Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
that the biggest mistake Dawkins made was putting himself upfront on this one. if he took a backseat and left it to the lawyers maybe people would be more willing to accept what's a pretty fair argument
turning it into Christianity vs Atheism, but if you read the article as is, that's not even slightly true. The main mistake Dawkins has made is becoming a charicature in the public's eyes.
Smoked Dawkins ham, nom nom nom.
1. To promote atheism thus reducing the number of religious people in the world.
2. Punishing the pope for his part in hiding paedophilia in the catholic church.
Me I reckon he's a much bigger fan of numero trois:
3. Promoting Richard Dawkins, especially his books, lectures and articles, in order to increase the wealth (and feed the ego) of Richard Dawkins.
Not that he's not into the first two, just they're not top of his list.
as if in some way wanting to become a more prosperous individual invalidates the message. If RD was fighting the fight on poverty, then sure (see Bono) it's a bit squiffy. But you could argue that by proxy, promoting himself gets his message heard to many more people.
As you've said making himself a figure head, being belligerent and so on has discredited him in the eyes of some people (who might conceivably have been won round otherwise), thus harming the message, while doing nothing but good for his bank balance. I don't think he's stupid enough to have not noticed/been able to predict that, therefore I reckon he's happy to prioritise one over the other. I'm not saying there's anything terribly unusual/horribly wrong with that mind.
because of being a figure head are pretty stupid - it's akin to indie kids banging on about sell-out bands - and he's *always, ALWAYS* been beligerent. But as Lo-Pan says below: at least he's one of the few taking the fight to them. If you play the numbers game, even if he harms the message for some, by reaching so many, he's still converting a lot more to the cause..
Although Dawkins has a point, all criticism of the Pope will be absolutely redundant until it comes from within the Vatican or senior figures in Catholic communities.
The UK will never, ever arrest the Pope. Even if they found legal grounds they wouldn't do it.
Let him face justice like anyone else. Fair enough.
But the fact it'll never happen is pretty disgusting. But so is the Catholic Church so hey.
to come out against the catholic church (though in fairness it wouldn't take a lot for these 2) because who the fuck else is? Any high ranking religious folk, any government etc etc? This whole episode is a fucking disgrace and the church has to answer for it, whether it will or not is another question but for fucks sakes at least some folk are coming out and saying they need to.
As a Catholic, I'm ashamed of how this has been/ is being dealt with and I'm pretty sure I'm through with the church now, as so many other people I know are too.
I've heard it said so many times that "you never stop being a Catholic".
And that senitment seems to be based on more than a wee smidge of thruth, from what I've seen.
and i'd imagine the people who say that are either
1) still in favour of the church or
2) atheist cynics.
- Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone (the Pope's second-in-command)
Keep talking yourselves into a corner, guys. Keep talking, you abysmal crew of deluded, hateful, self-serving, fear-mongering, empathy-free, unrepentant excuses for a moral compass.
I try my best to keep a distance from the terrible circus of religion, but I'm very close to a tipping point...
I really, really don't want to become some kind of serial protester gimp, because marching on the streets generally achieves the square root of FA.
But sometimes things get to the stage where you kinda feel like going out and physically registering your position is better than not doing so, because there seems to be naff all in the way of options for causing any change.
The last time I did was for the make poverty history ring around edinburgh thing (yes, there were odious types piggybacking their causes, but on balance, the whole thing wasn't a misguided idealistic piece of hippy nonsense).
There must've been a pretty good reason why I didn't get out for the anti-Iraq war stuff. Prolly something to do with harsh uni/work comitments.
Are they sure that, that will be a good idea?
I havn't been out to more than Pressure in the last few years so I don't know what the base levels of sectarianism are like anymore, but I can see this as a potentially inflammatory act as it stands.
Any actual protesting on the basis of the Pope covering up child abuse could easily be swamped by sectarian protesters and no one wants to be lumped in with all those ignorant cunty Rangers fans.
Details are released of Pope Benedict XVI's four-day visit to Britain in September, the first Papal visit since 1982.
The Pope's visit will have the status of a state visit, however he will not stay at Buckingham Palace or join a horse-drawn carriage procession up the Mall.
The Pontiff will arrive in the UK on 16 September, where he will be welcomed by the Queen at Holyrood Palace in Edinburgh.
He will then travel to Glasgow to hold a Mass at Bellahouston Park.
The Pope will travel to Coventry Airport for a public Mass where he will beatify the nineteenth century theologian and educationalist Cardinal John Henry Newman.
He will also visit Lambeth palace in London for talks with the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, and join prayers with other church leaders at Westminster Abbey.
He will also give what is being billed as a "major speech" at Westminster Hall in the Houses of Parliament.
The Pope will not be visiting Northern Ireland or Wales during his visit between 16 - 19 September.
The Most Rev Vincent Nichols, Archbishop of Westminster and the head of the Catholic Church in England and Wales, said Catholics were delighted at the Pope's visit.
"We are confident that the presence and message of Pope Benedict will encourage everyone to aspire again to a vision of life in our society marked by mutual trust, compassion and truth," he said.
The visit of the Pope's charismatic predecessor John Paul II drew huge crowds in 1982, and it was hailed as a breakthrough in relations between the Catholic and Anglican churches.
Even the Pope knows his limits.
:-D :-D :-D
"We are confident that the presence and message of Pope Benedict will encourage everyone to aspire again to a vision of life in our society marked by mutual trust, compassion and truth,"
Or it would be if it wasn't such a... [copypasta Nirvana t-shirt style rant from above].
Even though there's an actual issue of justice for the abused children, as well as the more complex issue of just what it is that allows the Church to string our law apparatus along like Avon Barksdale's scumbag lawyer when any other individual committing similar crimes would be not only immediately disowned by those close to him, but eviscerated by the media and buried under the prison (maybe they really are saintly forgivers).
No, despite all the above, my interest in the case is nothing better than sick fascination: They should arrest THE FUCKING POPE. Imagine the bunfight over that! It would make Pinochet look like being pulled over for a broken indicator.
In other news, Dawkins himself: I've finally figured out what his game is. The soft consonants of his speech, the tendency to say what some would like to say if they just had the balls as if he knows he's on his own, the public debates that often have his own side criticising him, the studied indifference to his views by the secular authorities; it's obvious.
Richard Dawkins is Atheist Jesus, sent to earth to die on the internet for our sins.
the trail of evidence leads directly to Mr Ratzinger himself, and if it is indeed proven, that it would hold up in court, and that the Vatican is not a proper state, then I look forward to the shitstorm.
would the UK harbour a fugitive from international law? and if the Pope is just a regular EU-citizen and a resident of Italy, then the Italian government would be similarly obliged to send their police to storm the Vatican and get him...
NSFW, for you worthless office-based scumholes out there
The Pope rapes our children. Dawkins rapes our minds. Banish the pair of 'em...
he rapes our minds how?
...polemical drivel which is as much impractical by application as it is unreasonable by argument. I agree with him on the morals behind this issue, sure, but his general thoughts on the place of religion in "civilised" society make my very angry.
He is an absolute cock and I want him to go away.
He's preachy, yes, but he's hardly holding you at gunpoint. I know people who don't even know who he is, because they'd never bother to read his stuff if they did anyway.
..."Richard Dawkins is FORCING EVERYONE TO THINK THE SAME WAY AS HE DOES" territory?
I choose not to read his books, anymore. And I won't watch him on television when he's on it again. Cool. Doesn't mean I'm not allowed an opinion on what he believes now does it...
...deliberately so. It was a point said for offensive comic effect more than anything. Do you think I really think the pope rapes children as well?
I can't stand either of the blokes but, really, my choice of wording wasn't 100% serious now...
When is a rape metaphor ever NOT slightly silly? Unless you're Alan Pardew...
Q. When is a rape metaphor ever NOT slightly silly?
A. When it refers to an actual instance of someone being forced to do something against their will?
I was talking about using 'rape' as a metaphor. You are talking about a correct application of the word 'rape'. Bit different.
But, aside from that, yes you're right...
Q2: How many other people do you think would share your interpretation of my last comment?
A2: 0.0 (approx.)
Probably the same amount of people who are genuinely interested in reading your pedantic analysis of it.