imagery, suggestion, even intonations in speech, for that very purpose.

And your idea? Discredit, do away with, genuine religions which would PREVENT them from getting away with it.

If everything a guy says is "I'm not an athiest", on what basis do you make the claim that he was? What is your evidence? He was bad so clearly he was lying about everything? I'll see if I can find a quote of Hitler saying the sky is blue so I can prove it isn't...

So you can conclude he was an atheist because he claimed not to be an athiest???

And you'd claim Stalin WAS an atheist (despite training as a Preist) because he did claim to be an atheist. You've got a long list of "atheists" - but didn't they generally claim to be atheists? Why are we taking the word of murderous dictators now? Weren't they all lying?

Fact is, most of the murderous dictators of history claimed to be religious because it helped solidify their power. Most of the murderous dictators in recent history claimed NOT to be religious because THAT helped them solidify their power. Whether or not they actually believed in god is pure speculation.

So you've got a list of recent ones who said they were atheists. The most blatant odd one out is Hitler, who repeatedly and clearly claimed to be religious, both in public and private. Yet he's the one most often brought up as an example of the evils of atheism.

You can't have it both ways. You can't say "oh these guys said they were atheists, so they were, but this guy said he was religious, so he wasn't".

 

[Atlas79]

SmellyTerror, I have nothing to add.

 

[SmellyTerror]

Only a scratch.


Just so we're clear, to sum up:

You: Hitler constantly denounced religion. He's an atheist. It's right there in Mein Kampf.

Me: Main Kampf praises god. Hitler praised god.

You: Oh, you're going to take a dictator's word for it, are you?

Me: Well didn't you just use a dictator's words to try to support your own position? (Even though you've got those words completely wrong).

You: ...I'm not listening.

Me: /engage smug mode

 

[gooner]

Arrested, for the crime of disagreeing with Dawkins. Watch this man's rants on youtube if you are sufficiently bored, you'll see a genuine fanatic at work.

Ask Dawkins the following:

Has the "primordal soup" been recreated in the lab? Yes or no.

Answer: no (if he's honest, a 50/50 proposition.)

Therefore atheism is also an act of faith. Peaceful mind-your-own-business atheism is fine. This ludicrous fascisistic "militant" atheism is serving a specific purpose its believers don't foresee. (The term is "useful idiots".)

Edit

Hmmm, I missed two pages of the thread and above seems to be well covered elsewhere

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.

Hitler was a catholic and tried to exterminate another religion - the jews, so not sure how you equate this with atheism. As for the other states you mention, their ideology was Communism not atheism. Atrociites by those countries were in the name of communism. Sure they repressed organised religion, as they oppressed independent trade unions and all dissent. Not because of atheism, but because of wanting total control. I am not aware of any murders done in the name of atheism.

But I know of millions done in the name of religion.

 

[Atlas79]

Sorry, your history is all messed up. If anyone else could be bothered correcting it be my guest, but the track record in this thread of people actually reading & paying an athiest's keen scientific eye to evidence presented, god forbid with an open mind, shows it's not worth my time.

 

[Calliope]

Sorry, your history is all messed up. If anyone else could be bothered correcting it be my guest, but the track record in this thread of people actually reading & paying an athiest's keen scientific eye to evidence presented, god forbid with an open mind, shows it's not worth my time.

You are right. You have nothing to add. And you have contributed nothing to the thread except red herrings. The thread is about Richard Dawkins and the Pope. One condones pederasty and one doesn't.

 

[explod]

Okay so if the laws stayed the same but we added a bit that said, "by the way it's not cause god said so," you're cool with it?

If yes, the laws are the same though, so what's the diff? Why the urgency & upheaval?

I'd also suggest danger in calling for drastic change of details you're not familiar with, & letting "whoever" do the fine print. You know what they say, Devil's in the details

Overdramatisation, just dcrop the fairy tales would be a great start. In other words stop telling children lies, the dogma is no better that Santa, the Easter Bunny or Fairy Tales. Why not read stories about nature, real butterflies and ad in fanitum.

 

[Ozymandias]

If the CEO of Coles knew some of his managers f*cked children and then he systemically sheltered these criminals and allowed them continued access to children in his stores, wouldn't he be held responsible?

...

Seems pretty straightforward, charge the criminals, charge those responsible for sheltering them and allowing them continued access to children to f*ck. The law is one of those:
, lets enforce it.

No conspiracy theory excuses hold water.

Timmy hit the original topic on the head pages ago, but the conversation goes on in various tangents. The point that the human rights lawyers are trying to make by mounting a case against the Pope is that while everyone has a right to practice whatever religion they choose, no one should have any special treatment because of that belief, never mind immunity from prosecution.

I'm not going to act as judge and jury in the case of the Pope, but any reasonable person would agree that there is enough evidence available to prompt a criminal investigation into whether he covered up abuse. But none has been forthcoming, despite these abuses and the cover ups taking place in numerous different countries!

It doesn't matter what you believe, or what position you hold in any organisation, religious or otherwise, no one should have that kind of protection. In practice, in the western world, religious leaders are the only ones who do. It's not right.

 

[gooner]

I worked for a large Australian bank. Whilst I was there, I am aware of one person fired for showing their boxer shorts down the pub after work and one fired for having their team christmas lunch at a lap dancing joint.

But somehow, the Catholic Church thinks that a priest who rapes children should not be dismissed.

Seriously, read the above again and think about it.

 

[So_Cynical]

Sorry, your history is all messed up. If anyone else could be bothered correcting it be my guest, but the track record in this thread of people actually reading & paying an athiest's keen scientific eye to evidence presented, god forbid with an open mind, shows it's not worth my time.

Atheism cant seriously be attacked....just the words "militant & atheist" used one after the other is laughable, we atheists have nothing to prove, and this rubbish about Atheism being a faith and or requiring faith is just nuts...its bizarre how believers feel so threatened by people who don't believe in gods etc.

I remember seeing a documentary a while ago on a Air France hijacking...the Muslim terrorists, hijackers decided that they needed to kill some passengers to make a point and chose the 3 atheists on board to be victims, these nuts felt more respect and compassion, and had more in common with other believers...the atheists they had nothing in common with.

 

[Ruby]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iyLxfZwofNE

Watch. Then we'll talk.

Atlas, I've watched, so let's talk.

the video you referred me to is an islamic fundamentalist propaganda video. I fail to see the connection between that and Richard Dawkins, the pope, a paedaphoile priest who was protected by the pope, and the contents of my post. The sort of thing presented in that video is exactly what Richard Dawkins (as well as all other good people atheist or religious) abhors. Can you explain please?

So I will ask you again...do you condone the fact that the pope protected a paedophile priest? If you don't then you have no argument with this thread. If you do then say so. You either approve of the vatican cover-up or you don't.

Your arguments are circular and self-defeating, and you clearly know nothing of history! I also doubt you have read any of Dawkins' books.

Hitler was brought up a catholic and remained one all his life. His twisted version of christianity led him to believe he had a god given right to rid the world of jews. He thought it was his christian duty!!!!!

Hitler was very definitely NOT a "lefty". He was about as right wing as it is possible to be! Do you know the difference between left and right wing?

You are getting religion confused with politics. Totalitarian states are not always devoid of religious beliefs

For some reason which I fail to understand you have equated atheism with evil and christianity with all that is good. You seem to have trouble accepting that there are fine and upstanding atheists as well as evil people who call themselves christians

Just what is it you are objecting to? You have yet to make a valid point