[Gem Windcaster]

stone monkey, on 13 April 2010 - 01:31 PM, said:

Gem - Yes, I have learned something, which by past performance is more than I expect you to have done. And what I learned is that it's extremely easy to make entirely correct assumptions about you.

That's not learning anything, it just means you love arguing with me. I'm strangely flattered.

stone monkey, on 13 April 2010 - 01:31 PM, said:

btw - Read some history (I mean really) The Reformation effectively removed large chunks of Northern Europe from Catholic control. The equivalent today would be if hundreds of millions people suddenly decided they didn't want to be Catholic anymore. That ain't going to happen. The schism with Greek Orthodoxy chopped the church in half, that would be equivalent to half a billion people breaking off from the church. That isn't going to happen either. This is a blip by comparison. More importantantly, both these events were doctrinal, this isn't.

I'm sure people won't just leave the church, but the power balance will definitely shift.

stone monkey, on 13 April 2010 - 01:31 PM, said:

Arguably you've missed a trick. Maybe he thinks that it's simply the right thing to do and is concerned with doing that.

That's what I said? Or at least I thought I did.

stone monkey, on 13 April 2010 - 01:31 PM, said:

But that's the kind of assumption very few believers like to make about atheists because it poses an interestingly knotty philosophical conundrum. Of course the point to make is that, as has been pointed out repeatedly and is being completely ignored, that this wasn't Dawkins' idea in the first place and he was merely voicing support for it. Which gets us back to the point of newspapers not letting facts get in the way of a story they want to twist to their own ends.

First off, it doesn't matter who's idea it was, it's Dawkins that is getting the headlines, which is all that matters in media.
Secondly, as I said before, it's possible Dawkins is trying to do the right thing, but then he doesn't realize the impact, or non-impact, he supporting the idea will have on some people. In this case, he might be helping the cause better by not doing a number out of it - if doing the right thing is what he really cares about. But he seems like a very simple minded guy that refuses to recognize complexities like that, so I imagine that he does tell himself that he have to stand up for what he believes in, no matter the cost. Point is, Dawkins doesn't give a shit about the catholic community or any other religious community, and in this case that doesn't exactly help.

[Illuyankas]

caladanbrood, on 13 April 2010 - 02:19 PM, said:

 

stone monkey, on 13 April 2010 - 01:31 PM, said:

Arguably you've missed a trick. Maybe he thinks that it's simply the right thing to do and is concerned with doing that.

Haha. Does anyone actually believe that if it was a non-religious organisation with the same accusations against them, Dawkins (or Hitchens, for that matter) would give a damn?

Because there's exactly as much political shenanigans and retardedly biased and protective laws regarding clergymen as, say, Scout leaders, right?

[caladanbrood]

 

H.D., on 13 April 2010 - 02:24 PM, said:

Does, and should, it matter whether or not there is a philosophical bone to pick when a group of people have deliberately hidden a crime of such massive proportions? If it was a group of Buddhist monks would it make any difference, and should it?

NO.

I couldn't agree more It's still true, however, that the only reason these particular people are talking about it is because it's the Catholic Church, and they are atheist fundies. The query isn't about the ideas, it's about the motivation, which has nothing to do with concern for the victims, and everything to do with points-scoring.

[Garak]

Quote

Because there's exactly as much political shenanigans and retardedly biased and protective laws regarding clergymen as, say, Scout leaders, right?

I think he's trying to say that if this wasn't religious (and a big religious target, at that) then fewer people would care.

[Illuyankas]

Garak, on 13 April 2010 - 02:42 PM, said:

Quote

Because there's exactly as much political shenanigans and retardedly biased and protective laws regarding clergymen as, say, Scout leaders, right?

I think he's trying to say that if this wasn't religious (and a big religious target, at that) then fewer people would care.

And I'm trying to say that if there were a similar situation with an equally big target, those guys wouldn't be able to get a word in past all the other condemnations that are conspicuously absent here.

There's too much 'just some atheist fundies (which is an idiotic and inaccurate phrase, Brood, really) complaining about the church again, ho hum' and too little 'they hid child rape for how long!?' going on.

[stone monkey]

caladanbrood, on 13 April 2010 - 02:19 PM, said:

stone monkey, on 13 April 2010 - 01:31 PM, said:

Arguably you've missed a trick. Maybe he thinks that it's simply the right thing to do and is concerned with doing that.

Haha. Does anyone actually believe that if it was a non-religious organisation with the same accusations against them, Dawkins (or Hitchens, for that matter) would give a damn?

Actually yes I do. But the fact that this is a church means that they're the only ones who are going to go anywhere near it. If this were a non-religious non-mainstream organisation with the same accusations against it, people would be tripping over themselves seeking to form the precedent. So the question begged is actually why has no-one else given enough of a damn to give this a go?

This would seem analogous to (and as naive as) having a go at Amnesty International et al for their attempts to get General Pinochet arrested and tried for his crimes. They're an organisation that has this sort of thing as their primary focus, of course they're going to do it. After all, if he hadn't been a repressive dictator they wouldn't care that he'd ordered people murdered, would they?

This post has been edited by stone monkey: 13 April 2010 - 03:11 PM

[Gem Windcaster]

stone monkey, on 13 April 2010 - 02:57 PM, said:

caladanbrood, on 13 April 2010 - 02:19 PM, said:

stone monkey, on 13 April 2010 - 01:31 PM, said:

Arguably you've missed a trick. Maybe he thinks that it's simply the right thing to do and is concerned with doing that.

Haha. Does anyone actually believe that if it was a non-religious organisation with the same accusations against them, Dawkins (or Hitchens, for that matter) would give a damn?

Actually yes I do. But the fact that this is a church means that they're the only ones who are going to go anywhere near it. If this were a non-religious non-mainstream organisation with the same accusations against it, people would be tripping over themselves seeking to form the precedent. So the question begged is actually why has no-one else given enough of a damn to give this a go?

I disagree, I think people are tripping over themselves trying to find a way to deal with it, but they aren't there just to score points.

The "we hate religion, so we are better judges of it" argument is bullshit.

This post has been edited by Gem Windcaster: 13 April 2010 - 03:12 PM

[Use Of Weapons]

Garak, on 13 April 2010 - 01:52 PM, said:

Arguably the media is sorta like the church when it comes to the truth - only instead of covering it up, the media twists it until it makes for a really juicy story that will get them ratings (and possibly ruin someone's life but what do they care, that's just an extra sad story they can run with).

Not instead of -- as well as. The media pick and choose which stories to cover, which to suppress, which to lie about, which to distort, and which to simply get wrong out of ignorance.

[caladanbrood]

I think if their actual concern was the victims, they would be much better off going after the abusers, a move which I think everyone would wholeheartedly support, rather than this publicity stunt.

@illy - I know it is, but it sums up the respect I have for them quite nicely, so I'm gonna carry on using it anyway

[stone monkey]

Are there? They've kept pretty quiet about it, haven't they? You'd think one of the newspapers might have gotten hold of it...

And the theory that Hitchens et al are only doing this to score points is based on what? Are vocal atheists incapable of being repulsed by the church's actions? Or maybe they're only pretending that they disapprove of child rape and really they're only against it when it's priests doing it? Perhaps secretly they're all up to it. Atheists don't have that belief in God and guidance from him that stops them doing immoral things after all...

Now, nobody is under any illusions, I would hope, that their avowed allegiances in the matter don't play a part. But the only part? Really? Presumably Pat Buchanan's remarks on the Haitian Earthquake were only said because he's a dick and had nothing to do with his religious beliefs...

Is the "We love religion and so we are better judges of it" argument any better? I think not. That's exactly what's got the Catholic Church into this mess in the first place...

This post has been edited by stone monkey: 13 April 2010 - 03:32 PM

[Gem Windcaster]

It is true that, I don't question Dawkins motives because he's an atheist, I questions his motives because he is a dick.

[Darkwatch]

Gem Windcaster, on 13 April 2010 - 03:30 PM, said:

It is true that, I don't question Dawkins motives because he's an atheist, I questions his motives because he is a dick.

Ok, Gem just won that one.

[anothevilbadguy]

caladanbrood, on 13 April 2010 - 03:13 PM, said:

I think if their actual concern was the victims, they would be much better off going after the abusers, a move which I think everyone would wholeheartedly support, rather than this publicity stunt.

@illy - I know it is, but it sums up the respect I have for them quite nicely, so I'm gonna carry on using it anyway

The police have gone after the actual abusers when they have found out. The issue is going after a very powerful organisation that actively has been covering up the action of these abusers. Which I think could easily be seen as abetting, as they allowed them to stay in these positions of power.

OF course Dawkins wouldn't have actively gone after say the Scouts for doing it, but he would still personally condemn such actions and the police/government would go after them. He does have an overriding agenda of combating religion's power over people (especially Catholicism), but I don't really see what is wrong with that. It isn't point scoring, he wants to lessen the power of a pretty misguided organisation.

[Gem Windcaster]

anothevilbadguy, on 13 April 2010 - 03:35 PM, said:

caladanbrood, on 13 April 2010 - 03:13 PM, said:

I think if their actual concern was the victims, they would be much better off going after the abusers, a move which I think everyone would wholeheartedly support, rather than this publicity stunt.

@illy - I know it is, but it sums up the respect I have for them quite nicely, so I'm gonna carry on using it anyway

The police have gone after the actual abusers when they have found out. The issue is going after a very powerful organisation that actively has been covering up the action of these abusers. Which I think could easily be seen as abetting, as they allowed them to stay in these positions of power.

OF course Dawkins wouldn't have actively gone after say the Scouts for doing it, but he would still personally condemn such actions and the police/government would go after them. He does have an overriding agenda of combating religion's power over people (especially Catholicism), but I don't really see what is wrong with that. It isn't point scoring, he wants to lessen the power of a pretty misguided organisation.

As much as I appreciate the argument, and I agree 100% on both the abetting point and the misguided organization point, I doubt Dawkins would have made the same amount of noise if it had been the scouts. He would of course condemn the the organization for the cover up if asked, but since he has no points to gain, I doubt he would actively do anything, and the media wouldn't be as interested in quoting Dawkins in that context either. As for it being wrong or not, I don't think anyone is arguing that it is particularly wrong if you disregard the motives, and maybe the motives don't matter - it's a philosophical issue. But the concerns are that Dawkins might not be helping, and personally I would say that motives do matter.

Editing rampage, sorry.

This post has been edited by Gem Windcaster: 13 April 2010 - 03:51 PM

[Illuyankas]

HE'S NOT ACTIVELY DOING ANYTHING HERE, HE'S NOT MAKING ANY AMOUNT OF NOISE

THEY ASKED HIM FOR ADVICE ON A LAWYER, HE GAVE IT, THE PRESS SPUN IT OUT OF PROPORTION

YOU WOULD KNOW THIS IF YOU READ THE FUCKING THREAD PROPERLY, IT'S BEEN POINTED OUT SEVERAL TIMES

DON'T SAY YOU HAVE, IF YOU HAD YOU WOULD HAVE KNOWN THIS BEFORE GETTING IT WRONG

EVERY FUCKING THREAD ABOUT RELIGION IS YOU NOT READING THE FUCKING POSTS

[stone monkey]

Ah yes, but then you get to throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Fred Phelps is a stunningly unpleasant person, I think we can all agree on that. He was also (as I discovered recently), as a young man instrumental in the legal challenges that helped overturn segregation in the Southern USA. I think he's a dick, but I can still applaud his actions... Disapproving of someone doing the right thing because you disagree with their reasons for doing so, or just plain don't like them, strikes me as a bit churlish. The fact that at least someone is doing the right thing is a pretty good thing, whoever it is.

[Gem Windcaster]

LOL Illy, if he's not making any sort of noise, then I guess this thread is completely useless. Poor innocent Dawkins with no agenda.

stone monkey, on 13 April 2010 - 03:55 PM, said:

Ah yes, but then you get to throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Fred Phelps is a stunningly unpleasant person, I think we can all agree on that. He was also (as I discovered recently), as a young man instrumental in the legal challenges that helped overturn segregation in the Southern USA. I think he's a dick, but I can still applaud his actions... Disapproving of someone doing the right thing because you disagree with their reasons for doing so, or just plain don't like them, strikes me as a bit churlish. The fact that at least someone is doing the right thing is a pretty good thing, whoever it is.

Even the worst people imaginable can do good things occasionally - do they deserve applause? Maybe not so much. And motives are a common reason to question good actions - I am sure Dawkins wouldn't agree with you - he would never applaud the church for doing good actions throughout the history, because of their motives.
But hey, you're not Dawkins, and I don't want to be him, so fine, I'm applauding.

[Illuyankas]

Here.

Aptorian, on 11 April 2010 - 08:30 PM, said:

It appears that the article may have given the matter a more sensationalist headline that was intended by Dawkins:

http://richarddawkin...t/articles/5415

Quote

Comment #478580 by Richard Dawkins on April 11, 2010 at 8:48 am
Needless to say, I did NOT say "I will arrest Pope Benedict XVI" or anything so personally grandiloquent. You have to remember that The Sunday Times is a Murdoch newspaper, and that all newspapers follow the odd custom of entrusting headlines to a sub-editor, not the author of the article itself.

What I DID say to Marc Horne when he telephoned me out of the blue, and I repeat it here, is that I am whole-heartedly behind the initiative by Geoffrey Robertson and Mark Stephens to mount a legal challenge to the Pope's proposed visit to Britain. Beyond that, I declined to comment to Marc Horme, other than to refer him to my 'Ratzinger is the Perfect Pope' article here: http://richarddawkin...t/articles/5341

Here is what really happened. Christopher Hitchens first proposed the legal challenge idea to me on March 14th. I responded enthusiastically, and suggested the name of a high profile human rights lawyer whom I know. I had lost her address, however, and set about tracking her down. Meanwhile, Christopher made the brilliant suggestion of Geoffrey Robertson. He approached him, and Mr Robertson's subsequent 'Put the Pope in the Dock' article in The Guardian shows him to be ideal:
http://richarddawkin...t/articles/5366
The case is obviously in good hands, with him and Mark Stephens. I am especially intrigued by the proposed challenge to the legality of the Vatican as a sovereign state whose head can claim diplomatic immunity.

Even if the Pope doesn't end up in the dock, and even if the Vatican doesn't cancel the visit, I am optimistic that we shall raise public consciousness to the point where the British government will find it very awkward indeed to go ahead with the Pope's visit, let alone pay for it.

Richard

Actually read it this time.

[MTS]

Gem Windcaster, on 13 April 2010 - 04:21 PM, said:

LOL Illy, if he's not making any sort of noise, then I guess this thread is completely useless. Poor innocent Dawkins with no agenda.

Way to take his words out of context, Gem. Dawkins isn't actively participating in the campaign to arrest the Pope. He's showing his approval, and that's it. You're strawmanning. It's the newspaper, not Dawkins, who is pursuing an agenda in this case.

This post has been edited by MTS: 13 April 2010 - 04:54 PM

[MTS]

Gem Windcaster, on 13 April 2010 - 04:21 PM, said:

stone monkey, on 13 April 2010 - 03:55 PM, said:

Ah yes, but then you get to throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Fred Phelps is a stunningly unpleasant person, I think we can all agree on that. He was also (as I discovered recently), as a young man instrumental in the legal challenges that helped overturn segregation in the Southern USA. I think he's a dick, but I can still applaud his actions... Disapproving of someone doing the right thing because you disagree with their reasons for doing so, or just plain don't like them, strikes me as a bit churlish. The fact that at least someone is doing the right thing is a pretty good thing, whoever it is.

Even the worst people imaginable can do good things occasionally - do they deserve applause? Maybe not so much. And motives are a common reason to question good actions - I am sure Dawkins wouldn't agree with you - he would never applaud the church for doing good actions throughout the history, because of their motives.
But hey, you're not Dawkins, and I don't want to be him, so fine, I'm applauding.

I like how you rage when people assume things about you, yet there you go assuming a position for Dawkins without proof.

As for your point, I have to agree with SM. Motive and action aren't fused at the hip, you know. A person giving to charity for a tax advantage should be applauded, despite the fact that they probably wouldn't have given to charity without that incentive.

This post has been edited by MTS: 13 April 2010 - 05:04 PM