No kidding! The august professor proceeds in his usual unobtrusive, subtle and low-key style....
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article7094310.ece (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article7094310.ece)
Then, I suppose, he plans to hurl pork chops at the temple in Jerusalem.
I thought the canonical way to attack the pope was to put a sexbomb/bombshell in his bed.
I understand why he does it.
But he shouldn't be the one doing it but the victims and the parents of the victims, it shouldn't be a atheist attack against religion, but justice after a cover up.
In any case despite it's shock value and possible backlash ramifications I have the feeling it makes sense. Not only puts the Vatican on their toes but shows that actions have consequences even if those are not traveling to any nation with laws against pedophilia and people willing to pursue.
This is not an issue of religion, but of foul and notorious crime unpunished.
How people can excuse the deliberate cover-up and facilitation of sexual assaults on thousands of children is beyond my understanding...
Quote from: SwatoI thought the canonical way to attack the pope was to put a sexbomb/bombshell in his bed.
Yes, but the choirboys won't fall for it again. :mrgreen:
Quote from: ZonoIn any case despite it's shock value and possible backlash ramifications I have the feeling it makes sense. Not only puts the Vatican on their toes but shows that actions have consequences even if those are not traveling to any nation with laws against pedophilia and people willing to pursue.
Well, yes, maybe the threat of it will be a slap in the face and a wake-up call to those who need one. But it had to be Dawkins, didn't it?
Any excuse is a good excuse, for him at any rate. As fanatical theists like to demonize non-believers, he likes using the same technique in reverse.
You mean the kind that drive people away from religion? I should send Dawkins a letter telling him that I'm finding God because of all the damage radical atheism does in this world. ;) ;) ;)
Quote from: The Meromorph on April 12, 2010, 02:55:41 PM
This is not an issue of religion, but of foul and notorious crime unpunished.
How people can excuse the deliberate cover-up and facilitation of sexual assaults on thousands of children is beyond my understanding...
I agree totally. If he was in any other "profession" Ratz. would have been prosecuted as accessory to crime.
Must admit I read the bit about Dawkins plans in my newspaper with a smile on my face.
How would it be if the chairman of an Olympic delegation decided to cover up abuses made by the coaches of the junior leagues? How far would he go?
I suspect that it had to be someone like Dawkins-- if it hadn't been him, it would've been someone else just as radical.
We've [Europeans and European-descent] too long have been told that Catholicism is 'normal', and you just don't look at that institution with the same lens you would at, say, plants or the moon...
For that's what Dawkins and his cadre are doing: turning the same lens we use on astronomy or botny to the institutions of religion.
For too long, religious institutions have claimed they are "above" such scrutiny. And so long as their behaviors were above reproach? They could get away with such claims--proven or otherwise. In fact? Their behavior had to be so very far above reproach, that there was little or nothing to criticize (not that they ever actually achieved this lofty ideal, but the intention was there, I think).
Dawkins is reminding us that religious institutions are human constructs, first and foremost. They clearly are, for if an actual bona-fide deity were behind any of them? The divine is well and truly masked by the all-too human failures.
Leading one to question what sort of deity would permit such humans to remain as a spokes person for said deity?
And what is the message [from such deities] of permitting said humans to remain, unpunished?
In the case of the Catholic Church, they really ought to be looking at this bottom-line issue: what is the real message being sent to non-Catholics? (i.e. those folk not raised in the doctrine of the church, all too frequently with 'blinders' on to how it all looks to an outsider..)
If the church was, in fact, being guided by a genuine deity--and more to the point-- if it's leaders were listening to said deity?
Why have they not followed [at the very least] their own rules, with regards to consequences-of-behavior?
The following cartoon may provide a glimpse into the "reasoning" of these folk:
http://www.jesusandmo.net/2010/04/02/ (http://www.jesusandmo.net/2010/04/02/)
(http://www.jesusandmo.net/strips/2010-04-02.jpg)
^ :ROFL:
I agree with all you say, Bob, this campaign against the 'special status' of religion needs to be conducted. And yes, it's got to be by a radical. It's just that Dawkins comes across (IMO) as a whacky egghead lacking in dignity. I've said it before: he's doing a great job, very badly.
'Swhy I always fancied the humour-based approach, although Dawkins is evidently not the only one capable of doing a great job, very badly.
South Park actually did a good spoof of this crisis a few years back, but the episode is very crude (especially the sub-plot).