…and this is a 
Would you believe I still get lots of mail from devout Catholics? I still even get these nice heartfelt letters via regular mail from little old Catholic ladies who think their flowery stationery will finally bring me around to the faith. But mainly I get something out of the blue where I can tell someone has stumbled onto one article that has offended them deeply, and they write to berate me for it. They usually don't even bother to tell me what it is that has annoyed them so, not that it really matters.
Article
I am always amazed when I read an article such as yours and have a chance to witness the stupidity and ignorance of many of todays so-called professors. Before I point out your complete ignorance I will say this. A Catholic hater is the most easiest of all arogant people to recognize. I will also say this. You were either once a catholic or never had any strong affiliation with a church. The biggest haters of the church are catholics, who for various reasons no longer feel that it fits their lifestyle. They are usually divorced or have a deep personal resentment for the church that has "let them down." They almost always find a church that "understands" their needs.
Ooh, ouch. Making predictions is a bad idea when you suck at it. I'm not a Catholic, and never have been, and never will be. I was brought up in the Lutheran church, but I left it in my teens. I am not divorced, and am in a happy relationship that has lasted for over 30 years; in fact, I don't feel resentment about much of anything, since I think I've had a remarkably good and fortunate life.
Perhaps Mr Moore here was confused because he saw only one article and didn't read very far. I'm not a Catholic hater; I think all religions are lies.
Now, your statement about priest. What you and others like you avoid saying is that the priests that do these type of things are gay. Priests that maintain the male orientation do not do these things. Bur if you spoke the truth you would offend your gay friends, and we can't have that now can we. The other issue is that most of the crimes against young boys have happened over 30 years ago or longer. The rate of new cases is far under what happens with teachers in public schools and other denominations. Yes, it is even higher now among jewish rabbis. But no one is saying that so as not to offend. The catholic church will continue to be attacked by the likes of you because Christ predicted it. If you spent have the time that you spend on reaserching ways to attack the church and spend it on learning the truth, you would find peace. But you will never find peace. I will bet you that you are very unhappy and actually a miserable person inside.
Two flaws in Mr Moore's reasoning:
Raping children is not the same thing as consensual sex between two adults; these are not "gay" crimes, and equating abuse with consensual behavior is rather revolting. It is also not the case that only young boys are victimized; girls are mistreated, too.
The "they do it, too!" excuse simply does not work. That some teachers are pedophiles does not mean it is unfair to pick on the poor child-raping priests. Catholics claim a greater virtue, so they don't get to shuck all their guilt when they're caught red-handed, and in fact ought to be held to a higher standard, according to their own views; and there's also a significant difference between a priest and a secular professional. When a teacher gets caught diddling children, he will be arrested, fired, and banned from the profession. What we've learned is that when a Catholic priest fondles children, he'll get sheltered, paid off, and transferred to a new parish and a fresh collection of kids.
I really do have a lot of Catholic mail that claims the real problem isn't abuse of power by amoral abusers in the Catholic hierarchy…it's those damned gays. And they accuse me of hate.
It is not too late for a change of heart but I will remind you that if you continue in this fashion you will have much to answer for in the next world. Your few years of study will have been for nothing. To many of us, it already has been for nothing. To come where you are now in life, with a heart full of hate, is very sad. If years of study can bring a person to this much lack of knowledge, it is easy to see why our colleges a places of complete ignorance of truth.
And now we get to it. I must note that Mr Moore is the one who says years of study are for nothing, who belittles institutions of higher learning, and then whines about how we are ignorant of the truth. Perhaps if he'd paid a little more attention to the minor niceties of spelling and grammar, as well as the more significant skills of logic and reasoning, it wouldn't be quite so obvious who is the ignorant one in this argument.
I don't have a heart full of hate, either. Although I begin to feel a good bit of anger at people who try to rationalize and trivialize child rape.
Comments
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
November 23, 2010 10:37 AM
Pure awesome.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
November 23, 2010 10:41 AM
This is the point that is completely ignored by folks like Mr. Moore.
And I wonder if Mr. Moore has commented here before because this
reminds me of a commenter from a previous Catholic related thread.
Posted by: Q.E.D
|
November 23, 2010 10:44 AM
Arrogance: "I know The Truth" (TM)
Posted by: Sven DiMilo
|
November 23, 2010 10:45 AM
yes, irony fans, you read that right
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
November 23, 2010 10:50 AM
Rarely is the question asked: Is our children learning?
Posted by: Forbidden Snowflake
|
November 23, 2010 10:51 AM
That is true. This Catholic is a hater and he's glaringly ignorant, as well as borderline illiterate.Posted by: daveau
|
November 23, 2010 10:52 AM
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
November 23, 2010 10:52 AM
Spoken like someone who knows little but the lies his church has told him for years, and considers that the only knowledge he needs to know. Wake up and smell the reality of the world as it is. But it will require you to think, not mutter platitudes and make illogical statements like the above ad nauseum.Posted by: salon_1928
|
November 23, 2010 10:53 AM
These people always sound so dull and miserable to me. They have a dim outlook on life and just repulse me...
Posted by: Deepsix
|
November 23, 2010 10:53 AM
So... you were either a catholic once, or you weren't.
Well, at least he got one thing right.
Posted by: Gus Snarp
|
November 23, 2010 10:55 AM
So much for a Catholic school education. It never ceases to amaze me that people will call others stupid, ignorant, or poorly educated, while demonstrating a complete lack of the basics of the English language that they should have learned in grade school.
And haven't you done pieces on Rabbinical child abuse cases? Maybe that was NPR. If these people actually listened to the liberal media they would see that it talks about those issues too. It's just that child abuse in a small, geographically and socially isolated religious sect is not only to be expected as it is in any cult, but is simply not news that affects millions of people around the globe. As opposed to abuse conducted by priests of one of the wealthiest and most influential global religions. Both are awful crimes. One is headline news, the other only shows up on NPR's more in depth programming.
Posted by: ThatOtherGuy
|
November 23, 2010 10:56 AM
The best part is that he dismisses higher learning and education while -typing on a computer-, a high-tech device that would not exist were it not for years and years of study by many many people.
Posted by: Bob52742
|
November 23, 2010 10:57 AM
And the point is, Mr Moore, that horrible as the child abuse is, the cover up is equally bad. In a recent interview that has caused much stir, Ratzinger said that the child abuse was badly handled. How easy it is to evade responsibility if one uses the passive voice.
Posted by: tytalus
|
November 23, 2010 10:59 AM
Boy, I don't know which of these statements is funnier for me.
I liked this one for how it rationalizes the well-justified attacks on the church as some act of prophecy. Could it be...Satan? It couldn't possibly be because catholic priests have molested children and the church deserves our ire for covering up crime. Whereas this one I simply enjoyed for the spell/grammar check fail. Is English this fellow's first language, I wonder? Might be excusable if not...Hey, I'm trying to be charitable here. :)
Posted by: moochava
|
November 23, 2010 10:59 AM
The Good Lord gave us hyphens for a reason, pal.
Posted by: Blueaussi
|
November 23, 2010 10:59 AM
"Yes, it is even higher now among jewish rabbis."
Isn't it a time honored tradition amongst Catholics to point at the evvvvvil Jews to distract attention from their own activities?
Posted by: daveau
|
November 23, 2010 11:01 AM
Aside from the blockquote fail...
Dear Mr. So-called Professor-
What relevance does your blog or 'article' bring to bear upon your expertise in your chosen field, and your capacity to convey that expertise to your students?
Posted by: lykex
|
November 23, 2010 11:01 AM
Jesus said that christians would be persecuted, but since catholics aren't true christians (see Jack Chick), the argument is invalid.
Posted by: Pinkydead
|
November 23, 2010 11:02 AM
@Blueaussi
Atheists do it too. Or have you forgotten about Hitler?
Oh wait, my bad.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
November 23, 2010 11:02 AM
I think it can easily be proven that not only do Rabbis do this more than Catholic priests, but that Catholic Priest who molest are really Jews pretending to be Catholics to sabotage the Church.
Posted by: Q.E.D
|
November 23, 2010 11:02 AM
this ignorant benighted catholic is merely repeating what his betters have taught him here
Posted by: steve
|
November 23, 2010 11:05 AM
I'm sure Mr. Moore is incapable of original thought.
All his points are pulled from catlick propaganda including I would suspect the grammar and spelling errors.
Posted by: Susan
|
November 23, 2010 11:06 AM
Why? When there are so many more useful things he could have predicted that would have saved so many lives!Posted by: spaninquis
|
November 23, 2010 11:06 AM
I hate picking on grammar and syntax when criticizing this stuff, because it seems so condescending, but this bugs me:
Why preface what you're going to say with the statement that you're going to say something. JUST SAY IT!
He did it twice.
Posted by: Gus Snarp
|
November 23, 2010 11:07 AM
@tytalus - I wondered if he might not be a native English speaker, but these don't read to me like the mistakes of non-native speakers, they read like the mistakes of a native speaker writing the way they speak and not even knowing that it's not proper English.
Posted by: rachel.wilmoth
|
November 23, 2010 11:09 AM
True, but Catholicism is the one true religion--all those other ones don't count, so neither does your ire against them.
Sort of OT, but has anybody seen this: Catholic priests dying in America's hidden Aids epidemic. I have to say, I do find it disheartening that centuries-old political machinations are leading to needless deaths.
Posted by: Quodlibet
|
November 23, 2010 11:10 AM
It is precisely this sort of denial and ignorance which permeates so many Catholic parishes, creating an atmosphere of enablement and more denial. Yes, the church hierarchy enables and covers up the continuing horror of child rape, but the ignorance and denial within the catholic herd lets them get away with it. Pathetic and disgusting.
Posted by: Dantheman
|
November 23, 2010 11:10 AM
It's nice to see that all christians are not cruel hating creatures. I was raised catholic. This person says you will have to answer for your beliefs in the next life instead of wishing you die a horrible death and suffer for eternity, the usual christian prescription.
Incidentally many many years ago I was impressed by the nuns and priests at my public elementary school when the government forced them to take down the crucifixes and limit the religion classes to before 8:00AM. They still believed then in "giving unto Caesar" so they did it without complaint.
Now heretical christians run for office with this slogan which I actually saw at a recent local event. "A christian candidate for capital punishment, for gun rights, and against taxes"
Posted by: rachel.wilmoth
|
November 23, 2010 11:13 AM
*sigh* HTML fail @23. Try this: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/catholic-priests-dying-in-americas-hidden-aids-epidemic-724664.html
Posted by: Iris
|
November 23, 2010 11:15 AM
The New York Times did a piece this weekend pimping the pope’s new book, which is humbly entitled “Light of the World: The Pope, the Church and the Signs of the Times.” He's been getting a lot of press because he said condoms are possibly appropriate, but only for male prostitutes. (Not for female prostitutes of course, who can just fuck off and die.) From the article:
That’s right, his personal decision to shuffle pedophile priests around, hush up their victims, and keep the lid clamped down tight on all of it, is exactly like a natural disaster.
And yet it turns out that, in addition to this overwhelming force of nature barreling down on the church, there were also dark, supernatural forces at work, too: it was “the Devil” who flung “this filth” in their faces!
If there were indeed filth thrown into the faces of anyone in the church hierarchy at all, let alone filth even remotely equal in measure to the tiniest fraction of the filth directly inflicted by priests and their protectors on countless children (of both sexes), I have neither seen nor heard of it.
Posted by: locka99
|
November 23, 2010 11:16 AM
I think the RC's situation is entirely self inflicted. Putting men and women in positions of power but denying them a normal sex life is bound to screw some people up. It's also likely that vows of celibacy attracts people who experience deviant sexual urges (e.g. to children) and thinks that celibacy will somehow keep them at bay.
It would be interesting to see how the rates of reported abuse compare from one religion to another. I expect relatively laid back religions like Church of England would fair a lot better than those that condemn homsexuality, or even require vows of celibacy.
Posted by: steve
|
November 23, 2010 11:17 AM
How open minded and magnanimous of them to not indoctrinate children at a state funded school.
What's next, will they now stop raping and otherwise physically abusing them ?
Posted by: Yoav
|
November 23, 2010 11:17 AM
Did our friend just admitted that being gay is something you are and not a lifestyle choice? So Darth Benedict should be sending PZ flowers for helping to fulfill jeebus' prophecy.Posted by: masksoferis
|
November 23, 2010 11:20 AM
What? This clown is accusing PZ of being against rogants? Just how ill-informed is he? (Or possibly she.) The temerity of some of these people, assuming that just because someone doesn't agree with them, sure, that must be a rogant-hater, probably kicks rogants wherever he sees then, keeps a few chained in the basement and tortures them with cheese for his own perverted pleasure, cheese on the rogant, and I wouldn't be surprised if there were pictures too, yes, ghoulish rogant abuse films just like in Albania in the Twenties, shawls and tea cozies, "Rogants, ha! A rogant here or there does the world no harm!", these monsters always say, but do they know the amount of work that goes into making one, a good rogant, peaked and with the curly bit in the end, and wobbly, like who-am-who-am-am, I ask, I'm just asking, is what the people of this kind say when they assume that's what... erm...
Wait, what are rogants?
Posted by: Greg Laden
|
November 23, 2010 11:21 AM
"Before I point out your complete ignorance I will say this. A Catholic hater is the most easiest of all arogant people to recognize."
Hahahahahah!!!
Posted by: rachel.wilmoth
|
November 23, 2010 11:21 AM
How the hell does that line of reasoning work? They're priests--don't they possess the ability to fight off the Devil and all the evil he represents? That sounds like a lame excuse even from a believer's perspective.
Posted by: Sastra
|
November 23, 2010 11:23 AM
Most Catholics are fine, ordinary people, because most people are fine, ordinary people. This isn't about bigotry: it's about directing criticism at certain fact claims. We have an issue with religion in general because
1.) The unique parts are not true.
2.) Believing those parts is bad for people.
Look what it did to poor Mr. Moore.
Posted by: Q.E.D
|
November 23, 2010 11:29 AM
The Princes of the Church have publicly blamed the following for the paedophile scandal they covered up and perpetuated:
1) Gays
2) Jews
3) The Media
4) Satan
5) Secularism
6) Children who tempted priests
but I don't remember any paedophile priest or cover-up Bishop being turned over to the police or excommunicated by the Vatican
Posted by: Holytape
|
November 23, 2010 11:29 AM
I wonderif 30 years ago, Catholic priest could make the same argument. There is a difference between reported cases and actual cases. The difference between teachers, rabbis and the other is that they don't have an organized structure protecting them. I would like to see what the reporting rate is. It is hard to believe that pedophile priests were only active in the years 1950-1970. In thirty years is there going to be another batch of abuse cases that occurred in in the 2000's.
Posted by: somewhereingreece
|
November 23, 2010 11:31 AM
How about we serenade him with Tim Minchin's "The Pope Song"? At least it is grammatically correct.
Posted by: Dantheman
|
November 23, 2010 11:33 AM
Steve wrote:How open minded and magnanimous of them to not indoctrinate children at a state funded school.
What's next, will they now stop raping and otherwise physically abusing them ?
----
There was plenty of physical and mental abuse by the nuns. It didn't stop when the feds forced our small rural public school to divest itself of religion. The outright cruelty of the nuns including beating with rulers and pointers left me with a lasting impression.
While they took down their symbols without complaint they railed against the withdrawal of an exemption which allowed nuns to teach in the school without a proper teaching certificate. For decades they allowed any nuns sent by the diocese to be paid to teach the kids without the same requirements as the "lay teachers".
Posted by: Crudely Wrott , Drinking Solo Since Death's Back On The Wagon
|
November 23, 2010 11:36 AM
I hear a voice from the past. My grandmother's.
Operative word: "refuse".
Posted by: Lynna, OM
|
November 23, 2010 11:39 AM
It's important to be strictly and rigorously Catholic, because that also allows you to justify torturing human beings ... yet another Catholic trait which PZ has failed to exemplify.
The Catholic cable channel, EWTN, presented a program in February of this year in which marc Thiessen defended torture and explained torture as compatible with the Magisterium of the Catholic Church.
Pharyngulites have ripped Andrew Sullivan to shreds for his failures, (no RL torture involved, just reasoned argument), but in this case he does bring up some great points.
Posted by: gr8hands
|
November 23, 2010 11:41 AM
Q.E.D., they were too busy promoting one (a cover up Cardinal, that is) to Pope.
Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings
|
November 23, 2010 11:44 AM
That's like a complete asshole predicting that people won't like him.
Posted by: christophe-thill.myopenid.com
|
November 23, 2010 11:45 AM
Pity poor PZ. He's going to burn in hell for his nasty mocking of abusive priests. Whereas, had he been one of those priests, and had he repented after years and years of inflicting dirty things to children, he would be guaranteed to go to heaven. Isn't it great?
I guess it's a good things that some people are willing to fulfill the prophecy, or else it would mean that Jesus was a liar. Actually, isn't it a most noble and holy task? Despising your own salvation and attacking the Catholic church just in order for Jesus' predictions to come true? I think it deserves more respect than the writer seems to show!
(JL Borges would have loved this...)
Posted by: raven
|
November 23, 2010 11:58 AM
Got to give this one credit for at least some insight. Indeed, a lot of anti-Catholics were once Catholic. In fact, going to Catholic secondary school is a common way of ending up an ex-Catholic at least or atheist. The Catholic church by its own actions and silliness has driven away members by the millons at least.
The current Pope has probably made more exCatholics in a day than PZ Myers has in a year.
Something about being raped as a child can really make people question their faith. Even if it wasn't you personally, the coverup and lies of the church were disgusting.
Well sure. Why shouldn't they? Free country and all that.
Who would want to donate money and time to a church that failed them and looks at them as cattle to be farmed for the good of an antiquated, fossilized relic that has nothing to offer anyone but medieval insanity?
Posted by: Beatrice, anormalement indécente
|
November 23, 2010 12:00 PM
So what the hell is he complaining about? It must be the devil speaking trough him, trying to make Jebus' prophecy fake and Catholicism collapse into itself... Now that sounds kind of nice.Posted by: tutone21
|
November 23, 2010 12:01 PM
Dear Pharyngulites,
I have read the comments on the poor grammar and must tell you all that YOU are the ones that are wrong! I had GOD proofread this before I sent it.
Nana-nana-boo-boo stick-your-head-in-doo-doo
Mr. Moore
Posted by: Qwerty
|
November 23, 2010 12:01 PM
PZ - You're just a "so-called professor."
Yes, he tips his hand at the beginning with this phrase. You could easily predict nothing but comdemnation to follow after seeing "so-called."
Liberals use it too, but I most often see it in right-wing or conservative diatribes. You are not a "real professor" but just a "so-called professor."
Of course, whatever happen to the Christian belief in charity and forgiveness of those who have sinned against us? It's in that most sacred of Catholic prayers:
"Our father who art in heaven, forgive us our sins as we forgive those who sin against us."
Yes, Mr. Moore is a so-called Catholic.
Posted by: David Marjanović
|
November 23, 2010 12:04 PM
"Is" are correct in that sentence.
PZ is a bodhisattva. Just like Mother Teresa.
Posted by: raven
|
November 23, 2010 12:04 PM
I saw that and my reaction was, Who in the hell cares one bit what some old guy living in the Dark Ages says about anything? No one, really. The RCC has vaporized its limited credibility.
The RCC has raised Don't Ask, Don't Tell to an art form. The priests pretend they have something worthwhile to say while the members pretend to listen while ignoring it all. The birth rate of US Catholics is identical to the US population at 2+ despite decades of gibberish from the Pope about how to fuck, when and why.
Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist
|
November 23, 2010 12:06 PM
This is why, to me, the 4 perhaps most frightening words in the english language are "You'll thank me later"
Posted by: David Marjanović
|
November 23, 2010 12:09 PM
Bingo.
And that stuff about birth rates isn't limited to the US.
Posted by: Free Lunch
|
November 23, 2010 12:14 PM
The Milwaukee archdiocese had a bad day today. Their insurance company was let off the hook by the court of appeals. Any liability for child rapes will be borne directly by the archdiocese because the priests were moved around or the claims were ignored. Tim Dolan, the new face of Catholic oppression in America, used to be Milwaukee's bishop. It couldn't have happened to a nicer guy.
Apparently judges are Catholic-haters, too.
Posted by: Gus Snarp
|
November 23, 2010 12:15 PM
@raven -
What I don't get is why they can easily ignore all the stuff about using birth control in their own lives, but can't seem to make the leap to ignoring the priests when it comes to telling other people how to live their lives.Posted by: Moggie
|
November 23, 2010 12:20 PM
Leaving aside the wrongness of this, I just don't understand why it's supposed to be persuasive. "Hey, no fair! The church doesn't enable and cover up straight paedophile priests! It enables and covers up gay paedophile priests! So why are you complaining?"
Posted by: Mello
|
November 23, 2010 12:21 PM
Hey, this is great news! I mean, according to this fellow, most of the Catholic pedophilia happened twenty or more years ago. That means, obviously, that everyone who was affected by it is long dead by now, right?
*crickets*
Seriously, now, is there a word for 'beyond disgusted'? 'Too nauseated to speak'? Sometimes I have a hard time finding letters such as this one. These people are seriously excusing child rape just so they can go on believing in the Happy Big Daddy in the Sky. To top it off, they mentally condemn those of us who are appalled by the protection of child rapists in the name of the Happy big Daddy in the Sky to eternal torment, as if we were the criminals. It's a truly fucked-up world view, and no matter how often I witness it I find it hard to imagine.
I would now like to end with the tradition invitation to Mr. Moore to cram a decayed hedgehog up his nether passage.
Posted by: jack.rawlinson
|
November 23, 2010 12:23 PM
Wow. You got called ignorant by someone who writes "most easiest". That must sting.
Posted by: unbound
|
November 23, 2010 12:27 PM
"I don't have a heart full of hate, either. Although I begin to feel a good bit of anger at people who try to rationalize and trivialize child rape."
That summarizes the whole post nicely. This is the primary issue why I left the catholic church myself. For a group that claims the moral high ground, yet averts their eyes to issues of this nature occurring in their mist is beyond appalling, it is outright disgusting. I have nothing but contempt for the catholics that continue to rationalize the acceptability of such acts.
Posted by: Q.E.D
|
November 23, 2010 12:33 PM
_ MoggieNo True Catholic Priest (TM) fallacy
Posted by: eleusis
|
November 23, 2010 12:33 PM
Do you get that snail mail at your university or home address? Because that would creep me out if my home address was so publicly known that random old ladies were sending me letters.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
November 23, 2010 12:40 PM
It's not that hard to find out someone's physical address. I've received numerous letters in response to to Letters to the Editor I've written, none of which contained my address.
Many from old ladies warning me of my impending eternal damnation.
Posted by: Mr Ashy
|
November 23, 2010 12:41 PM
There is something almost fascinating about the reasoning
Male abuses a boy- he is a homosexual and this is an example of why gay men shouldn't be trusted
Male abuses a girl - he is a paedophile and this certainly wasn't a heterosexual act
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
November 23, 2010 12:42 PM
Exactly. Not all of us former altar boys had to be raped ourselves to become disgusted by the church. All we had to do is realise that either God loves this sort self-serving, cowardly sycophants and is thus not fit for worship by any human being deserving of the name, or that the entirety of the church's theology was wrong.
JS Mill famously wrote that no-one should be free to sell themselves into slavery. God-grovellers like Moore already have; they've just neglected to secure a price for themselves.
Posted by: Vicki, Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief
|
November 23, 2010 12:46 PM
PZ is blogging under his real name. It's hardly surprising that his address is publicly known.
If you had my full name, finding my address would not be difficult. You'd just have to eliminate other people with the same name; Prof. Myers's location is also well known, which would simplify that.
Even people who blog under pseudonyms often leave their addresses in the phone book, so if you connect "Vicki" or "Eleusis" to an offline name, and we've said anything about where we live (geographically, I mean, not "with my kids" or "in a too-small apartment"), it can be pretty easy.
Posted by: Louis
|
November 23, 2010 12:59 PM
I agree with that nice Mr Moore who wrote that lovely letter to Dr Myers...
...oh wait, no I don't. I have an IQ above that of a houseplant.
Carry on
Louis
Posted by: rachel.wilmoth
|
November 23, 2010 1:03 PM
My mother used to care for an former nun who was still a practicing RC. She went beyond rationalizing and trivializing the rape of children; she swore it was a global conspiracy lead by Satan to bring down the infallible Church. Scary thing is, I doubt she was the only one who thought this.
Posted by: Epinephrine
|
November 23, 2010 1:10 PM
Wait, are you a so-called professor, a PROFESSOR, or a so-called PROFESSOR? I get so confused.
Apparently Christ is responsible for PZ (and others) attacking the Catholic church. Who knew? What implication does this have for free will?
If things happen because Christ predicts them, he should have predicted nicer things. Clearly, Christ wanted the Catholic church to come under fire, or he wouldn't have predicted it. I like that we can blame him, though. "It's not my fault I'm mocking you. Christ predicted it, so I must mock you!"
Posted by: Rey Fox, Bird Caller Guy
|
November 23, 2010 1:11 PM
"They are usually divorced or have a deep personal resentment for the church that has "let them down.""
Yeah, what a bunch of...humans those ex-Catholics are.
Posted by: Psych-Oh
|
November 23, 2010 1:11 PM
Mr. Moore,
Please ask yourself rationally what are some other possible reasons why those of us who are ex-Catholics detest the church so much? Some reasons that have nothing to do with your biases and prejudices. Oops, I said rational. Sorry, that may be beyond you.
Sincerely,
Psycho-Oh
Posted by: Gingerbaker
|
November 23, 2010 1:24 PM
Bullshit. The opposite is true, according to the best available evidence.
Posted by: cag
|
November 23, 2010 1:25 PM
At least Moore got something right. The catpriests have been at it for over a thousand years.
Must protect the priests from AIDS!!
Posted by: The Otter God
|
November 23, 2010 1:26 PM
@11
I know this if off-topic, but...
If NPR is supposed to be a member of the "liberal media", they need a refresher course. Leaning on the recent views expressed by Rachel Maddow, I see NPR as more a publicity channel than an actual news organization. Allowing people to lie on air, or having "newscasters" repeat the lies for them does not a news organization make.
On topic...
I'm proud to be a catholicism hater. However, I'll evaluate individual catholics on a person-by-person basis, thank you very much.
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
November 23, 2010 1:30 PM
Not at all; that's a common belief among the more devout Catholics. The moderate Catholics (the ones raven and David talk about above) don't bother defending the Church as infallible—they simply defend it in spirit while acknowledging its failings (as they chow down on a New York strip at Bennigan's® on a Friday night before heading home to slap on a condom slathered in nonoxynol-9 because diaphragms, like other aren't methods of contraception, aren't 100% effective.)
Posted by: Gingerbaker
|
November 23, 2010 1:31 PM
Sorry - reference re gays not pedophiles is here: http://www.internationalorder.org/scandal_response.html
Posted by: Anubis Bloodsin the third
|
November 23, 2010 1:32 PM
The jeebus legions sense....
“The world is changed, they taste it in the water, they smell it in the air, they feel it in the Earth
What once was is no more!”
Poor legions bunnies are shitting themselves silly really.
The jig is up an all that and although the church has suffered wobbles in history, nothing like this, purely devastating and it will get worse and not much better...
'tis a downward spiral but they are snapping at the easiest targets in their descent cos that is what the wounded animal does.
They have woken up to the threat from atheism, which at one time they dismissed as an aberration, a quirk not relevant, a view held by disaffected and those that felt betrayed by a previous experience, and a hatred of jeebus, but now they are realising it is becoming stridently mainline and everywhere and they are panicking fit ta rapture.
They have no idea how to handle that nightmare, they just hope and rely on the likes of Mr Moore might drive the nasty naughty atheists away...they are so scary!
They hope the 'faithful' will just run enough interference on media and campaigning while they scrabble for a 'better' game plan at Vatican central to combat the enemy of delusion.
The secular and Nazi ploy went terribly balls up on them and 'Ratface' and the AIDS fiasco with the condom furore really was a screw up of epic proportions.
They are diminishing although slowly to be sure but they might well have hit some woo induced Schwarzschild radius and there is no way back now...tis simple physics!
'Fear' is percolating down the batting order in the RCC...
'tis that and nothing more a drip drip dropping rancid e-mails to your office door!'
It means rationality is winning...simple like so!
Posted by: menckensghost
|
November 23, 2010 1:35 PM
Glimmer of sanity sighted in Rome:
SALON: Pope: Condoms OK for women too
Rev. Federico Lombardi says... "I personally asked the pope if there was a serious, important problem in the choice of the masculine over the feminine," he said. "He told me no. The problem is this ... It's the first step of taking responsibility, of taking into consideration the risk of the life of another with whom you have a relationship." Lombardi added: "This is if you're a woman, a man, or a transsexual. We're at the same point."
Posted by: tytalus
|
November 23, 2010 1:35 PM
Re: Gus Snarp #25, yeah, I tend to agree. I bring up the native speaker thing more as a subtle way of poking fun at the believer. :) There are probably kids in other countries who can write in English better than Mr. Moore.
Anyway, it is interesting to see how quickly xians and/or catholics fall back from their claims of objective, superior morality to being no better than anyone else at it, which as PZ points out takes their pedestal right out from under them. What's the point in claiming some special relationship with the source of perfect morality if it doesn't do any good?
Man, I was this close to writing 'pederast' instead of pedestal. The RCC is just too easy to make fun of...I wish it were less despicable.
Posted by: SirBedevere
|
November 23, 2010 1:37 PM
Just a few issues ago the London Review of Books has a very-well written review by by Colm Tóibín of Angelo Quattrocchi's book The Pope Is Not Gay. There was a lot of interesting material in this review about the centuries-old relationship between homosexuality and the priesthood. It's on line now and worth a read:
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v32/n16/colm-toibin/among-the-flutterers
Posted by: jschmeau
|
November 23, 2010 1:47 PM
This was G W Bush wasn't it? Would you rather he said "Are our children learning?"
That just sounds like pirate talk.
"Arrr... arrr... children..."
Posted by: Bo Gardiner
|
November 23, 2010 1:52 PM
Shorter Moore:
"I'm a victim and you're a hater. Why?
Because you dare call attention to my hate and the victims of my hate."
When will I cease being shocked by the rampant ubiquity of such twisted thinking???
As a woman who was harmed as a girl by one of these "manly" priests this woman admires and defends, it is particularly upsetting.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
November 23, 2010 1:53 PM
Catholic Priest solicited murder of boy who accused him of abuse.
Posted by: Don Quijote
|
November 23, 2010 2:01 PM
Why does Mr. Moore alternate between Catholic and catholic? They are two different definitions, aren´t they?
Posted by: Randomfactor
|
November 23, 2010 2:03 PM
Arogant, Adicant.
The Vatican's Don't Ask, Don't Tell.
Posted by: menckensghost
|
November 23, 2010 2:04 PM
Rev @83:
WOW! He raped the kid at gunpoint. Astounding.
Posted by: Anubis Bloodsin the third
|
November 23, 2010 2:10 PM
#83
Now don't be intolerant there Rev...tis that 'jeebus love' in full glory is all!.
Xians...when you think they can go no lower...they always manage it!
Posted by: Skippy
|
November 23, 2010 2:14 PM
Anubis @ #77, I love you for quoting Galadriel from the Fellowship of the Ring. That prologue is just plain cinematic awesomeness.
Do people like Mr. Moore actually want a response from PZ? Or is this jeebusy chest thumping--which, wouldn't that actually be a sin, as it's akin to pride/arrogance, which their imaginary sky-friend is explicitly opposed to?
Posted by: grudgedk
|
November 23, 2010 2:16 PM
Maybe it would be a good idea, before sending off an angry, incoherent, ranting e-mail calling professors stupid and ignorant, that you yourself have, at the very least obtained a post-highschool level of mastery of your native language.
To be fair, education is most certainly wasted on people like Mr. Moore.Posted by: Blackavar
|
November 23, 2010 2:16 PM
He also predicted the world would end while some of his followers were still alive. (Cue the apologists).
Posted by: Menyambal: Making sambal (it isn't dragon magic).
|
November 23, 2010 2:19 PM
So PZ is doing the Lord's work?
Notice that things happen because they were predicted, not that they were predicted because they were going to happen.
Rev. BigDumbChimp beat me to the link I was going to post, but this one is also good, if not as Catholic. Pakistan's president will pardon Christian woman, official says, not because blasphemy isn't a crime, but because she was falsely accused. The religious accusers get nothing, and the blasphemy law still stands. Accusations of blasphemy are assumed to be true and death-worthy, and can only be overthrown by the president, provided he bothers to launch an investigation and it can show the accusations to be false.
Posted by: Skippy
|
November 23, 2010 2:20 PM
But...but Blackavar, he didn't mean it! It was totally allegorical or metaphorical or semantical or some such other indefensible bit of bullshit.
Posted by: Les Lane
|
November 23, 2010 2:24 PM
From personal experience (myself and friends) people left the Catholic church not from divorce or personal resentment, but because they read the Baltimore Catechism and found it bizarre. Some of us are unable to ignore or overlook bizarreness. Others are apparently unable to recognize bizarreness.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
November 23, 2010 2:27 PM
I had no idea that Microsoft Word Viewer was the Baltimore Catechism.
Posted by: jschmeau
|
November 23, 2010 2:32 PM
Bizarre indeed!
Posted by: Moggie
|
November 23, 2010 2:32 PM
Wouldn't that make Bill Gates the pope?
Posted by: Blackavar
|
November 23, 2010 2:34 PM
I want Oprah to be pope. Poprah!
Posted by: Gregory Greenwood
|
November 23, 2010 2:36 PM
This canard just will not lie down and die. How many times must it be repeated; homosexuality has nothing whatsoever to do with paedophillia.
Some paedophiles abuse children of the same gender as themselves, some abuse children of a different gender, and some abuse children of all genders, but this has no connection to adult sexuality. This behaviour, like all forms of rape, is not really about sex so much as it is about power.
Paedophiles are individuals who suffer from an unhealthy sexual fixation on children that they go on to actualise They derive gratification from acts of abuse, this is true, but this is in no way comparable to any intimate act between consenting adults of whatever combination of genders. It cannot be, because children are incapable of giving consent.
As PZ points out, how would Mr Moore explain the sexual abuse of female children by male paedophiles? Or male children by female paedophiles? Even in Mr Moore's... let's just say 'eccentric' worldview, the connection between such abuse and homosexuality must surely be tenuous...
I am assuming that Mr Moore is sufficiently well informed to be aware of the existence of female paedophiles and opposite-sex child abuse. Perhaps herein lies my misapprehension. I forgot the fist rule; never overestimate the intelligence or level of education of fundies.
Denial like this is sad, isn't it? I take it that Mr Moore is incapable of accepting that epidemic child abuse is ongoing in the Catholic clergy, and that the attitude of shielding the abuser in order to protect the status and authority of the church remains unchanged. It is this conspiracy of silence that is the greatest obstacle to tackling clerical child abuse. It is not just the individual paedophile priests, but the entire edifice of the church that protects them that must be exposed and brought low.
This is the very definition of an empty threat. When will fundies learn? No atheist is going to be impressed, still less intimidated, by threats of fictional 'hellfire'. First, prove the existence of your psychotic god-fantasy, or at the very least scientifically demonstrate the existence of a non-corporeal 'soul'. Then we will talk about a putative 'afterlife'.
So, Mr Moore is an anti-intellectual to boot. Colour me surprised. I am sure none of us saw that one coming...
Posted by: CJO
|
November 23, 2010 2:36 PM
Some of us are unable to ignore or overlook bizarreness. Others are apparently unable to recognize bizarreness.
They recognize it okay, but what's scary is, they recognize it, and they like it. There's a tendency at work that I like to call credal athleticism. When a religious institution is under attack for its extreme beliefs and the effects those beliefs have on the behavior of the institution its members, rather than moderating those beliefs and subjecting that behavior to some critical examination and moderating them, this tendency drives the hard core members of the institution to actually embrace more extreme versions of those beliefs and behave in yet more immoderate ways. This apparently helps to reinforce the "us vs, them" bunker mentality and ensure a clear division between the true believers and the other. Basically, the Catholic church is losing members worldwide at a terrific rate, but those who remain are the creme de la creme of the batshit insane. Thus their new, even more reactionary pope, Crackergate, Bill Donohue, and this moron's sub-literate ravings.
Posted by: Blackavar
|
November 23, 2010 2:37 PM
@Skippy One of my coworkers: "I don't know that verse but if he said it, it couldn't be wrong. Because he can't be both god and wrong."
I agree with exactly half of that.
Posted by: feralboy12
|
November 23, 2010 2:40 PM
It's the fault of the Jews, the Gays, the atheists, ex-catholics, and the devil.
But mostly it's the children's fault, for being so attractive.
Posted by: alysonmiers
|
November 23, 2010 2:45 PM
The catholic church will continue to be attacked by the likes of you because
Christ predicted itsane folk don't respect people who on Sunday threaten you with damnation and on Monday diddle their congregants' kids.Fixed that for Mr. Moore.
Posted by: Lee Christensen
|
November 23, 2010 2:46 PM
"A Catholic hater is the most easiest of all arogant people to recognize."
That's the most unkindest cut of all. Be careful; he's pulling a Shakespeare.
Posted by: Blackavar
|
November 23, 2010 2:47 PM
The pontifex maximus is so very christ-like and in no way controlls an obscene amount of money while many of his flock die in abject poverty. Nor does he ostentatiously display his wealth with clothing and accessories.
Posted by: 朴競花/박경화 (Gyeong Hwa)
|
November 23, 2010 2:47 PM
Uh no. The reason that they target boys is because the Catholic church is a male dominant organization. There are simply more boys in the organizations to be taken advantage of. Rest assure, there are cases of girls being raped by preist as well, but they are less common because girls have less roles in the Church.
Have you noticed that churches with openly gay priests or non-celibate priests don't seem to have this problem?
(I often wonder if the nice folks who email these ever come to read there responses to them.)
Posted by: Gus Snarp
|
November 23, 2010 2:50 PM
<sarcasm>Surely all atheists are secretly just as terrified of eternal damnation as Christians are. Can't possibly really not believe it.</sarcasm>Posted by: Randomfactor
|
November 23, 2010 2:59 PM
That's the most unkindest cut of all. Be careful; he's pulling a Shakespeare.
If he pulls on his Shakespeare more than twice, he's playing with it.
Posted by: raven
|
November 23, 2010 3:00 PM
Several commenters pointed this likelihood out. In a Moslem country with a small xian minority, being an uppity xian is one step away from being a dead xian. Suicide by neighbor.
None of the people accused of witchcraft at Salem were witches either.
The recent Pew poll on religious knowledge showed that the majority of Catholics don't realize that they are eating real god flesh and drinking real god blood during communion. They don't even know that the sorcerer priest is transubstantiating mundane ingredients by means of a magic spell. Well whatever, it is only the core sacrament of their kooky cult.
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
November 23, 2010 3:03 PM
Betcha Moore still holds some people* responsible for the supposed abuse of a single, adult male over 2,000 years ago.
(*$50 says those people are the same ones getting a special shout-out in his email.)
Posted by: raven
|
November 23, 2010 3:06 PM
Why should we be?
Why aren't xians afraid of being reincarnated as a toad or earthworm by Brahma for not leading good lives or even believing in him?
The xian's ace in the hole, nuclear bomb argument always ends up looking like a badly aimed paper airplane.
Posted by: Blackavar
|
November 23, 2010 3:07 PM
All christian hierophants: "You can't get to god except through jesus."
Catholic hierophants: "You can't get to jesus except through the church."
Atheist: "You can't be serious."
Posted by: marcus
|
November 23, 2010 3:09 PM
PZ, It just occurred to me that the legal profession lost a truly gifted litigator when you decided to get a real job and work for a living. Your logical reasoning is practically unassailable.
Posted by: Les Lane
|
November 23, 2010 3:18 PM
Let's try Baltimore Catechism again. This time "copy" picked up the URL.
Is it indeed bizarre?
Posted by: Blackavar
|
November 23, 2010 3:25 PM
I realize this question damns me to hell for eternity. Again. But just out of curiousity, why did Jesus need three days to come back from the dead? Did he want it to be Sunday? Did he just have some god shit to do? Does it take that amount of time to, you know, resurrect? Why? Is there anyway we can test any theory we come up with? My coworker told me it was because "He said that was what was going to happen." But that doesn't answer the question. You can say it doesn't matter but damnit I want to know. Did he just want to make damn sure everyone knew he was dead and not just faking it? What, because he's a deity you can't question his motivation or reason for his biggest feat evar?
Posted by: The other Tim
|
November 23, 2010 3:33 PM
I was going to put him in the semiliterate camp until I ran across:
OK, demoted to barely literate.
What this actually says is that prediction(s) made by Christ somehow caused the attacks on the RCC by people like PZ. It's unlikely that Mr. Moore meant this. I can forgive an occasional typo (my own fingers occasionally slip), but the inability to translate one's thoughts into English is a more serious failing.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
November 23, 2010 3:34 PM
Shame on you, Moore. You should have written "the mostest easiest".
Posted by: cag
|
November 23, 2010 3:34 PM
Blackavar #114
When you are fictional, everything is possible. Fiction doesn't have to make sense. In the case of the bible, that should read "fiction does not make sense".
Posted by: Bo Gardiner
|
November 23, 2010 3:38 PM
Now, now, a lot of us think that wasn't a bad education in many ways.
Unfortunately, in the early 70s, they were still excluding girls from earth science class. We had to take home ec instead! Girls today have NO IDEA how recent such sexism was).
But we were taught evolution fully in biology class. Our class in Social Ethics was surprisingly humanistic and hugely influential for me. Religion class was about as liberal as Christians can get, pretty cool hippie laypeople for the most part. Small classes, good teachers.
But very bad was that we were allowed to elect out of all chemistry, physics, and calculus! I foolishly did this, and was set back grievously in college when I wanted to switch to science from the arts and had so much to make up. Not sure if public school would have allowed that then.
Most priests and nuns were lovely. But there was the required minimum 1 hetero and 1 gay pedophile priest. Worst were the priest and nun bureaucrats at the top who terrified and silenced us who were harmed, and protected the pedophiles.
Posted by: Erulóra (formerly KOPD)
|
November 23, 2010 3:41 PM
Blackavar,
I've asked some similar questions about the virgin birth and the necessity for any birth at all. Why didn't Jesus just pop out from under a rock as an adult and start doing his rebel thing? Would have been a lot easier on Mary and Joseph that way.
Posted by: Blackavar
|
November 23, 2010 3:42 PM
cag, I'm with you. Or maybe the father just asked the son to pick up some celestial milk on his way back to heaven. And then you know, you gotta unwind after all that earthly trauma. Shoot some hoops, play the omegabox. Or maybe the guy who told the story the first time thought it added an air of credibility. "Nuh uh, he was NOT asleep. How could he sleep in that cave in that shroud for three days? Answer me that mister smart guy."
Posted by: raven
|
November 23, 2010 3:43 PM
IIRC, technically it was only 1 1/2 days. He was crucified Friday afternoon. And the tomb was empty Sunday morning.
As to why it was 3 days, 1 day, or a month, who knows? There was no point in coming back to life when the Romans were still around. They still had hammers and plenty of nails and would just stick him back up on the cross.
A better question is what difference did it make? We are still the same humans we always were, the good, the bad, and the ugly. Other than contributing to the fall of the Roman empire, and a few dozen bloody wars and crusades here and there, nothing obvious.
In point of fact, we are noticeably better than we were a few centuries ago. Animal cruely is illegal, slavery is illegal, stoning disobedient children or false prophets to death is illegal and so on. And religion had zero to do with it.
Posted by: blf
|
November 23, 2010 3:44 PM
Ok, this is something I've been wondering about for yonks(on the rare occasions I think of it): What the feck is home economics?
Posted by: MadScientist
|
November 23, 2010 3:45 PM
Po' Mr. Moore. He can't even tell the difference between hate and anger about evil and ignorance. What an idiot indeed.
Posted by: CJO
|
November 23, 2010 3:45 PM
Posted by: Blackavar
|
November 23, 2010 3:50 PM
Thanks for that info CJO. Makes a lot more sense as to the reasoning for the interval. Seems to me that an all powerful deity would not be overly concerned with appearances vis-a-vis his putative death and would just resurrect immediately. Funny how a lack of science colors a story.
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
November 23, 2010 3:56 PM
No believer should, either. A tyrant who is wrong is still wrong, no matter how big the club he threatens to beat you with. And if the answer to the Euthyphro dilemma is that piety is piety because it is loved by the gods (or worse, Aquinas' pathetic weaselling), then it is not morality to do what God commands, but puppetry.
For a religious sect that contains more martyrs than an Al-Qaeda high school yearbook, they don't seem to understand the concept of self-sacrifice as an act of integrity.
The wife of James, Brother of Jesus:
"I don't care if Caesar himself is after him; you tell that no good, shiftless, rabble-rousing, hippie brother of yours he has until the end of the Sabbath and then he can find himself some other couch to crash on. No wonder he's always broke; after all that money you lent him for carpentry school, I've yet to see him hammer anything more complicated than two boards together. Now, I honestly don't have a problem with the fact that he's come out as a 'fisher of men', but I'm tired of cleaning lamb’s fat off the ceiling whenever he and his 'disciples' decide to invite every prostitute in town named 'Mary' over for one of their parties.
And did you hear what he said to me when I told him we couldn't afford all those fine oils he uses to wash his damned feet?"
Posted by: CJO
|
November 23, 2010 4:00 PM
What the feck is home economics?
A curriculum begun in US high schools in the late 19th century but that really caught on during the depression, intended to instruct future homemakers in the arts of maintaining an efficient --and economical-- household for hubby. "Scientific" approaches to such matters were all the rage in those days (cf Scientific Management). Also, I believe Elanor Roosevelt had some influence on the trend, as she tried to set an example for the nation during the depression by having the meals prepared at the White House be relatively low-cost.
Posted by: Gus Snarp
|
November 23, 2010 4:03 PM
For practical purposes, Home Economics is a class where you learn to cook, sew, do laundry, plan meals, set the table, and everything a woman is supposed to be able to do to be a good wife. I'll note that I took this class and my wife did not.
Posted by: blf
|
November 23, 2010 4:14 PM
Ah, Ok, my (admittedly very naïve) guess about home ec seems about right. I did take a look at the Pffft! of All Knowledge's article, but it's badly written and not very illuminating. Thanks!
Posted by: Bo Gardiner
|
November 23, 2010 4:15 PM
Posted by: Vicki, Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief
|
November 23, 2010 4:25 PM
Brownian--
The weird thing is that, ethically, threats of hellfire might be a plausible reason for obeying some of the more arbitrary rules. It isn't unethical to avoid mixed-fiber clothing; nobody is harmed by such an avoidance. (Not even the cloth merchants: they can weave pure cotton, or pure linen, for such purists, while everyone else continues to wear cotton-poly blends.)
But what's the point?
"No, Mr. or Ms. Thunder-Deity, I am not going to stone my neighbor for having sex, or refuse to drive my child to the hospital until sundown. But I will wear the specific fabrics you prefer while I drive that ambulance and give my gay neighbor shelter."
It's not likely to appeal to many people as the basis for an ethical system, lifestyle, or social community.
Posted by: Gus Snarp
|
November 23, 2010 4:26 PM
@Bo Gardiner - Going to school in the "enlightened" 80s, boys and girls both took home ec. When we had a class about skin care we all had to listen to the whole thing. 45 minutes of skin care for women and 5 minutes of skin care for men, amounting to, "use moisturizer and toner after you shave."
Posted by: blf
|
November 23, 2010 4:27 PM
Seems about right. (Slams the door to the lair shut, locks and bolts it, and moves various items of furniture to further block entry. Then frantically loads the trebuchet with peas. The penguin gasps and faints. The Thing That Rattles the Toolshed goes berserk, and is either trying to start an earthquake or has—again—made an error on the Suduko.)
Posted by: otrame
|
November 23, 2010 4:33 PM
Mr. Moore is a classic example of just how much of a fool cognitive dissonance can make us. He knows that the church he's invested so much of his emotional capital in is corrupt beyond description but he can't let himself acknowledge it because he has so much emotional capital invested in it.
Beware. We are all susceptible to it. At some time in your life it will make a fool of you too.
I feel sorry for him. I honestly do. The fact that he went to the trouble to write to PZ shows that there are cracks in the emotional castle he built around the church. That has to be painful.
Sure tomorrow I might tear into him with sniny coat and sharp teeth but several weeks of bad bad bad pain waiting until someone other than myself can take care of my disabled sister while I go get my sacroiliac joint put back together has caused some amazing mood swings and at the moment I am feeling sorry for Mr. Moore and all the others like him.
Tomorrow--or at least some time soon--people like him better wear his otrame-proof undies because people who think raping little boys is somehow worse than raping little girls make me livid and anyone willing to excuse the coverup of child rape really piss me off.
Just not today. Too tired. You want to know how bad it's been? I haven't been readying this blog several times a day. For me that is .... That is just plain SICK.
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
November 23, 2010 4:35 PM
Which some of us are thankful for. Why, where would New Wave music be without badly applied eyeliner?
Posted by: DLC
|
November 23, 2010 4:38 PM
I don't hate God any more than I hate Deathwing*.
To the extent that the latter is preventing me from enjoying my afternoon off, you could say I hate Deathwing more than the other fictional character.
It's not their God I despise, it's the Mob called the Roman Catholic Church that bothers me.
Mob ? they have a better racket than the Gambinos ever imagined.
(* for those of you unfamiliar with it, Deathwing is a fictional villain in Blizzard Entertainment's game "World of Warcraft". )
Posted by: Moggie
|
November 23, 2010 4:43 PM
#121:
No, the Romans were too busy putting down the zombie uprising described in Matthew 27:52-53. Matt may have thrown it away in two lousy verses, but you've seen zombie movies, you know that must have been epic.
Posted by: blf
|
November 23, 2010 4:52 PM
Nah, those zombies were saints. The Romans quickly worked out that if you shoved two zombie-saints together hard enough, their halos would interlock, effectively taking the two zombie-saints out of action. So it just became a big pushing contest, with a lot of hacking later to chop up the immobilised zombie-saints.
Posted by: Steven Mading
|
November 23, 2010 5:08 PM
"Jewish Rabbis" ?? Is there some other sort of Rabbi?
Posted by: Skippy
|
November 23, 2010 5:20 PM
Oh, Mr. Moore. He clearly and stupidly assumes that PZ is walking around in some perpetual state of Atheistical Rage. And hell, even if he is, what does that have to do with the existence of Moore's sky-friend? I know plenty of unhappy and miserable Christians--that neither proves nor disproves the existence of a "god."
And if Mr. Moore spent his time researching the history of his misbegotten religion and actually reading the insipid collection of texts that undergird said misbegotten religion, he'd probably spend a lot less time sending poorly thought out emails.
Posted by: Gregory Greenwood
|
November 23, 2010 5:23 PM
Blackavar @ 114;
Well, you see, what most people don't realise is that, a little while before he was run through by that spear, he had actually died of blood loss on the cross and, well, a guy needs a little time before he 'goes again', you know...
Brownian, OM @ 126;
Very true. Youy may be forced to pay lip service by threats of violence, but it never makes a tyrant right.
Even if good existed and was omnipotent, he sure as the fictional hell-trope wouldn't be omnibenevolent. It has been said before, but if god actually does exist somehow (contrary to all evidence), then the only ethical course for humanity would be attempterd deicide.
Jesus died for our sins... then came back to life three days later. That is not sacrifice, it is a short holiday. That is the problem with Xians. They don't understand acting out of principle, risking one's life, without a get-out-of-death-free card to fall back on.
Posted by: Balstrome
|
November 23, 2010 5:30 PM
I heard a suggestion that he was using a foreign server and the respawn times really lagged. And that was even with God Mode.
Posted by: fauxrs
|
November 23, 2010 5:31 PM
Oh yeah, they all happened 30 years ago, not recently at all
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
November 23, 2010 5:38 PM
Blackavar #114
Because the omnipotent god is becoming more and more impotent as time goes by.
6000 years ago The Big Guy In The Sky could poof the entire universe into being in just six days. A couple of thousand years later TBGITS decides the Earth needs a reboot but instead of poofing the old Earth away and poofing a new one into existence he can only drown everyone except for one family and an ark (or possibly two) full of critters. Then Son of TBGITS comes on the scene. You'd think he could just poof himself back to life but it took three days to do it. Now TBGITS and Son of TBGITS are reduced to showing up on pieces of toast and dog's asses. The past few centuries TBGITS & Son LLC have been coasting on past glories. They just don't have what it takes any more.
This explains why so many goddists feel they have to take action against blasphemers. They know TBGITS can't smite the unbelievers like he used to so they have to take up the slack.
Posted by: AnthonyK
|
November 23, 2010 5:51 PM
Don't forget the the Scottish one - Rabbi BurnsPosted by: Bo Gardiner
|
November 23, 2010 5:55 PM
@Gus Snarp
Now I know what my next campaign is. I demand 45 minutes skin care for men. Equal opportunity for soft kisses is my god-given right.
@ blf
Whoa, guess I don't spend enough time in the comment section to digest the darker humor, damn.
Posted by: JJ23
|
November 23, 2010 5:59 PM
Don't know if this has been posted yet...a priest who molested kids tried to hire a hitman to kill one of the victims who is going to testify against him....
http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/11/23/texas.priest.arrested/
Posted by: elronxenu
|
November 23, 2010 6:15 PM
This morning's news - some moron in the Australian Parliament is annoyed because the Indigenous "welcome to country" statement is said right after the Lord's Prayer.
Quoting Liberal Senator Julian McGauran, "What has occurred is that the prayer is immediately followed by the welcome to country, virtually in the same breath, and given all the same reverence, been placed on the same plane as the Lord's Prayer."
Mr McGauran, the fact that the Lord's Prayer is spoken in an offical capacity in the parliament of a secular nation is a travesty. You are blinded by your religion, for which there seems to be no end to its selfish demands.
Posted by: Moggie
|
November 23, 2010 6:17 PM
Pah! All you need is the Shower Hammer!
Posted by: NitricAcid
|
November 23, 2010 6:21 PM
When I was in grades 8 and 9 in the 80s, everyone took the same combination of Home Ec. and Shop classes- woodworking, metal shop, sewing, and cooking. We had separate "Health" classes which talked about the dangers of drugs and alcohol, and something was mentioned about shaving (something about the hair growing in the direction in which you shave, though I couldn't imagine exactly how I was intended to utilize this information).
In high school, all such classes were optional, and the only segregated class was auto shop. There was an auto shop class for girls (which covered how to change the oil, when to change the oil, and how to basically maintain your vehicle), and auto shop class for boys (who naturally already knew that kind of thing, and wanted to learn how to rebuild the engine from scratch). I was forced to take the latter, and to this day, I can barely change my oil the easy way (remember to drive to "Speedy-Change", pay twenty bucks, receive beration from the mechanic for not taking proper care of the car, drive home).
Posted by: dezcrawford
|
November 23, 2010 6:29 PM
I must ask two questions...one to you: isn't it terribly difficult to transcribe horribly misspelled letters, verbatim, when your fingers WANT to type the correct spelling and usage?
...and the other, to the Universe: when will people realize that pedophiles come in every imaginable sexual persuasion, that they like KIDS, and that pedophilia is not a common practice among gay males? Some pedophiles rape girls, some rape boys, some rape both. Some are heterosexual, some are homosexual, some are bi-sexual. AARGH!
Posted by: Weed Monkey
|
November 23, 2010 6:31 PM
Moggie
That - was - AWESOME! :DPosted by: Rafa
|
November 23, 2010 6:34 PM
PZ should do a "Hate Mail with PZ Myers" just like Dawkins, but with intermittents close-ups of an aquarium with an octopus inside, instead of the fireplace.
Posted by: David Marjanović
|
November 23, 2010 6:36 PM
It's like in the Soviet Union: "they pretend to pay us, and we pretend to work"...
Second Vatican council: eating meat on Fridays is no longer a sin.
Even not going to church every Sunday isn't a sin anymore.
Thread won. I can go back to work.
Hey, it's Texas. There has to be a gun in it somewhere.
No. Atheist: "Why should I care? First show me there is a god to begin with."
That's why he's interested in figuring out what's really going on instead of in winning a case.
Easy: because all divine saviors are born from a virgin. That's simply the way it works. :-|
Was by no means limited to the US, of course. My mother also had it*, also in the late 60s and/or early 70s.
* The school system doesn't allow much freedom of choice; you don't take subjects, you just have them.
Oh what the fuck.
Posted by: CJO
|
November 23, 2010 6:49 PM
Why didn't Jesus just pop out from under a rock as an adult and start doing his rebel thing?
Pretty much exactly how it goes in Mark, (almost certainly) the first gospel to be written. He just shows up at the Jordan to be baptized by John, with only a short preamble and no indication that anything of note had happened to him prior to that. It's almost as if the virgin birth is a... a... a myth! (Not that the baptism isn't.)
Posted by: gnu.christian
|
November 23, 2010 6:54 PM
How long will it be before CINO's like Mr. Moore, the millions of similar ilk, the RCC and yea all denominations disappear? Gnu xians join gnu atheists in working toward that day.
Posted by: --PatF in Madison
|
November 23, 2010 7:06 PM
Why don't you ask Mr. Moore about the story below:
The Priest and the Hit Man
(It's the same story as JJ23 posted in #147)
How in the world can these people climb up on their moral high horses when stories like this keep coming out?
The Catholic Church is the gift that keeps on giving.
Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula
|
November 23, 2010 7:07 PM
Tim Michin uses eyeliner to give him extra-special powers of awesome.
Posted by: Wildmanbaran
|
November 23, 2010 7:13 PM
This is how we spend our time?
"The world is truly doomed."
Posted by: timgueguen
|
November 23, 2010 7:45 PM
I'm surprised no one has mentioned another possible reason for a 3 days later resurrection/resurrection on the third day: It connects to the idea of God as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. I bet there's a lot of other numerological cleverness hidden in the Gospels, including stuff a 1st Century audience would recognise that has long been forgotten.
Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist
|
November 23, 2010 8:13 PM
@160
I doubt it since the trinity was an idea that didn't show up in the bible and was invented some decades after
Posted by: Buxley
|
November 23, 2010 8:20 PM
Not a huge surprise, but sadly this is as factual as the rest of Mr. Moore's letter. That is to say, not at all.
CNN is reporting today that a Catholic priest in Texas by the name of John M. Fiala is now in jail after trying to hire a hit man(!) to murder a boy he had raped at gunpoint.
How can things like this happen and yet sheeple will keep repeating that Church is the only moral authority. I see no (good) morals here.
Posted by: musicant
|
November 23, 2010 8:31 PM
@ 63
I've also received such letters at my home address after writing letters to newspapers that were critical of religious insanity. And the interesting is that they've all been anonymous! So much for standing up for what they believe!
Posted by: Anubis Bloodsin the third
|
November 23, 2010 8:39 PM
#160
Yep three is the magic number.
What better way to impress then a lowish odd number it is manageable and accessible and quite mystical.
Hence the power of three in paganism and wicca, another odd number finds resonance there, the five of the pentagram.
Seven and thirteen are also popular.
But three, well, maid...mother...crone springs to mind.
Three Primary colours...Heart...body...mind...the three piggies...the holy trinity...three stooges...three bears...the three time denial by Peter...the three wise men...three criminals nailed to a bit of tree...etc etc.
If you want to flim flam an audience use magical allusions...like numbers...works every time and in every age and every society and every supernatural frame of reference.
So the 'three' day hiatus for jeebus zombie was possibly just a allegorical bit of extra spice just to add flavour!
Create a narrative douse it in copious speckles of mystic meg in threes and voile youme got yourself a religion!
Posted by: Koshka
|
November 23, 2010 10:45 PM
Ing @161
Are you implying the trinity was made up and the bible wasn't?
Posted by: Lee Picton
|
November 23, 2010 10:48 PM
Don't forget, it's always three guys who walk into a bar.
Posted by: Randy (not Randy)
|
November 23, 2010 11:18 PM
(Among) the problem(s) here is that Mooreon isn't even dealing with the right question. Of course there have been more 'crimes against young boys' from the beginning of Christianity through 1980 than there has from 1980 until today. The first set has 1970-ish years on the second set.
Has the frequency of the abuse increased?
Posted by: timrowledge, Ersatz Haderach
|
November 23, 2010 11:23 PM
Well there's mini-lops and chincillas and….Oh. rabbi.
Posted by: Joe Bloe
|
November 24, 2010 12:12 AM
Priests have been raping children for 2,000 years:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAgQ8cIFEB4
Posted by: Simulation of Sapience
|
November 24, 2010 1:16 AM
I'm not calling Poe,I'm calling Program.
To the creator(s) of "Mr. Moore"(more like Missed More/Mister Less):You aren't godlike yet,buddy,but since so many religious fundamentalists flail about so wildly in their attempts at convincing educated people into buying their malarky,some people may actually be fooled for a moment,but I'm not taking the bait.
That anyone did isn't testament to your A.I. programming skills but proof of the sad fact that the human beings you base your A.I. on would fail the Turing Test.
Maybe I'm the one being delusional here,but I refuse to believe that e-mails like this one are the product of grey matter rather than software.
Posted by: flatlander
|
November 24, 2010 1:57 AM
My favorite part of the screed was "so-called professor." I've been called the same when I wrote something in the local mullet wrapper some reader didn't like. I even offered to sign letters and op-ed pieces "So-Called Professor" followed by my name, but the killjoy editor wouldn't let me.
Posted by: ivr
|
November 24, 2010 2:32 AM
"priests that do these type of things are gay."
+
"it is even higher now among jewish rabbis"
=
it's the faggots and jews that are the real problem but that's not PC to say - fucking liberals.
So many scapegoats it's hard to keep up. What mental pretzelling this tiny minded bowel mouthed fool must perform to keep believin' that tired old shyte.
Posted by: DLC
|
November 24, 2010 3:09 AM
@various: "Why did Jesus take 3 days to get back from the dead?"
Dude, have you never had to lay over in Tarterus ?
He's lucky he got back in a week, without his luggage yet!
Posted by: davem
|
November 24, 2010 4:54 AM
QFT. Since the RCC has been doing this stuff for centuries, he did get this one thing right.Posted by: Anubis Bloodsin the third
|
November 24, 2010 5:20 AM
#173
Why?...did someone lift it for him?
Posted by: clamcyp
|
November 24, 2010 5:36 AM
Home economics - a tautology!
Eco nomics from the Greek "oikos" (pronounced "eek-oss") meaning HOME and the Greek "nomos" a LAW, so, the laws of the home. (And why you shouldn't say "ecko nomics").
So, home economics, home home laws.
Posted by: clamcyp
|
November 24, 2010 5:43 AM
@DLC He's lucky he got back in a week, without his luggage yet!
Definitely OT, but you remind me of the old British Airways poster for the Concorde:-
"Breakfast in London, lunch in New York" to which someone had added "and luggage in Brazil".
Posted by: Q.E.D
|
November 24, 2010 7:21 AM
feralboy12 @ 101
This may be a case of satire being surpassed by reality:
“There are 13 year old adolescents who are under age and who are perfectly in agreement with, and what’s more wanting it, and if you are careless they will even provoke you,” - Bishop Alvarez of Teneriffe
This is a Bishop. A Bishop of Christ.
Posted by: Peter Ashby
|
November 24, 2010 8:47 AM
Don't be silly, kiddy fiddling is only a venal sin, not even a mortal one. They can't excommunicate you for a mere venal sin, they are only obeying their own laws there.
Of course that paedophilia is only a venal sin in Catholic theology is part of the attraction. Normal sexual relations with a consenting adult human is Adultery!, THAT's a Mortal Sin.
This is why the Church is denial, it knows that sort of reasoning is what goes through the minds of its priests when normal human urges have no legitimate outlet.
Posted by: FordPrefect
|
November 24, 2010 8:57 AM
Anubis @ #164...
Small nitpick, 3 gifts not 3 wise men. The number of wise men was not mentioned in the bibble.
Posted by: frog, Inc.
|
November 24, 2010 9:19 AM
If that were true, we'd have some impressive evidence of JC's witchy powers. I'd really like to see the prophecy that goes "And unto you shall blaspheme University Tenured Professor, and he shalt come from the Land of Minnesota and the Sea of Morris. He shalt be a fallen Lutheran and listen to NPR and his realtime PCR equipment shall be overpriced and yet still his grants shall be renewed; and he shall claim that his graduate students shall finish their Ph.D degrees in 4 years, plus or minus 2.6 years SEM because so many biologists shall be statistically illiterate in those dark days. Amen"
Eli, Eli sabacthani, indeed.
Posted by: prozim
|
November 24, 2010 9:29 AM
On the audiobook version of The God Delusion, Lalla Ward reads some Christian hate mail. I could hear Moore's email in Lalla's voice.
Posted by: John Sven
|
November 24, 2010 9:55 AM
Wow... and all I did to be put in the dog house with my family(Mormons) was tell my nephew of 15 years with a new girlfriend, most men have HPV protect her. haha I got the boot this thanksgiving from my family lets see if I can stretch it to jebus day:)
Posted by: stompsfrogs
|
November 24, 2010 10:08 AM
Rage-catholic = Captain Obvious' secret identity? So PZ was either or Catholic or not... that is saying a lot. Good use of language, sir!
Posted by: gr8hands
|
November 24, 2010 10:16 AM
frog, Inc. @181 -- excellent!
Posted by: David Marjanović
|
November 24, 2010 11:07 AM
Chinchillas are rodents closely related to guinea pigs. They're not rabbits, they're not lagomorphs at all.
Well, no, "lust" in general is a mortal sin. But adultery does get very prominent mention in the Gospels...
No, read again: either PZ was Catholic, or he was never affiliated with "a church", any church, at all (meaning he grew up without knowing anything about religion).
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
November 24, 2010 11:13 AM
Chinchilla rabbits...
Posted by: Schenck
|
November 24, 2010 12:33 PM
"You were either once a catholic or never had any strong affiliation with a church."
I /think/ that what he means is, since you obviously hate the Holy Mother Catholic Church, you must either be an Apostate, or Ignorant. No middle ground, either you're a devil-lead Apostate or just completely ignorant.
Also, lets pretend that Dr. Myers IS completely ignorant of the Church. Why does ignorance on /that/ mean that your education was completely worthless, and that you're infact ignorant about everything????
Also, do these sorts of people, who say that Pedophile preists are gays, not realize that some girls are abused by them too?
And how is it that he somehow knows the /current/ rates of pedophilia within the RCC, and also the Jewish community, etc???
Posted by: Jimmy-boy
|
November 24, 2010 1:15 PM
Kind of hedging your bets there, Mr Moore! So that seems to leave...those people who had a strong affiliation to a non-RC church? I wonder why you exclude them? Round our way, they are pretty vocal in their anti-Catholicism too.
The difficulty for these Catholics, as noted, is the value of their lives invested in it all. The older you get, the harder it gets (fnagh) to change/leave.
I have some sympathy with those who find themselves in this position of wondering what the shit is going on having given their lives to it, only to discover that their clergy would be shamed by the morals on offer in a Soho brothel.
After all, many of them are pretty decent people (in the UK at least) with strongly liberal tendencies - and a voice on lots of important issues (save choice/life clearly) which coincides with most atheists.
But the old core like Mr Moore, having backed themselves into a corner start just making it up, accept any line of argument (those old canards just roll around and around), throw increasingly wild accusations... but because they debate outside of their sphere so rarely, have no clue how poor their arguments are.
And there has to be a book to be written on the subject of hatred, and the accusation of it.
Well fuck you, you patronizing, lying wanker.
How's this? I am happily married (wish we hadn't bothered with ther expense to be honest) and left the church, after much pain and guilt because it was full of shit.
Because it was full of liars (like you, Mr Moore) who had filled my life with unnecessary pain and guilt (and a quazillion other suckers over 2000 years). Because all of the paedophiles I have ever met were all RC priests. Because the crime of covering it up removes any possible claim of moral authority. Because once outside it I can see the whole fucking charade for what it is: a mysogynistic, thought-policing, lying, cowardly, populist, guilt-inspiring, money-raking, child-abusing, poverty-causing criminal institution.
Posted by: CJO
|
November 24, 2010 1:54 PM
Home economics - a tautology!
Eco nomics from the Greek "oikos" (pronounced "eek-oss") meaning HOME and the Greek "nomos" a LAW, so, the laws of the home. (And why you shouldn't say "ecko nomics").
So, home economics, home home laws.
A little bit of pedantry is a dangerous thing. "eek-oss" would be the modern Greek pronunciation. The "Erasman" (from Erasmus) or Renaissance-era pronunciation of the dipthong among the learned of Europe was "oi" as in "oil" and the Attic Greek pronunciation was apparently (these things are never certain) something like the French "u", a vowel sound that doesn't occur in English at all. So don't say why one "shouldn't" pronounce something based on etymology. The pronunciation has changed over time, even in Greek. As for the definition, neither does etymology dictate meaning. Even the parts from which a compound word is composed are not a surefire guide to literal meaning (the classic example in English is "driveway" and there are many more). Anyway, oikos, even in ancient Greek usage and within compounds had a considerably broader sense than just "home", though that was its primary meaning. "Economics" in modern English usage, it goes without saying, has an entirely different meaning than "home laws", though the connection is plain. Thanks for sharing the eymology and all, it's correct as far as it goes, but you can't draw those kinds of conclusions about meaning from etymology alone. If words were semantically or phonologically limited by their historical usage, then language would not be able to evolve the way it clearly does.
/SIWOTI
Posted by: timrowledge, Ersatz Haderach
|
November 24, 2010 11:51 PM
Nerd @ 187 - and to think that I thought I knew about obsessives. That wikipedia entry encapsulates in a few short sentences the total insanity that can trap us in a world of nitpicking trivia….
Of course, a Rabbi can't eat a Rabbit - even one bred as a meat animal like a Chinchilla.
Posted by: TimKO,,.,,
|
November 26, 2010 6:19 PM
That's hilarious considering that the jesus character was Jewish and didn't even predict that a new religion would be based on him period.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
November 26, 2010 6:37 PM
Moi? Pick nits? Against Dr. Marjanović??? (Never mind that the Redhead had a pet rabbit when we got married, and I needed to quickly learn some facts about our long-eared cousin mammals.)