…and this is a 
Sanctimonious monsters
Category: Politics • Religion
Posted on: April 17, 2008 4:45 PM, by PZ Myers
Yesterday, two great pious leaders of the world met in Washington DC. President Bush has immense temporal power, leading one of the richest countries on the planet with the most potent military force. Pope Benedict is a spiritual leader to a billion people, with immense influence and the responsibility of a long religious legacy. What could they have talked about? Mostly, they seem to have patted each other on the back and congratulated each other on their commitment to superstition.
In remarks greeting the pope at the White House, Bush called the United States "a nation of prayer."
Bush was interrupted by applause as he said, "In a world where some treat life as something to be debased and discarded, we need your message that all human life is sacred and that each of us is willed."
Benedict responded by praising the role of religion in the United States.
"From the dawn of the republic, America's quest for freedom has been guided by the conviction that the principles governing political and social life are intimately linked to a moral order based on the dominion of God the creator," he said.
I am often told that religion is a source of morality. I've read the Bible myself; I can see that there were moral philosophers at work behind that book, that we have a tradition of law in the Old Testament, with a fellow named Jesus adding social justice and concern for the poor and weak in the New that are actually rather commendable. I also see a lot of myth and error and misplaced obsession with the supernatural that rational people are willing to set aside to focus on the core humanitarian message … or at least they do so in the best of circumstances.
Yet what I also see in modern religion is a re-prioritizing: the secular concerns that should matter, the egalitarian word of a religious tradition that valued the cohesion of the social fabric and demanded equal treatment for even the least of society is ignored, given a little lip service perhaps, but made subservient to the intangible theological nonsense of prayer, of an invisible god, of submission to dogma and hope in an unevidenced afterlife. It's a religion that has shifted its eyes from a task to be done here on earth to an unearthly vision of a magical unseen world run by an ethereal tyrant who must be placated.
Bush calls us a nation of prayer — a depressing label that makes us a country of delusions. Worse, he claims that we respect life as sacred, a lie straight from his lips. How can George Bush claim our country does not debase and discard human lives?
As you well informed blog readers all know by now, last week ABC broke an interesting little story. It was about how Condi Rice, Dick Cheney, Alberto Gonzales, Colin Powell, George Tenent, John Ashcroft and other Bush "Principals" all gathered in regular meetings in the White House to discuss and approve of the various torture methods being used against prisoners held by the United States in the War On Terror. ABC interviewed the president a couple of days later and asked him if he was aware of these meetings and he said he was not only aware of them, but that he'd approved of them. Moreover, he specifically said he had no regrets about what was done to Khalid Sheik Mohammed, who we know was tortured with simulated drowning — also known as "waterboarding" — which is considered by the entire civilized world to be torture.
The great pious Catholic Pope stands before this man, and what does he say? Does he mention that Jesus asked that we do to others as we would have them do to us? Does he remind him that they call their religious figurehead the "Prince of Peace", and that he asked us to turn the other cheek when we were struck, or that he asked that we protect the poor and weak? Does he point out that the central event in their shared faith was the torture and execution of their prophet and god, and that the New Testament isn't about emulating the heroic Romans?
No, of course not. An obscenely wealthy old man heading an organization that protects child abusers and advocates horrendous and ignorant social practices that harm the poor all around the world would look utterly hypocritical even trying to rebuke a war-monger and apologist for torture. So instead he stands there and tells him that they share common principles founded in fear of a nebulous god. Those are 'principles' I reject — they seem to be nothing but labile excuses for doing as you will to anyone who falls under your thumb.
There's an evil tableau for you: the callous torturer stands up with blood on his hands and a lie in his teeth, while the priest draped in gilt reassures him of his righteousness. How often has that scene played out in history, I wonder?
Our press seems to be more interested in promoting the pomp of a papal visit than actually addressing the vileness that this administration prosecutes; we'll see more of the pointless, self-promoting ceremonial nonsense of the mass in New York this weekend than we'll see addressing the unconscionable evil these great pious leaders condone. I won't be watching any of it. The sight of these two sanctimonious monsters makes me ill. How about you, Christians? These are your leaders, your paragons, your representatives of the power of your faith. Do you feel some slight tremor of shame that your values are on parade in an empty ritual in the foreground, and a brutal indifference to human life in the back?
Comments
Exactly! I just wish more people would see the irony behind the 'pro-life' people, since most of them are only 'pro-life' when it suits them. They still advocate the death penalty.
Posted by: Matt | April 17, 2008 4:51 PM
Touché. Tragically.
Posted by: Toby | April 17, 2008 4:52 PM
Couldn't they have done all this back-patting and Godding over the phone? This visit has seriously impacted my commute.
Posted by: kmarissa | April 17, 2008 4:58 PM
Wislawa Szymborska
1996 Nobel Prize for Literature
From "View with a Grain of Sand"
Translated from the Polish by
Stanislaw Baranczak and
Clare Cavanagh
In Praise of Feeling Bad About Yourself
The Buzzard never says it is to blame.
The panther wouldn't know what scruples mean.
When the piranha strikes, it feels no shame.
If snakes had hands, they'd claim their hands were clean.
A Jackal doesn't understand remorse.
Lions and lice don't waver in their course.
Why should they, when they know they're right?
Though hearts of killer whales may weigh a ton,
in every other way they're light.
On this third planet of the sun
among the signs of bestiality
a clear conscience is Number One.
Posted by: Rita Bennett | April 17, 2008 5:03 PM
A fine example of biblical morality (2 Samuel 12:11 NAB). For some reason, it doesn't seem to show up in many sunday sermons:
"Thus says the Lord: 'I will bring evil upon you out of your own house. I will take your wives [plural] while you live to see it, and will give them to your neighbor. He shall lie with your wives in broad daylight. You have done this deed in secret, but I will bring it about in the presence of all Israel, and with the sun looking down.'
Then David said to Nathan, "I have sinned against the Lord." Nathan answered David: "The Lord on his part has forgiven your sin: you shall not die. But since you have utterly spurned the Lord by this deed, the child born to you must surely die."
(This may be one of the sickest quotes of the Bible. God himself brings the completely innocent rape victims to the rapist. Who would do something so evil? And then he kills a child.)
And (Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT)
"If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her."
(What kind of lunatic would make a rape victim marry her attacker? Answer: God.)
Posted by: dave | April 17, 2008 5:05 PM
Right on. In a sane world, Bush would be tried and branded as a war criminal and Benedict would be treated, at best, like a nutjob. That society would make such a fuss about the two of them getting together for a damn mutual grooming session shows just how INsane the world really is.
Posted by: Steve T | April 17, 2008 5:05 PM
The great pious Ratzo seems to have made everyone forget the scandal of priests raping nuns and young girls in Africa. Now a Nigerian archbishop or something is talked about as a successor to the current criminal. Naturally, Nigeria is one of the countries where such crimes are rampant.
One nun's story.
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-73355746.html
" Until the rape, she had retained her virginity by "being very aggressive" with harassing priests. "I kept threatening them. I told them `I will expose you,'" she said.
Some nuns tolerate the harassment and even comply with demands for sex "because they don't know any better," Laura said. "A lot of them are ignorant. They enter the convent at a young age. Many come from very poor backgrounds. Their parents are illiterate and may not even have enough to eat." When a daughter from such a family enters religious life, "it raises your status. Families are very proud of it." Women stay despite problems, she believes, "because many have a better life in the convent than they would have at home."
"The nuns don't study theology," she said. "A lot of the priests have been to Rome to study, and when they come back, the women think they know everything, so whatever the priests tell them they believe. They believe them when they say it's OK to have sex. They think it's normal, and they become very defensive" if someone tells them it isn't right.
"Maybe these women will eventually realize they were used," she said. "But I am sure that for many it will take a long time."
Laura's refusal to go along with the priests' demands made her unpopular not only with priests but also with many nuns in her order, she said. The nuns were frightened by her active resistance because they were dependent on the priests, she said.
When Laura decided to leave her religious community, some of the nuns told her friends they weren't surprised because "she was very proud," meaning that she wasn't a good nun. Compliance, not resistance, was valued in a convent that was totally dependent on the clergy for everything: money, transportation and pastoral assignments.
"At one point I was very strong in insisting on better education for the nuns, and I was accused of being too ambitious," she said."
- You have to wonder just what these priests learned in Rome.
- With an easy search you can find old stories from the National Catholic Reporter which covered the scandal a few years ago.
Posted by: bernarda | April 17, 2008 5:06 PM
I'm sorry, kmarissa. Mine hasn't been too negatively affected so far. I guess Christians avoid the green line?
Posted by: Mike P | April 17, 2008 5:07 PM
MikeP, they flood I-66 something awful. Oh, for a Dulles extension!
Posted by: kmarissa | April 17, 2008 5:11 PM
I have watched the coverage of this event - it's hard not to when it's back-to-back on every channel - with a scowl on my face.
I see a very old, decrepit, primate with extraordinarily ridiculous garb along with a medieval version of a 10-gallon cowboy hat attended to and speaking as if he is some sort of ultra-being. It makes me want to rip off his costume and have him stand bare as a mortal man while he answers some really tough questions in plain view of everyone.
His psyche and world view are childishly abhorrent and frightening. What a freak.
Posted by: Alex | April 17, 2008 5:11 PM
This is called speaking truth to power. These emperors have no clothes, and when someone like PZ says it out loud, it gives me hope and courage.
Posted by: Mike Roselius | April 17, 2008 5:11 PM
I would apply this statement mostly in reference to many so-called fundamentalist christian religions. Others may disagree. It's a shame, too, because when Jesus began his church they were all about the disenfranchised. But of course that was because the wealthy already had their religion, and they weren't about to abandon that in favor of some new upstart.
Kinda like what we have today. The now-wealthy christists have their religion, and are very unlikely to adopt some new "upstart." And by upstart I mean rational atheism. Oh, OK, it's not really a religion, but work with me, here.
As you point out, we don't need a religion or the supernatural in order to be moral (which I read as "good people"). Wow. Goodness doesn't depend on religion. Sorta like the way life doesn't depend on a god.
Posted by: John | April 17, 2008 5:14 PM
it's a shame, you'd expect they could be putting this allegedly massive source of morality to good use.
Posted by: alex | April 17, 2008 5:19 PM
The remarks by Bush were astounding in their hypocrisy and contempt for the country. The smarmy, self-righteous tone in which they were delivered defies description, but easily induces nausea
Posted by: Mooser | April 17, 2008 5:23 PM
1 tableau, 2 tableaux -- pronounced the same way, though. Written and spoken French don't have the same grammar.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | April 17, 2008 5:27 PM
Aside from the moral issues that PZ raises, what about the cost? All of the security, the crowd control, all of the agencies involved in his visit. Just how much American tax dollars are being spent to receive this guy? Just so people of a religion that I don't belong to can have a visit from their head guy? I think the Catholic Church owes me some money.
Posted by: Bill | April 17, 2008 5:28 PM
There's an evil tableaux for you: the callous torturer stands up with blood on his hands and a lie in his teeth, while the priest draped in gilt reassures him of his righteousness. How often has that scene played out in history, I wonder?
Amazingly apt, succinct, and shiver-inducing.
Posted by: jfatz | April 17, 2008 5:32 PM
PZ-
As one of the Christians that you call out to in your article, I can only feel shame in what has been done in my name. Whether the war in Iraq has religious basis or not, the fact is that a "Christian" administration has perpetrated atrocities and war crimes, brutalized the poor while lining the pockets of the rich elite, and driven the economy into the ground while sanctimoniously trumpeting their own moral standing and authority. Please believe me, it's not just atheists that are disgusted by this, and to have the head of my own Church endorsing his leadership is like being stabbed in the heart.
Posted by: Claus | April 17, 2008 5:33 PM
Colbert on the meeting: "The leaders of the world's two great theocracies"
Posted by: natural cynic | April 17, 2008 5:37 PM
There are alternatives to Benedict XVI, but I'm afraid they're not as entertaining as the Flying Spaghetti Monster. David Bawden, however, who styles himself "Pope Michael I" comes close. [Link]
Posted by: Zeno | April 17, 2008 5:38 PM
Thank you PZ. I have read -- I will not listen or watch -- the sanctimonious idiot from the Vatican go on and on about how ashamed he is about the clergy rape of children. And then I hear him talk about the sad decline of the family in the US! Surely, at some point, cognitive dissonance sets in, doesn't it? These pious monsters, who think more of their sanctified beliefs that they do for real people, should really be shown up for what they are. And you have done your part. Thank you.
Posted by: Eric MacDonald | April 17, 2008 5:44 PM
#5, you forgot to mention that because David repented he was spared the indignity of seeing his wives raped. Oh, they were raped, all right. He just didn't have to watch. How's that for mercy?
Posted by: mikespeir | April 17, 2008 5:44 PM
#18
Those leaders stand because of their followers. They are but mere men, no more worthy of worship or praise than the common man.
Posted by: Alex | April 17, 2008 5:45 PM
Oh, stop this equivocating, PZ, and tell us how you *really* feel.
Hey, I'm using humour as an intellectual distancing tool -- the reality of those two sanctimonious bastards sharing the same room and NOT being smote by a just God renders me both nauseous and more convinced in my atheism.
Posted by: Hairhead | April 17, 2008 5:46 PM
I'm only a pseudo-Anglican, and thus the Pope does not represent me. As an Aussie, neither does Bush. I would not ever call myself a proper Christian but even so it makes me very angry to watch these two people pat each other on the back for their beliefs. Ugh.
Posted by: Elise | April 17, 2008 5:51 PM
I'm confident that as President, Rep. Tom Tancredo wouldn't give that Papal papist the time of day.
Posted by: Hipple, Rev. Paul T. | April 17, 2008 5:52 PM
Please stop saying "child abusers" when we should all say "child rapists". "abuse" is a euphemism.
The pope, by protecting child rapists, shows, as clear as day, that religion has no moral high ground.
Posted by: rsn | April 17, 2008 5:55 PM
The vapid mouthpiecing of the opinion of a Nazi pedophile is bad enough; putting him on a dais next to a mass murderer and traitor to his own nation is simply hideous.
I have a theory on the Popemobile. It's not there to protect the pontiff from assassination attempts (after all, he has the Invisible Hand of God for that); I think it's there to keep His "Holiness" from fondling children as he sashays past them.
Posted by: Warren | April 17, 2008 5:55 PM
A most excellent post, that just about perfectly expresses my own sentiments.
Posted by: notthedroids | April 17, 2008 5:55 PM
Well said, with even more than a speck of stated respect for the history of religion, something I rarely see from you.
But yes, exactly, the Pope, and by extension, the Vatican, have this tremendous power and ABSURD wealth (not that that stops them from railing against the divide between the poor and the rich, there's a warning sign of a disconnect with reality right there), they could be using it to do good deeds. Instead they go around complaining that we're not religious ENOUGH, and then further help to make the world a worse place by fighting against birth control in places with out of control overpopulation.
Go ahead, pope Ratzi, do something useful. Dare to make yourself relevant to the modern world and maybe you could make religion relevant as well.
For now you're just another old fossil, repeating the outdated dogma and further revealing your complete irrelevance to the modern world with your every action.
Posted by: Nomad | April 17, 2008 5:59 PM
#17 rsn
"The pope, by protecting child rapists, shows, as clear as day, that religion has no moral high ground."
I could argue that this assertion is not so clear. Depending on the age of Mary, the god the pope worships is himself a child rapist. Since dim-bulbs like the pope think that their deity defines morality, then he's being very moral.
Posted by: Alex | April 17, 2008 6:00 PM
Wrong, Nomad. We can learn from fossils.
Posted by: Brownian, OM | April 17, 2008 6:02 PM
#31 Correction. Should be directed to #27, not #17.
Posted by: Alex | April 17, 2008 6:03 PM
Hmmmm ....
http://www.cubaverdad.net/images/pope.jpg
Ten years ago.
Posted by: Hank Roberts | April 17, 2008 6:04 PM
Please make a note of it. It may come in handy the next time someone drops in here and criticizes PZ for his "mindless bashing" of religion.
Posted by: Kseniya | April 17, 2008 6:05 PM
Alex,
Just because you can argue that the church is consistetly favorly disposed towards child rapists doesn't make it right. :)
Posted by: rsn | April 17, 2008 6:06 PM
Thanks for the link Hank. Some things are timeless. Chuckle.
Posted by: Alex | April 17, 2008 6:06 PM
Well said PZ. I'm in total agreement with you on all of these salient points. I only wish my command of the language was as masterful as yours. Never in a couple thousand years would I have used labile in a sentence. In fact, if one dropped that word in conversation, I would assume they were speaking of a very interesting segment of the female anatomy.
In all seriousness though, it's unbelievable that two delusional assholes can have so much influence over the rest of the world. In fact, I'm willing to bet that they're as lucid about the truth of their fantasy bullshit as the rest of us. They just exercise their right over the majority because how else could they have so much power and influence over the masses? If this asshole pope Maladict was true to himself and accepted the inevitable bullshit that his religion is, then how else can he control the masses? It's all a power struggle, and it's hard for me to believe that anyone in such an elevated position (president, most of congress, etc.) can actually believe the garbage that comes spewing out of a 2000 year old amalgamated jewish fantasy of a masochistic megalomaniac supposedly allowing himself to be tortured to save his insignificant corner of the world from the freedom to shirk religion, and then find that this fantasy was usurped by a cult that eventually came to dominate the world, until another offshoot cult eventually reproduced so much faster that they will now soon declare fantasy dominance on the planet.
Even the greatest fiction authors in the world, colaborating for years, could not devise such a convoluted and demoralizing story.
Posted by: helioprogenus | April 17, 2008 6:08 PM
Excellent post with a minor comment. The 1 billion number is clearly an inflation as they count every man,woman, and child ever born in the church even if they are atheists or attend other denominations.
The real number is said to be 25-50% of the claim.
Posted by: JimC | April 17, 2008 6:09 PM
He must be wise. Just look at that preposterous hat.
Posted by: MikeM | April 17, 2008 6:09 PM
I haven't heard or read any of Benny the Rat's speeches this week (partly I'm too busy, partly because it may be bad for my digestion), but the coverage I have seen has him mourning the sex-abuse scandal -- and then blaming the problem partly on porn on TV and the internet.
What. A. Fucking. Evil. Hypocrite.
Posted by: Eamon Knight | April 17, 2008 6:10 PM
rsn.
Indeed.
I was attempting to point out how dogmatic thinking allows them to justify ANY behavior as 'moral'.
"These people's God has shown them by a million acts that he respects none of the Bible's statues. He breaks every one of them himself, adultery and all. ["Mark Twain and the Three R's, by Maxwell Geismar, p.124]
Cheers.
Posted by: Alex | April 17, 2008 6:11 PM
Did anyone see the front page of the NY Times the other day with the story of the pope and Bush talking about how precious life is and the story underneath was about the Bush administration arguing before the Supreme Court on the Constitutionality of lethal injections? Or was that the front page of The Onion?
Posted by: savagemickey | April 17, 2008 6:14 PM
Agree with all points except I wanted to point out that a lot of atheists praise Jesus for his concern for the poor and downtrodden etc. -- whilst ignoring the much older tradition in the Jewish bible of the prophets doing very much the same thing. It never changes the argument but still I've always found it curious why often these arguments skip over the much more extensive prophet literature and go straight to Jesus.
Posted by: Michael | April 17, 2008 6:22 PM
"...the secular concerns that should matter [why should they matter to people who believe in Christ? You've got the cart before the horse], the egalitarian word of a religious tradition that valued the cohesion of the social fabric [When? Where? How?] and demanded equal treatment for even the least of society [You mean like the unborn?] is ignored, given a little lip service perhaps [You call the entire corpus of modern Christian charity, from parish soup kitchens, adoption programs and third-world hunger relief to the endless praying done for your soul and others' 'lip service'?], but made subservient to the intangible theological nonsense of prayer, of an invisible god, of submission to dogma and hope in an unevidenced afterlife [But don't you have your dogmas, too? What could be more dogmatic than the assertion that man not made in God's image has any intrinsic worth?]. It's a religion that has shifted its eyes from a task to be done here on earth to an unearthly vision of a magical unseen world run by an ethereal tyrant who must be placated [The only modern religion that aims to placate an aetherial tyrant is Islam. Were you speaking this whole time of the Muslims, and I merely misunderstood?].
Questions:
(1) Why is the Pope directly responsible for the actions of priests, especially actions done previous to his pontificate? Should George Bush have to personally answer for the crimes of individual soldiers in Vietnam?
(2) Did you know that both the previous and current Popes have been opposed to the War in Iraq?
(3) Why is the Pope's meeting with Bush an endorsement of Bush? Did he actually endorse Bush personally?
Ceterum censeo Christum surrectum esse. Alleluia!
Posted by: Quaeror | April 17, 2008 6:25 PM
I just wish more people would see the irony behind the 'pro-life' people, since most of them are only 'pro-life' when it suits them.
I know it's been said before, but they are only "pro-life" for those that haven't been born yet or who are terminally ill. For those in-between, they are anti-life.
Posted by: Margaret | April 17, 2008 6:26 PM
SteveT:
Benedict, unfortunately, is most likely clinically sane. I hope so. He should really - at best - be tried at the Hague for genocide. If he were to be found guilty or not, I can't think of a better way to demonstrate how murderous his views on contraception and abortion are. Especially in those poorest countries most in need in contraceptives to reduce the incidence of HIV. George W. Bush should be implicated too.
Not that I get angry when I read about Ratzinger .
Posted by: Armchair Dissident | April 17, 2008 6:30 PM
I think I see a dim-bulb flickering.
Posted by: Alex | April 17, 2008 6:31 PM
Isn't it possible that the availability of prophylactics actually increases the promiscuity in a culture and leads to a rise in HIV because condoms often break or the heat of the moment simply makes one forget?
Posted by: Quaeror | April 17, 2008 6:32 PM
"Turn the other cheek" is often misused.
Historically, when a Roman soldier hit a Jew, he would hit him with the back of his hand, to show they were not equals. "Turning the other cheek" implies that you make the Roman hit you on the other cheek, like an equal, with the palm of his hand.
Of course, then the Roman soldier would probably kill you.
Don't worry - I haven't met one christian who actually knew the meaning behind those words.
Posted by: Christopher Wing | April 17, 2008 6:33 PM
"How about you, Christians? These are your leaders, your paragons, your representatives of the power of your faith. Do you feel some slight tremor of shame that your values are on parade in an empty ritual in the foreground, and a brutal indifference to human life in the back?"
Jesus, you're harshing my buzz...Dick Cheney is a wonderful guy, or so the minions tell me.
"Oh cieca cupidigia e ira folle,
che sì ci sproni ne la vita corta,
e ne l'etterna poi sì mal c'immolle!"
Posted by: Pier della Vigna | April 17, 2008 6:35 PM
Christopher, that explanation sounds like a bit of folk etymology. The commonly accepted meaning of the phrase "turn the other cheek" jibes much better with the context, wherein Jesus also commands us to give even our tunic to one who demands our cloak, etc.
Posted by: Quaeror | April 17, 2008 6:36 PM
I think everyone here understands the reality of the situation. Just to be clear...
Just between the Iraq war, and church policy on condoms, these two men are directly responsible for the horrible deaths of millions of people in just the last few years.
I don't have the time or the stomach to compile a complete laundry list, but my grievances are legion. Bush has attacked the constitution, attacked our schools, and has caused more death and destruction than a hundred Saddam Husseins ever could. The Pope has endorsed insane and deadly church policies, endorses right-wing terrorism, and loyally protects child rapists to save himself some headaches.
To be perfectly honest, if a mob of people dragged them to the ground and killed them both in the street, it wouldn't bother me a bit. I think that their multitudinous victims deserve no less vengeance, though I doubt they will ever get it.
Posted by: Neil | April 17, 2008 6:37 PM
No.
Posted by: Kseniya | April 17, 2008 6:38 PM
How has the Pope endorsed right-wing terrorism, Neil? How has he personally protected any rapist?
An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind, you know... and a Christian didn't even say that...
Posted by: Quaeror | April 17, 2008 6:40 PM
#45
Answer to Question 1:
a) The pope is directly responsible and should be held accountable.
b) No.
Posted by: Mike B | April 17, 2008 6:46 PM
"Isn't it possible that the availability of prophylactics actually increases the promiscuity in a culture and leads to a rise in HIV because condoms often break or the heat of the moment simply makes one forget?"
So according to your logic, getting a tetanus shot makes you want to jump into a barrel full of rusty nails.
Posted by: Laser Potato | April 17, 2008 6:50 PM
Quaeror,
That's Deut. 24,10ff. You do the maths.
Oh, and by the way: Any news on when the christ will rise? Aren't his three days up by now?
Posted by: Sili | April 17, 2008 6:50 PM
Bravo, PZ!
Posted by: Steven Schonfeld | April 17, 2008 6:51 PM
...addendum to MikeB:
Should George Bush have to personally answer for the crimes of individual soldiers in Vietnam?
b) No (especially since he was running away at the time).
Is correct, but we should redirect the question to something more appropriate:
Should GB have to personally answer for the crimes of individual soldiers in Iraq?
As the sitting Commander in Chief of US armed forces...
Is the Pope, as Commander in Chief of Catholic Priesthood, responsible for crimes committed ON HIS WATCH?
you damn betchya.
Posted by: Ichthyic | April 17, 2008 6:52 PM
Posted by: Bill | April 17, 2008 6:54 PM
"the secular concerns that should matter, the egalitarian word of a religious tradition that valued the cohesion of the social fabric and demanded equal treatment for even the least of society is ignored, given a little lip service perhaps, but made subservient to the intangible theological nonsense of prayer, of an invisible god, of submission to dogma and hope in an unevidenced afterlife."
In my bitter ex-Catholic way I blame the Protestants for valuing faith over works, but I know there's more to it and the Catholics weren't exactly saints either, if you'll pardon the pun.
Posted by: jmd | April 17, 2008 6:54 PM
(1) Cardinal Ratzinger was acting according to Canon Law, which is was not within his power to change
(2) Sili, I see how the two passages in question are similar, but why do you bring this one up?
Posted by: Quaeror | April 17, 2008 6:55 PM
I don't see how my uniqueness or my ancestors' struggles give me intrinsic worth!
Posted by: Quaeror | April 17, 2008 6:59 PM
"Bush calls us a nation of prayer -- a depressing label that makes us a country of delusions."
Everyone should take comfort in the fact that if George Bush says it, it's probably not true.
P.S. On an irrelevant note, if any of my previous comments on this blog or any other take you to a biblical website, it's because I misspelled my blog's URL. I do NOT sympathize.
Posted by: angrynight | April 17, 2008 7:01 PM
Believing in something that can not be demonstrated is dogmatic. Following arbitrary rules and dictates is dogmatic.
Abiding by vetted truths is not dogmatic. You may as well call a skydiver dogmatic for wearing a parachute.
Your ideas are really poorly formed and not logical.
Posted by: Alex | April 17, 2008 7:02 PM
Aside from the problems of "directly responsible," one can just as easily ask: why wouldn't he simply denounce what was done during that time, instead of simply talking vapidly about "healing wounds" bullshit?
The "actions of a few" is also crap. There was clearly top-down awareness and cover-up. They threatened excommunication to anyone who exposes those people, and nothing has been done to denounce that.
And, speaking of damage control, have they excommunicated Hitler yet?
Catch-up to morality before calling yourselves the foundations for morality...
Posted by: Bob | April 17, 2008 7:03 PM
PZ: I completely agree, in content, tone and form, with everything you have to say above. Whenever you come to Philly, I'll buy you lunch (and I'm just a poor grad student!).
And now, I'll go and do something that is probably stupid: reply to a religiously motivated poster, who certainly won't listen...
To expand on what Kseniya said above: this has been studied in many different cases, and essentially all of them find that the incidence of STDs goes down drastically when condoms are readily available and people know how to use them. It also leads to a decrease in pregnancy, and sometimes leads to a decrease in promiscuity. You're believing otherwise doesn't make it so!
And this is just one of the reasons why the Catholic Church's stance on contraception is not only stupid, but harmful. They are willing to let people die of terrible diseases and let children be born to families who cannot support them, all in the name of dogma.
Posted by: parejkoj | April 17, 2008 7:04 PM
(1) Cardinal Ratzinger was acting according to Canon Law, which is was not within his power to change
think about how many men in history have tried that defense and failed.
like at Nuremberg.
hiding within the tenets of a law is no excuse for abandoning responsibility for actions committed outside of the law.
...so, Q, is GB responsible for troop actions in Iraq?
Posted by: Ichthyic | April 17, 2008 7:05 PM
RE: #49
No. I was going to put forth an elegant argument including the stats of the US (or some other "first-world" country) vs an African country, as an example of what education and availability can do to the aids rate...then I realized this is the same person who was defending religion in an earlier post and realized it'd be a waste of electrons to try and convince the poster.
Posted by: Haate | April 17, 2008 7:07 PM
And then I go and screw up with an improper "you're"... Phoo.
Posted by: parejkoj | April 17, 2008 7:07 PM
Quaeror. Come off it, Cardinal Ratzinger was the Pope's consiglieri, and especially when JP2 was clearly a very sick man he pulled the strings and pulled them hard. It's how he got elected, nothing to do with the holy spirit in that conclave.
JP2 sat on applications to leave the preisthood and recommendations for defrockings a long time he just didn't believe priests were capable of abusing their positions and raping kids and parishioners: Ratzinger had a lot to do with Vatican policy towards handling of child-abusing priests.
I'm a regular commentator here under my own name, but I have one friend in and a relative with contacts high up in the Vatican who tell me eyebrow-raising stuff so I'll keep this confidential. Ratzi knew, and was more concerned for the Church's reputation than the welfare of the victims, or the fact that there were victims.
This pope has a lot to confess when it comes to what the church's agents got away with. And no, I'm not a bitter former abuse victim, but I know a few who are. And I know their abusers got away with it. And I know our bishop knew.
Posted by: Not on this rock (will you build your church). | April 17, 2008 7:08 PM
I don't see how my uniqueness or my ancestors' struggles give me intrinsic worth!
irrelevant to the fact that many do, yes?
ignorance is no excuse.
Seems you prefer meaning to be handed to you by somebody else, rather than seeking it on your own.
which, you could say, is an argument against your own uniqueness in this case, since apparently there are many others that share a similar worldview.
sheep, for example.
Posted by: Ichthyic | April 17, 2008 7:09 PM
Quaeror - You are the result of what has come before. All of your ancestors struggled, lived and died so that you could live. Yet you would turn your back on all of them and claim that you only have worth because you look like God? I pity your ancestors.
Posted by: Bill | April 17, 2008 7:13 PM
"I don't see how my uniqueness or my ancestors' struggles give me intrinsic worth!"
Really? Are you even human? Do you have any idea how utterly stupid, fallacious, and empty that sounds?!
I guess maybe bugs,..if they could speak, might articulate such a thought.
Perhaps Ichthyic, instead of "sheep", you should have said "ants".
Posted by: Alex | April 17, 2008 7:18 PM
@ Christopher Wing Re: Turning the other cheek
Your explanation for the saying sounds like an urban legend. How would turning the other cheek make the Roman hit you with his palm? That configuration actually seems less favorable: It would probably just make him backhand you in the face. It makes no sense. I've never been a Christian but most people I ask tell me it means that you offer up your other cheek to be slapped again. In other words, you bore the burden of violence against you to preserve the peace.
Posted by: angrynight | April 17, 2008 7:19 PM
"I don't see how my uniqueness or my ancestors' struggles give me intrinsic worth!"
You poor, pitiful, deluded schlub. I really pity you. No sarcasm intended.
Posted by: Adam | April 17, 2008 7:22 PM
Perhaps Ichthyic, instead of "sheep", you should have said "ants".
I stand corrected. That indeed is much more apt.
Posted by: Ichthyic | April 17, 2008 7:22 PM
The image of them smiling together is close to the grossest (word?) thing I've had to look at and for some reason it makes me think of the lyrics to
Leonard Cohen's 'The Future'
Posted by: peter garayt | April 17, 2008 7:23 PM
You suffer from the existential despair born of the nihilism at the core of your religion: "I am nothing, life has no purpose, nothing has any meaning without my belief in my culturally-specific god."
Why is the simple fact of your existence not sufficient justification for seeing yourself as valuable as any other thing in the universe of which you are an undeniable part?
Ask yourself: What would you do if you learned beyond the shadow of a doubt that god did not exist, that we are material beings in a material universe with no duty or obligation to any power higher than ourselves. Would you live your life differently? Would you go on a crime or killing spree? If not, why not?
Posted by: Kseniya | April 17, 2008 7:23 PM
Quaeror,
The president of the Vatican's Pontifical Council for the Family, Alfonso Lopez Trujillo, has said, "The AIDS virus is roughly 450 times smaller than the spermatozoon. The spermatozoon can easily pass through the 'net' that is formed by the condom."
This is a brazen, barefaced, downright lie. Ratzinger has never repudiated it. Do you find this lie, and the failure to repudiate it, morally acceptable?
Posted by: Nick Gotts | April 17, 2008 7:25 PM
"I am nothing, life has no purpose, nothing has any meaning without my belief in my culturally-specific god."
Spot-on Kseniya.
It's obviously a great control mechanism too, btw.
Posted by: Alex | April 17, 2008 7:30 PM
"Why should [secular concerns] matter to people who believe in Christ?"
That kind of sentiment is exactly what we don't like about religion. Besides, why should belief in Christ matter to people who have secular concerns?
"You call the entire corpus of modern Christian charity, from parish soup kitchens, adoption programs and third-world hunger relief to the endless praying done for your soul and others' 'lip service'?"
The "endless praying," yes, because lip service is exactly, quite literally, what it is. I know work is prayer, but since when does prayer count as work? What good--what secular, real-world, earthly, here-and-now good--is a bunch of soulful well-wishing to anybody?
"What could be more dogmatic than the assertion that man not made in God's image has any intrinsic worth?"
Honest, non-sarcastic question: How is that dogmatic?
Posted by: jmd | April 17, 2008 7:32 PM
"The AIDS virus is roughly 450 times smaller than the spermatozoon. The spermatozoon can easily pass through the 'net' that is formed by the condom"
By that logic, every germ under the sun should just be waltzing into our body right now via the pores in our skin.
Posted by: Laser Potato | April 17, 2008 7: