And do you really think that's going to happen? Course it's not, and Dawkins etc know that.
Shameful, that they're using this situation to further their own careers... 🙁
EDIT: If they were actually sincere in wanting to highlight this nasty mess, then there's probably far better ways to do it. Why not go and talk to Catholic groups, other religions, set up a media campaign, organise protests, etc?
He's not going to succeed in this action. He knows that. It's not the point. He's questioning the infallibilty of the church. The state won't do that so I'm thankful that someone is prepared to raise the questions. I can think of no better way to do it than this. It's publicity this issue needs so that we all get to debate it and consider the issues and question the people in power. That's the way we keep them in check. The result of all this publicity, opinion and debate will be a more careful church. My hope is that the risks to young children through abuse by the church will decrease as a result of all this publicity.
Shameful, that they're using this situation to further their own careers...
Shame that no-one in a prominent position can make comment/do things without the cynics assuming (rightly or wrongly) that it's for their own good.
No-one should be above the law.
The precedent was set in this country when Charles 1 was executed. He was the head of the church as well.
So why should a Pope be any different?
He's questioning the infallibilty of the church. The state won't do that so I'm thankful that someone is prepared to raise the questions
Loads of people have done this. Including the [url= http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/apr/03/archbishop-canterbury-ireland-catholic-credibility ]Archbishop of Canterbury[/url], as well as many Catholics. The shockwaves from this will take a long time to settle down, if ever. I'm not condoning the actions of the Pope, indeed the Vatican has acted disgracefully over this whole affair.
Have a look at this, and tell me it's not all about publicity and money...
[url= http://richarddawkins.net/ ]http://richarddawkins.net/[/url]
Shame that no-one in a prominent position can make comment/do things without the cynics assuming (rightly or wrongly) that it's for their own good.
Well said.
The politicians [i]should[/i] be backing Dawkins on this, but they will try to stay out of it as it is a dangerous vote-loser.
So arguably prominent people are ignoring it to further their careers, which is far more shameful.
Are you new here?
Read the story FFS
Can't you just see the thread title and fly off on one?
Lol that's just what I was going to say - who do these people think they are actually reading the article linked to in the OP?
Talkemada - Member
Have a look at this, and tell me it's not all about publicity and money...
It's how he makes a living and there's obviously a market for it. Don't see the problem?
It's how he makes a living and there's obviously a [b]market[/b] for it.
My case resteth, M'Lud.
Have a look at this, and tell me it's not all about publicity and money...
I see, so people with an opinion and a position to make a difference are not allowed to make any money from their opinion, thus removing the platform from which they can speak? Interesting.
Talkemada - MemberIt's how he makes a living and there's obviously a market for it.
My case resteth, M'Lud.
What case?
What case?
The case whereby turkey murder disagrees with someone so they are [b]wrong[/b]
the great Chris Hitchens
You mean the-one-time-socialist-who-became-a-neocon-apologist Chris Hitchens?
He's questioning the infallibilty of the church
No need, the Catholic church doesn't claim to be infallible. The Pope occasionally claims infallibility, but only rarely and when speaking [i]ex cathedra[/i] on doctrinal matters. This whole foul coverup is administrative, not a matter of doctrine.
The case whereby turkey murder disagrees with someone so they are wrong
That's the one!
I may employ Trailmonkey as my PR. He's doing a fantastic job! 😀
you don't need my help
Ah, go on; we could form an 'organisation', have a website and sell tacky merchandise. Maybe a few sell-out global tours, DVDs, commemorative tea-towels, that sort of thing.
Whaddya reckon?
Ah go on go on...
[img] 
[/img]
So is there anyone who could raise this case against the pope that you wouldn't blindly accuse of publicity seeking?
Yes, the leader of the Catholic Church in Ireland, perhaps, as surely it's their job to oversee things which affect them. And they wouldn't be doing it for money.
Dawkins and his cronies are using this as the perfect opportunity to attack the Catholic Church at a time when it's been wounded, in order to further their own 'beliefs' and careers. Dawkins whole career is based around attacking religion, and promoting his own views as superior. He revels in the exalted status his electrolytes have placed him. He is not different to any other 'religious leader'.
Yes, the leader of the Catholic Church in Ireland
So if he doesn't step up then no one should?
And surely if he did step up then he would [i]obviously[/i] just be doing it to further the amount of power he had in the church?
Dawkins whole career is based around attacking religion,
Not how I see it. He is an Evolutionary Biologist who wrote some excellent popular science books on evolution and Darwinism, who then had to defend his position in public debate, which got him more and more entrenched until he became "Darwin's Rottweiler".
His subsequent promotion of humanism and questioning of religion seems to me to be a pretty fair response.
But all this is irrelevant. He is in a position to rally public support and finance lawyers to look at this. It will probably come to nothing legally, but hopefully it will make the Catholic church (and any other such body) re-evaluate how they deal with claims of abuse etc.
Which is a good thing.
Ok then.
But it won't hurt his next book sales... 😉
But it won't hurt his next book sales...
Bibles already out-sell any other book on the planet I believe... 😆
the leader of the Catholic Church in Ireland, perhaps, as surely it's their job to oversee things which affect them. And they wouldn't be doing it for money.
You really think that the Church in Ireland will raise a case against their spiritually infallible leader annointed by god...and I thought Christians were naive
Also Ireland has nothing to do with it. The fiddler priest in this case was Rev Kiesle of San Francisco who was sentenced to three years of probation for lewd conduct with two young boys in 1978.
The Pope, then Cardinal, recommended "as much paternal care as possible" for Kiesle, and wrote that he shouldn't be defrocked for the "good of the universal Church".
Kiesle went on to re-offend and was sentenced to six years in prison in 2004 after admitting molesting a young girl in 1995.
[i]Dawkins and his cronies are using this as the perfect opportunity to attack the Catholic Church at a time when it's been wounded, in order to further their own 'beliefs' and careers[/i]
The Catholic Church has been wounded? Are you on drugs or something? The Catholic Church has been [b]sexually abusing children[/b] and then, at the highest levels possible, covering it up!!!
They should be in prison - not in ****ing church.
You really think that the Church in Ireland will raise a case against their spiritually infallible leader annointed by god...and I thought Christians were naive
No, I don't. but I was asked who I thought should make a stand. Seeing as many abuses have taken place in Ireland, then that would be an appropriate person to make a stand. I accept that this will sadly not happen.
I have no problem with Dawkins making a living; but if religion didn't exist, then he'd have to find something else to rant about. He loves it; he gets the attention he craves, loads of money, and a load of dewey-eyed followers. His views are no more or less valid than anyone else's, and less valid than mine. 😀
he Catholic Church has been sexually abusing children
Wrong. [i]Members[/i] of the Catholic Church have been sexually abusing children. The Vatican is guilty of not dealing with this in an appropriate, open and honest manner.
If any organisation has the 'right' to make a stand, then it's the NSPCC, and suchlike. And I'm sure they have, in their own way.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/6706473.stm
If anything, Dawkins is perhaps detracting attention away from the good work such organisations are doing.
think dawkins is bright enough to make a living from his wits without religion.
Seriously though what better target was there for the Professor of popular sceince to debunk/attack than regligion? It is seriously without credibiilty or objective eveidence as a theroy of explaining the world yet is believed by the majority of the planet.
He is not different to any other 'religious leader'.
Really?
but if religion didn't exist, then he'd have to find something else to rant about.
Really? He seems to have made a good living "ranting" about lots of other interesting stuff. I am sure he would not starve. The exalted paedophile however appears to have only "one string to his bow"
from the good work such organisations are doing
Which ones? NSPCC or the church. Its so difficult to keep up!
Yeah, but come on...
That Big Bang thing...
It's bollocks really isn't it?
It's bollocks really isn't it?
You could have something there DD. Surely there must be a more convincing hypothesis?
coffeeking:Bibles already out-sell any other book on the planet I believe...
Nah, the Koran sells more. Well that or the Davinci Code.
Let's not have another 200+ thread about whether religion is right or wrong eh?
It doesn't matter here because no one is saying child abuse us "right" and no one here is even trying to defend the Pope's position on Kiesle.
If Dawkins used his influence to form a cross-faith organisation, together with the NSPCC, to lobby against the Vatican, to raise awareness of child abuse everywhere, ad to help raise funds for Childrens' charities, then I'd have more respect for him. I don't see him doing that. I see him acting in his own interests, creating a publicity stunt to further his own career.
He's not simply saying 'child abuse is wrong', he's saying 'look at how wrong Catholicism (and religion in general) is, and how righteous and clever I am'. That's what I object to.
Without the religion bashing, he'd just be another scientist. The Atheism thing is a nice little earner...
Wrong. Members of the Catholic Church have been sexually abusing children. The Vatican is guilty of not dealing with this in an appropriate, open and honest manner.
The vatican has been systematically covering up child abuse and hounding out those who dared to speak out about it - never mind not appropriate, open or honest, they are clearly complicit in child abuse, right up to the highest level.
The pope may mot have carried out any abuse himself but he facilitated it.
If Dawkins used his influence to form a cross-faith organisation, together with the NSPCC, to lobby against the Vatican, to raise awareness of child abuse everywhere, ad to help raise funds for Childrens' charities, then I'd have more respect for him.
What "influence"? Without his "publicity stunts" he'd be just another underpaid lecturer. Now, at least, his views get air-time.
Talkemada earlier:
[img] 
[/img]
DrJ - do you send a large percentage of your earnings to charity too?
[i]The vatican has been systematically covering up child abuse and hounding out those who dared to speak out about it - never mind not appropriate, open or honest, they are clearly complicit in child abuse, right up to the highest level.
The pope may mot have carried out any abuse himself but he facilitated it.[/i]
Exactly. And if they were any other religion, or not a religion at all, I'd feel the same. This is a crime against humanity, and worse than that it's a crime against the most vulnerable members of humanity by those who have positions of power and influence and whom, if they really believed what they say they believe, would never dream of doing.
The pope may mot have carried out any abuse himself but he facilitated it.
Hmm, not defending the Vatican, but you'd have to prove the Pope was aware of it. Was he? I don't know. Those in the highest of office are often unaware of what happens 'beneath' them. How much real 'power' does he in fact have? He's more a figurehead, surely?
I agree that no one person, organisation or religion should go without criticism or censure.
Dawkins could focus on child abuse in general, including that perpetrated by Atheists. But he's not. He's focussing his attack on one particular organisation, who happen to be in the media spotlight at the moment.
Hence my original comment, re 'jumping on the Pope bashing bandwagon'.
You must have missed the bit where I acquired toys19 or whatever his name is as a self-professed stalker for by Big Bang Bollocks theory.
Can I just also add that I grew up educated firstly by a mixed/Presentation nuns school, then a wholly secular (but still very much a catholic) school and then went to a secondary school run by Christian Brothers.
I've had uncles who have been priests, great aunts who have been nuns. Obviously, all in the Catholic Church. (My uncle and aunt both left their orders in later life, more on a couldn't live life on their own kind of thing than anything really serious.)
I am now a committed atheist, though I don't shout it from the rooftops these days - there are more important things to worry about.
I and countless others, my friends, acquaintances, neighbours, family etc. all came through these years completely unscathed and untouched by paedophile brothers/nuns/priests.
I have memories of three great teachers through school...2 of them were Christian Brothers...better and nicer teachers I never had. Funnily enough, one of them taught me a love for Applied Mathematics and Physics (at school level anyway). I have many happy memories of our local parish priest, Father Johnny Daly - who performed my sisters wedding and worked tirelessly for my local GAA club teaching useless uncoordinated children to hit moving balls. I sometimes see him in the pub on Christmas Eve if I'm home. He remembers everybody from the old days.
They weren't all bad you know.
Without the religion bashing, he'd just be another scientist. The Atheism thing is a nice little earner...
Which reminds me that I must read that book he wrote that went to the top of the book charts. What was it again - oh yes - "[i]The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution[/i]". Which is about biological evolution. Strange that with him being a scientist in that field. Still I guess it didn't earn him that much eh, as he needs the 'atheism thing' to keep paying for Vim and the like.
If Dawkins used his influence to form a cross-faith organisation, together with the NSPCC, to lobby against the Vatican, to raise awareness of child abuse everywhere, ad to help raise funds for Childrens' charities, then I'd have more respect for him
I am sure he has sleepless nights about this however I suspect his motive is the destablisation of organised religion as oppose to stopping child abuse per se (as laudable as that is)
This is just a vehicle to further his cause. I dont think it makes him any more of a money grabber than the ones in the fancy dress. At least as a tax payer I get to choose if I line his pockets, unlike the church!
