[HoosierDaddy]

Seriously? No attempt to find out that what you are saying has been refuted, time and time again already? Because it has.

[Darkwatch]

tiam, on 17 April 2010 - 08:16 PM, said:

Havnt got time unfortunately so i'll just stick to my original 'atheist kicking up a fuss arguement' thats got you so squeamish

Here

[tiam]

H.D., on 17 April 2010 - 08:20 PM, said:

Seriously? No attempt to find out that what you are saying has been refuted, time and time again already? Because it has.

Its not that I have no interest to and ill likely do it when i get in. I meant I cant right now.

Im sure that my arguement has come up in the four odd pages before my post. I just simply think that Richard 'Atheist Warrior' Dawkins is cashing in as it were on the current church scandal. Therefore the cause is worthy but the motives of the people doing it are questionable in the fact that they are both Atheist authors.

[stone monkey]

It's not squeamishness, more of an unhealthy liking for the actual facts, y'know?

[Sinisdar Toste]

tiam, on 17 April 2010 - 08:27 PM, said:

H.D., on 17 April 2010 - 08:20 PM, said:

Seriously? No attempt to find out that what you are saying has been refuted, time and time again already? Because it has.

Its not that I have no interest to and ill likely do it when i get in. I meant I cant right now.

Im sure that my arguement has come up in the four odd pages before my post. I just simply think that Richard 'Atheist Warrior' Dawkins is cashing in as it were on the current church scandal. Therefore the cause is worthy but the motives of the people doing it are questionable in the fact that they are both Atheist authors.

see, the point of the people who are responding to you here is that richard "atheist warrior" dawkins has very little to do with any of this. all he did was say "good idea, here's the name of a good lawyer"

but of course its being blown out of all proportion. i think the thread title should be changed.

look at darkwatch's link at the very least

[HoosierDaddy]

Ad infinitum: Where molestation of children is concerned, it shouldn't matter whether the person seeking justice for those children is loathed or loved by any individual, as long as that person is seeking justice they are doing the right thing.

[tiam]

H.D., on 17 April 2010 - 08:31 PM, said:

Ad infinitum: Where molestation of children is concerned, it shouldn't matter whether the person seeking justice for those children is loathed or loved by any individual, as long as that person is seeking justice they are doing the right thing.

Right I really need to get back to work

Of course you are right in that it should be fought, wherever and in whatever form it can be. However im sure i will, at the very least, adapt my opinion after a bit of research. The article, which is the only info id read on all of this, seemed to indicate Dawkins and some other Atheist writer kicking up a fuss about the Pope and, whatever the reasons for that, are immediately suspect to me in that they have far more than a simple 'ethical' motivation. If Dawkins singlehandedly brought down every pedophile member of the clergy and became the best selling off author of all time then i of course would applaud him. That seems to be what everyone on here wants me to say anyway, but is of course true.

Im fairly certain the article itself was marketed as Dawkins trying to bring down the church to gain controversial attention, which of course it has done.

As i said really have to get this work done but will have a read through this thread, and the link, when im done.

Sinisdar- Yeh the thread title has given a particular spin and should probably be changed, at least to avoid someone like myself who may comment on it without knowing the severity of peoples opinions in the previous pages

This post has been edited by tiam: 17 April 2010 - 08:43 PM

[Terez]

I love it.

Particularly, I love the perplexed expression of the guy to his right:

[Aptorian]

It really is sad that the Catholic Church continues to elect hundred year old men to be the figure head of their organisation. They should elect people who are younger and better equipped to represent the church to the outside world.

[Garak]

They should put someone younger but then again these old guys have been pushing their way toward that high seat since forever. Not one of them is going to like the idea of putting a younger man (who hasn't spent as much time as them to climb the rank ladder) on that seat. It's pure cutthroat politics. Which in this case is sad.

[MTS]

Since it is the cardinals that run a lot of the Vatican IIRC, a non-cardinal wouldn't have the experience it takes to be Pope.

Garak makes a good point too.

[Aptorian]

MTS, on 20 April 2010 - 07:56 AM, said:

Since it is the cardinals that run a lot of the Vatican IIRC, a non-cardinal wouldn't have the experience it takes to be Pope.

Nonsense. I admit I know practically nothing about the inner workings of the Church administration, but basically the Pope is just a super priest. To the outside world he is seen to be attending big Christian events around the world wearing his pimp hat, says some flowry words that some underling wrote for him, falls asleep in his chair, possibly drops his dentures and is then taken away to a new location in the pope mobile or Air Force Pope.

Non of that shit takes much skill. I could do that stuff, all though memorising all that latin gibberish would be a chore. I'm sure there's more to it. Like being thoroughly educated in the crazy internal power structure of the church, but again, this does not take a 70-80 year old man to do.

The Catholic Church would be much better served by using younger, say 40ish, men (or women?) who have the passion and charisma to drive the church towards its goals. I would love to see a Pope that was able to appear on TV and actually defend the church, who could partake in national or global debates. One who was forward thinking and radical, rather than just an old diaper ridden half cripple who is so thoroughly bound by traditions and his daily bowl movements that he has no idea what the hell is going on around him.

Hell, just electing a guy who doesn't look like the bad guy from Star Wars would be a step up.

This post has been edited by Aptorian: 20 April 2010 - 08:29 AM

[Tapper]

Garak, on 20 April 2010 - 07:42 AM, said:

They should put someone younger but then again these old guys have been pushing their way toward that high seat since forever. Not one of them is going to like the idea of putting a younger man (who hasn't spent as much time as them to climb the rank ladder) on that seat. It's pure cutthroat politics. Which in this case is sad.

In fact, it isn't (just) about that. John Paul II (the polish dude) was elected while being fairly young, and was in charge for 26 years, allowing him a. to put a BIG mark on the church b. to stagnate the church.

Ratzinger, being elected pope while aged 78, is likely going to do neither by virtue of reigning for a decade, 15 years at best. So yes, they elect an ancient geriatric who is guaranteed to be behind the times. But it serves a purpose.

Also, the tendency for experienced people to be elected, is universal. The median age for US presidents to be elected for the first time is 55, add 4 to eight years in office and you arrive at presidents being in their early 60s, which is a hell of an age to be in charge of the most powerful nation on earth (after all, you're guaranteed to be physically and mentally in decline by then, if not due to age, then due to the demands of the office).

A better comparison than that would, perhaps, be the age of ascension to the throne of European monarchs. Late 40s to early 60s (Charles at 62?) would probably be the average, but these are father/mother to children rather than election amongst peers.

EDIT: or, if you go by election by peers, the Chinese Politburo: 70 years of age: informal retirement age, average age of election: 61. Then you're likely a backbencher for a couple of years, so expect to be in charge at 68 or so.

The Russian politburo had an average age of 65 (the official retirement age) in 1974. (http://www.jstor.org/pss/150758). According to the same article, by the by, the retirement age for R-C cardinals is officially put at 70.

This post has been edited by Tapper: 21 April 2010 - 12:57 PM

[Sinisdar Toste]

Interesting development regarding the pope and the UK, some person in civil service wrote a memo titled 'the ideal visit' which detailed a visit to the UK from the pope where the pope blesses a gay marriage, ordains a female priest, starts a line of condoms, defrocks 'dodgy' priests and basically does all the things that the pope would never do.

Here

to me this looks like a completely manufactured reason for the pope to have a good excuse for not coming to the UK and exposing himself to this investigation that is being planned. the civil servant was just moved to other duties and several officials allowed their monocles to drop into their brandy in surprise. there'll be some meetings and maybe the person who authorized it will be fired, but i mean come on, the, lets say 'optimism' of the memo is so ridiculous, that combined with its timing... well, i'm smelling something fishy and its not a scandinavian delicacy

[caladanbrood]

I dunno how this affects your conspiracy theory, but the Vatican has stated that the leaked memo will have "absolutely no impact" on the visit... http://news.bbc.co.u.../uk/8643370.stm

[Grunthor]

Aptorian, on 20 April 2010 - 08:29 AM, said:

MTS, on 20 April 2010 - 07:56 AM, said:

Since it is the cardinals that run a lot of the Vatican IIRC, a non-cardinal wouldn't have the experience it takes to be Pope.

Nonsense. I admit I know practically nothing about the inner workings of the Church administration, but basically the Pope is just a super priest. To the outside world he is seen to be attending big Christian events around the world wearing his pimp hat, says some flowry words that some underling wrote for him, falls asleep in his chair, possibly drops his dentures and is then taken away to a new location in the pope mobile or Air Force Pope.

Non of that shit takes much skill. I could do that stuff, all though memorising all that latin gibberish would be a chore. I'm sure there's more to it. Like being thoroughly educated in the crazy internal power structure of the church, but again, this does not take a 70-80 year old man to do.

The Catholic Church would be much better served by using younger, say 40ish, men (or women?) who have the passion and charisma to drive the church towards its goals. I would love to see a Pope that was able to appear on TV and actually defend the church, who could partake in national or global debates. One who was forward thinking and radical, rather than just an old diaper ridden half cripple who is so thoroughly bound by traditions and his daily bowl movements that he has no idea what the hell is going on around him.

Hell, just electing a guy who doesn't look like the bad guy from Star Wars would be a step up.

While is sounds like a good idea to have a younger Pope, you'd have to be very careful. There are a lot of younger cardinals out there who would ber very dangerous in the sense that they wnat to harp back to the good old days of the Catholic Church prior to Vatican II. You may think the CC is conservative now, but a lot of the younger cardinals are ultra conservative.

And going back to the OP, I'd like to see the Pope arrested, prior to becoming pope he was informed of clerical abuse and did nothing. Thats unforgivable. Here in Ireland there have been tow reports carried out on child clerical abuse that would make you sick to the core. Over 60 years or even more of cover ups. From the very top of the church down. We wouldn't cover up abuse in normal society so why should the church be any different. A poster at the beginning of the thread asked what use is it to the victims, well I ask you are the Nazi hunters wrong for tracking down former guards or commanders of concentrations camps and bringning them to justice after nearly 60 years????

[Aptorian]

Grunthor, on 27 April 2010 - 12:20 PM, said:

A poster at the beginning of the thread asked what use is it to the victims, well I ask you are the Nazi hunters wrong for tracking down former guards or commanders of concentrations camps and bringning them to justice after nearly 60 years????

Yes. Yes the are. Look, I'm all for justice, but unless you can find some crazy nazi grandpa running new death camps in South America or some place, being unrepentant about his crimes, etc. It's no longer an issue. It's been 65 years since the war ended in Europe. Let go and lets move the fuck on. What purpose does it do to find and prosecute 80+ year old people who can barely remember their own name let alone stand by their actions a life time ago. WW2 and the prosecution of various peoples was a sad chapter in human history, but it's over.

Israel Jews have used up any sympathy I had for their plight decades ago. Now they're just waging their own atrocities in a never ending war where there is no good or bad guys, just more victims.

[Cause]

Aptorian, on 27 April 2010 - 12:55 PM, said:

Grunthor, on 27 April 2010 - 12:20 PM, said:

A poster at the beginning of the thread asked what use is it to the victims, well I ask you are the Nazi hunters wrong for tracking down former guards or commanders of concentrations camps and bringning them to justice after nearly 60 years????

Yes. Yes the are. Look, I'm all for justice, but unless you can find some crazy nazi grandpa running new death camps in South America or some place, being unrepentant about his crimes, etc. It's no longer an issue. It's been 65 years since the war ended in Europe. Let go and lets move the fuck on. What purpose does it do to find and prosecute 80+ year old people who can barely remember their own name let alone stand by their actions a life time ago. WW2 and the prosecution of various peoples was a sad chapter in human history, but it's over.

Israel Jews have used up any sympathy I had for their plight decades ago. Now they're just waging their own atrocities in a never ending war where there is no good or bad guys, just more victims.

Apt your confusing so many issues here I'm not sure where to begin. The law is clear. Their is no statute of limitations on murder. Time does not erase your guilt or free you of responsibility or consequence. Forgiveness is a right only the victims have to give and there are in fact a few of them still around. Not all of whom are Jewish, which you know. I can see your side, even agree with it to some point. Their is little to be gained by putting 80+ year olds in prison. However, what they did was wrong. They knew it when they ran. If nothing else it is a worthwhile pursuit to let these people know we have not forgotten. A message so often ignored, even by Jews amazingly enough, when genocide happens elsewhere.

What any of this has to do with Israeli Jews and their own actions in dealing with Palestinians I'm not sure.

[Garak]

Quote

A message so often ignored, even by Jews amazingly enough, when genocide happens elsewhere.

Russia and Japan did some pretty horrid war crimes as well but no one talks about that. I guess people just feel ashamed to blame the japs after they got nuked twice and Russia........ who in their right mind would pick an argument with Russia? Also why are you amazed that the jews ignore the genocide that happened to others? It's not like they care - I'm generalizing here - about those that died. It's like the jews in America whining that Israel is under attack but not one of them would actually go there in this life. They know that because of the holocaust, they have the sympathy/make'em feel guilt card and they've been using since. One day, it's gonna backfire violently.

There are a lot of building in this country, which the jews claim belong to them and they want them back. If some of those buildings are hospitals and schools then that's just to bad but we were persecuted and now we want what's ours. That is simply a fast way to get burned.

As for the 80+ year old criminals, it's an odd thing. On the one hand it's not fair to the victims (and it sends a bad message) if you ignore the law and leave them be. On the other hand, considering their age, prosecuting them just feel petty and vindictive at this point. And if they happen to have been nazis (which better mean they were a member of party because a lot of people say nazi when they talk about WW2 era germans and that's just wrong since the Nazi Party was just that, a political entity just like the political parties you find in every democratic country - these guys were extremist nut bags but that's beside the point) then the issue becomes murky. Are you going after them because of war crimes they committed or simply because they were nazis and nazis are evil. I'm not defending the nazi party but if you go after these people then it must be because of justice and the law - and not because of a desire for vengeance.

Quote

What any of this has to do with Israeli Jews and their own actions in dealing with Palestinians I'm not sure.

Jews got on his nerves? Their attitude annoys him?

At any rate can we drop the jews before this conversation turns weird?

This post has been edited by Garak: 28 April 2010 - 08:19 AM

[Aptorian]

I'm going to follow Garaks advice and not derail the thread.

To put it short. I know the severity of murder charges and war crimes, and I understand the need for retribution, etc. I just find the continuation of trampling around in that mess two generations later is useless and more harmful than good. These things happened in a different age in a political and social environment we can't even imagine. Faulting people for what they did 65 years ago, when they can't have been much more than a kid if they're still alive today, is not worth the grief in my opinion. That's vengeance, not justice. As much as we have learned from that war, I can not wait for it to pass out of societies conciousness. If that is even possible.

This post has been edited by Aptorian: 28 April 2010 - 03:31 PM