…and this is a 
Someone tell him that that is no status to which one should aspire. He's just written a brief, cranky complaint about Dawkins' righteous smackdown of the Catholic church. Here's the totality of it.
Richard Dawkins's latest attack on the Catholic Church is worthy of a dribbling loony on the top of a bus. He calls the Church "the greatest force for evil in the world", "an institution where buggering altar boys pervades the culture" and describes it "dragging its skirts in the dirt and touting for business like a common pimp". (Pimps in skirts - that's a new one.) And all in The Washington Post.
The peg for this piece? The Pope's offer to make special arrangements for Anglicans converting to Rome, a matter I would have thought was none of Prof Dawkins's business. But I'm not going to bother to argue with any of his points, because these are the ravings of a man who appears to have lost all sense of proportion. Seriously: is there something wrong with him?
Why, no, Damian! What's wrong with you?
Let's start with the quote-mining. He did not call the church "the greatest force for evil in the world". He asked a question, "What major institution most deserves the title of greatest force for evil in the world?", and gave a general answer, "In a field of stiff competition, the Roman Catholic Church is surely up there among the leaders." I would have thought that the English could comprehend their own language, but apparently that isn't necessarily true of religion columnists. Quelle surprise!
Second, Dawkins' characterization of the Catholic church was spot on, and justified by a recital of its flaws: that bizarre belief in transubstantiation, its misogyny, its deadly opposition to contraception in Africa, its homophobia, its history of pederasty. It's not simply a matter of administrative reshuffling of priests between the Church of England and the Vatican, as Thompson seems to imply, but an attempted merger brought about by enticing the most reactionary of the Anglican priesthood, something that will not correct the sins of the church, but worsen them.
By the way, Dawkins wasn't the only person to notice the nasty implications of this merger. So did I. It's even the subject of some humor.
So what's wrong with you, Damian? Are you blind to the obvious?
Comments
Posted by: Mr Jack
|
October 28, 2009 1:38 AM
ooo, a cartoon from New Zealand...
Posted by: herr doktor bimler | October 28, 2009 1:39 AM
A New Zealand cartoonist! Yay us.
Posted by: blalien
|
October 28, 2009 2:05 AM
Your "greatest force for evil in the world" paragraph is really nit-picky. There's not that much of a difference between, "The Catholic Church is the most evil force in the world," and, "In an evil force contest, the Catholic Church would make it to the finals."
No complaints with anything else in the post. Although despite the many, many evil things the Vatican does, they also do a ton of charity work that nobody ever hears about. But they'd still make it pretty far in the evil race.
Posted by: Jason | October 28, 2009 2:13 AM
PZ and Pharyngulites... I would like to know what you think of Moore's apparent use of Catholicism to justify social democracy in "Capitalism: A Love Story"?
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/catholicamerica/2009/10/michael_moore_as_catholic_of_the_year.html
Posted by: Sigmund
|
October 28, 2009 2:14 AM
The comment section is hilarious.
"I think so many scientists and especially people who study genetics (I worked in biotechnology for 8 years, it was hard to find any any atheists there) are religious because they are always struck by the fact we are all descended from Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam."
Does this liar for (catholic) Jesus realize just how ridiculous that statement is to a real geneticist?
Posted by: Lion IRC | October 28, 2009 2:16 AM
I dont suppose a list of charitable giving done by catholics would be of interest to anyone here would it?
I think if we are going to nominate "evil" organisations we think are "right up there" we should work on the NETT evil.
So when we compare Catholics with the other really evil groups like The Huns we can add up all the good minus the bad and then compare.
Lion IRC
PS - Hey! This is fun! A Good versus Evil discussion on an atheist blog. Thanks Mr Myers/Dawkins.
Posted by: blalien
|
October 28, 2009 2:22 AM
Lion IRC: I would totally be up for that. But would we be interested in each organization's present or past? I mean with the Catholic Church you have the Crusades and the Inquisition and such. But no long-lasting organization has a clean history, and what's going on today is more interesting. But if you only go with present activity, you leave out the Huns, Genghis Kahn, and the Nazis. This is a toughie.
Posted by: mark*21 | October 28, 2009 2:25 AM
Kiwi Tom Scott really excelled himself. I suspect he won't be getting any christmas cards from the cardinal this year.
Posted by: Revyloution | October 28, 2009 2:32 AM
The Huns were actually quite charitable. They also supported freedom of religion. For their time, they were quite progressive. I think they just suffer from an image problem.
Posted by: eddie
|
October 28, 2009 2:36 AM
Paging Steve LaBonne. Your distortion and dodging the issue coach is here.Posted by: Ragutis
|
October 28, 2009 2:50 AM
Colbert noticed. The job he did tonight makes me think he might get his membership revoked. Seriously, I'm having a hard time seeing how he can still consider himself Catholic. Or why he'd want to.
Posted by: dan | October 28, 2009 3:27 AM
We probably shouldn't work on "net evil", because presumably we don't subscribe to laughably naive utilitarianism, where someone who saves 5 lives but murders 4 people is a net commendable person.
Posted by: Susan | October 28, 2009 3:40 AM
Besides Colbert, Jon Stewart and John Oliver had fun with it on Monday's Daily Show, too. Point and laugh, point and laugh! Someday they may catch on to how ridiculous they look.Posted by: Strangest brew
|
October 28, 2009 3:46 AM
For an instance, what other major institution in a religious context, would poach upwards of 600 ministers from the opposition, and not maintain a contact with the titular head of the rival religion?
And when they do manage to twist their own rules to suit the treachery of others and accommodate...would not inform the opposition hierarchy that such a scam had been arranged for the disaffected misogynists in the oppositions ranks?
In sport it would be termed breach of contract and insider dealing.
Poaching a sportsman from an opposition team without consulting the management of that team is illegal..one expects that the 'agents' that arranged the swoop would find a nice brown envelope stuffed with used fivers for their trouble!
Catholic church is indeed disingenuous evil magisterium...but on the bright side..
Getting rid of a gaggle of sexually dysfunctional and terminally incapable ignorant and bigoted medieval mind sets on one hand can only improve the average IQ of the betrayed sect..and on the other hand...severely diminish the average IQ of the poachers!
Methinks 'Rowan' might hold a secret smile...things ain't so bad and are turning out for the better...praise de lawd!..he moves in mysterious ways don't ya know?
Posted by: eddie
|
October 28, 2009 3:50 AM
Re Jason @4 on Michael Moore:
He seems to me to have his heart in the right place with regard to caring about people and relates this to his upbringing within catholicism, but his mind has a real disconnect about the profoundly anti-democratic, anti-human nature of the church.
Mr Arroyo's piece was quite good, but it does bring home one message for me: When people say "look at all the good work done by catholics", it's people like Moore they're talking about. And when the catholic church are criticised for buggering kids and spreading lies and AIDS across the world, it's because the catholic church is buggering kids and spreading lies and AIDS across the world.
Posted by: baldywilson | October 28, 2009 3:57 AM
Given that Dawkins is British, and this was the pope trying to lure Anglican clergy to Rome, and given that in Britain the Church of England is part of the establishment with Anglican bishops sitting in the House of Lords, I'd say it was very much Dawkins's businees -- just as it is the business of everyone interested in British politics and the disestablishment of the Church of England.
Posted by: Strangest brew
|
October 28, 2009 4:00 AM
# 06
"I dont suppose a list of charitable giving done by catholics would be of interest to anyone here would it?"
Don't suppose it would...their collective evil and damage rendered unto the psyche of their victims far outweighs any mitigation offered!...you seem a prime example 'lying lion'!
Posted by: ExOrganist | October 28, 2009 4:21 AM
As others have suggested, the best response for the Archbishop of Canterbury would be to make a counter-offer to all Catholic priests fed up with the misogyny and homophobia. Sadly, given that Rowan Williams is desperate to placate the very same bigots who Papa Ratzi is trying to woo, this is about as likely as him telling the homophobic African bishops to fuck off and form their own damn church.
Still, I can only hope one of the bishops in the House of Lords does go over, since the ensuing constitutional crisis might finally lead to them being booted out, which (as 16 pointed out) is long overdue.
Posted by: askegg.myopenid.com
|
October 28, 2009 4:32 AM
Strange the Catholic Church would be giving the Anglicans any credence whatsoever, since Pope Leo XIII labelled them "null and void" int he late 1800s. We know he can't be wrong in his assessment because around 50 years earlier Pope Pius IX declared that Popes "are infallible when it comes to matters of faith and morals." We know that's true because, well, a Pope said it was and they are infallible.
By a strange coincidence (divine guidance?) I recently did video on the evils of the various Popes. Those who are interested can check it out here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r544ZRSbKw0 (sorry for the shameless self promotion).
Posted by: Keenacat
|
October 28, 2009 4:59 AM
Totally OT, but why is the "The Way to Happiness Foundation" advertising on scienceblogs? That's just so totally wrong.
Posted by: Rorschach | October 28, 2009 5:10 AM
You clearly haven't seen the ads for "single christian girls in your city" yet...:-)
SB do have weird ads on on a regular basis, some are just google suggestions from keywords I think.
Posted by: SEF | October 28, 2009 5:13 AM
@ Ragutis #11:
That's the bit which bothers me a lot about the religious. I can understand in an abstract sense all the sneaky benefits they think they're getting (some very real ones as well as the obvious imaginary ones) and the penalties they're avoiding (eg because their kind inflicts them upon people not in the in-group!). However, with my personal morality equation, I still don't "get" how they can set one jot of that against the fundamental and ubiquitous dishonesty of their position. They disgust me.
Posted by: SEF | October 28, 2009 5:20 AM
@ ExOrganist #18:
That would be so classy! And of course contains within that the reason why it won't happen. They're simply not that good themselves and not willing to pay the price for becoming good either. It's not just the additional immediate loss of current members. It's the fact that, in its extreme, it would eventually require them to become atheists.
Posted by: Bruce Gorton | October 28, 2009 5:32 AM
Posted by: Lion IRC | October 28, 2009 2:16 AM
The church's charitable giving is a con job.
To illustrate:
This is what happened in Ireland:
The Church set up homes to take care of children and "fallen" women, and then proceded to go to court to take children away from parents who were deemed to poor to care for them. They did this because the Irish government paid a grant (About 1/2 of a grown person's wage per kid) to the church to take care of those said children.
The bulk of the money went to Rome. The people within the homes were kept alive - barely, and their actual welfare was either neglected or actively harmed by the church at large. The women ended up as slave labour to the laundries and the children ended up as handy punching bags.
When this massive system of abuse was revealed, the church threatened to pull out of all of its "charitable" acts in Ireland if it was made to pay the full damages, which would have shut down half the hospitals and schools. The
"charity" was in fact a means of getting Ireland into a position where it could be blackmailed.
The Irish government, because it had no real choice in the matter, instituted a secret deal in which how much the church had to pay in fines was capped, the rest would come from the state. The taxpayer ended up paying for the abuse of the taxpayer's children by the church.
That is the Catholic Church on charity.
It will present you with images of massive suffering to get your money (Like Mother Theresa in Calcutta) and then give a token amount to the intended target while spending the rest on marketting and political campaigns like the "Yes on Prop 8" intitiative.
Posted by: Walton | October 28, 2009 5:42 AM
I would agree that the Catholic Church is a substantial force for evil in the world. The present Pope's stance on contraception causes major unnecessary suffering and poverty in many developing countries. Not to mention the reactionary stances on gay marriage and abortion; and the psychological damage of "Catholic guilt" inflicted on many of those raised in the Catholic tradition.
At the same time, it is nowhere near the largest force for evil in the world. Racism, ultranationalism, trade protectionism, and fundamentalist Islam all score higher in those stakes, since they all cause more human suffering.
Posted by: Dunc | October 28, 2009 5:54 AM
As a Brit, I have to wonder - who the fuck is Damian Thompson, and why should I care?
Posted by: Strangest brew
|
October 28, 2009 6:08 AM
#23
"It's the fact that, in its extreme, it would eventually require them to become atheists."
I am persuaded to consider that the top echelons of any religion are atheists anyway!
Especially in the xian brand of delusion.
They cannot seriously believe the crap they spout.
It is only a marketing tool after all!
Leave the awe to the ignorant and hard of functioning and coin it where and when ever available...that should be the 11th commandment...Seems it is the unwritten one anyway!
Posted by: zerogirl | October 28, 2009 6:18 AM
Reading the comments on Thompson's whine, I notice that a lot of these people are using the opportunity to criticise Dawkins for not being hard enough on islam.
Why is this considered an argument? It's ridiculous - If someone is criticising a particular entity for a particular action, is it really any sort of defense saying they should be attacking another entity that has nothing to do with the particular action being criticised?
Does that make any sense? (I've been awake for around 23 hours now, so I have no idea if I'm thinking straight...)
Posted by: SEF | October 28, 2009 6:24 AM
In the case of the UK ones it is known that they don't. A survey of beliefs some time back found that the church leaders (as opposed to mere members) generally didn't believe in many of the supposed tenets of their sects - virgin birth etc etc.
But then the UK probably had more cause to become jaded in religious management than was the case in other countries, what with all the switching around that royalty et al did while running a state religion. The Vicar Of Bray being the most infamous example, enshrined in song.
Posted by: Peter Ashby
|
October 28, 2009 6:28 AM
Dunc is not the only Brit wondering who the hell this nitwit is, having never heard of him before. I recognised Tom Scott's style in the cartoon instantly though, he is very good.
Posted by: PatrickKanne | October 28, 2009 6:52 AM
About the Charitable side of the Catholic church.
I have a son. He messes up his room frequently. When I ASK him to tidy he won't do it. When I threaten him with either spanking, throwing stuff away, not giving candies and/or other threats made by parents in these occasions he WILL do it.
After he's done, should I then comment him on his tidiness and apt reaction to my query?? I think not...
Same with religious charity work. They are COMMANDED to do so. It's written in stone they should. Would they still do it if not for their religion? Isn't that part of their whole morals-humbug? that they wouldn't abide by those if not for their religion?
In charity as with morals intention is key. If you do not help people because you just think you should, but merely because your told or be punished otherwise, you might as well not do it at all. (This of course in relation to your own moral self, not to the people you're helping.)
You won't get a pat on the back for doing as you are told. Sorry.
Posted by: SEF | October 28, 2009 6:58 AM
@ Peter Ashby #30:
I've only heard of him before in the very limited sense of him having popped up in google news before - almost invariably on the wrong side of whatever it is (hence my vaguely noting the name). He's a serial, and quite likely habitual, idiot. Otherwise he's a non-entity, as far as I'm aware (ie not even in the set of people whom other people generally regard as celebrities).
Posted by: Strangest brew
|
October 28, 2009 7:01 AM
# 29
"what with all the switching around that royalty et al did while running a state religion."
Well that is to be expected, after all religion is only kept to serve the monarchs wishes.
Kindda like the nutty old clinically insane ju ju man sloping around the corridors of power sniffing out the monarchs larder and wine cellar and ministering to the serving wenches behind the pantry door, at least until summoned to support some tomfoolery the monarch wishes to con his subjects with...seems a tad of divine authority always goes well with the riff raff.
Handy delusion this supernatural gobblygook!
Posted by: Carlie | October 28, 2009 7:31 AM
"Why are you telling my wife she should leave me, just because I beat her? I put a roof over her head, don't I?"
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | October 28, 2009 7:33 AM
Two wrongs and a right don't make one right in total. They make two wrongs and a right.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | October 28, 2009 7:34 AM
In other words, you're trying to subtract apples from oranges.
Posted by: Paula Kirby | October 28, 2009 7:36 AM
What a wonderfully revealing response: as always - as LITERALLY always - these people have nothing whatsoever to respond with, beyond this kind of predictable ad hom. They were always going to squeal like a stuck pig at RD's comments, and their squealing was always going to involve the nastiest personal abuse they could come up with. What else can they do? It is impossible to make a reasoned defence of the Vatican; and they are nowhere near honest enough to face up to that and acknowledge the truth of it.
Posted by: ice9 | October 28, 2009 7:44 AM
Nothing wrong with Dawkins' trope, either--since the priests do wear skirts, it's a slick elision from a concrete to a simile--that 'and' helps--so Our Correspondent is either stupid or willfully misreading that bit. Probably an English teacher at a catholic high school.
ice
Posted by: Richard Eis | October 28, 2009 8:02 AM
-At the same time, it is nowhere near the largest force for evil in the world. Racism, ultranationalism, trade protectionism, and fundamentalist Islam all score higher in those stakes, since they all cause more human suffering.-
Being the second largest force for evil is still hardly something to be proud of. Pointing out that someone has butchered and murdered more people than you does not wash your hands of your own murders.
This is especially true when both islam and christianity are essentially the same thing......
....ORGANISED RELIGION
Posted by: Strangest brew
|
October 28, 2009 8:04 AM
Revealing the way the Jesuit mind works...from 'Donkeybreath' to this idiot Archbishop Silvano Tomasi.
This link is report on the defence being publicly peddled by the vatican on the penchant for their troops to go fiddling about with kiddies!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/sep/28/sex-abuse-religion-vatican
"Catholic clergy who committed such acts were not paedophiles but homosexuals attracted to sex with adolescent males"
And...
"The statement said that rather than paedophilia, it would "be more correct" to speak of ephebophilia, a homosexual attraction to adolescent males."
Oh it teh gays to blame...but it is not paedophilia okay....it is not a priest abusing a child and getting away with it time and time again because he can and could...it is not because he violated and terrorised the child into silence...or because his word is law in the community and because the vatican would cover it up anyway.
No...not at all...
Lying slimy fucking scumbags!
Posted by: sailor1031 | October 28, 2009 8:08 AM
but didn't DT's little snark bring out a lot of very weird religionists in the comments? They couldn't have made RD's points any better while thinking they were opposing......
BTW; for a very small example of Catholic charity in action see Farley Mowat's "people of the deer"......
Anybody interested in the (secular) contributions worldwide of the Unitarian Service Committee? There's aid with no strings attached!
Posted by: Sigmund
|
October 28, 2009 8:17 AM
I think Dawkins needs to be a little more careful with his language when writing these sorts of pieces. Saying that the Catholic church is asking Anglicans to send them their "pederasts" is not only inaccurate but is the sort of thing that shuts down dialogue from those sympathetic to the idea of criticizing the Catholic church for poaching homophobic or misogynistic Anglicans.
Child abuse is certainly a problem in the Catholic Church but unlike things like the policies on abortion and condoms the child abuse is an unintended and un-welcomed aspect of the religion. The disgraceful way they dealt with (or rather failed to deal with) offenders in the past is a separate question but I suspect the last thing they want would be more child abusers joining to give them fresh headaches, not to mention legal bills.
Posted by: Strangest brew
|
October 28, 2009 8:42 AM
#42
"The disgraceful way they dealt with (or rather failed to deal with) offenders in the past is a separate question"
I do not think it is, it is the systematic and wilfully arrogant and twisted attitude the RCC have always had, they put it on display frequently, they are not ashamed cos it is for the mummy mary or jeebus...or whatever other saint is the flavour of the day.
They are an institution founded on corruption greed and power and fear, they do not give a monkeys what morality is being bent and shattered, cos it is their morality after all and they can do what they like with it.
"but I suspect the last thing they want would be more child abusers joining to give them fresh headaches, not to mention legal bills."
They want bums in pulpits they are not bothered by inconsequential things like abuse of the parishioners!
They have other fish to get smelly!
Besides with Benny baby in the driving seat they can rest assured that further cover ups of abuse of anybody or anything will be robustly and quietly secreted in the vatican archives for a 100 years minimum.
Several important lessons have been learnt in how to cover this predilection up, mistakes were made last time, next time they will have experience, and the paperwork to back their efforts up!
'Benny Baby' likes cover ups, he likes to reinforce them with papal bull, in fact he is the man to call in a scandal, Jesuit luck I guess!
The RCC is in a tizzwazz, they have experienced a dropping off in numbers wishing to train to peddle their nonsense.
They have churches and no priests, they have priests but no back-ups, they are stretched beyond breaking point and 600 neer do wells that like dresses have just arrived at the cloister gates...the Vatican are ecstatic!
Don't ask questions get no lies, or rather never hear the truth...they have congregations out there that require a bit of wealth milking, get to it !
Posted by: Fred The Hun | October 28, 2009 9:09 AM
Revyloution @9,
Yeah, I think we over did the, scare the beejeepers out of your enemies thing, a bit.
Posted by: Insightful Ape
|
October 28, 2009 9:16 AM
Hi again lyin' irk.
Would a list of charitable works by Hezbollah, Hamas, and Al Qaeda be of interest to you?
Posted by: Steve LaBonne
|
October 28, 2009 9:21 AM
Horseshit. This piece was much milder than the target actually deserves.
Posted by: Knockgoats | October 28, 2009 9:24 AM
Q. Is Damian Thompson the British Bill Donohue?
A. No: because almost nobody has ever heard of him. Average age of the Torygraph readership is probably into the '60s by now.
Posted by: Abdul Alhazred
|
October 28, 2009 9:29 AM
"greatest force for evil in the world"
Betcha there won't be riots or death threats (or random violence against New Zealanders) over that cartoon.
Posted by: Carlie | October 28, 2009 9:30 AM
The disgraceful way they dealt with (or rather failed to deal with) offenders in the past is a separate question but I suspect the last thing they want would be more child abusers joining to give them fresh headaches, not to mention legal bills.
Yes, the middle of October was so far in the past...
Oh, wait, you specifically were referring to offenses directly involving children - I meant the end of September was so long ago...
Posted by: Cuttlefish, OM
|
October 28, 2009 9:39 AM
You say your faith won’t let you hate?
Treat gay folks worse that you treat straight?
Be sexist? Or discriminate?
It’s time to start your search!
You want a group that’s really great,
That’s never seen as second-rate;
Where folks like you can all relate:
Come join the Catholic Church!
See, ever since your church began
When Henry lusted after Anne,
You’ve looked upon the Vatican
With envy, so it seems.
The Pope, you thought, was superman;
You’re secretly a papal fan:
Good news! Just shout that angl-I-CAN
Fulfill my Catholic dreams!
The offer that we now present
Is one way we can circumvent
Our numbers problem; your dissent
Adds members to our herd!
Of course, to open up our tent
Some ancient rules must now be bent,
But only by a small percent
We’ll modify God’s word.
So join the group that’s grand in scope;
That gives the world its greatest hope
That claims to have the One True Pope—
Your old ways, disavow.
One final thing, to help you cope
As on this brand-new path you grope:
In showers, never drop the soap—
Cos you’re a Catholic now.
http://digitalcuttlefish.blogspot.com/2009/10/anglican-catholic-horizontal-transfer.html
Posted by: Sigmund
|
October 28, 2009 9:41 AM
Steve LaBonne #46 said:
"Horseshit. This piece was much milder than the target actually deserves."
OK Steve, how would you have worded the specific point of contention - that the Catholic church wants Anglican child molesters to move over to its church?
There are many things you can hit the Catholic church with - especially in regards their dealings with its own known child molesters - but the idea that it wants child molesters from other churches to join and become catholic priests just comes across as irrational. Its like the church calling for serial killers to join it - it just doesn't make sense compared to the idea of calling for homophobes or misogynists to join.
Posted by: Steve LaBonne
|
October 28, 2009 9:55 AM
If you can say that with such smug certainty after the way they've just shuffled (and almost certainly continue to shuffle) known molesters from one parish to the next, you're a moral as well as a cognitive idiot.
Posted by: Sigmund
|
October 28, 2009 9:57 AM
Carlie #49
If you think I will try to defend the behavior of the Catholic church either in the past OR the present in regards the links you provided then you are mistaken. Having grown up in rural Ireland in the 1970s I am well aware of the terrible influence they can have if left unchecked. The results of the two Irish Government inquiries into the crimes committed at the catholic church run childrens homes speaks volumes about their disgraceful both both in the past and in the present.
Posted by: Rorschach | October 28, 2009 9:57 AM
Genius man, genius.....:-)
Posted by: AJ Milne
|
October 28, 2009 9:59 AM
Fair 'nough...
But then, I'm not sure Donohue is exactly a household name either... I mean, sure we know who he is... But mostly just as a convenient source of whackjobbery to mock...
(/Come to think of it, he's sorta the Abe Simpson of the religious right: 'Ah was wearin' an onion on my belt... And makin' sure the womenfolk stayed in the kitchen and the gays in the closet and/or jail... As was the style at the time...')
Posted by: realinterrobang
|
October 28, 2009 10:09 AM
That "It wuz teh gays what did it!" non-argument is also totally bogus in that most of the abused victims have been girls, but nobody talks about that. Somehow it's less scandalous for a priest to rape a little girl than it is for him to rape a little boy; I guess sexual assault is a dog-bites-man story if it's man-rapes-little-girl. (Talk about entrenched misogyny...)
Posted by: Sigmund
|
October 28, 2009 10:10 AM
Steve #52
Immediately descending to personal abuse when asked to clarify your point is not always the best argumentative strategy - at least not for those who have left primary school behind.
Posted by: Jeff Eyges | October 28, 2009 10:13 AM
What is it the Brits call this kind of imbecile - a git?
Posted by: Steve LaBonne
|
October 28, 2009 10:16 AM
What makes you think I'm interested in having an argument with you? You don't strike me as being worth the trouble.
Posted by: Sigmund
|
October 28, 2009 10:17 AM
"What is it the Brits call this kind of imbecile - a git?"
No, a 'git' is merely annoying. Damian Thompson has clearly earned the right to be deemed a "complete fuckwit".
Posted by: Strangest brew
|
October 28, 2009 10:19 AM
#53
"I am well aware of the terrible influence they can have if left unchecked"
Errm!...methinks they are still unchecked!
Especially when it comes to the aftermath!
http://www.socialistdemocracy.org/News&AnalysisIreland/News&AnalysisIreIrishStateCatholicChurchCollusion.html
They are still kicking and screaming no fair, and the arrogance is getting more pronounced, maybe one of their finest hours!
There are rumours, and I have seen a few titbits on line, it is all out there to find...that that they are even colluding to get out of the compensation deal they arranged a few years back...seems they were aware that 'revelations' were on the way way back in the late 90's they made a classic deal with a few Catholic puppets in the government "will that do fer ya father"
"aye...until we figure out a way to avoid the fine!"
"not a fine father tis compensation"
"nope tis a fine...why would these little rascals be compensateds...we gave 'em a good catolik education did we not?
Anyway apparently not much has been paid, and cash already distributed comes from the Irish government coffers and not church funds!
Posted by: quisquose | October 28, 2009 10:19 AM
A few week ago at a birthday reunion I met with an old friend of mine, let's call him Paul, who is now a priest. I'd not seen him in over 25 years.
As kids there was 6 of us that were very close and we got up to all sorts of larks, mainly the usual involving alcohol and girls.
When we took off into our respective careers Paul announced quite by surprise that he was going to "train" to be a priest. He was also very critical of us, and the lifestyles we led, and indeed he led up until his sudden announcement.
A couple of us kept in touch, but myself and the others had not spoken to him in all these years. So here we were celebrating a birthday with family and friends, and Paul's family was there. Photos of the 'good old days' were passed around and we all had a good laugh at the Priest in his days of 'sin' with the rest of us. There was much laughter that night.
Later, as most people had gone home, the old friends were left in the bar and we had a chance to talk and reflect. We have all managed to climb the greasy pole of life to the middle classes, with wives and kids etc. Although he didn't say it, Paul was deeply unhappy it was clear. In fact we have since concluded that he probably does not believe in the stuff he preaches at all.
I wouldn't be happy either if I had to live such a fraud. How many others like Paul are there?
:(
Posted by: Strangest brew
|
October 28, 2009 10:23 AM
#53
"I am well aware of the terrible influence they can have if left unchecked"
Errm!...methinks they are still unchecked!
Especially when it comes to the aftermath!
http://www.socialistdemocracy.org/News&AnalysisIreland/News&AnalysisIreIrishStateCatholicChurchCollusion.html
They are still kicking and screaming no fair, and the arrogance is getting more pronounced, maybe one of their finest hours!
There are rumours, and I have seen a few titbits on line, it is all out there to find...that that they are even colluding to get out of the compensation deal they arranged a few years back...seems they were aware that 'revelations' were on the way way back in the late 90's they made a classic deal with a few Catholic puppets in the government
"So will that do fer ya father...not to bad ehhh?"
"aye...until we figure out a way to avoid the fine!"
"not a fine father tis compensation"
"nope tis a fine...why would these little rascals be compensated...we gave 'em a good catolik education did we not?"
"Aye father a fine is is then...to be payed when ya produce ya documents...ha ha ha!"
"now where is that whisky...? wheedling makes ya tursty so it does!"
Anyway apparently not much has been paid, and cash already distributed comes from the Irish government coffers and not church funds!
Posted by: Sigmund
|
October 28, 2009 10:27 AM
#53 StrangeBrew said
"Errm!...methinks they are still unchecked!"
Quite correct. The amount of corruption involving the Irish abuse scandal is simply staggering and involves many different levels of society. From the religious parents that would throw their daughters into these hellish institutions, to the viscious molesters themselves given charge of the children and protected from legal consequences by higher ups in both the Irish church and major figures in the Vatican (yes Pope Razi, I'm thinking of you) to the politicians doing backroom deals to allow the religious orders escape having to face justice they all should face accountability.
Posted by: Matt Penfold
|
October 28, 2009 10:41 AM
W
Git would be too kind a term for him.
Total wanker or complete tosser would be better fits.
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler
|
October 28, 2009 11:00 AM
Lion IRC @ # 6: I dont suppose a list of charitable giving done by catholics would be of interest to anyone here ...
Not nearly so much as an i-Pod/-Phone app to track answered prayers.
Posted by: James Sweet | October 28, 2009 11:03 AM
This is actually the only part of Damian's rant I have a serious problem with. The rest -- well, yeah, Dawkins was really harsh, which I think was well-deserved, but I'm not going to too bothered if the recipient of harsh criticism protests a bit. That's understandable.
But to pretend like it is none of Dawkins' business??? When the homophobes and misogynists of the world are consolidating their power, uh, yeah, that's everybody's business.
"Hey, I'm just over here spreading HIV and molesting young boys -- but it's my religion so it's none of your business!"
Posted by: Abdul Alhazred
|
October 28, 2009 11:09 AM
Might as well ...
http://skepticalcommunity.com/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?t=25553
Posted by: Steven Mading
|
October 28, 2009 11:47 AM
That's incorrect. There's a huge difference between the two. Calling something the "biggest" or "most" of some category is a claim that can be easily refuted with just one single counterexample of something else that's bigger or "most-er" in that category. On the other hand, saying it's merely one of the biggest or mostest in something doesn't have that fatal flaw. It's a much easier statement to defend than claiming something is the superlative case of some category.
And this is not some minor point because this is the main reason why people frequently engage in the strawman fallacy of trying to transform their opponent's more mild "one of the biggest" and "one of the most" statements into maximal superlative "biggest" "most" or "best" statements. They do it to try to dishonestly misrepresent the statements as superlative statements specifically so they can shoot them down with just one single example of something else that's bigger or most-er, rather than actually having to address the claims made. (i.e. Instead of actually addressing the claims made about the Catholic Church, just point out that Islam is worse and hope nobody notices that you didn't deny the actual claims made.)
Posted by: Stuart Hartill | October 28, 2009 11:50 AM
If you think Thompson's hatred of rationalists and scientists is hilarious, you should hear the twaddle he spouts about other Catholics!
For one thing, he's made it clear in what he laughingly calls a religious column in the Daily Telegraph that the 'wrong' candidate got the Archtwit of Westminster's job. (what happened to papal infallibility, as Ratzo is known to have personally chosen Vincent Nichols over candidates preferred by the UK Catholic hierarchy?)
For another, only last week he was grumbling in a BBC guest commentary piece about the dreadful habit poorer Catholic churches have of holding 'Joan Baez' masses with someone strumming a guitar instead of shelling out for an organist and full choir.
He doesn't seem to like anyone much. I suspect he probably even hates himself, but actual suicide is a sin for a good Catholic, isn't it, so laughing at his self-abuse in print is as much joy as we're likely to get for now.
Posted by: Raging Bee | October 28, 2009 12:15 PM
...their collective evil and damage rendered unto the psyche of their victims far outweighs any mitigation offered!...
That's a damn good point (not to mention the damage done to the Church's credibility, which is always necessary to make good works effective). All you thin-skinned defensive Catholics out there need to ask yourselves how your Church's evil actions are affecting its good ones. And what, exactly, you're doing to make your Church better from the inside.
Posted by: Adam Tjaavk | October 28, 2009 12:33 PM
Who is Damian Thompson?
- quite a strange fellow really!
Counterknowledge by Damian Thompson
A.C.Grayling |New Humanist
http://newhumanist.org.uk/1696
_____
Posted by: Strangest brew
|
October 28, 2009 1:06 PM
Maybe Damian Thompson has accepted the jeebus penny!
Or just sucking up to 'catolik zombies... maybe the boss is like so encumbered with the delusion and Damian needs a rise...maybe RD refused him an interview...whatever weird!
Posted by: Walton | October 28, 2009 3:21 PM
That's a misunderstanding of papal infallibility. It only applies when the Pope speaks ex cathedra and defines an infallible dogma. It does not mean that everything the Pope says and does is considered to be infallible. Since papal infallibility was first proclaimed at the First Vatican Council of 1870, the power has been used only once - in 1950, to proclaim the perpetual virginity of Mary. Other papal pronouncements do not have the force of infallibility, in themselves.
Don't get me wrong; it is still a batshit insane belief. But it's important to correctly understand the parameters of the delusion.
Posted by: eddie
|
October 28, 2009 3:39 PM
Thank you Adam Tjaavk, for the link. If the other side have their trinity and we can have now 6 books in the HitchHiker 'trilogy', then surely there is room for Messrs Grayling and Myers in the four horsemen.
Posted by: Strangest brew
|
October 28, 2009 3:49 PM
#74
"Since papal infallibility was first proclaimed at the First Vatican Council of 1870, the power has been used only once - in 1950, to proclaim the perpetual virginity of Mary."
How the fuck does that work...?
Beeatch' is dead...has been for 2000yrs
And will be for a few years more methinks...odds are she ain't got the hots for anything remotely phallic...and is not likely to for not only the foreseeable future but till the end of time....oh call it a hunch!
They seem to have a great deal of trouble making a rational noise...every time they open gob ...smelly effluent flows...what is it with these clowns?
Faster then a speeding rosary these thugs are they not?
Morons!
Posted by: senor | October 28, 2009 4:39 PM
@76: I refers to the claim that Mary was a virgin before, during, and after the birth of Jesus. The importance and rationality of this claim is up to you.
Posted by: Strangest brew
|
October 28, 2009 5:05 PM
#77
"I refers to the claim that Mary was a virgin before, during, and after the birth of Jesus"
The logic is as it is...that they have no conception of the process of impregnation neo-natal and post-natal processes. only exacerbates the point that it seems men have not a clue about the maternal female condition.
And religious ones do not understand sex whatsoever it obviously frightens them, no wonder they think worshipping a figment of their stunted imagination is a rational and sane act.
How they can keep a straight face and spout this stuff is beyond belief...no limit to the idiocy!
It is more then cognitive dissonance it is cynical manipulation of dogma to deflect their own inadequacies ...and certainly displays their own ignorance and fear of female sexuality.
Virgin indeed..they really are an embarrassment...and not only to themselves!
Posted by: FishNChimps | October 28, 2009 5:40 PM
I'm surprised at Thompson. His book "Counterknowledge" is a terrific indictment against sceptical bugbears such as anti-vaccination, homeopathy etc. I didn't realise he was a reverse Bill Maher.
Posted by: Polyester Mather DD | October 28, 2009 6:10 PM
Move over , Donahue & Damian- here's the real doyen of Dawkins demonizers -
http://www.takimag.com/sniperstower/article/richard_dawkins_leftist_buffoon/
Posted by: ShaunOTD | October 28, 2009 8:04 PM
Never heard of him either. No loss.
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler
|
October 28, 2009 8:14 PM
askegg @ # 19 - not a bad effort, but it would be improved by correctly spelling reign, emperor, conspirators, separate, etc.
And some of the popes you depict seem to have been victims more than perpetrators, though the sordidness of the Catholic enterprise certainly comes through in (the hints you give of) their stories.
Thanks particularly to that link showing the Human Life International billboard equating condom use with death!
Walton @ # 70: ... papal infallibility ... has been used only once - in 1950, to proclaim the perpetual virginity of Mary.
Didn't PowerPope P12 also infallibly proclaim that poor little Cherry-Mary's corpse was assumed (assumpted?) directly to the H Dimension, so as to bypass that other icky human process of decomposition?
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler
|
October 28, 2009 10:29 PM
Don't read this. This is just a test to see whether I can comment here now, because I can't at Thoughts from Kansas.
Dammit, didn't I tell you not to read this?!?
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler
|
October 28, 2009 10:39 PM
Okay, you can read this: Is it possible for anyone else to comment at Thoughts from Kansas?
Posted by: speedweasel
|
October 29, 2009 12:25 AM
I've got a shiny, new AU$10 note here that says Dawkins wont lose a wink of sleep over the disestablishment of the Church of England or any other church.
Posted by: Sigmund
|
October 29, 2009 2:55 AM
"Okay, you can read this: Is it possible for anyone else to comment at Thoughts from Kansas?"
Pierce, the sign-in system doesn't work on Thoughts From Kansas.
If you want to comment there you have to 'sign out' and then just do the usual name email address and URL for each post there.
I had the same problem there the other day after I had signed in at Pharyngula. I thought Josh had banned me at first!
Posted by: Bruce Gorton | October 29, 2009 6:58 AM
Posted by: Walton | October 28, 2009 3:21 PM
Considering that Jesus had brothers according to the Bible that kind of debunks the notion of the Pope's infallibility ex cathedra right from the get go.
Posted by: Richard Dawkins | October 29, 2009 9:03 AM
Rather good satire on Damian Thompson at http://www.platitudes.org.uk/platblog/index.php
Damian Thompson
Thursday, 29 October, 2009, 07:15 AM - Not TFTD
Rating 5 out of 5 (Extraordinarily platitudinous)
Smelly poos with knobs on to Richard Dawkins. He's a complete loony. I, on the other hand am a Catholic, with the following perfectly sensible beliefs.
1. Everything requires an explanation, including the observable universe.
2. The observable universe was created by an unobservable Invisible Magic Friend. This explains the observable universe.
3. The Invisible Magic Friend has existed for all eternity and therefore requires no explanation. This is entirely consistent with point 1.
4. The Invisible Magic Friend comes in three lumps: Father, Son and mum Holy Ghost.
5. There is an Invisible Magic Baddy called the Devil, who's constantly tempting people to do bad things and stop being Catholics.
5. Every baby is born a sinner, stained with the sin of Eve, who ate a piece of fruit on the command of the Devil, then disguised as a talking snake.
6. The Invisible Magic Friend revealed himself to a bunch of Middle Eastern Semitic tribes starting about 700 B.C.E. All the other gods of the Persians, Romans, Egyptians, Greeks, Norse and Indian were just made up. Only the god of Abraham is the real Invisible Magic Friend.
7. We were all condemned to eternal damnation by the all loving Invisible Magic Friend because of the talking snake incident and it's too good for us if you ask me.
8. The Invisible Magic Friend sent an Invisible Magic Messenger, with invisible magic white wings, called Gabriel to tell a young woman in Palestine that she was pregnant thanks to the third lump of the Invisible Magic Friend who had impregnated her with the extra chromosomes needed to conceive, and the child would be called Emmanuel, so she called him Jesus.
9. Mary's fiancé, Joseph was a bit miffed at Mary being pregnant and having to remain a virgin for the rest of her life, but she explained about the third lump of the Invisible Magic Friend so he married her anyway.
10. Jesus did all sorts of amazing things: turning water into wine, walking on water, redoing the Elisha feeding thousands trick, spitting on people to cure them, transforming into something, raising from the dead.
11. Jesus got a bit too uppity so the Romans crucified him.
12. Two days later, he rose from the dead in accordance with the prophecy that he'd rise three days later.
13. Jesus' death was actually a sacrifice of the second lump of the Invisible Magic Friend to all three lumps of the Invisible Magic Friend. This sacrifice was adequate compensation for the talking snake affair and you now only had to spend eternity in agony if, on average, you aren't terribly nice while you inhabit the observable universe or until recently, you weren't a Catholic.
14. Before going up into the sky on a cloud, Jesus said, "Peter, I'm leaving you in charge of the observable universe. Here are some magic powers."
15. Peter went to Rome and gave his magic powers to lots of other people.
16. Only people with external genitalia can have magic powers (obviously).
17. The magic powers consist of: turning ordinary water into magic water, turning ordinary oil into magic oil, forgiving people's sins by saying three Hail Mary's as an alternative to eternal damnation, turning bread and wine into the flesh and blood of the second lump of the Invisible Magic Friend, consuming him, thus recreating the original sacrifice 2,000 years ago, and in the case of being top priest, being infallible. All this, is best done in the language of the Roman Empire.
18. Deliberately not having as many children as possible is a sin, unless you're one of the men with magic powers who mustn't ever touch anything hairy, wobbly or dangly, or even think about touching anything hairy, wobbly or dangly.
19. Having sex for fun is a sin.
20. When men with magic powers are discovered buggering altar boys, the appropriate action is to move them where there are some new boys and make the victims promise never to tell anyone because it was all their fault anyway, the little teasers. This turns you from just being Most Reverend into being Eminent.
21. Poofs are an inherent moral evil and a greater danger to the planet than global warming.
Thank the Invisible Magic Friend I'm not one of those dribbling loonies like Richard Dawkins.
Posted by: Rorschach | October 29, 2009 9:19 AM
Prof Dawkins,
you do surprise me at times...:-)
This was quite funny !
Posted by: Paul S. | October 29, 2009 9:56 AM
I think that a lot of the things that the Catholic Church is guilty of are due mainly to the fact that it is a very large, very old institution, rather than anything specific to religion. What large organization doesn't criminally abuse its power if you give it enough time and opportunity? I doubt that any group is really clean in that respect.
Posted by: phantomreader42 | October 29, 2009 11:04 AM
Paul S @ #90:
The Mafia at least doesn't claim to be the sole source of all morality in the world, with the exclusive endorsement of the creator of the entire fucking universe.
Really, when your organization is more slimy and underhanded than organized crime, that's a sign something is seriously wrong.
Posted by: Paul S. | October 29, 2009 12:27 PM
I was actually referring to organizations that are not set up for specifically predatory or criminal purposes, such as governments, corporations, or even charitable organizations. Any powerful group is going to have people in it who abuse its power, and there is also a lot of truth in the saying that "power corrupts" even people who originally have the best intentions.
I think that any organization that has had the level of power and influence that the Catholic Church has had, regardless of the organization's actual purpose, is going to end up causing an enormous amount of suffering and exploitation. I can't think of any powerful organization in history that has not done this. It certainly isn't unique or distinctive to religious organizations.
Of course, the claim to represent The Absolute Truth is not unique to religious organizations either.
Posted by: Stuart Hartill | October 29, 2009 1:02 PM
Thank you Walton for the clarification on papal infallibility, though you may be in grave danger of mistaking me for someone who takes the madness of holy biscuit munchers seriously!
My point was that D. Thompson Esq. is deranged to the degree that he seems to suggest the Pope may not be Catholic enough.
Even by the standards of folk who routinely believe six impossible things before breakfast that's pushing it!
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler
|
October 29, 2009 1:14 PM
Sigmund @ # 86 - Thanks for the tip.
I thought that I had tried that, or at least that restarting my computer would've included that - but for whatever reason I can again spew my (what I'm now informed is cluelessness) there with my customary disregard for logic and common decency. Whee!
Posted by: CJO | October 29, 2009 1:22 PM
They usually explain away Jesus' siblings (Mark mentions sisters, too, but doesn't name them) by claiming they were Joseph's children by another woman.
Posted by: Peter Mc
|
October 29, 2009 1:52 PM
Mr Thompson is a former editor of the Catholic Herald and now blogs editor of the Daily Telegraph, a conservative supporting broadsheet in the UK. Someone once compared him to a ferret for the ferociousness of his writing, which I feel does the mustelidae a disservice. He had the permanently dissatisfied look of a bulldog licking piss off a thistle and does spend a lot of time turning his fire on fellow Catholics who don't like their mass in Latin.
He also gets very upset when anyone mentions the Catholic Church and child abuse and usually craps out a blogpost about it. After the last one I rather lost my temper and sent him an email pointing out that one of the reasons for my now being an atheist is that no athesits tried to sexually molest me as a child, whereas a Catholic in a position of trust did. Strangely enough he hasn't replied.
He's one of those creatures that has made minor professional advancements as the RCC has developed in the UK at the expense of the parlous Anglican communion. 'Imbecile' doesn't quite capture his aggressive, chippy irritation at the world and permasnarky style. If pressed, I'd say 'a bit of a pillock'.
Posted by: Owlmirror | October 29, 2009 7:49 PM
I can almost hear #88 being read -- or rather, performed -- by Ricky Gervais.
Yes?
Posted by: bobscience
|
February 4, 2010 3:00 PM
The bulk of the money went to Rome. The people within the homes were kept alive - barely