Arrest the Pope!

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
221

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

Yeah well yes, religious teachings are an attempt to indoctrinate the masses- I just doubt that that is necessarily always a bad thing.

The Catholic church for example has hundreds of years of experience under her belt when it comes to pondering moral questions whereas you basically start from scratch.

That is not even a contest and a little child fucking wont change that. Also, I would like to know where their moral teachings encourage child abuse- The very fact that they are accused of hypocrisy shows that they do not live according to their teachings-

[/quote]

…and you call yourself a natural law libertarian? Based on the church’s trackrecord i wouldn’t touch their suggestions with a ten-foot pole, and it’s not their moral teachings that encourage child abuse, it’s creeps like Ratzinger who do by not cracking down on pedo’s and surpressing evidence…[/quote]

Well the natural law doctrine is very Christian, just read Locke.

As for a flawed instituition, what does that have to do with their moral philosophy? It seems to me you condemn them because they fail to live upt to it, not because you disagree with them.

[/quote]

…perhaps you partly right. If you act like, and demand your followers to follow your lead, as if you are a moral authority based on religious grounds, but fail miserably at it, you lose the right to have any say in the matter. It also casts aspersions on the sincerity, and even validity, of their moral teachings…

…it re-inforces the image of an institution that’s not “in it” for the good of humankind, but to maintain a powerbase with all the perks that come with such a huge base. It surprises me that you, who rails against big government all the time, does not seem to object to a moloch like the catholic church…
[/quote]

Ya, that is because you do not get why I am against big government.

Of course they are all snake oil salesmen, priests as well as politicians, but I prefer snake oil salesmen without guns.

I can not stop people from believing all kinds of crazy stuff, as long as they do not force their beliefs on me I am fine with that.

222

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]O.G. Readmore wrote:
Religion is not needed for people to have a common moral framework: Secular ethics - Wikipedia

[/quote]
Secular ethics are johnny-come-latelys.[/quote]

I think they even have a video out!

223

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
…why are people defending him [the Pope] and the catholic church? [/quote]

Umm, who here has done that so far?[/quote]

you…

224

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

…perhaps you partly right. If you act like, and demand your followers to follow your lead, as if you are a moral authority based on religious grounds, but fail miserably at it, you lose the right to have any say in the matter. It also casts aspersions on the sincerity, and even validity, of their moral teachings…

…it re-inforces the image of an institution that’s not “in it” for the good of humankind, but to maintain a powerbase with all the perks that come with such a huge base. It surprises me that you, who rails against big government all the time, does not seem to object to a moloch like the catholic church…
[/quote]

Ya, that is because you do not get why I am against big government.

Of course they are all snake oil salesmen, priests as well as politicians, but I prefer snake oil salesmen without guns.

I can not stop people from believing all kinds of crazy stuff, as long as they do not force their beliefs on me I am fine with that.

[/quote]

…no you’re right, religion, and especially the catholic church, has never been known to force their beliefsystem on people…

225

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

…perhaps you partly right. If you act like, and demand your followers to follow your lead, as if you are a moral authority based on religious grounds, but fail miserably at it, you lose the right to have any say in the matter. It also casts aspersions on the sincerity, and even validity, of their moral teachings…

…it re-inforces the image of an institution that’s not “in it” for the good of humankind, but to maintain a powerbase with all the perks that come with such a huge base. It surprises me that you, who rails against big government all the time, does not seem to object to a moloch like the catholic church…
[/quote]

Ya, that is because you do not get why I am against big government.

Of course they are all snake oil salesmen, priests as well as politicians, but I prefer snake oil salesmen without guns.

I can not stop people from believing all kinds of crazy stuff, as long as they do not force their beliefs on me I am fine with that.

[/quote]

…no you’re right, religion, and especially the catholic church, has never been known to force their beliefsystem on people…
[/quote]

But they dont do that now.

Why fight yesterdays battles?

226

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]John S. wrote:
No one is arresting the pope.[/quote]

But Mak would give himself a facial or two if it ever happened. He wouldn’t wipe it off for months.[/quote]

I would. The idea of someone who aids child molesters going to jail gets me off.[/quote]

I’m convinced it has a lot more to do with your hatred of religion especially Christianity than your hatred of child molesters. I do however think your hatred of child molesters is sincere. I also think it is a righteous hatred.

Having said that how do you reconcile your hatred of Christianity and religion in general with a sense of righteousness? How does one have a moral compass as you obviously do and yet eschew the foundation of morality?

As an atheist and evolutionist how is the morality of one animal (you or I) transcend the morality of another animal (the guy down the street who feels differently than you and I)?

How does all this work in your mind?

Where is your foundation? Why is it superior (to you) to that of the other guy, e.g., the pedophile and his foundation of morality?

These are all serious questions. No baiting. No sarcasm. No derision.[/quote]

You can accept the wisdom of the principles without believing in the magical (you would say divine) aspects.

It feels bad to make other people feel bad. Following the 10 commandments and the golden rule is a good way to not make others feel bad.

227

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

…no you’re right, religion, and especially the catholic church, has never been known to force their beliefsystem on people…
[/quote]

But they dont do that now.

Why fight yesterdays battles?

[/quote]

…because they’re relevant, and the key to understanding the current situation, and how to avoid them in the future…

228

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]AceRock wrote:

…It seems obvious to me that to harm another being is inherently wrong…[/quote]

Where does this inherency come from?[/quote]

Thousands if not millions of years of biologically ingrained and culturally refined instincts and principals.

I know that doesn’t explicitly answer the question, but try molesting a she-bear’s cub and see how different we are from animals. Whatever that bear did to you I’d do the same if you touched my niece (I don’t have kids).

This just occured to me. In some ways its very practical. When you penetrate a small receptacle you do physical damage. You create fissures and tears that are prone to infection. You are threatening my bloodline and I can’t have that. Some say this is the same historical reason for condemning promiscuity (perhaps made obsolete by modern medicine). Women getting UTI’s from sex would drop right off back in the day.

Not you obviously, a hypothetical pedophile ‘you’

229

[quote]ephrem wrote:
…taking the bible, which is supposed to be the innerant word of god, as your moral compass may not be the wisest choice…[/quote]

But who is to say they didn’t need killing?

230

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]AceRock wrote:
Most likely where the dictionary got most of its terms: society. The collective agreement.

What’s your definition? And how does raping a child, not just pedophilia (subtle, disgusting difference: the former is always forced and unwanted, while the latter [as in Greece] can be consensual) fit into that? I’m seriously interested, no bullshit.
[/quote]

Wait just a dadburned minute here. So pedophilia is okay, but raping a child is not? Do I have that right?

You and I must be using two different dictionaries.[/quote]

Usually this supposed “pedophilia” in ancient Greece and Rome usually involved older teenagers and as such, would not make it pedophilia.

231

Pederasty in ancient Greece was quite different from pedophillia, it was a kind of initiation into society.

234

[quote]tom63 wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
…taking the bible, which is supposed to be the innerant word of god, as your moral compass may not be the wisest choice…[/quote]

But who is to say they didn’t need killing?[/quote]

…who’s they?

236

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

…perhaps you partly right. If you act like, and demand your followers to follow your lead, as if you are a moral authority based on religious grounds, but fail miserably at it, you lose the right to have any say in the matter. It also casts aspersions on the sincerity, and even validity, of their moral teachings…
[/quote]

Which is exactly why one must ultimately look to God and not the religion and/or religious leaders as the final moral authority. Man is perfectly capable of miserable failure, as you said.[/quote]

…belief in god does not seem to be a guarantee for succesful moral living, though. So i’d rather go on “gut feeling” and be moderately succesful than go by god and fail [miserably]…

237

[quote]Makavali wrote:
Update: Needless to say, I did NOT say “I will arrest Pope Benedict XVI” or anything so personally grandiloquent. You have to remember that The Sunday Times is a Murdoch newspaper, and that all newspapers follow the odd custom of entrusting headlines to a sub-editor, not the author of the article itself.

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 Horme, other than to refer him to my ‘Ratzinger is the Perfect Pope’ article here: http://richarddawkins.net/articles/5341

Here is what really happened. Christopher Hitchens first proposed the legal challenge idea to me on March 14th. I responded enthusiastically, and suggested the name of a high profile human rights lawyer whom I know. I had lost her address, however, and set about tracking her down. Meanwhile, Christopher made the brilliant suggestion of Geoffrey Robertson. He approached him, and Mr Robertson’s subsequent ‘Put the Pope in the Dock’ article in The Guardian shows him to be ideal:
http://richarddawkins.net/articles/5366
The case is obviously in good hands, with him and Mark Stephens. I am especially intrigued by the proposed challenge to the legality of the Vatican as a sovereign state whose head can claim diplomatic immunity.

Even if the Pope doesn’t end up in the dock, and even if the Vatican doesn’t cancel the visit, I am optimistic that we shall raise public consciousness to the point where the British government will find it very awkward indeed to go ahead with the Pope’s visit, let alone pay for it.

Richard[/quote]

Above is a statement from Dawkins.

And it seems to have been missed in all the post the followed.

238

[quote]Eli B wrote:
It feels bad to make other people feel bad. Following the 10 commandments and the golden rule is a good way to not make others feel bad.[/quote]

No.

239

[quote]pushharder wrote:
.[/quote]

Nice tiles! - and hah, yeah, gorgeous dog too push.

240

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
.[/quote]

Nice tiles - and yeah, bad ass dog too.[/quote]

More like this amirite.