We've got a good answer from Richard Dawkins:
No, Pope Ratzinger should not resign. He should remain in charge of the whole rotten edifice - the whole profiteering, woman-fearing, guilt-gorging, truth-hating, child-raping institution - while it tumbles, amid a stench of incense and a rain of tourist-kitsch sacred hearts and preposterously crowned virgins, about his ears.
Oooh, so shrill, so militant, so aggressive…yet somehow so soothing and joyful.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
What a useful way to look at it: Vatican, Inc is hoping to improve their bottom line by acquiring a competitor, Church of England, Ltd. About 600 Anglican middle-managers are in talks with the Catholic Church to rip up their theological roots (which, it turns out, aren't all that important) and…
Lawrence Murphy was an evil man. He was a Wisconsin priest who molested over 200 boys, and just to make the story particularly deplorable, they were deaf children. Preying on the weakest and most vulnerable was apparently his life's mission. Furthermore, this was the scandalous case that was…
Not that he's ever been soft on religion, but this recent column in SciAm makes him sound like one of those shrill, militant, rabid, dangerous Gnu Atheists.
I don't know which is more dangerous, that religious beliefs force some people to choose between knowledge and myth or that pointing out how…
Stop writing to me about Mairson and Grossman. I have no respect for their opinions at all.
Grossman is the religion columnist at USA Today; Mairson is some disgruntled ex-employee of National Geographic who has appointed himself guardian of all propriety of anyone associated with NatGeo. Grossman…
Benny Hex is not going to resign. Popes (almost) never resign. (The few exceptions appear to have been under duress, with successors ready to boot them aside.) The pope will follow tradition by pretending to be above it all and sticking it out to the bitter end.
Dawkins is right. The pope and the Church are a match made in heaven (even if that's not exactly the way he put it). They deserve each other.
I agree. Maybe Ratzinger could single-handedly bring down the whole edifice. Now that would be something historic to be remembered for.
Come on now, didn't you read the Vatican's memo? The devil made them do it!!! If you think it's bad now, how bad do you think it's going to get if the Pope and the Vatican are so distracted by criticism from you folks that they cannot focus their total attention on beating back Satan? He'll run wild with demonic possessions. He'll tempt people into a life of sin. Chaos will ensue.
Or maybe my teacher was right and I have an overactive imagination.
He should not be let out of the Vatican.
Link is broken. Here's the correct one: http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/richard_dawkins/2010/03/ratzinger_is_the_perfect_pope.html
No. He should NOT resign. The longer Rat Slinger remains, the more damage it does to The Church of Licking Cats. Let him stay another generation!
Very tangentially related--I was chilled to read that my niece has posted the following as her Facebook status today:
"We are Resolved to raise our children in a manner that they would gladly serve Christ even at the cost of their lives."
It makes me feel ill. All I can do is hope in some way to be of influence in her children's lives so they learn to think for themselves.
Of course, being imprisoned may interfere with his ability to declare the mind of god to his followers. But maybe not. Hovind is still going strong.
Resign, no.
Just keep him and his pedophile army away from children.
Only if his resignation involves a lightsaber battle.
I think he should fall on his sword. That's what disgraced men did to regain some measure of honor in days of old.
He should be led away from the Vatican in handcuffs right to the nearest maximum-security prison.
Someone should really lean on the Italians (and the EU). I'd like to see them put in an airport in the VatCity - and manage to use it without imposing on EU airspace.
It needs to be pointed out that devout catlicks are complicit in these crimes.
If you provide monetary and moral support to this "pirate state of paedophiles" (h/t to Christopher Hitchens), you are part of the problem. This could not have happened without your support.
Pat Condell's Newest"
Jumpin' Jeezus on a stick, it's not just the Catholic Church that ought to go. There's also the Jews, Moslems, Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, Jains, ... Olympusists, Valhallists, Astrologists, Homeopathists, etc.
All superstition needs to be laughed out of existence.
History Punk-
I am soooo opening a second hand shop with this name.
No, he should not resign! Do you want the world to end?!?!?!
http://abcnews.go.com/International/benedict-xvi-pope-irish-prophet-malachy/story?id=8499430
Hmmm... Kinda get the general impression RD doesn't have a very high opinion of the Holy Cat'lick Church then?
If Benny Ratzi resigns then who replaces him? Cardinal Murphy-O'Connell who thinks atheists are subhuman? Cardinal Law who has outstanding arrest warrants for aiding and abetting child rape? Cardinal Re who excommunicates medical personnel for giving a nine year old rape victim an abortion? It doesn't seem anyone in the Catholic hierarchy is any better than Benny.
If he did resign, though, the Catholic Church would be brought under a lot of scrutiny...when they were looking for a new Pope after the last douchebag died there was so much media attention brought to it, and if the Rat did resign the media attention would be framed in the light of the scandal, so I think it would heighten criticism of the institution.
On a side note, does anyone know where I could find statistics on the prevalence of child sexual abuse in the Catholic Church vs. other churches or other institutions such as schools or sports leagues? The argument has been put forward in a couple of letters to the editor in our paper recently and I'd like to respond, but can't find any numbers. I know there are other ways to respond like that the Church covers up the cases, but I'm interested if there are numbers on this too. I've been Googling but haven't found anything yet.
Agree with Dawkins, the rot is deeper than just the pope. I mean, yes, the Pope is bad, vile, evil, but the misogyny, hierarchy, sexual dysfunction, etc... that lead to this scandal are part and parcel of what the Catholic Church stands for now and the last two popes have so stacked the deck that there would be no way to get something in replacement that wasn't just as vile if not worse.
Not to mention that the "good in the Church" isn't. The amount of shame about sex, humanity, and self, especially in women infects even those who leave the Church, making life for them that much harder as every decision needs to be made through a haze of Catholic programming and abuse.
I'd like to see the Church implode once and for all or at least continue to shed followers more and more each year.
I don't see how changing the Pope would protect any kids or sufferers, it would simply be a convenient excuse to wash the blood off the hands and pretend like everything's fixed.
No, let Pope Ratfucker have a long and hearty career and do as much damage as he possibly can to that diseased institution.
Rick R @17:
good plan BUT Stephen King did it in "Needful Things". Not a bad name for a rock group, though.
As LinzeeBinzee@21 said, if he resigns and it actually serves to change something about the Church for the better, that it finally sinks in to the leadership's heads that this is not the Middle Ages and that sheltering criminals just because they are part of Your Tribe means that not only are more crimes committed and more people hurt, but it makes you look Really Really Bad when it gets out (and it will)*, then I am all for it.
If it won't cause a change -- just 'here's the new boss, same as the old boss', then I don't give a damn.
* Frankly, at this point, I don't care if they realize This is Wrong so much as stopping it. We take what we can get, even if we hope for more.
Ratzy should resign on general principle: he's failed to try and impose basic decency on the organization he leads.
As to whether it help any in practical terms, it's hard to know, but perhaps would send a useful signal to some about the RCC being a human organization among others rather than Heaven's terrestrial arm.
I disagree with Professor Myers here, though I see his point.
Yes, the Catholic Church has an institutional rot running through its core - not just the child abuse scandals, but the entrenched misogyny, the corrupt hierarchical structure, the crazy rules about sex and the perpetuation of guilt. And no, those evils wouldn't go away overnight if the present Pope were replaced with someone more liberal. If we lived in a more sensible world, the Catholic Church would be disintegrating right now and its believers defecting en masse.
But at the same time, in the real world, the Catholic Church isn't going to disintegrate. And in those cultures and parts of the world where it is the dominant sect, it's a very powerful force guiding millions of people's lives. Like it or not, what the Vatican says and does makes a difference to the state of humanity, and that isn't going to change any time soon. With this in mind, I want to see Ratzinger resign, and I want to see him replaced with a more progressive Pope who will continue the process of reform that started with Vatican II. Will this transform the RCC into a sane or decent institution overnight? No, it won't. But a move towards liberalism will make the RCC a less harmful influence on the world - and that affects all of us, even those of us who are not Catholic and want nothing to do with what the RCC stands for.
Long-term, the best we can hope for is that the RCC will become more like the Church of England or the US Episcopal Church - a relatively benign and tolerant form of woo. We can hope that one day the RCC will reach the stage that the C of E is at now, with regards to issues like contraception, abortion, and ordination of women and gay people.
As secularists, we shouldn't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Like it or not, religion as a social and political force is not going to disappear any time soon. But we can hope that the world's major religions will become more liberal over time. This is why I believe it's worth supporting and encouraging liberal and moderate religionists in their battle against conservative religionists. In the end, the likes of Rowan Williams are far less damaging to humanity than the likes of Ratzinger.
Carlie:
We'd pay good money to see the Polizia pinch the pedophilia-pushing penis-pervert perp pimp Pope in front of the paparazzi.
Oh, Legion! P-p-p-p-p-please!
I really don't give a toss whether the Pope resigns or not. It's entirely a matter for the Catholic church and I don't care all that much about their internal affairs.
What I do care about is their interaction with the outside world. In this case, harboring and facilitating criminals rather than turning them over to the civil authorities. Despite his recent words, I see little evidence that the Pope, and the catholic heirarchy, care for anything as much as the reputation of the church.
Ha, did you see this: Pope Benedict condemns 'petty gossip' over child sexual abuse scandal? Couldn't quite bring himself to condemn actual fucking child abuse by his fucking priests (for 20+ years until he had no choice...but to blame it somehow on atheists and everyone else but his little army of pompous pricks) now could he? What a fucking doofus.
If there were any justice in the world, Ratzinger and his minions would be investigated and indicted for obstruction of justice and as co-conspirators in an international paedophilia ring - in every jurisdiction in the world where children were raped and abused.
Unfortunately, as inheritor of the holy roman empire, Ratzinger has a unique position as both a "head of state" and the head of a religion. The US had already declared that he has immunity from prosecution by virtue of being a head of state.
If world governments had any interest in doing the right thing they would cut diplomatic ties with the vatican, suspend all diplomatics privileges and freeze their assets worldwide.
World Governments could Set up an international child abuse court (akin to the International Court of Justice). Diplomatically treat the vatican as an enemy state until it submits to independent investigation of all church records, archives, and computers worldwide and submit to any prosecutions under the international Child Abuse Court.
Prediction: Watch South America, as soon as countries in South America liberate themselves enough from the catholic church and the shame of child abuse is redirected from victim to abuser there will be thousands upon thousands of new claims coming out of South America. African countries will lag a very long time but the abuse will surface there as well.
Should Pope Ratzi resign?
A better question would be should the pope be put in prison?
One good thing that will be happening throughout the world - countless Catholics will stop going to church, because they know a percentage of every dollar they put in the collection basket goes to the Vatican, which is obviously in the child abuse business.
An extremely religious Catholic woman I work with told me the priests who rape little boys should be killed, preferably by being eaten alive by hungry red ants. When I suggested the pope deserved the same treatment she agreed. And she said she will probably stop going to church.
Today's news:
Pope Benedict, facing the worst crisis of his papacy as a sexual abuse scandal sweeps the Catholic church, declared today he would not be "intimidated" by "petty gossip", angering activists who say he has done too little to stamp out paedophilia.
The pope is starting to sound exactly like Richard Nixon, before he resigned in disgrace.
Dear Mr. Asshole Pope, you are so screwed. It's going to get worse for you every day until you are gone. You might as well quit now.
I would like to see diplomatic status stripped from the Vatican, and a dragnet of all Catholic officials.
Watch them turn on each other as the evidence begins to pile up.
But they'll just buy their way out of it again, with the money they made charging people for Indulgences to get out of purgatory or punishment a few days early.
Q.E.D. #31
The pope is not "inheritor of the holy roman empire." The Empire* was in Central Europe (Germany, the Czech and Slovak Republics, Hungary, part of the Balkans, etc.) and was ruled mainly by the Habsburgs. It was finally dissolved in 1806 by Napoleon.
The Pope ruled the Papal States in Italy. In 1870 the Papal States were absorbed into modern Italy and the Pope was left as civil ruler of Vatican City, an area of about 44 hectares (110 acres). The Papal States and the Holy Roman Empire had nothing to do with each other.
*Voltaire once quipped it was not Holy nor Roman nor an Empire.
Sorry, but - as a student of international law - I am afflicted with SIWOTI syndrome.
Firstly, you're thinking of the International Criminal Court, not the International Court of Justice. The International Court of Justice is an organ created by the UN Charter which exists to resolve disputes between states. It does not have any criminal jurisdiction, and does not try individuals for international crimes.
By contrast, the International Criminal Court is created by a separate treaty, the Statute of Rome; it tries individuals for certain crimes under international law (war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity). A number of countries, including the United States, have not ratified the Rome Statute and are outside the ICC's jurisdiction. I realise this doesn't affect your point, but it's important not to get the two mixed up.
Secondly, your proposed "International Child Abuse Court" would only have jurisdiction in respect of states that agreed to accept its jurisdiction. You could not force the Vatican to accept the court's jurisdiction; I don't know what you mean by "treating it as an enemy state", but it would be entirely within its rights under international law to refuse to accept the jurisdiction of your court. There are only a small number of international crimes that are punishable under customary international law: these include genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and some other such offences, but do not include child abuse. The punishment of child abuse is a matter of national, not international, law, and falls within the jurisdiction of the state in which the crime was committed.
================
a.human.ape
Seriously, just fuck off. This is not the first time you've posted fantasies about sadistic acts of violence.
Nobody "deserves" to be "eaten alive by hungry red ants". This kind of punitivism is part of what's wrong with our society. In general, people who commit acts of child molestation, or other serious crimes, do so because they have serious psychological problems. A very high percentage of abusers were themselves abused in childhood. While this doesn't excuse their acts, we need to recognise that most child molesters - religious or not - are not wholly responsible for their behaviour, and need treatment. They certainly don't deserve to be tortured; and you lower yourself to their moral depth by advocating torture.
As Gandhi said, "an eye for an eye makes everyone blind and toothless." We need to move away from barbaric concepts of "punishment", and acknowledge that a lot of crime is the product of social and psychological ills.
My take is: Benny Da Rat should absolutely be encouraged to stick 'round. Just as long as he possibly can.
Whether or not you think the Catholic church as an institution will survive this mess*, the longer he stays, the longer the scandal has legs. And the more it loses what vestiges of moral authority remain to it, in the eyes of its followers, and in the eyes of those who, regrettably, still publish those mediavel morons' opinions whenever they offer a press release on whatever the fuck gets into their addled heads.
Once the Rat bails, it'll be easier for them to put this out, damp shit back down, wait for people to forget.
So let's keep this thing alive: stick around, Benny. Please. Pretty please. And thank ya kindly.
(*/Regrettably, my bet would be: almost certainly.)
So Benny-the-Rat thinks that child abuse, aiding and abetting criminals and cover ups, is "petty gossip". My, my isn't that the moral high ground? I will so listen to him and his rotten organization on matters concerning women's rights, homosexuals, contraception, abortion etc. because they are just so plugged into the almighty sky fairy. Not!!
I don't think he should resign. I think he should be dragged kicking and whining into the criminal justice system. Let him run the church from a cozy jail cell. I am sure the other inmates would love to have a dress-wearing, Prada shoe-wearing something in the their midst. While old and ugly, he'd make a wonderful target.
Don't hold your breath. Ratzinger and the previous Poop and their cabal changed the rules of election for Poops. They used to need unanimity, requiring a compromise candidate acceptible to all factions; now voting ends after twelve votes, with the majority candidate winning. Instant political parties in the choich!
So a conservative Poop appoints a claque of conservative cardinals, names his successor, and the right wing wins. In perpetuity.
Walton,
While the abusers are likely suffering from psychological issues, those who have cloaked them in secrecy and conspired to protect the church from harm at the cost of little children do indeed deserve whatever horrible fate is assigned them.
Unfortunately I don't trust any legal system on this planet to be able to consistently assign the death penalty only to those who deserve it, so prison will have to do.
Nice.
Mary O'Nette:
It takes stunning, breathtaking gall to say that. Your own tribe is raping children, its bosses are covering it up, and you have the nerve to blame this on liberalization? People like you are unreachable. You are incapable of reason and of having ordinary human compassion. You cannot be dealt with as members of civilized society. I long for the day when your generation fades away (and it's happening now), because you are dangerous and irremediable.
I was explaining some of this to my 12-year old son today, and only just now realized something. We have known for years about the coverups, the transfers of priests, etc.
What occurred to me today, though, is that thousands of times, all over the world, devout families whose children were abused went to the Church first, instead of immediately going to the police.
Conditioning people to respond like that is more wrong than the shuffling of child-raping priests from parish to parish.
Fuck you, Mary O'Nette, and fuck everything you stand for.
I was going to comment on Mary O'Nette's comments, but I was giving her the benefit of the doubt - I wasn't sure that anyone could be so daft. Apparently I was wrong.
I suspect that Mary O'Nette (marionette?) is, in fact, Piltdown Man. I recognise both his style - in particular, the use of classical allusions - and his arch-traditionalist Catholic beliefs.
I feel a bit guilty about pointing this out, since, as I have made clear in the past, I don't think it was right to ban Piltdown, and still don't understand why he was sent to the dungeon.
Ah, you may be right Walton. But I don't care who it really is.
Ah, Pilty would explain the idiocy. The idjit fuckwit simply cannot condemn his morally bankrupt hierarchy...
If Pilty was learning anything, he wouldn't have been banned. But he was just preaching his nonsense to us ad nauseum. I guess PZ got nauseous once too often.
Mary O'Nette #48
I had never heard of NAMBLA until a few years ago when it was brought to my attention by some conservatives. Since then I've noticed the only people who bring NAMBLA into a discussion are conservatives. Why is it, Mary, that you conservatives are so obsessed with this fringe group?
Mary O'Nette,
You did watch the video of Bill Donohue, did you not? He fully admits that an American priest was abusing children in Wisconsin in the 1950s, well before the "liberalization" you so bemoan.
Further, one could not possibly believe that liberalization in the Irish Catholic Church (or Irish culture for that matter) was at the heart of the major abuse scandal there since the Church was hardly on board with liberalization in Ireland. In point of fact, the severe mistreatment of women who were, for various reasons, deemed troublesome by authorities didn't end until the 1990s.
Lest there be any doubt, I think that Piltdown's kind of extreme social conservatism is profoundly wrong and very harmful to society. But that's exactly why we should engage with and address it. Hence, I think banning him was the wrong decision.
While I doubt any of us were ever going to change Piltdown's mind about anything, I don't think that necessarily makes the discussion pointless. Even if the person with whom you're arguing isn't going to change his or her opinions, other readers and participants can learn from the discussion.
Read a review recently for a book titled The Future Church: How Ten Trends Are Revolutionizing the Catholic Church, written by a Catholic journalist. According to the author, the future centers of power -- and theology -- of the Church are going to come from places like Brazil, Africa, China, Russia, and India.
In other words, Catholicism's going to become much more conservative, superstitious, and uncompromising -- and the church-state tensions, sharper. The Western trend towards more and more humanism ("Catholics came up with science! And human rights!") is not the future.
Ratz's resignation would not solve anything in the long run no matter how satistying it would be. This is just the tip of the whole nefarious iceberg. As a former Catholic I know people who are personally suffered at the hands of priests whose experiences never made headlines.
Walton@#50 -- you're almost there. Your clever reading of Mary O'Nette's name suggests to me that she is in fact a Poe.
I think it's some sort of slippery slope argument. If we recognize anything outside their narrow window of acceptability then anything goes.
More original arguments focus on other things that no one is advocating. Like if a woman marries a snake in India then, as Colbert pointed out, logically gays in America have to justify it.
Honestly, at this point I'm wondering who has sexually abused more children: NAMBLA or the Catholic Church?
so how do you explain abuse before the 60's, Pilty? Time-traveling pansified priests?
No, the only thing that's changed is that people are finally speaking out because the church has lost it's power to silence and terrify.
Now what to do about George Lucas?
He didn't rape my childhood, but he did cop a feel.
You mean they're not the same thing?
Mary Mary Quite Contrary:
Utter bullshit, yanked right out of the assclown. The catholic church has been corrupt since its inception. Its whole history is one filled with the stench of every kind of villainy. While it still stinks of the burnt flesh of all those it merrily condemned, it now fills the world with the putrid scent of the blatant desire for those days; the whine of wistful lust for the ability to destroy and crush oozes from every filthy pore of those criminal denizens.
Go fuck yourself. Sideways. With the implement of your choice. I'm being all liberal and pansified with ya. More utter bullshit. The 60s began a time when "hushing things up" (such as the local parish priest, that dear father of the neighbourhood guiding his hands, mouth and cock in places they had no business being) was no longer seen as an acceptable thing to do. This has resulted in good, it has helped to prevent such abuse, and it has brought help to those victimized. Gay people being able to simply say they were gay was in no way responsible for the molestation happening in the church. The church's record of priests having sex with just about anything that moved, whether consent was involved or not, goes back one hell of a long way, which makes it even more fucking idiotic to point to the 1960s with a trembling finger of blame.
Crispy Fried Christ onna Stick, what measure of stupidity is this? Reprehensible as they are, NAMBLA is not responsible for paedophilia in the church. The catholic church is even more reprehensible. See above. There is no defense for the catholic church. None. Zip. Zero. Zilch. Nada.
"Ya know it's hard out here for a pope (you ain't knowing)"
http://localsearch.sacbee.com/sp?keywords=pope&aff=1100
Walton, that wasn't my fantasy. That was a from a Catholic woman with two sons. And I'm wondering, why do you suck up to priests who rape little boys?
Mary O' Nette- Oh my fucking Bob. What the hell is wrong with you?
Walton-
I see what you are seeing. And yes, in terms of less damaging, slightly, a Catholic Church that at least believed in condoms would be a ginormous step up in real good despite the deep fundamental rot and ill damage, but I'm not sure where the good pope would come from.
The Church has pretty much spent two popes removing everyone other than the most radically conservative cardinals and almost every one of them is either connected to fascist movements or the international child rape cabal.
I just don't know if a relatively "good" pope can be found and I'm definitely worried that the institution may try and sacrifice a Pope shaped pawn to avoid having to change in any meaningful way.
I want those who are still trapped to not suffer, but I'd also like to help them escape from an entity that brings so much suffering to each and every one of its members and the current scandal is causing some really positive ripples both in Catholics and ex-catholics standing up for themselves and in International Press stopping the preferential treatment that "of course, they are super holy, what are you Satan?"
It's a tricky question. I guess I would rank it:
Current Pope continuing to destroy reputation and international standing of the Church >> New "more liberal" Pope >> New Pope who at least let's us arrest a few molester priests >> Quiet reshuffle with a new Pope Nazi who goes back to obfuscation step one of denial by blaming it all on the past pope.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-july-27-2006/10-f--king-years---n…
Mary O'Nette is, in fact, Piltdown Man, a-fucking-gain.
Quick kill it with fire before it spreads!
Mary:
During the Middle Ages, many diocese had rule specifying that, if a man confesses to adultury, the priest could not ask who the woman was because priests had a tendency to take advantage of the woman. Priests and Monks were admonished not to let themselves be alone with children, male or female, as devilish temptation may overpower them.
In short, Mary, this is not a new problem. This has been a problem with authoritarian systems since recorded history began. It is not just a problem with the Catholic Church. It is also a problem with many Protestant demoninations, as well as private and public schools, the Boy Scouts, and any other group putting children and adults in close proximity. The difference, of course, being that the RCC (as well as all the Protestant demoninations) claim that they have the only way to please god(s) and have a monopoly on morality -- including the right to tell every one else in the entire freakin' world what they can and cannot do in public and in private.
Walton:
Actually, Walton, thousands of people deserve a lot worse than that. For example, Muslim terrorists.
This "eaten alive by ants" idea was from a Catholic mother who was trying to imagine an appropriate punishment for a priest if that priest raped one of her two sons. I had to agree with her. And if I was a victim of one of these subhumans, I would most certainly want the asshole priest to be tortured for several months before killing him.
You, Walton, are a wimp. Please fuck off.
Perhaps we will soon be seeing a new bumper sticker:
Catholic Priests Aren't Perfect -- Just Forgiven
CAN popes resign? I thought a cabal of the cardinals that voted for him had to ritually sacrifice him and then themselves upon an altar, if he wanted an out.
Er I don't think he can resign, he is however able to 'abdicate' if memory serves. Amounts to the same in any case.
and you are the reason vigilante "justice" is rightfully illegal in civilized countries.
please stop demonstrating your sociopathic tendencies; we've had enough of them here.
a.human.ape wrote:
Not wanting to see people tortured ≠ wimp. However, wanting to see people tortured = asshole.
Jadehawk OM, Hardcore Left-Winger, like Walton, sucks up to priests who rape little boys.
WowbaggerOM, apparently this blog is infested with wimps.
Go explain to that Catholic mother why she's being mean to priests who rape little boys.
Thanks for the help with Mary, y'all, but I'm embarrassed that I let Pilty, of all creatures, wind me up.
a.human.ape - dude/dudette, what is your problem? Stop it. It's unnecessary and out of line, and you know it.
Nice catch, Walton! I'm terrible at tagging posts to how specific people write.
Josh, Official SpokesGay,
Could it be possible your sexual preference makes you inclined to be nice to priests who rape little boys?
a.human.ape:
Feel free to go fuck yourself. Sideways. I think any child molester should be put on trial, and duly placed in prison. I don't think anyone should be tortured, so you can add me to your list as well, you assclown.
Stop lying. No one here claimed that mother's feelings weren't understandable. They are. No one here claims we don't have vicious emotional reactions when our loved ones are hurt. We do.
What Walton and others rightly pointed out is that civilized societies do not leave punishment up to those with an emotional investment in vengeance. This allows us to mete out punishment while remaining protected from mob justice.
You know this, so stop the dishonest baiting.
a.human.ape,
You are a despicable human being. Fuck yourself sideways with a rotten fish.
a.human.ape:
And into the killfile you go, you pathetic waste of space. Yecch.
To all you wimps, could you please try to imagine your sons or daughters, or yourself, being raped by a religious idiot?
I just don't get the reaction here. I know this blog is infested with liberals, but really, do you really think a person who ruins the lives of children deserves any mercy? Why not ask a 10 year old victim what he thinks is an appropriate punishment?
Yes, you've figured me out. We homosexualists are, of course, all criminal pedophiles. Everyone knows that - duh.
Go away, a.human.ape. You're vile.
So he's a homophobe as well as a sociopathic nut.
Seriously. a.human.ape deserves to be banned a thousand times more than Piltdown ever did. Making a personal homophobic attack on another commenter is not OK.
No, it isn't, but a.human.ape is so obviously stupid it's hard to get that upset over it (though it is gratifying that reasonable people here have each other's backs).
a.human.ape wrote:
Enjoy your last few hours here, dickhead. Homophobes aren't welcome, so fuck off and don't come back.
"mob justice"
OK, mob justice is wrong.
But imagine a bunch of angry Catholic parents attacking and killing a priest who deserved to be killed.
Very wrong, I agree.
But that dead priest will never again ruin the life of any child.
So do we put that mob in prison, or thank them for solving a terrible problem that even the pope didn't want to fix.
No, no, you don't get to engage me in conversation like a reasonable person, as if you didn't just make a disgusting remark equating my gayness with pedophilia. Go ride a porcupine nude.
You know, Dawkins might just have something there.
Waste of Space:
I don't have to imagine anything. I was molested as a child, not by a religious figure, but a family member. You have no idea whatesoever of the dynamics involved or their extent. All you're doing is positing that anyone's speculative torture porn fantasies are cool, and hey, why not? That makes you out to be a sociopathic lowlife who would take enjoyment in torturing someone.
There's a reason you don't leave punishments up to victims and/or their loved ones. Josh outlined those reasons above - try reading it and letting it sink in until you fucking comprehend it. Revenge fantasies, acted out, don't help a victim. They don't help a victim's loved ones. You can ask anyone who has witnessed an execution. If you don't get that, there's very little hope for you. Going by the vile, hateful things you have said in this thread, I don't care if you get a clue or not. Just fuck off, go somewhere where you be with your own clueless, vile, hatred filled kind.
Hmm, a.human.ape, were you molested by a priest?
I think every damn one of us would, were we in a comparable situation (my child as victim), want to do bodily harm to the offender. And this is why civilized countries have a justice system to depersonalize the punishment.
My sister died in a drunk driving accident. I know that I would be the worst possible person to sit in judgement of an accused drunk driver. Shit, people, is this all that hard to undersand?
(Please note, I am not comparing or conflating child rape and drunk driving, that is merely an example from my personal experience.
Wow.
Just arrived at the discussion today.
Obviously a lot of emotion (somewhat saddened by the homophobia and inappropriate comment).
Any chance of the discussion turning back to Dawkins' comments?
I think he said it very well, and I think PZ was being ironic with his so shrill, so militant, so aggressive.
Unfortunately a lot of people will describe Dawkins' comments exactly that way, and they won't be intentionally ironic.
Anything we can do about that?
No, but thanks for asking.
I was in Catholic grammar school, but fortunately decided not become an altar boy. My brother was an altar boy, but he reports there were no problems.
There, that's better.
Kirk:
I don't think there's anything we even should "do about that." It doesn't matter that Dawkins's comments will be described that way; what matters is that he made them, unapologetically, and the mainstream US press printed them. The more this continues, the fewer otherwise-reasonable people will feel it's normal to be more upset at this type of criticism than they are about actual child rape.
If the Vatican were any other non-religious institution, the entire world would be screaming for Ratzinger to be brought up no criminal charges. Full stop. Wouldn't even be controversial.
Should he resign? Bleep no!He should commit ritual seppoku in the middle of St. Peter's Square. But as usual, things are never as they should be.
We put the killers in the mob in prison.
We don't ask 10 year old boys to mete out justice, because they don't have the wisdom to move beyond their own pain.
There was a time when I thought that my children had been possibly molested by the husband of the woman providing child care. Fortunately I was wrong (he'd "only" been molesting his daughters). When I wasn't sure, I wanted to castrate the SOB. What I did was go to the police.
Mob rule is *never* the answer, no matter what our own personal pain is. We have police and courts for a reason, imperfect as they may be.
If you can't see that, a.human.ape, you don't belong here. If you're going to make homophobic comments, you don't belong here. go away.
Can we stop with the wishing for death and acts of violence upon these people? We have non-capital legal systems for a reason; let's just hope that they will eventually get used for what they're set up for.
Yes. I totally agree with everything you said.
But would anyone mind if I pointed out that these justice systems don't always work perfectly? I noticed one of the perverted priests had his way with 200 boys. I would think that after the first one hundred victims, something might have been done about it.
Walton, #37
The only problem here is that "child abuse" in the situation discussed is merely an euphemism for child rape (plus the coverup thereof). As such, it qualifies very well as crime against humanity as per Art. 7 (g) of the Rome Statute:
,
The rape part wasn't "systematic", alright, but it was undeniably widespread. The cover-up was both systematic and widespread, as the documents that came to light show us.
Furthermore, some clarifying is done (can't find the link, I'm using files stored locally some time ago) that
(I don't think many would deny that the Catholic Church is a "de facto authority" -- at least on the grounds of Catholic churches, missions, etc. At the same time, Vatican City/Holy See is a sovereign state, the last absolutist monarchy in Europe.)
Therefore, as I see it, the main problem is not whether the child rape (again: rape, not "simply" abuse) and torture (as it was the case in Ireland) that happened in Catholic establishments qualifies as crime against humanity, but if the ones responsible can be prosecuted. And that is the tricky part:
The Court has jurisdiction over the cases where:
-- the crime occurred on the territory of a member state OR the perpetrator is citizen ("national") of a member state;
AND
-- the crime occurred after the aforementioned state ratified the Rome Statute.
Therefore, the obvious problems are:
1)The jurisdiction of the ICC begins, grosso modo, around the year 2000 for most of the signataries of the Statute. Therefore, the vast majority of the situations (if not all known to date) are excluded, as they happened decades before.
2) Vatican City didn't sign the treaty, therefore its citizens (including the pope, who can at any moment renounce his German citizenship) aren't under the jurisdiction of the ICC.
3) USA didn't ratify the treaty, therefore the cases in America aren't under the jurisdiction of the ICC. It can, however, accept ICC jurisdiction for every allegation in part. (I highly doubt this would happen anytime soon.)
4) Cases that are currently investigated or prosecuted in the country where they happened, are not admissible. (Except in the cases where the state that has jurisdiction is unwilling or unable to investigate/prosecute... but that is even more tricky to argument, when it comes to Western countries.)
Josh,
I agree with you.
I probably worded it badly, but for me you touched on the "what we can do about it" part.
We just keep observing the obvious, and letting people call it shrill. But there will be some people who are undecided who might listen, and inch by inch we can make progress.
iambilly:
I know why you said this iambilly (there is a certain tendency for folks to get extremely heated when the topic is child rape, and to see apologies for it when they don't exist), but I don't think you're ethically obliged to. Your sister was killed. I have no wish to provoke a flame war about whether rape in any form is worse than/equivalent to/not as bad as murder/manslaughter, but you have no ethical obligation to act as if the killing of your sister should provoke less outrage than child rape.
Again, I know why you said it, I just want you to know at least one person doesn't think you have to apologize.
Kirk:
I should have clarified that I wasn't meaning to criticize you, just converse with you. I sometimes come off as terse when I don't mean to:)
a.human.ape:
Let me reiterate my #89, with one small amendment -
Go away.
A.human.ape: No Fucking Shit!!!! Perfection is impossible. The good news is that the justice system usually works. It ain't perfect.
The major problem with what has happened for the last millenia is that the Church heirarchy decided that protecting the shepherd was more important then protecting the sheep. If anything, evidence like this screams out for a RICO (or whatever has been used in the EU to fight organized crime) to go after the enablers. If the RCC had been concerned with the victims in the first place there would not have been hundreds of victims. Place the blame where it belongs -- with the enableres. All the way to the top.
Ratzinger should not resign. He should be in prison for conspiracy to rape (after the fact).
Since you asked, I mind if you post here at all, homophobic creep.
Damn that immoral new atheist richard dawkins is as bad as the people he criticises! Fucking moronic bigoted ignoramous academic!
Oh yeah of course Richard Dawkins writes awesome books he doesn't rape kids.
Move along!
Josh:
I didn't mean to apologize, I was merely stating fact. She was drunk, the girl in the back seat was drunk, the driver was drunk. It was an accident created by bad decisions. As such, it is not analagous to child rape -- the actions of the church and the priests were intentional, not accidental, so I stand by my explanation.
I apreciate the thought, but I didn't give all the facts.
iambilly:
Ah, understood. See what I get for trying to be nice, not snarky? I'm a very Sad Panda now. . (j/k).
Josh,
PZ had a link recently regarding concern trolls: http://gretachristina.typepad.com/greta_christinas_weblog/2010/03/an-op…
I thought that blogger responded well: heard you, thanks for writing, not gonna do what you ask.
Because in the end, it's not about shrill, it's about "shut the fuck up", and it's being worded as "you are so shrill, please don't offend us."
Fortunately Richard Dawkins isn't shutting up, and he gets some press. I reflect on my struggles with trying to figure out why I just couldn't believe in God when everybody else seemed to, and what was wrong with me, and wish messages like his had been more available.
It's a great thing.
Josh: No need to be sad, it was 20+ years ago and I wasn't clear.
Dawkins, however, was clear, concise, and, given the circumstances, remarkably restrianed.
Josh, I will be honest with you. It seems obvious to me, while certainly the vast majority of gay men do not rape little boys, about 100% of men who do rape little boys are gay. And perhaps this is why in the Catholic Church, where priests know they can't ever get married, a person might be more inclined to become a priest if he was gay, and he might be more inclined to become a priest if he was a child molester who wanted to get away with his crimes.
But I admit I should not have asked the question I asked you. Sorry about that.
But, continuing to be honest, I really don't think it would bother me very much if there were no gay men in this world. I wouldn't miss them.
[meta]
You have exposed your vileness with this ridiculous attempted aspersion, and any claims you make about others' morality ring hollow thereby.
My advice to you: "Dear Mr. Asshole a.h.a, you are so screwed. It's going to get worse for you every day until you are gone. You might as well quit now."
Kirk:
Spot on. What the Terminally Concerned About Tone don't get is that it's sometimes a kindness and an ethical duty to wake people/society upharshly from their self-imposed delusions and problems. Being shaken awake - even it it stings initially - is far preferable to going through life not even realizing you don't have to be complicit in your own oppression.
is anybody even surprised at this pile of fail?
here's a hint for you, assface: child rape has nothing to do with sexual orientation; child molesters are often equal opportunity rapists.
which brings me to another question. why are you so focused on the little boys? you do know that more little girls were raped by priests than boys, right?
Hey, Walton. If you want to see what humouring imbeciles does to the overall quality of discourse, just visit Bronze Dog's site and read the months and months of boring garbage spewed by his pet troll recently. BD got to indulge his SIWOTI syndrome, sure. But the regulars got bored, the troll got the attention he wanted and I doubt that 'drive by' visitors are going to wade through 100 pages of Bronze repeating himself while the troll slowly works his way through every logical fallacy in alphabetical order.
We have some really interesting, intelligent commentators here and I say they are wasted addressing PRATT arguments from catholics, creationists and conservatives.
Get the fuck out. If you think I (or anyone else here) is going to put up with your shit you're wrong. You are wicked and depraved.
"you do know that more little girls were raped by priests than boys, right?"
No, I didn't know that. Thanks for the information.
But could you please provide a link or something, so that I can be sure you're not just making things up to make a point. Thanks.
a.h.a:
I'm pretty sure you're as sorry about that as the Pope is about his enablement of child abuse.
Your mutual protestations of contrition are remarkably similar.
You're as honest as the Pope is, too.
No surprise you share the Pope's opinion about gay people, too.
<spit>
Go. Away.
Ape - You've got one Fightin' Faggot (TM) on your hands now, pal. Buckle up.
go fuck yourself. don't pretend we're having a conversation. you're being a vile sociopath, and I'm merely informing innocent bystanders of just how vile you are. if you really want to know these things, learn to fucking google, and leave this blog.
Jadehawk:
I take it that the lie you quoted was said by none other than the sociopathic, homophobic torture porn fan? It's filthing up the thread. A prime candidate for unopposed winner of impromptu survivor, if you ask me.
I'm fairly certain that the perversions of the Catholic Church are unrelated to sexual orientation, but they are mainly related to sex.
It's not a surprise to a humanist or a rationalist that the perversions of the clergy are coming to light.
If you take a large organization, create a dogma based on sexual repression (both priests and nuns), give it an abnormal amount of authority, and grant it secrecy, then you will get what we see in the press today.
As unfortunate as it is that these things are happening or have happened, fortunately they are coming to light.
And the more they are brought to light, the better the chance that this organization will lose its power, and influence.
Sorry, Jadehawk, but now I'm convinced you made that up.
IOW, you don't give a shit about finding out about reality, you just want to continue being a vile asshole.
not my job to teach vile assholes anything. my SIWOTI isn't that bad.
Josh, I will be honest with you. It seems obvious to me, while certainly the vast majority of gay men do not rape little boys, about 100% of men who do rape little boys are gay.
Proof or retract. Or just fuck off.
Ape - You've got one Fightin' Faggot (TM) on your hands now, pal. Buckle up.
Make that two, if I can join in on the fun!
That's it. Put this festering pile of feces' head on a platter and kick it to the dungeon to with extreme prejudice.
There is absolutely no fucking excuse for anything calling itself human for spewing such vile, ignorant, bigoted crap. Go join the freepers, they'll love you.
a.human.ape, leave now. No, don't try and add anything else or attempt to justify your idiotic homophobia and cluelessness. You've got precisely one option, and that's to leave - now.
Should he resign?
I don't think the RCC has any legal path for the current representative of god on earth to resign to begin with.
And then, the man is 83, he is likely to die soon anyway.So I agree with Dawkins, he is perfect where he is at the moment.
I just wish some government would have the cojones to arrest him.
Vile one:
Translation:
I'm not sorry, I'm not convinced, I have this fantasy that Jadehawk cares about what I "think".
Jadehawk, according to what I have been reading in the New York Times, 100% of the child abuse victims they were talking about were little boys.
But you say most victims of perverted priests are little girls.
So I hope you don't mind if I continue to think you were making things up.
But it's not important. Please forget it. Anyone can make a mistake.
Josh, OSG:
You are being much too kind and compassionate here. Waaaaay too much.
Dr. Carole Jenny and her colleagues reviewed 352 medical charts, representing all of the sexually abused children seen in the emergency room or child abuse clinic of a Denver children's hospital during a one-year period (from July 1, 1991 to June 30, 1992). The molester was a gay or lesbian adult in fewer than 1% in which an adult molester could be identified – only 2 of the 269 cases. It also found that "a child's risk of being molested by his or her relative's heterosexual partner is 100 times greater than by someone who might be identified as a homosexual." - Jenny et al. (1994). Are children at risk for sexual abuse by homosexuals? Pediatrics, 94, 41-44.
The researchers found that homosexual males responded no more to male children than heterosexual males responded to female children (Freund et al., 1989). - Heterosexuality, homosexuality, and erotic age preference. Journal of Sex Research, 26, 107-117.
"Are homosexual adults in general sexually attracted to children and are preadolescent children at greater risk of molestation from homosexual adults than from heterosexual adults? There is no reason to believe so. The research to date all points to there being no significant relationship between a homosexual lifestyle and child molestation. There appears to be practically no reportage of sexual molestation of girls by lesbian adults, and the adult male who sexually molests young boys is not likely to be homosexual (Groth & Gary, 1982, p. 147). Heterosexuality, homosexuality, and pedophilia: Sexual offenses against children and adult sexual orientation. In A.M. Scacco (Ed.), Male rape: A casebook of sexual aggressions (pp. 143-152). New York: AMS Press.
(previous all not my own summaries, but summaries of the articles found online)
Shall I keep going, ape-the-ignorant?
a.human.ape wrote:
You've made plenty already. Why not quit while you're behind and fuck right off with your ignorant homophobic asshat clown shoe behaviour?
translation: "if it sells papers, it must be true!"
translation: "when confronted new information that disagrees with my beliefs, I'll just discard them without even spending 2 minutes on google on it"
translation: "if you don't bow to my demands, I'll just pretend like I'm right and be a vile, condescenting ass, because it makes me feel superior"
in the time it took you to make an idiot of yourself again, you could have found the Sexual Rape Report twice over, and other evidence as well.
Lazy, condescending, vile troll.
them it... sigh... i should leave the translations to owlmirror :-p
Can I be a Fightin' Faggot (TM) sidekick?
"and the adult male who sexually molests young boys is not likely to be homosexual"
Really? That's very interesting. So adult males who like females, are more likely to rape little boys than adult males who like males.
I never would have guessed that.
But it makes no sense.
Caine,
No, I think that, if anything, it's the reverse.
Vileness, bigotry and ignorance are all too human, I'm afraid.
--
Carlie, your evidential base (scientific, medical, sociological literature) pales besides the Vile One's — its interpretation of what it's read in the New York Times.
</sarcasm>
Child abuse is not about sexual orientation, or even sex. It is, like all rapes, primarily about damaged inadequates seeking power.
Jadehawk, all you got to do is provide evidence for your claim, and I will stand corrected. Thanks.
I'm sometimes conflicted about the best way to deal with creatures like ape. Sure, the things he said are considered bannable offenses at most civilized blogs. But there's value in bigots taking a very public drubbing.
I don't give two bacon-crusted starfarts what ape thinks of me. He's a stupid, wicked little boy, and I think I'll survive his filthy mouth. But I do care about the millions of intimidated, fearful LGBT kids (or adults) who hide in the closet and worry about their safety because of the poisonous atmosphere shits like ape create.
At 35, I've lived long enough to see a huge change in the culture. 20 years ago bigots could comfortably get away with behaving this way in polite company. They can't now. Sure, there are circles in the US (both geographically and ideologically) where you can make racist, homophobic, sexist remarks with impunity, and earn street cred for your efforts.
But those circles are getting ever smaller, and it's a personal project of mine to keep the pressure on. People like ape need to learn the sphere of public conversation is No Longer a Safe Space for their kind. Public discourse isn't any longer their litterbox to pollute with no consequences. Those days are gone, and bigots aren't going to get them back.
You got that, asshat? Enjoy it while you can, because in more and more arenas, people are looking at you with shocked horror. Your kind is becoming socially unacceptable, and it's only going to get worse for you.
If I thought I could shame you into reexamining your base, immoral attitudes about your fellow humans, I'd give it a go. But I don't. I'll settle for helping tighten the social screws so hard you squirm in humiliation when decent people are around.
John:
John, true enough. I won't give apeshit credit for being ignorant, however. There's no shame in being ignorant, we've all been there at times. Apeshit isn't interested in the least in learning actual information or facts; it is simply looking for ways to justify its vileness, hatred and bigotry. No excuses.
Carlie, Shala, and anyone else: yes, jump on board! Say it with me - "We're All Fightin' Faggots(TM) Now."
It doesn't matter if it makes sense to you or not. If you would go read those papers, or even do a 2 minute fucking google search, you would find that the only thing that correlates with child sexual abusers is the age they're attracted to, not the gender. So adult males who like children are more likely to rape both little boys and little girls than adult males who are attracted to either men or women.
As for why it's boys being raped more often in the Catholic church than girls? Simple - boys get to do more in church, and spend more time with the priests, because girls aren't supposed to have any role in the church. There are simply more chances for the priests to be alone with boys.
#136, FTW.
Also, re the Fightin' Faggot™ sidekick detail, I'd sign on, too..
Please? Whlie I guess I'm not technically especially gay, I have occasionally found myself thinking Matthew McConaughey has a purty mouth...
(/Also: I've already got the matching pumps)
OK. Then I was very wrong to think it was only gay men who molest boys. Thanks for the correction.
Josh, OSG:
Yes, yes, yes. It's interesting that apeshit doesn't realize that his/her virulent homophobia puts him/her in the same class with those he/she calls perverts (and has torture porn fantasies about). His/her homophobia makes him/her a perfect ally and supporter of the catholic church.
Josh, OSG:
Heh. I've been one for over 30 years. I ain't stoppin' now.
You're still wrong. Orthogonally wrong.
The point was that those men could NOT be characterized as either gay or straight. Their attraction was simply to young people, not older people, regardless of gender.
still isn't actually true, it's just what's being popularized. the US scandals were mostly (but not exclusively)like this, but in other countries the gender ratio was even, and in many cases girls and women were more affected.
Right. I totally understand now. I really do appreciate the correction, and I appreciate that you went to a lot of trouble to explain why I was wrong.
a.human.ape wrote:
That's mighty white straight of you.
It took me about 50 years. But with the messages going out today it would have taken me less, maybe 45 :).
Somebody mentioned once that atheists should have the near term goal of being no more despised than homosexuals. We're a long way away :).
Kind of reminds me of when Iowa was searching for a motto for the license plates, and somebody suggested "Gateway to Nebraska."
Best wishes, Josh.
OMG, I don't know where to begin with this statement. Fuck off. Any person with morals regardless sexuality will see sexual abuse of children as vile.
I rejoiced the day J. Ratzinger's butt was chosen to warm the throne of St. Peter, on the hope he would do more damage to the RCC as an institution than anyone else could.
On those grounds, I've been somewhat satisfied with his follow-through. He never seemed to reach the levels of institutional-sabotage-from-the-top achieved by, say, the Busheviks or even Ronald Reagan, but his notable moments file is already thick. (Can anyone suggest an online compendium?)
Now we seem to be approaching the defining episode(s) of his Papacy, and my satisfaction deepens steadily. That only a small part of this should be JR's personal doing comes as a slight surprise; I must do penance for such naivete.
Schadenfreude is sweet, but beware the sin of gluttony, ye of the atheist flock. JR has the reflexes of a severe disciplinarian, whose responses are likely rally the Catholic core even as they repel the "weak of faith".
If that sounds familiar to USAians, it oughta.
Remember that the American bishopric holds its share of power primarily by virtue of the U$ dollars now supporting the Curia in the style to which it has become accustomed. No small part of that flow (wouldn't it be nice to have these numbers) comes from the fattest $heep in the flock.
More concisely: How many degrees of separation between the respective strategists of the Vatican and the Republican Party?
More verbosely: Two at most. We may be about to witness the Teabagging of the Roman Catholic Church. (You're braver than I if you can Google those keywords in a single search.) Historians will surely find a better word, but we are clearly entering one of that phases in Church history tagged with a noun.
Gluttony schmuttony: I for one am anticipating this spring with a feeling more like good ol' Sin Five. Pray for me!
My fighting days are over. Can I be a Quibblin' Queer?
PRB @ # 159: ... one of those phases in Church history tagged with a noun.
Father, forgive me, for I have typoed.
'Tis:
LOL! At first I read that as "Nibblin' Queer," which conjured up thoughts of what I'd call my own line of junk food:
Nellie Nibbles-brand SpokesGay SnackMix™, yum!
And for the shy, retiring types:
Nervous Nellie Nibbles-brand SpokesGay SnackMix™, all the calories, none of the flavor!
Yes, a.h.a, you're wrong.
Ugh, disgusting.
I'm sorry, there was all the crap about oh, what if you were raped. I don't have to imagine it. I was publicly molested. My partner was raped multiple times. A good friend was molested as a child by her father and brother. A lot of women don't have to imagine it. Rapes and adult molestations are sickingly common for women and about 1 in 5 women were raped as minors. And the rate of incest is often debated, but it is reported to be around 10% of the population.
And then there was the whole child rapists are all homosexuals BS when most child molesters either suffer from psychological disorders that impair functional sexuality with adults or self-identify as straight because child molestation like all rapes is mostly a function of power and dominance.
Yeah, Josh, I've always been a Fightin' Queer, but yeah, "We're all Fightin' Faggots Now."
It is interesting that it is so sensationalized when adult males abuse and/or rape little boys. Comparing such behavior to homosexuality is really reprehensible though. Little boys are not men and cannot consent in the same way that little girls are not women and cannot consent. It's troubling to me that so many allegedly heterosexual adults don't see the difference between being attracted to sexually mature males and being attracted to children.
I can't support this with actual data because I have no idea where I read it, but a sizeable portion of the priest rapes congregant complaints were pubescent and post-pubescent girls. Children old enough to be sexually mature to some degree, but still young and immature enough to be manipulated.
Anyway, I absolutely cannot stand equating homosexuality to pedophilia. They're not comparable. Homosexual men are no more attracted to little boys than heterosexual women. End of story.
Cerberus:
It works both ways, my friend; I'll be a fightin' queer, woman, whatever - it's solidarity.
A question for you. I just filled out my US Census form. It only offers two choices for sex, male and female. I wrote in the margins "Why no option for 'trans'?" But I'm not sure what they ought to offer as options in addition to M/F. "Neither?" "Other?" "Trans?" "Refuse to Answer?"
I'd like your opinion.
Josh, OSG:
Hahahahahahahahahaha! Fabulous. You'd make a fortune.
Word - I'm thinking of peddling my product at the InterKwoktion. Commenter Anthony McCarthy's purchases alone would keep me in the style to which I would like to become accustomed.
Sili @ # 13: Someone should really lean on the Italians (and the EU). I'd like to see them put in an airport in the VatCity - and manage to use it without imposing on EU airspace.
[Cue "Imagine", performed by the Papal Choir.]
According to historian David Kertzer, Italy won't even confront that the climax to their national founding came with the non-violent absorption of the Papal States, capping the revolution(s) of a vocal anticleric. He holds that the nation-state is psychologically weakened by its accommodationist agreement with its toxic little bantustan. As he tells it, Italy whitewashes (think Texas/Turkish textbooks) and turns away from the events and heroes that every other nation celebrates and mythologizes.
Walton @ # 26: ... I want to see Ratzinger resign, and I want to see him replaced with a more progressive Pope who will continue the process of reform that started with Vatican II.
Tracking politics in the Holy See is about as easy as was Kremlinology, but I suggest a knowledgeable listing of, say, the 20 most likely candidates for the Pradas of the Fisherman would include approximately zero meeting your one humble criterion. If more inclined to what Decent People consider basic civility, I might suggest there could be one or two in the top 100 - but y'all know me better than that.
The contra-Vat 2.0 faction has been making all the appointments for a long time now. Their grip on Prophet Hill is total. You'd do as well to pray the Republicans sprout another Lincoln.
If you really want a progressive Pope, I suggest you move to Latin America and conspire for intercontinental schism.
SNAP: Female Victims of Clergy Abuse.
Eh. I've been avoiding this whole topic because it really upsets me. No, not in the and I won't do anything about it way, but definitely in the hard-not-to-get-wildly-emotional way.
Honestly I think it allows people to conveniently scapegoat gay people while helping them to sweep child molestation and rape off of their conscious, and especially to sweep away the problem of female child rape. In a way they're just saying what we already know. They hate females and gay men. They will protect child molesters in order to preserve their hate for females and gay men.
Although it reminds me of an old folk song I was thinking about. The song was set in the past and features the typical evil Jewish woman who tricks kids into coming over so she can poison them. The thing is the song is so prevalent and connects back to a specific time and place. It isn't hard for me to imagine that there were a string of child murders that were blamed on an elderly Jewish woman much like a famous case here in the States where a black man was executed for child murder while the real culprit continued to live out his happy child-killing days until his natural death.
The song is filled with visual symbols of antisemitism. That aside it is just another scapegoat that religious institutions (especially the Catholic church) have drawn out.
The hate is bad enough but it is especially shattering to me that in order to preserve hate for Jews, women, gays... these people would knowingly protect rapists and even murderers. It's so dysfunctional.
In the news today, an article about one of those rarely-sighted creatures: an heroic lawyer!
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100329/ap_on_re_us/us_church_abuse_wiscons…
Has Mary o nette been sent to the dungeon? I can't see the name listed there but although people have been replying to her comments i can't see them myself-is there a reason for that?
Shit! I thought Graeme Bird was Troll o' the Week.
Josh OSG: If you are giving out honorary Fightin' Faggot badges to those at...hmmm...1.5 Kinseys and below, where do I apply?
Pipkin, it's because marionette was just a nym being used by a dungeon escapee by the name of Piltdown Man, or Pilty or Hoax or...you get the idea. It does anything it can to get back here when catholicism is under discussion, as it happens to be a rabid defender of all things catholic.
Oh, and forgot to add, PZ came along and slammed marionette/Pilty back into the dungeon. That's why you can't see the posts.
The application process is modeled on Vatican etiquette. You must enter my chambers, then kneel and kiss my ring.
pipkin1972, Mary O'Nette was revealed to be banned troll Piltdown Man and his posts deleted by PZ.
Ol'Greg,
I think you're right that it all ties back to hating women and gay men. The level of hatred I've heard voiced against gay men is startling. Josh is right that it has changed tremendously in the last couple of decades, but I still hear people say really prejudiced things in public. Those same people get really upset when you call them out on it, though. I'm with Josh. We may never change the minds of the hard core bigots, but it is imperative to make it unacceptable to voice their opinions in front of others.
@Caine,Fleur du mal. I missed the PZ comment the first time round- anyway thanks for clearing that up for me.
Yes, yes. I've been reminded recently how homophobia directed at gay men is, at bottom, really just a subset of misogyny.
Josh @165
Well I'm a trans-woman, so for me it'd be pretty easy. Always been a woman.
I guess for those transgendered people who don't feel that they are one particular sex or the other, an other category would probably work nicely as it would cover a broad spectrum of minority categories (third sex, neither, some of both, transgendered, two-spirit, etc...)
I'd definitely not want a category of trans. I've been engaged in a giant argument on another blog regarding a really offensive "trans" movie by a phenomenal idiot that includes, among his many sins, the sort of assumption that all trans people are sort of this mystical third sex who are fahhhbulous and "fierce"! Pfeh.
But yeah, for the transgendered people who consider themselves outside the binary, it would be nice for there to be an other slot for them.
Thanks Wowbagger too.
Late to the thread, but why not "Furiously Fighting Faggot" for Added Alliterative Appeal?
Ol'Greg @170
I think it's also a complete lack of understanding of consent, the nature of rape, and sexuality. People are like, okay, there are male-male acts and female-female acts and they are sexual if they involve the genitals.
And there is little consideration of consent so they'll be like, okay, if you can fuck a same sex partner, then someone'd be allowed to fuck a child or a goat. And in the case of someone like ape they don't understand that rape and molestation is a crime of power not a crime of sexuality and thus assume that sexuality can neatly correlate on the man-man, woman-woman basis because it's "sexual" right so it must emanate from the same origin as sexuality.
And that's the complete lack of understanding of sexuality.
Overall, it makes me think we need to start shoving full real comprehensive sex education down the throats of the right-wing. Yeah, short-term, we got to fight just for making sure the kids know about birth control and STDs, but long-term, people need to have some basis for understanding the bigger stuff like consent and what sexuality is.
Cerberus, thanks for your #181. I can imagine (though I can't know; it's outside my experience) there might be some tension between those who say, like you, "I'm woman, always been one, even before I transitioned," and those who say "I'm not buying into the binary idea at all."
Is there a site you can direct me to where I can better educate myself on the accepted definitions of "trans," etc.? I'm putting my ignorance on full display here: I don't have a firm grasp of the implications, or commonly accepted definitions of, "transgendered," "transsexual," and the like. It's never clear to me just what a person means to say when they use these terms, e.g., whether they imply surgery or not, or something else. Thanks in advance.
I hope your, ahem, chambers are not too cavernous, o Holy Father.
I also hope that these actions are required in sequence and not simultaneously, since the latter scenario would require some unpleasant contortions.
Notkieran, #183:
Ah. You are caught in the perennially vexing battle between alliteration and concision. It is not easy, and you will have to gird your loins.
[OT]
Cerberus,
Brings to mind a novel I read long ago: Venus Plus X.
MrFire:
Tee-hee-hee:) Truth be told, I grossed me own self out with that one. But you understand. . .I just couldn't help myself!
Ugh, blockquote fail at #189. Only the final paragraph is mine.
Damn straight . . . no, no no . . . uh, I mean, RIGHT ON!
Put me on the mailing list for the badge, please sir, Josh.
To sum up what we have learned in this thread (now pay attention, a.human.ape, so that you will not find yourself disemvowalled or dungeonated in the future):
Pedophilia is a crime against children that has nothing to do with the adult sexual orientation if the perpetrator; the majority of pedophiles are heterosexual (insofar as they can be said to have any adult sexual orientation, given their sexual attraction to the immature and vulnerable).
Adult gay men are statistically far LESS likely to be pedophiles than are adult heterosexual men.
More girls than boys have been raped by clerics of the Catholic church. The number of victims of both sexes is horrific and tragic.
We DO NOT tolerate hatred of GLBT people at Pharyngula. Nor do we tolerate racism or sexism. Such displays are evil and contemptible; they will warrant massive attacks, up to and including FUCK OFF AND DIE, expressed robustly with various shocking means of implementation.
Generally, we seem to agree that Pope RatFucker should stay the course, that being the surest means of toppling the Catlick Church forever. I personally hope he lives a long and miserable life, then dies in agony, reviled by the entire world. (Sometimes I forget I'm a Christian. But I'm not at all inclined to take that last sentence back.)
@Leigh:
If we had more Christians like you, Leigh (esp. the kind who have enough wit to poke gentle fun at themselves), the world would be a better place. Thanks for having my back:)
Holy crap. disemvoweled
Well, as a dizgusting ghey you are possessed by the devil, you know.
In any case, I'm going to bed. Since the troll also appears to have fucked off, I hope it's okay to postpone the initiation ceremony until tomorrow.
You're welcome, Spokesgay. Ain't nobody gonna pick on my friends while I've got breath in ma body and strength in ma fingas.
OK, at the risk of resurrecting the ape's worst bullshit. . . .
It's like a canker sore, or the hole left when your wisdom teeth are pulled out. I can't stop worrying it.
Not that the ape has any power to eradicate gays/queers/women/heretics, but this sentiment is just so chilling. Am I the only one who sees such evil (and none too subtle) undertones?
Good god. It gives me the creepin' willies to see anyone willing to commit that kind of sentiment to writing.
Chilling it is, but also ignorant. We'd all suffer for the loss. Such a sentiment is only possible if you are blind to the value of people to other people. It also betrays a very selfish and removed view of the world, as if one's personal preference matters at all or should be the deciding factor on anything that involves lots of other people.
A warped mind.
It is the "I wouldn't miss them" that gives it the chilling touch I think. From my own personal experience alone the people who I have known that display the "I wouldn't miss x or y people" generally only consider people as means to their own personal ends.
[meta]
MrFire, the Vile One may be offensive, but it wasn't trolling, IMO. I'm pretty sure it thought it was contributing (as it indeed was, just not in the way it had hoped) to the discussion.
LinzeeBinzee #21, asks:
I don''t know about comparative numbers, but the problem transcends the Catholic church; the Baptists, the Presbyterians, the Christian & Missionary Alliance, to name a few that I know of, have had their own "problems", and have dealt with them, at least until very recently, in the same way as the Catholic church does. Threatening and intimidating whistleblowers and victims, moving pastors from church to church, allowing them to continue their depredations in one congregation after another, denial, promises that turn out to be mere words ... Same tune, same lyrics, different choir.
The scandal has been hushed up, in part, I think, because these churches do not answer to one single authority, so each case is dealt with in isolation.
For a couple of examples (out of many) of a series of abuses, try Googling "Mamou Christian Academy", (C&MA) or "PCUSA apology abuse". At least the Presbyterians eventually issued an apology for the abuse of missionary kids!
Josh (and others): Of note is that it wrote "gay men", not just gays.
(Though, of course, there're no gay women in the Catholic Priesthood, because there are no women priests.)
Josh @196
Nope. It is naked, bald-faced open eliminationism. And the casual nature by which it is entered is so vile and evil, because it's completely devoid of humanity.
There's a segment of humanity, let's get rid of them, I'll feel nothing.
I mean, I'll talk about how I'd like to eliminate the -isms, but there's no part of that that would be at all glad about doing so by just going out and shooting anyone who is an -ist.
And ditto Ol'Greg @197, it's the extra touch. The initial statement could be a simple case of misstatement, but the extra bit reveals that no, they meant the cold calculus of just genociding away an entire group of people.
And that sort of cold crap is really at the underbelly of so much homophobia. They would just love for all of us to go away and have the history of violence to back it up. Very creepy.
Josh @185
Oh boy. I'm a horrible trans person, but I haven't really found a good Trans 101 blog. I've got a few trans blogs I read, but most of them sort of assume a lot of terminology and the greater umbrella of trans identities can be pretty broad.
However, if you don't mind hitting a library, I would heavily recommend "Whipping Girl" by Julia Serano. It's technically a feminist book and goes a lot into various trans oppressions, but it's also got some great definitional stuff at the beginning and the whole book gives a good overview of some of the stuff trans people have to deal with regarding society as large. Plus, she's a biologist so she likes to make a lot of arguments from a pro-rationalist basis unlike some other trans authors (cough cough Kate Bornstein).
It's the book that helped me figure out I was trans and it's probably the best trans-related book or resource I've run into yet.
Mini-answer though. Transsexual tends to describe the narrower group of people like me who have gender dysmorphia where their birth sex doesn't match up with their brain sex irregardless of surgery level. Transgender is more of an umbrella term that covers the broader group of transgender people (which can include those who view themselves outside the binary, etc, sometimes even executive transvestites like Eddie Izzard). For surgery, the terms post-op, pre-op tend to be used in obvious fashion, but given the important aspect is the brain's understanding of the body's sex, it's more a bar of progress for those who are pursuing surgery and little else.
John @188
I'll have to check that out. I've been meaning to read some Sturgeon. And it looks kinda like a proto-Left Hand of Darkness sort of thing which could be fun.
I don't mind the whole third-gender sort of deal. I mean it's not me, but the people who are that are good people, just when ignorant filmmakers try and speak for "all of us" by implying we're all third gender freaks who couldn't possibly be "normal". And I would think it's offensive to third gender trans people as well.
Ratzinger should resign only if the evidence revealed suggests strongly that he should. Hee. hee. I see it, you see it but the church is otherwise occupied. By damage control.
It is amazing how easily people give up authority over their own lives in favor of fatuous promise and enlarged assurance. When such confidence is invested in a single leader of any organization without taking to task its appeal to magic, such confidence must be questioned, taken to task, torn asunder and scattered at the feet of the people.
If not, the lazy have no avenue of excuse nor of legitimacy. And the faithless are justified simply by asking where is the fan that the shit will hit. And what shit would that be?.
Lord knows I've been looking long enough. Still nothing.
Hi Josh,
I’ve found Andrea James’ website helpful – it’s a huge resource of stuff for FTM transsexuals (lots of detail!) but has a number of essays on many transgender consciousness-raising aspects, especially as there are controversial physicians who view some transgender people as fetishists suffering a paraphilic mental disorder (so to be classified in the upcoming DSM-V; the Wikipedia on autogynephilia has often been edit-warred). As I’m not transgendered I wouldn’t presume to speak for the trans community – but I found James’ views to be more sympathetic and helpful than say a similar website run by Anne Lawrence.
Regards, Philip (another one jumping on the Fightin’ Faggot™ bandwagon)
You very accurately described what happened. It (also known as myself) did not predict the hostile reaction. I thought quoting a Catholic mother's reaction to this evil pope business would be interesting, but apparently it was a bit too interesting.
The point I was trying to make is that at least one very religious Catholic, to my great surprise, is extremely angry at the pope, and would like to do something to the pope that is not very politically correct. As an atheist who looks forward to the eradication of all the world's religions (but not the people who belong to those religions), I thought her anger was a very good thing, especially because I didn't expect it from a person who is extremely religious.
I did learn a few things, and I'm always glad to find out when I've been wrong about something, because that means I won't be wrong about it in the future.
How the hell would he know if he'd miss them? For several hundred years, gay men have kept their sexual orientation hidden because of violent homophobia. He knows bunches of gay people, but he doesn't know he knows them. I'll bet there are several he'd miss a whole damn bunch if they disappeared.
Hey, Ape! Are you speaking German right now (I'm guessing not, unless you actually are German)? You can thank gay man Alan Turing for helping win WWII. Google Bletchley Park.
(examples too numerous to mention clipped here; Ape has google, I presume)
The take I'm getting on our hominim friend here is somewhat less vile. I'm betting he thinks he wouldn't miss gay men because he doesn't want to fuck 'em, and like far too many young men, he's thinking with his dick.
Now lesbians, on the other hand . . . I'll bet he has the usual prurient interest in them, along with the stupid male fantasy that he and his fantabulous Cock-o'-Doom would be of any interest to them.
(Note that this fantasy is not stupid at all if you've been actually told that you sound delicious, esp. with bacon on top!)
a.human.ape #204: Quite graceful. Kudos.
But you need to address your OTHER remark, about not missing gay men.
Some unsolicited advice -- I've given you an out with my #205. It's far better to be thought of as young and testosterone-poisoned than as a flat-out hateful bigot.
Plus, you owe an apology to Josh and all the other gay men who hang out here. Man up, bud, and fork it over.
Offensive One @204:
That's stating the bleeding obvious.
Does it bother you to be dehumanised, by my use of a neutral pronoun? (hint, hint)
Of more interest was your obvious approbation, and your expectancy of same by us.
You're not one of us.
(again: hint, hint)
Yeah — no doubt you've picked up a pointer or two as to how to camouflage your homophobia and your approbation of sadistic fantasies.
Perhaps you might even learn something about the Golden Rule; your treatment of Walton and of Josh was boorish, foolishly combative and very revealing.
What I was wrong about was my idea that only a gay man would sexually molest a male child. Someone went to a lot of trouble to explain why I was wrong, and continued to explain my mistake until I finally got it.
I'm not too sure I understand why not missing the existence of gay men would be such a big problem. Am I suppose to be in love with everyone or what?
And I did apologize to Josh, so I don't really think there's much to complain about.
Now Walton, I refuse to apologize for what I said about him, because liberal extremists who feel sorry for perverts who rape boys is something I find repulsive.
a.h.a @208
Ee ooch. Okay, let me try and explain this. There is a big area of space between "not loving everyone" and not caring or minding the complete eradication of a group of people based on who they are.
"Not missing the existence of gay men" means whether you intended it to or not that if say someone were to tomorrow go around and round up and shoot every gay male on the planet, you'd have little to no emotional reaction to that. It's eliminationist language, which is deeply problematic in the current political climate.
See certain groups would be all too happy to make gay men not exist anymore and have actively tried to enact laws to make that so. And in the past, some men have greatly succeeded at that task within living memory and they relied on large swaths of the population to "not miss them" when it happened.
So, yeah, that's the big problem.
Especially as that comment came as it did when you were busy ranting about how everyone should agree with you that certain people deserve to die.
That's what raises that statement beyond the regular bigot behavior into "hoo boy, that's uh, wow" behavior.
Read Josh's #196. Obviously whatever you said didn't help. So, hell yeah, there's a still a lot to complain about.
But just THINK, kiddo. Think about what you said, and what that meant to the gay men here, who are an integral part of our community. Read what Josh said. Take it to heart.
Still missing the point! "In love"; fuck that noise. We're not talking about romance and teh sex here. We're talking about having respect and consideration for OTHER HUMAN BEINGS. That has nothing to do with sexuality. It is a core human value.
Do you think you can disengage your dick, just for a moment, and think with your brain?
a.human.ape wrote:
I'm not too sure you understand very much of anything if you don't realise why saying this makes you come across as an odious scumbag - how about because it means you consider gay men to be somehow less worthwhile and deserving of respect and equality (and all the encompasses) than other humans beings.
Oy! This weekend I've been distracted by... well, by this weekend... and I really haven't been looking at anything but the Endless Thread. I didn't realize y'all were having this particular fight over here. In light of it, and in particular, in light of a.human.ape's comment about who it might not miss, I feel a bit sheepish about my take on Gyeong Hwa's conversation with his sister. I trust y'all to know I'm coming from an entirely different place than a.h.a, but even so, I'm afraid the timing was unfortunate.
Now, where do I go to enlist in the Straight Auxiliary® of the Fightin' Faggots™? (I'm imagining something like the Lafayette Escadrille, or perhaps the Flying Tigers: It may not be obvious that it's my fight, but I'm with you anyway, and for the duration.
Bill, we know that you are on the side of the Good and the Human (I would have said "the Right", but that just sounds so icky!).
It's everybody's fight, of course -- including us two somewhat aged straight people!
Bill @212
How about we take a page from the Nigerian National Football Team and call you the "Super Allies".
You can be the Wonder Twins to our Justice League. But with an awesomer name.
BTW, Cerebus, thanks for two incisive posts and illuminating posts (#201 and #209).
Ahem. "incisive and illuminating posts".
Damn.
@ape:
First, no you didn't apologize to me. Second, it doesn't matter if you did, because it's not about me.
You owe an apology to humanity; you know, the people who share the world you live in. You're an evil little fuck, and you should be ashamed about the way you characterize your fellow human beings.
Either reconsider the wicked way you've been treating your fellow humans, or go fuck yourself and don't darken our doorstep again. Asshole.
And also, ape:
Don't for a minute think I'd put up with you - or your disgusting fellow travelers - making good on any of your veiled exterminationist threats. I'm not a pacifist.
Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha! Who'd ever have thunk Walton, of all people, would be called a "liberal extremist"?
And for quoting Gandhi, yet. I'm still snickering.
But here, oh clueless one, is the truth of the matter: It is not liberal extremism to recognize that many abusers were themselves abused. That's not an excuse; it is a fact.
Nor is it extreme to note, as Walton has, that the dysfunctional sexual mores of the Catholic Church, in conjunction with its authoritarianism, are to blame for creating the toxic brew out of which this tragedy has arisen.
The same can be said, of course, about all whackaloon religious sects that protect their "anointed ones" at the expense of the innocent.
People can be bad by themselves, of course; but creating the most destructive and hypocritical evil takes religion.
lol... hear that Walton? you're a liberal extremist now. welcome to the collective :-p
Leigh:
@213: Thanks for the kind words. Except... "aged"?? ;^)
@215 & 216: You've just illustrated one of the things I often talk about to the engineers whose writing it's my task to edit: English grammar is sometimes analogous to algebra, and you've illustrated "factoring out like multipliers."
(incisive × posts) + (illuminating × posts) = (incisive + illuminating) × posts
And BTW, you're right: Cerberus has been brilliant in this thread.
basic human empathy seems to be something a.human.ape doesn't possess. back when we were talking about the Haiti earthquake, he actually said we should let the poor who can't get out of poverty themselves die, so they wouldn't breed more poverty.
Holy crap, Jadehawk, I'd forgotten about that.
Even my more charitable gloss on his comment presumes that he takes a purely utilitarian view of humanity; e.g., Other people exist so that I can use them for sex; otherwise, I don't give a damn about them. But the young are often selfish, and it's worthwhile to try to enlighten them.
Why on earth do you suppose he continues to come here? If I stayed in charitable mode (which I'm not going to do much longer), I'd speculate that perhaps he realizes that there is something deeply wrong about his core values.
p.s. Bill, I did say "somewhat" aged!
Jadehawk:
Yah. When I first stumbled across this thread, I thought it was just barely possible that a.h.a's "wouldn't miss 'em" line was just a spectacularly inartful way of saying "gay male sex isn't to my taste, so it would be no loss to me if it weren't to anyone else's taste, either"... but that lifeline has been hinted at more than once, and a.h.a just keeps digging. And then you reminded me that...
...and I realized the less charitable interpretation of the comments in this thread is, in fact, perfectly consistent with a.h.a's history.
Ebenezer Scrooge, anyone?
Leigh, it's the internet. If you can't tell people you're a world class douche, why use it at all. lol :)
He has no core values. That's the most depressing (and alarming) thing. Such people can't be reached; you can only defend against them.
They make me very cranky and depressed indeed. Despite my cynicism and snark, I like to believe most people have decent hearts, and decent moral compasses. Encountering someone like ape is . . . if you'll pardon the expression . . . soul crushing.
Well then, my dear Scholar, he needs to un-douche himself ASAP. He'd best get his little self back on this thread and make some effort to become a fully-realized human being and not some sociopathic hatemonger.
How about it, a.human.ape? Are you up for learning some more Very Important Things?
Sigh. Yes. I am filled with rage, not the most suitable emotion for Holy Week. Yet I am irrationally determined to save him from himself. What a hellish way to live that must be!
We will -- we MUST -- prevail against the gates of Omelas!
I'm with you, Leigh. But to survive to fight (and kvetch) another day, SpokesGays must get their "beauty sleep." To the coffin, for me.
Night all!
Good night, Josh. I too am headed for the hot bath and the sleeping. My "bath cat", Bella, is becoming insistent.
Sleep well, friends, or have a great day, as the case may be.
That's the goal isn't it. Still easier said than done. Hopefully, all the e-ssult well crack his sociopathic shell.
He shouldn't resign, he should go to prison like any normal person who aids and abets pederasts. It's time for the Vatican City to turn over the child rapists they are protecting or we need to send in some troops to get the job done.
Ah thanks, Bill, Leigh. That makes me feel all sorts of fuzzy.
Er, what?
As for the rest of it, you are a sorry sack of shit. Piss off.
Please, don't quote the dungeon escapee. Its posts will vanish into the bitbucket once PZ notices them, but the quotes linger on.
Professor Myers is, of course, fully entitled to set whatever rules he wishes for his own blog - but having done so, I would argue that he is morally obliged to apply his own rules consistently and fairly.
I think it's indisputable that a.human.ape has made far more offensive comments on this thread than Piltdown has. It is therefore manifestly inconsistent for Professor Myers, having banned Piltdown, to allow a.human.ape to continue posting. On the assumption that making homophobic comments towards other commenters is a bannable offence, this rule needs to be applied consistently regardless of whether the person making the comments is a theist or an atheist.
Walton, settle down, I have no doubt there will be a spring cleanup in the minnesotan morning and that creep will be plonked, along with Bird the loony kook.Been a bit of a messy night, too many loons around all over the place.
Piltdown (before PZ deletes you), try reading Carlie's post at #136. Plenty of evidence there.
¡Solamente si usted habla español!
And from the Guardian today, more depressing stuff about the catholic crowd, only this time it is in Rwanda:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2010/mar/29/pope-catholi…
Pederasty, murder... It is all in a day's work.
Piltdown asked:
What reason - apart from the fact that it completely undermines your 'argument' - do you have to suppose it's any different amongst priests? Plenty of evidence has been presented to demonstrate the gender breakdown amongst victims and the lack of homosexual orientation amongst those committing the acts; if you there is evidence to the contrary, the onus is on you to obtain and present it.
But even if you could demonstrate that your co-religionists and poster-children for the efficacy of promoting strong Catholic moral standards were specifically targeting one gender, how does that change the fact that you and your church are complicit in protecting rapists from justice?
Whether the priests are pederasts or heterosexuals has nothing to do with the fact that the church was/is protecting them.
Crucify the old slimy bastard and let jezus be his judge.
Walton,
Yeah, you're Lawful Good, I get it.
(I already told you you're a Paladin by nature.)
Have you considered PZ's "rules" might be that he moderates his blog according to his whim and mood, as relates to a specific situation and circumstances?
Ah, Piltdown Man. Still our best example of how absolutely vile some human beings can be.
Friends, ignore the rest of my post; it's readings from what you call the babble, and it's tl;dr anyway. I will converse with Pilty in our shared ecclesiastical vocabulary.
Piltdown Man, you think the future belongs to you and your subhuman troop of evildoers? God coming in terror and slaughter? Not a chance. Rave on, fool, while your house of man-made cards collapses around you. In so doing you profane the name of Christ. These passages apply only to the sheep, Pilty. Listen and tremble, apostate, as the Christ explains your sins.
_______________________________________________
"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'"
________________________________________________
Jesus has told us plainly what the will of the Father is:
______________________________________________
"Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."
______________________________________________
Then the king will say to those at his right hand, “Come, you that are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me.”
Then the righteous will answer him, “Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry and gave you food, or thirsty and gave you something to drink? And when was it that we saw you a stranger and welcomed you, or naked and gave you clothing? And when was it that we saw you sick or in prison and visited you?”
And the king will answer them, “Truly I tell you, just as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family,* you did it to me.”
_____________________________________________
"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the kingdom of heaven in men's faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to.
______________________________________________
"Who then is the faithful and wise servant, whom the master has put in charge of the servants in his household to give them their food at the proper time? It will be good for that servant whose master finds him doing so when he returns. I tell you the truth, he will put him in charge of all his possessions.
But suppose that servant is wicked and says to himself, 'My master is staying away a long time,' and he then begins to beat his fellow servants and to eat and drink with drunkards. The master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he is not aware of. He will cut him to pieces and assign him a place with the hypocrites, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
______________________________________________
"Make a tree good and its fruit will be good, or make a tree bad and its fruit will be bad, for a tree is recognized by its fruit. You brood of vipers, how can you who are evil say anything good? For out of the overflow of the heart the mouth speaks.
The good man brings good things out of the good stored up in him, and the evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in him. But I tell you that men will have to give account on the day of judgment for every careless word they have spoken. For by your words you will be acquitted, and by your words you will be condemned."
______________________________________________
"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices—mint, dill and cummin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former. You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel.
_____________________________________________
And finally, the words of the Apostle John, feeble and old at the end of his life, yet still clinging the the truths he learned from Jesus:
"God is love, and those who abide in love abide in God, and God abides in them. . . . We love because he first loved us. Those who say, ‘I love God’, and hate their brothers or sisters, are liars; for those who do not love a brother or sister whom they have seen, cannot love God whom they have not seen. The commandment we have from him is this: those who love God must love their brothers and sisters also."
______________________________________
You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel.
That's a keeper.
Of course it might. But I'm suggesting that this would be morally wrong. In any situation, people are entitled to have clear ground-rules laid down so that they know what is and isn't acceptable. It's up to the owner of private property to decide what rules he wants to impose; but he is under a moral obligation to make those rules clear to visitors, and to give them a fair opportunity to conform to his wishes.
By way of analogy: if you own a private café or bar, you are free to decide what the dress code is. If you wish, you can require all guests to wear suits or dresses, and deny entry to anyone who turns up wearing jeans and trainers. But it would be manifestly unfair if you were to allow guests to enter, not informing them what the dress code was, and were then to arbitrarily throw out some guests - but not others - on the grounds that they were improperly dressed. The freedom to impose rules carries with it a moral responsibility to tell people what the rules are, and to apply them consistently and fairly.
@Walton: inasmuch as the blog covers "random biological ejaculations", surely you should be prepared for a little uncertainty in its operation? :)
PZ seems to operate on a policy of random leniency; the set of people who get banned for being vile is only a random subset of the set of people who post vile things here.
Piltdown,
It's clear you're I'm more concerned with attacking protecting the Catholic Church than with protecting children.
Fixed it for you. Now you're in line with official church policy!
Perhaps you could kill two birds with one stone and, next time you're at Mass, suggest that maybe your entire congregation communicate its disgust with the church hierarchy's protection of the rapists - whether they have chosen male or female children as the victims, or whether or not they're homosexual.
But, while you're here, I'll ask you this - how come your all-seeing, all-powerful god was unable to tell the difference between priests who would go on to rape children and those who wouldn't?
Pilty:
Of course we have, unless you intend to repudiate the Bible as thoroughly as you've repudiated Christ's teachings.
You are, at this moment, a self-confessed apostate from Christianity. You rejoice in the predicted fact that
The problem is, of course, that Jesus is NOT conservative, superstitious, and uncompromising. Nor will He approve of your desire to make church-state tensions sharper. He was very explicit on that point.
So explain to us why you chortle over a direction in the church that will make it into the image of venial and corrupt priests, rather than in Christ's image?
You're under a charge of blasphemy, Pilty. Can you defend your actions?
Leigh, you're being foolish. After all, what could Jesus tell Piltdown about Christianity?
No. In this I am guilty of a sin. The misery will be caused by his undoubted guilt in conniving to thwart the course of justice, in order to enable further rapes to occur. Death in agony will come from the knowledge that he must imminently encounter God, who is NOT going to be well pleased with his putative servant. He will be reviled by the entire world for good and sufficient reasons, due to the crimes and their concealment, which put untold numbers of other children at risk.
My sin here is schadenfreude, pleasure in someone else's pain. It is my response to an unrepentent sinner who practiced evil on the grand scale, because his power permitted it, with callous disregard for the flock he had sworn to protect.
But note: I am not called to grant forgiveness when none has been asked. On the contrary,
"Therefore I tell you, people will be forgiven for every sin and blasphemy, but blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come."
The Holy Spirit, our dear counselor while we are on earth, undoubtedly spoke against the sins of lechery and assault that the priests committed. But the Spirit was ignored, for
Wow Leigh, you sure are facile with Christian cant.
I think this discussion beautifully illustrates shows the essential problem with Christianity. Since we really know very little for certain about Jesus' life and teachings - and the accounts we do have are both unreliable and ambiguous - Jesus becomes, in effect, whatever the believer wants him to be. So a liberal, compassionate Christian believes in a liberal, compassionate Jesus; a reactionary, traditionalist Christian believes in a reactionary, traditionalist Jesus; a moderate Christian believes in a moderate Jesus. In reality, we just don't have enough evidence about Jesus' actual life and teachings to determine whether any of these positions is right: so the individual Christian can superimpose his or her own ideas of right and wrong onto the semi-mythic figure of Jesus. Hence, Christianity is completely useless as a guide to moral behaviour: it simply furnishes a supernatural justification, to any given believer, for doing what he or she would do anyway.
In a sense, of course, it doesn't matter who's right. I'm with Marcus Aurelius on this. In the absence of any solid evidence suggesting that either Leigh or Piltdown are right, I will continue acting on the assumption that there is no god. If I am wrong, and Leigh's compassionate liberal God exists, then he will, hopefully, be sufficiently just and compassionate to judge me on my good intentions rather than my actual beliefs. Conversely, if Piltdown's reactionary God exists, then he is an unpleasant character who I would not want to worship even if I believed in him.
Wowbagger, I don't believe that Jesus Christ himself could correct Piltdown's theological errors.
He's gone beyond the fundie who worships a book and is well down the road to worshipping a lecherous, raping, arrogant group of priestly thugs who hide behind a facade of holiness that they did not earn and will not keep.
Seems like a losing proposition to me, unless he's thrilled and seduced by all that unchecked power over vulnerable people. That is the case, I believe.
Doesn't change the fact that his house of cards is coming down around his ears, of course. And I wonder . . . without American money, will it be so easy to expand their operation to South American and Africa, the better to prey on more vulnerable populations?
Native speaker, John. Don't use that language much any more, so I'm a bit rusty. Gotten too old and fat to fit into the Full Armor of God, what's more.
But we're not arguing the fine points of predestination here. It's simply Good vs. Evil.
Walton:
Jesus said:
Just look at what Jesus did -- you know, the things he wanted people to model. Feed and clothe the poor; welcome the stranger; care for the sick; visit the imprisoned; love one another (even the ones who hate you). Concetrate on the social gospel, in fact. That's God's will; we know it because Jesus performed those actions while on earth, and God was very pleased.
Go thou and do likewise; not only will you have every secular humanist reason to do it, but I don't think you'll have any trouble in the future, either. God smiles most kindly on those who model Jesus's behavior, rather than on those who just mouth formulas. Faith without works is dead, after all! If God doesn't exist, you still will have lived an ethical and upright life. Live your whole life without reference to God, in fact; He will recognize a righteous man when He sees one.
I can tell you right now, I'M not worshipping that asshat, let the chips fall where they may.
"Whether the priests are pederasts or heterosexuals has nothing to do with the fact that the church was/is protecting them."
It's true but if there's a study that shows that more girls than boys are molested by catholic church, I could slap it on the face of the catholics that says "It's not about the priests, it's about the closeted gays that become priests". "It's not the fault of the Church but the fault of these evil homosexuals that disguise themselves into catholics priests". "They are not true priests, they only become priests to be near altarboys...blah blah blah..."
No. He should go to jail for aiding and abetting.
When, if ever, will Pilty redux realise that he's been suckered into playing Competitive Bible Quotes in order to demonstrate that Bible quotes don't establish anything?
Ah, the concern trolling!
Don't worry a-ha (you like, btw?), the self-appointed SIWOTI constable with a solution for everything still has to grow hair on his balls.
Wow. Jesus was more parsimonious than I've given him credit for! It was therefore ironic that he stopped believing in himself and vanished in a puff of logic.
Oh boy, I can just imagine what will happen when we assemble 5 or 6 of our all-star gay team.
"AH! After 10,000 years I'm free! It's time to conquer Pharyngula!"
"Josh, Piltdown's escaped. Recruit a team of LGBT with attitude."
It's official: We now have our own theme song. It's time for us to choose an appropriate color.
Leigh (@255):
Yah, I've often thought (and have previously posted in these august virtual pages) that, except for their association with a supernatural mythos I can no longer accept as real, the Corporal Works of Mery, combined with the admonition to "love thy neighbor," make a pretty good starting point for a liberal approach to social justice. Even among the so-called Spritiual Works of Mercy, 4.5 of the 7 are pretty decent bases for sound secular-humanist social policy. Nos. 3, "Admonish Sinners," and 7, "Pray for the Living and the Dead" are right out, of course, and No. 2, "Counsel the Doubtful," requires a strictly secular definition of doubt and clarity regarding the fact that counsel is not intended to mean invariably reassure, lest this be taken as an anti-skeptical work of "mercy."
But, of course, the point has been made in several other threads recently that these are broadly shared humanist principles, not requiring (and often articulated in the absence of) any supernatural frame narrative.
So the existence of of a forebearing, merciful God who might give Walton Extra Credit® for living in a way that honors these principles is entirely irrelevant to whether he ought to honor them.
I grok that some people feel they need the narrative... and in particular, the scary authority figure... as a kind of visual aid to help them behave correctly, but that doesn't mean the narrative is the true source of correct behavior.
Shorter me: I believe that good works are, in fact, the way to "salvation"... but that's because they're good, not because they're on some sky-boss' checklist. And salvation is, IMHO, entirely of this life and world, not some hoped-for afterlife in paradise.
YM does, in fact, I grok, V; peace.
Arrgh! Spritiual (@262) should, of course, be Spiritual. [sigh] Multidisordered typing FTW!!
Very late for all of this. I do not want Pope Rat to resign. To do so would imply that the Catholic Church has a moral authority. As it stands, Pope Rat is the ideal carrion smelling flower of the church. If he goes down, I want the structure to go down with him.
But I live in the real world, I have no reason to think that even this will bring down that edifice.
The Ratmeister is just one in a long long distinguished history of Popes with ugly pasts. The church will probably shake it off and keep on lying just like it always has.
It's up to people to stop listening. Unfortunately the church will also do anything to keep some people stuck with it.
The italicized portion isn't a function of uncertain historical knowledge re:Jesus. American Conservatives do the same thing with the Founding Fathers. When it comes down to it, people are more interested in using authority figures as figureheads to confirm their own biases. They don't actually care if they're being truthful or accurate.
Bill:
True, that. And exactly what I meant when I suggested that Walton lead his whole life without reference to God.
It probably won't surprise you that I call myself a Christian humanist, either.
I like Cracked Magazine's comment of this issue: "people don't seem to realize that the pope is not a football manager". The edifice of the RC church is built on the apostolic succession. You can't simply pick a new pope if you don't like the current one, any more than you could pick a new apostle Peter.
You are in serious need of a chainsaw enema! Now fuck off and die. You won't be missed by me.