... you are going to have to take a century or two of snark from us atheists. Like this:
- Log in to post comments
More like this
Every so often we start a discussion somewhere about who is and who isn't an atheist. PZ Mackers has the poster shown below up on his blog:
I want to look at the term and associated meanings of "atheist" and cognate terms, because the way I taxonomise the world, only two of those guys are…
So, I have this friend who lives in the Midwest (nearest large city of consequence is Chicago1), who shall remain nameless (well, she has a name and all but I'm not telling you what it is) who brought up an interesting, not unusual, and sad dilemma.
She has just moved into a new living situation,…
I get it that some people do not like the New Atheists. But surely when you're writing things like this:
And this is why I think the New Atheists are a disaster, a danger to the wellbeing of America comparable to the Tea Party.
you have simply placed yourself outside the community of people who…
One of the tried and true tactics of creationists of all stripes has long been to equate evolution with atheism, and thus those who accept evolution become atheists. In a society where surveys show that atheists are, for some bizarre reason, among the most distrusted people, this is good political…
Well, that was funny enough, alright, but National Banana needs to get a new announcer. Who the hell says 'bah-nahn-ahh'? It's 'bu-nan-uhh', dammit! Each of the three A's, all in the same context, must have a different sound, or it wouldn't be the 'merikan language, would it? Mustn't make it too easy for all them foreigners to pick up our lingo.
Too low class. I didn't find it funny either.
Well, I thought it was somewhat funny. Though obviously we do need to work with the material some more.
There's a catholic church about a mile from my home : St William the Abbot. Whenever I pass it I read the sign as St William the Paedophile.
What's funny is that the video is from March 2008, way before the current sex abuse scandal. Before that it was the Boston Archdiocese scandal and nobody cared. Before that it was condoms in Africa and nobody cared. etc.
"Too low class. I didn't find it funny either."
Hey man, why don't you tell the child fucking priests they are low class instead complaining about a spot on video?
You want low class - check out the present pope and his no behind left policies.
@peter: Hehehe - no behind left. Need I mention how the priests go to m'ass on Sundays?
A side note here: The mass media is unanimous in declaring Joseph Ratzinger as immune from prosecution due to his position as head of state.
Saddam Hussein was head of state, and look what happened to him.
Nations around the world should be rushing to prosecute these monsters for their crimes.
Spread the word.
I wonder if we should invade? We can send in weapons of mass destruction.
WTFWJD, I don't think being the head of state makes you immune from prosecution for conspiracy to global child rape, either, but I wouldn't use the illegal occupation of Iraq, the wanton slaughter of the Iraqi people, and the deposing of Saddam Hussein for the 'crime' of not surrendering his country's oil to American corporations as an example of prosecuting criminals.
There's also Manuel Noriega, Slobodan Milosevich, and Augusto Pinochet just off the top of my head. Pinochet was long out of office when proceedings started - problematical for trying a pope as he is in office for life - but if you go back far enough I'm sure precedent could be found for trying and even hanging dead defendants.
Wikipedia has a short writeup on immunity from prosecution, suggests that immunity isn't as absolute as it used to be.
Also, all or most of the Pope's actions which might be construed as criminal conspiracy occurred before he was head of state, although was acting on behalf of the state.
Plus, Vatican is not really a separate country.
Even dead popes can be tried. There is an example set by the Chruch itself; the cadaver synod.
Actually, Irene, it really is.