…and this is a 
The New Humanist has a poll that is being crashed by apologists for Catholicism…I think. The problem is that they've worded the alternatives so almost all of the choices (#3 clearly sucks) have some reasonable elements to them. Which means, as usual, you'll have to go over there and think about which little button you want to click on.
Do you think the Pope should face legal action over the Catholic child abuse cover-ups?
Yes. This cover-up appears to go to the very top and its perpetrators must face justice. 20%
Yes. While it's unlikely the Pope will end up in the dock, suggestion of a legal challenge during his UK visit will draw attention to the extent of the cover-up. 26%
No. This looks like atheist posturing. We need to join with Catholics in calling on the Vatican to come clean on this issue, and talk of arresting the Pope will just alienate them. 9%
No. This is about many individual, horrific cases of abuse spread over decades. It is a distraction to try and attribute responsibility to one man. 43%
Comments
Posted by: NewEnglandBob
|
April 13, 2010 1:28 PM
The pope, bishops and other officials of the RCC should be prosecuted.
Posted by: Aratina Cage
|
April 13, 2010 1:33 PM
Yes. This cover-up appears to go to the very top and its perpetrators must face justice.
374 (37%)
Yes. While it's unlikely the Pope will end up in the dock, suggestion of a legal challenge during his UK visit will draw attention to the extent of the cover-up.
245 (24%)
No. This looks like atheist posturing. We need to join with Catholics in calling on the Vatican to come clean on this issue, and talk of arresting the Pope will just alienate them.
64 (6%)
No. This is about many individual, horrific cases of abuse spread over decades. It is a distraction to try and attribute responsibility to one man.
327 (32%)
Votes so far: 1010
Posted by: Lifer
|
April 13, 2010 1:40 PM
Given that the man put his signature on the cover ups, is more concerned with the welfare of the Universal Church, and obviously feels no remorse(at the very least doesn't feel it necessary to say it publicly).. how do we even GET to this option on the poll?
"No. This is about many individual, horrific cases of abuse spread over decades. It is a distraction to try and attribute responsibility to one man."
He is one of the many individuals. How is he not? Thumbs down for this poll.
Posted by: eyespy
|
April 13, 2010 1:44 PM
When the one man who is purported to be the infallible representative of the god of his religion and is the general all-around Grand Poohbah of the church on earth lets this kind of thing happen, doesn't the whole rotten structure just come crashing down?
Anyway, on to the OTT.
If you haven’t seen the Red Letter Media YouTube Star Wars: Episode I The Phantom Menace review, you have to see it. It might be the funniest thing I’ve ever seen.
Except for the Attack Of The Clones Review that follows.
http://www.youtube.com/user/RedLetterMedia#p/u/18/FxKtZmQgxrI
From the desk of James Lileks:
“This week’s worst possible idea: a Star Wars comedy show.
That’s right. Comedy. The good news is that it’ll be done by the Robot Chicken guys, but Lucasfilm Animation is behind it, which means the smothering hand of The George Himself will probably guarantee a nightmare. The Star Wars fans will tune in with great hope, but the smiles will freeze on their faces in a hideous rictus of shame and anger. He did it again! Lucas destroyed everything I love AGAIN! It’s like belonging to a religion that worships a god who shows up every few years, revises the key holy texts, makes them stupider, and adds talking Rastafarian amphibians.”
The last bit may have taken it a little too far.
Although you gotta admit it makes as much sense as any other religion…
Posted by: tacroy
|
April 13, 2010 1:52 PM
I'd just like to point out that Papal Infallibility is an at will power, not a constant effect - the Ratz-man has to flip it on like a lightbulb, it doesn't just always radiate out of him like his aura of evil. Because of the obvious pitfalls of infallibly declaring something to be true when it might be false in reality, this power is rarely used.
That being said, I don't understand why #4 is even an option; it misleads by omission. This is about many individual horrific cases spread out over decades, and the people who covered them up. The Pope was implicit and complicit in the coverups, and should be charged for aiding and abetting the criminals along with everyone else who was involved in either committing the crimes or in hiding them.
Posted by: brilyn
|
April 13, 2010 1:54 PM
The poll is improving (from my perspective, anyway, and I've truncated the questions to save space...):
Yes. This cover-up appears to go to the very top and its perpetrators must face justice.
654 (45%)
Yes. a legal challenge during his UK visit will draw attention to the extent of the cover-up.
355 (24%)
No. This looks like atheist posturing.
68 (4%)
No. This is about many individual cases.
364 (25%)
Change your vote
Posted by: brilyn
|
April 13, 2010 1:56 PM
And it's up to 1440 votes now.
Posted by: colonel cocoa
|
April 13, 2010 1:57 PM
The Colonel was 637 for the A vote. This is looking good.
Posted by: tsg
|
April 13, 2010 2:11 PM
Papal Infallibility Invoked To Allow Scrabble Word
Posted by: neil.m.banerjee
|
April 13, 2010 2:30 PM
Looks like they got Pharyngulated! As of 2:28 p.m. EST:
Yes. This cover-up appears to go to the very top and its perpetrators must face justice. 1194 (53%)
Yes. While it's unlikely the Pope will end up in the dock, suggestion of a legal challenge during his UK visit will draw attention to the extent of the cover-up. 546 (24%)
No. This looks like atheist posturing. We need to join with Catholics in calling on the Vatican to come clean on this issue, and talk of arresting the Pope will just alienate them. 78 (3%)
No. This is about many individual, horrific cases of abuse spread over decades. It is a distraction to try and attribute responsibility to one man. 428 (19%)
Votes so far: 2246
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/DhjBEuJ8pt63x6eBKuPx0Jv9_QE-#7c327
|
April 13, 2010 2:32 PM
I have to disagree with you, Dr. Myers.
There is no question at all who is in charge. The pope. He hasn't even offered a meaningful apology.
When a bank-robbing criminal cartel is exposed, it's the ringleader who does serious time; the henchmen, if cooperative, get off lightly.
The pope is the ringleader, and has apparently been covering up crimes for a very long time.
Answer #1, the pope should be prosecuted, is the obvious rational answer.
There is no nuance whatsoever here.
Posted by: cameron
|
April 13, 2010 2:39 PM
Much as I'd love to see the pope being escorted into the courthouse with his little pope-cape pulled up over his head to hide his shame from the reporters, does anybody really think he will ever be challenged in a court of law? Really?
I mean, they arrested Pinochet, but he was pretty much universally reviled. The pope is not. Arresting the pope would be, at its core, a political act, and it will never be done without explicit sign-off from politicians, and no politician would ever, ever have his or her name associated with the arrest of the pope. I agree that it would be justified, and that it should be done, but how can you believe that it will actually happen in the universe we live in?
That said, if bringing a (futile) legal challenge keeps the pope and his NAMBLA clubhouse under the microscope, then game on.
Posted by: alysonmiers
|
April 13, 2010 2:42 PM
I voted for prosecution. If we're going to be accused of posturing, I say let's go large.
Posted by: https://openid.org/cujo359
|
April 13, 2010 2:43 PM
Even with their web page stretched completely across my laptop's screen, I still can't read the results. They're as bad at making websites as they are at writing questions for a poll.
Posted by: Reginald Selkirk
|
April 13, 2010 2:52 PM
It's sad that so many have missed the basic point in this issue: the cover-up is worse than the crime. Catholic bishops, under the direction of the Vatican, moved offending clergy from parish to parish when they got into trouble, and did not notify the new parishioners that a pedophile was being dropped into their midst. Any claims that the problem is merely isolated incidents is ostrich-like.Posted by: daveau
|
April 13, 2010 2:58 PM
I'm also boycotting Pope-yes Chicken until Ratso is indicted or resigns.
Posted by: bungoton
|
April 13, 2010 3:00 PM
Ohhhhh, being part of a horde makes me giddy.
I love the way collective consciousness works. It looks like we all picked the same answer even though the selections were much more similar than we normally see in a poll.
Posted by: PsyberDave
|
April 13, 2010 3:19 PM
Embarrassingly dumb poll. Maybe they should corral their free thinking a little bit and learn test theory.
Posted by: Andreas Johansson
|
April 13, 2010 3:29 PM
I hope their humanism is better than their poll-making or webmastering.
Posted by: Reginald Selkirk
|
April 13, 2010 3:53 PM
Off-topic:
Antony Flew died on April 8
Posted by: Silič O'Nopolitanopoulos, Färschdbischuf Beesknees aus Ulm und Klein Elguth, Elector Pharynguline.
|
April 13, 2010 4:05 PM
Well, at least he found god in time, so he won't burn in hell for ever and ever.Posted by: jcmartz.myopenid.com
|
April 13, 2010 4:09 PM
Looks the poll is turning our way.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
April 13, 2010 4:15 PM
President Harry Truman had a sign on his desk: "The buck stops here." Pope Palpatine has a sign on his desk: "The buck ain't anywhere near here."
Posted by: Rey Fox, Bird Caller Guy
|
April 13, 2010 4:21 PM
Something that stopped me while I was reading Dawkins' latest on arresting the Pope:
"Here are his actual words, translated from the Latin in the AP report:"
The Pope communicates in Latin? He should stand trial for that alone, the pretentious git.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2010/apr/13/pope-prosecution-dawkins
Posted by: bungoton
|
April 13, 2010 4:21 PM
Re Antony Flew
if we were religious we could make up some BS about him becoming an atheist again before he died.
Posted by: bungoton
|
April 13, 2010 4:24 PM
I hope Pope Rat stays where he is. If we get him replaced the RCC will claim it is cleaning house and fixing all the problems. The longer he stays in power the deeper the church will decline in popularity.
Posted by: echidna
|
April 13, 2010 4:45 PM
cameron said:
I see it differently. The Pope is the head of a global organisation which has been perpetrating and concealing child rape. Arresting the pope would be the normal course of justice. Not arresting the pope is a political act.
Posted by: macbethjn
|
April 13, 2010 5:01 PM
The thing is, as the head of the organization which allowed this behavior, he is at fault. Whatever happened to "The Buck stops here?"
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawnXstPuvYMCXA8_0FBeZXUCruIJBFUL384
|
April 13, 2010 5:14 PM
I've always felt we don't go after management enough. We have in only a few cases (like Enron) but too often don't. Instead we go after a nebulous corporate entity, and in doing so we 1. punish the owners who likely had nothing to do with the crime and 2. since corporate entities are not people, they do not respond to negative incentives in the same way. I'm all for corporate personhood for certain things, but managers are the ones who choose to break crimes, not non-existenant entities.
So in the same way, the only way to get the catholic church to start cooperating is to punsh those who help cover up crimes, as well as go after the original criminals. Going after the church itself does little just like going after businesses has done little.
Posted by: Shadow
|
April 13, 2010 5:25 PM
Ratzi probably has magnets in his hat near the RTPJ.
I was reading about an MIT study that showed results of a magnetic field changing moral values.
Posted by: Cuttlefish, OM, CR
|
April 13, 2010 5:42 PM
But... but... there are so many other people to blame first!
http://digitalcuttlefish.blogspot.com/2010/04/who-is-to-blame-for-catholic-scandal.html
Posted by: Thrutch Grenadine
|
April 13, 2010 5:45 PM
as of now
Yes. This cover-up appears to go to the very top and its perpetrators must face justice.= 2935 (60%)
Yes. While it's unlikely the Pope will end up in the dock, suggestion of a legal challenge during his UK visit will draw attention to the extent of the cover-up.= 1108 (22%)
No. This looks like atheist posturing. We need to join with Catholics in calling on the Vatican to come clean on this issue, and talk of arresting the Pope will just alienate them= 102 (2%)
No. This is about many individual, horrific cases of abuse spread over decades. It is a distraction to try and attribute responsibility to one man.= 682 (14%)
Posted by: MadScientist
|
April 13, 2010 6:13 PM
I loathe these stupid polls; I always wonder what brand of stupid is required to come up with the statements. Yes/No would be fine (though an open internet poll's results will always remain unacceptable), but what the hell is the point of adding leading statements? I'd bet these are the same sorts of people who conduct "interviews" with questions and answers arranged and approved beforehand - you know those worthless interviews in which almost every question is a leading question and the few that aren't are trivial follow-ups to a leading question?
Posted by: TWood
|
April 13, 2010 6:38 PM
I think they should arrest the pope in effigy. Then parade the effigy through town in a popemobile with a bar cage instead of plexiglass. And let people throw stuff at it.
Posted by: cameron
|
April 13, 2010 6:47 PM
Echidna said:
I agree that the pope, and the entire catholic hierarchy, should be made to face justice for these (and other) crimes. But again, here we're talking about what should happen, not what will happen. When has justice figured in international diplomacy or religion's relations with government? The fact that this is both international and religious diplomacy makes it exponentially less likely that the pope will have to answer for his crimes.
Which is why I think this whole 'arrest the pope' thing is just silly, ostentatious posturing. Even if they are just using it as a first step towards getting the UK government to stop recognizing the Vatican as a legitimate state, I think Dawkins and Hitchens are going about it in a way that makes them look a bit clueless.
Posted by: irenedelse
|
April 13, 2010 7:02 PM
Well, there is at least one prominent critic of the New Atheists who is NOT put off by what Hitchens and Dawkins are doing. On the contrary. Saturday, Michael Ruse wrote in the Huffington Post (I know, I know...) a post whose title speaks volumes:
The Catholic Church: Why Richard Dawkins Was Right and I Was Wrong
It's a powerful piece. The only quibble I have is when he discuss a hypothetical change in the RCC, and likens the opening of priesthood and bishophood to women to the fact that women can be Supreme Court justices in the USA. The difference (crucial in Catholic doctrine) is that RC priests have not only a direct line to the supreme supernatural being, God, but also are anointed, and thus partake themselves of the supernatural. They are, literally, magical conduits between God and human beings. (Not that a Catholic would put it in these terms, of course.)
Posted by: echidna
|
April 13, 2010 7:38 PM
Catholic language version:
They are, literally,
magicalholy conduits between God and human beings.Posted by: ChrisD
|
April 13, 2010 8:36 PM
bungoton
In turn this could possibly reduce the risk of anyone else getting fiddled. I like that aspect of it. But knowing there is no hell for him to burn in kind of makes me desire earthly justice as well. I say hang the fucker.Posted by: sciencenotes
|
April 13, 2010 8:51 PM
A few people, such as Martha Stewart, were convicted and jailed, however briefly, for doing something that was legal (if a trifle shady) AND THEN LYING about it. That could well be the case here.
Many news articles mentioned that the future pope (then Grand Inquisitor) wrote a letter in 1985 saying that the RCC should delay defrocking a child-raping priest. Hardly any mentioned that he was answering an urgent letter to get the priest out, which was sent in 1982! Throw the book at him.
Posted by: SlantedScience
|
April 13, 2010 9:08 PM
I'll stay quiet on this one.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
April 13, 2010 9:20 PM
You don't have to remain quiet, SS. We could use a good shot of stupid, ignorant trolling and you're just the one to provide it.
Posted by: amnj.murphy
|
April 13, 2010 9:32 PM
Well, it looks like it wasn't such a tough decision after all...
61% for option #1 now.
Posted by: Peter H
|
April 13, 2010 9:42 PM
Slanted found her/imself welcomed by a baptism of fire (did i perhaps get lucky on that one?) a bit ago, but now says s/he has noting to say. Which seems a very vocal way of not being there at all.
Posted by: Charlie Foxtrot
|
April 13, 2010 9:42 PM
Jeez, if an Italian court can convict 3 Google employees (including a CFO) as responsible for a video uploaded to YouTube - is it really that much of a leap of precedent to convict the chief wizard of the RCC for a massive cover-up operation?
Nearly 7000 votes now.
Hey, it doesn't say... is that poll 'scientific'?
Posted by: Teshi
|
April 13, 2010 9:43 PM
Oops, I definitely voted for the dreaded #3 before I saw your repudiation of that choice. I liked it the best.
Has anyone discussed the immunity the Pope enjoys from prosecution as a Head of State yet? I would have thought this was a major consideration. Under international law, it appears that no Head of State can be arrested for crimes in another country.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immunity_from_prosecution_%28international_law%29
Despite the fact that the Pope was not the Pope when some of these cover-ups occurred, I would have thought that prosecution in the UK or any country that usually abides by International Law and cares one whit about its international reputation would not even consider arresting the Pope and that's it's absolutely absurd to suggest that it's a possibility.
The Wikipedia link above lists Robert Mugabe and Fidel Castro as some of the [i]clearly criminal[/i] Heads of State who have evaded prosecution. Not that what the Pope apparently did isn't abhorrent, but I don't actually think it's in the same league as Mugabe.
Basically, that's why I voted for the slated #3.
Posted by: Macallan
|
April 13, 2010 9:52 PM
#45:
I'm sure there were abuse cases in the UK.
Posted by: Stogoe
|
April 13, 2010 10:09 PM
It bears noting that international law was written by heads of state for the purpose of protecting heads of state.In other words, Fuck.That.Shit. If the Prime Minister of the UK rapes toddlers, anywhere in the world, you go after that fuckbasket.
Posted by: Weed Monkey
|
April 13, 2010 10:14 PM
And THIS was quite a clever way to remind us of what's going on with Simon Singh today! Or, perhaps it was just the way my silly monkey brain is wired.
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
April 13, 2010 10:35 PM
Is the Vatican a recognised state?Posted by: Rorschach
|
April 13, 2010 11:16 PM
Maybe.
From the article by RD linked above :
Posted by: Steven Dunlap
|
April 13, 2010 11:45 PM
The rot goes to the top: 4561 (61%)
Yes. While it's unlikely the Pope will end up in the dock, 1679 (22%)
No. This looks like atheist posturing. 131 (1%)
No. It is a distraction to try and attribute responsibility to one man. 987 (13%)
The Pharyngulation continues.
I am a little curious how with such a rigid hierarchical organization anyone can claim innocence when he's spent so much time in the upper reaches of the Catholic church? Just wondering.
Posted by: Cosmic Teapot
|
April 14, 2010 4:24 AM
Unless he picked the wrong religion. ;)
Posted by: David Marjanović
|
April 14, 2010 7:05 AM
Answers 1 and 2 are not mutually exclusive; the first is about "ought", the second about "is"... I want to vote for both.
Having only one computer available, I took the second...
Will continue for 5 more days.
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
April 14, 2010 7:24 AM
Got some fucking Malware on the computer that keeps telling me my computer is infected. If only I'd pay for the Malware then I'd be able to get the fucking Malware off the computer...
fucking annoying shit!
Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere
|
April 14, 2010 7:26 AM
Wrong thread, please disregard. I'll resume complaining in the Walton crisis thread.
Posted by: Rorschach
|
April 14, 2010 7:42 AM
Awww, poor Windoze users.....
Posted by: First Approximation, L'esprit de l'escalier
|
April 14, 2010 7:42 AM
lol
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
April 14, 2010 7:53 AM
Kel,
Malwarebytes.org
Download, install and update. Boot into safe mode and run. Tell it to remove everything it finds.
works like a charm on those nasties.
Posted by: echidna
|
April 14, 2010 8:45 AM
This is a terrific rundown of just how long the RC church has been dealing with child rape:
http://hungrybeast.abc.net.au/stories/beast-file-history-catholic-church-sex-scandal
The Hungry Beast which is an in-your-face Aussie TV series on the ABC (Australian Broadcasting Commission).
Posted by: Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom
|
April 14, 2010 9:21 AM
Option 3 is dead on the linked poll.
I voted for option 2, because the Pope's recognized as a head of state, so he's pretty much immune to legal challenge.
Posted by: irenedelse
|
April 14, 2010 11:08 AM
@ echidna #59: Sadly, this video is only available to viewers in Australia.
Posted by: Kliwon
|
April 14, 2010 7:31 PM
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/evildoers-not-pope-to-blame-20100414-sdyj.html
This is an opinion piece in the Sydney Morning Herald newspaper in Australia. It has made some comments about the efforts to prepare a brief on Benny XVI's actions regarding paedophile priests. It welcomes comments. Please feel free to add some.
Thanks
Posted by: cookieacct
|
April 15, 2010 7:36 AM
There is very simplistic poll at The London Free Press (London, Ontario, Canada)
http://www.lfpress.com/
just asking if the pope should be arrested or not.
The good news is it already at 95% in favour.
A few more votes couldn't hurt