Religion convinced the world that there's an invisible man in the sky who watches everything you do. And there's 10 things he doesn't want you to do or else you'll go to to a burning place with a lake of fire until the end of eternity. But he loves you! ...And he needs money! He's all powerful, but he can't handle money! --George Carlin
If religion was based on "truth" and not upbringing surely we would not see geographical cluster's of faiths.
A pantheistic approach might support this observation. If each god has selected his or her own region and garnered followers there, it stands to reason that religions would be clustered. But this logic fails for monotheistic faiths. If there is one true god, why the clustering?
The answer is most likely as simple as you believe what your parents believe. Your parents followed theirs and so on. Cultures consolidate their beliefs and people herd towards the norm.
If people genuinely chose their own religion (or lack thereof), distribution would be random, with concentrated groups here and there. However, to expect that entire countries and even continents follow a certain religion, strongly supports the notion that belief is passed from generation to generation. My entire family is Catholic. My parents, their parents etc. Passing their beliefs on to their offspring was second nature. As children we were dressed in our best and carted to church every Sunday. Funerals, weddings, baptisms, all followed the cultural biases of my family. There was not one single Muslim, Rastafarian, Zoroastrian, Mormon, Jew or Pastafarian among us.
Most people of a religious persuasion do not seem to question this lack of diversity of faith among their own. Is cultural brainwashing is so subtle that the thought would not cross ones mind that perhaps they believed by rote?
Only by taking a step back and asking yourself why you believe, do you stand a chance of breaking free from the killing grip of dogma.
Science works and here's how. A scientist will ask a simple question such as "how does 'x' work?". Scientist will then form a hypothesis (educated guess) as to how "x" might work. Scientist will then test hypothesis experimentally and the results (evidence) will either support or falsify the hypothesis. Once scientist has evidence to support the hypothesis, scientist will publish findings and these will be reviewed and tested by other qualified scientists. These scientists will attempt to find weaknesses in the hypothesis and replicate the evidence under their own controlled experiments. If hypothesis is not falsified then the scientists will provisionally accept the hypothesis of how "x" works until such a time a new evidence, or more comprehensive hypothesis comes to light.
This process has been repeated many millions of times by qualified scientists, and this is why we have a longer life expectancy, why the internet works, why we understand how life evolves, why mothers usually survive childbirth and many, many more examples of the amazing benefits science has brought to humankind.
During these millions and millions of experiments and tests, not one time has it occurred that in order for "x" to work, god must have performed action "y". Not once, never! Scientists have explored and tested and hypothesized and theorized, and it has never been the case that a supernatural cause needed to be invoked.
And as these gaps in our knowledge shrink over time, religions constantly attempt to insert their gods into these holes in our current understanding. Every single time that a scientist closes one of these holes, god vanishes almost as if he was never needed in the first place. The holes are shrinking by the day as scientists resolve unknowns and improve our understanding of nature. God is getting smaller and less necessary as an explanatory power for the mysteries of life.
The religious hold on to abiogenesis as the last bastion of god. Science has not yet figured out how the first non-organic molecules evolved into self replicating organic life forms. The religious see this as a massive hole and immediately insert their deity of choice into the gap. Scientists would never show such hubris and claim knowledge of something that escapes explanation at that moment. They say "I don't know, but I'm working on it". The religious will say "god did it, and not only that, I know what this god looks like, what he wants, and that if you don't believe this too, you will suffer for eternity". That is hubris and at a godlike scale.
The gaps are shrinking and god is neither required nor has a supernatural action ever been detected. God is hiding, but we have counted up to 10 and we are coming, ready or not.
I sometimes think about the fundamental 'need to believe' in something other than that which we can observe, that exists in people of religious faith. Being a 'de-convert' myself, I remember well the fleeting satisfaction I would gain from the vague notion that someone 'up there' was looking out for me. There is an element of comfort, in being deluded. We don't have to look out for ourselves. If we ask nicely, someone will 'fix' it for us. There is an element of hope - we can affect our lives and the lives of those around us, with 'prayer'. Someone is sick, we can pray, and hopefully influence their recovery. There is an element of denial, that this life isn't the main show - there has to be an encore.
"there are so many of us who want so badly to be jolted out of our humdrum lives, to rekindle that sense of wonder we remember from childhood, and also, for a few of the stories, to be able, really and truly, to believe--in Someone older, smarter, and wiser who is looking out for us" [Sagan]
You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe. [Dr. Arroway in Carl Sagan's Contact (New York: Pocket Books, 1985]
Like children that can't move on into adulthood, the religious look to a 'Father' in the sky. They ask 'can we have?' 'Give us this' 'We need that', with hands outstretched, complaints and demands. Like toddlers, they need more. 'Is this life all there is?' They stamp their feet and need the guarantee of more life that lasts for ever. The everlasting gobstopper of eternal sweeties. Not for them the wondrous but naturally limited human existence shared by all other living creatures that crawl and slither on the earth.
Why are they so unsure of themselves? Why do some choose delusion over what 'is'. What’s the benefit of giving away the power of determination and being frightened to fulfill our dreams with our own hands?
The need to believe is the inability to believe that we're not special, we are finite, we are subject to the laws of nature, we live, we leave. From the first fur clad guy that left his cave and bowed down before the magic fiery orb in the sky, and thanked it for it's light and heat, we have been drawn to the idea that there's someone, or something, looking after us. What if there isn't? Let's all be big boys and girls and look after ourselves, and each other.
In 2008 Professor AC Grayling discussed the possibility of the election of a self proclaimed atheist as British Prime Minister as a realistic prospect for the first time. (Neil Kinnock and Michael Foot never being serious contenders for the honour.) Then the atheist in question was David Miliband. Mr Nice, Nick Clegg was an also ran leading a party which hadn’t been in power since 1915. He was staple fodder for ‘’Have I Got News For You” and “Private Eye.” He was anonymous and a joke.
Two years, a plethora of political scandals and a television debate later, the two main parties are running scared as Mr Nice distances himself from the baggage of the existing political landscape, and presents himself as the face of change, and our only hope. In 2007 along with confessing to a minor skirmish with arson and ‘’drawing a veil’’ over his dabbling or not with drugs, Nick replied ‘’No’’, when asked if he believed in God. His low profile at the time meant the comment resulted in barely a ripple in the media.
The two other main party leaders are coy about their beliefs, lest they alienate their core supporters. Dave Cameron presents himself as Church of England, with a faith which he compares to ‘’the reception for Magic FM in the Chilterns. It sort of comes and goes.” Gordon Brown’s father was a minister, and he avoids talking about his faith, but does acknowledge that his father’s advice forms his ‘moral compass’. Tony Blair was reticent to talk about his religion, and delayed announcing his conversion to Catholicism until after he left office, fearing people would think him a ‘nutter’. As Alaistair Campbell said “we don’t do God”.
Blair wasn’t a welcome convert to Catholicism. Two weeks before he announced his faith ‘’The Catholic Herald’’ made the mistake of running a front page story with the headline that Blair had ‘’no plans’’ to convert and that was a relief to many Catholics. Why? This was because Blair voted in favour of abortion, stem-cell research, gay marriage and other such liberal ideas. Prominent Catholics demanded that Blair repent of these sins and recant.
So does it matter what our senior politicians believe, or don’t believe? Surely the parties’ policies regarding the economy, defence and so on are what we as voters should concentrate upon? Plus, of course, the leader is but one man, not the entire Cabinet or party. That is true to a point, but as AC Grayling shows, these policies are coloured by our politicians’ personal religious and moral views.
Grayling describes the advantages he sees to having an atheist as a prime minister as these:
“Atheist leaders are not going to think they are getting messages from Beyond telling them to go to war. They will not cloak themselves in supernaturalistic justifications, as Blair came perilously close to doing when interviewed about the decision to invade Iraq.
Atheist leaders will be sceptical about the claims of religious groups to be more important than other civil society organisations in doing good, getting public funds, meriting special privileges and exemptions from laws, and having seats in the legislature and legal protection from criticism, satire and challenge.
Atheist leaders are going to be more sceptical about inculcating sectarian beliefs into small children ghettoised into publicly funded faith-based schools, risking social divisiveness and possible future conflict. They will be readier to learn Northern Ireland's bleak lesson in this regard.
Atheist leaders will, by definition, be neutral between the different religious pressure groups in society, and will have no temptation not to be even-handed because of an allegiance to the outlook of just one of those groups.
Atheist leaders are more likely to take a literally down-to-earth view of the needs, interests and circumstances of people in the here and now, and will not be influenced by the belief that present sufferings and inequalities will be compensated in some posthumous dispensation. This is not a trivial point: for most of history those lower down the social ladder have been promised a perch at the top when dead, and kept quiet thereby. The claim that in an imperfect world one's hopes are better fixed on the afterlife than on hopes of earthly paradises is official church doctrine.
Atheist leaders will not be tempted to think they are the messenger of any good news from above, or the agent of any higher purpose on earth. Or at very least, they will not think this literally”.
Professor Grayling goes on to enthuse about the prospect of an atheist PM moving towards the disestablishment of the Church of England, which would in itself lead the way to religious groups en masse being stripped of privileges including the ear of ministers and public funding for faith schools. Regular church goers amount to 2% of the population yet the Church of England has huge influence over the state primary school system, representation of its bishops in the House of Lords and the ear of government.
As an atheist I should be celebrating the possibility of an atheist coming to power, but I’m not simply because I don’t think he is one in the sense that Kinnock or Foot were. Nick Clegg replied to the question if he believed in God with a one word answer. Subsequent to that he’s fudged the issue, saying he is not an ‘’active believer’’ whatever that means, and stating that he has ‘’enormous respect for people who have religious faith”. He is married to a Spanish Catholic, and his children are being raised as Catholics. That bothers me.
I acknowledge that it is a personal issue, but as an atheist I can’t countenance allowing children of mine to be raised as Catholics. He also courts faith schools, cosying up to the Jewish Community when it suits him for political advantage. If he does become PM then how will he deal with the Papal visit in September, and the threat of legal action against the Pope when he steps on British soil?
To me the religious issue shows Clegg is a political pragmatist as much as his competitors. His background is similar to Dave Cameron’s, but he manages to hide the fact. He is an opportunist who benefits from not being the other guy. Not a popular view as the country is awash with Clegg fever, but a realistic one?
If I vote Lib Dem (which I may still do, and in St Albans its anyone's guess who will win it's such a close call), Nick Clegg’s faith, or lack of it, will not be a factor.
We're not going to have an atheist PM quite yet.
Anthony Grayling MA, DPhil (Oxon) FRSL, FRSA is Professor of Philosophy at Birkbeck College, University of London, and a Supernumerary Fellow of St Anne's College, Oxford.
Well? It's an honest question. A believer is convinced that there is a supernatural creator who watches your every deed and is aware of your every thought. Is that creepy or what? But what is even creepier is that this peeping Tom is judging youand will decide to reward or punish you upon your expiration. If you fail to obey the laws of this vicious dictator you will be punished with an eternity of torment in a lake of fire, and that has got to suck balls.
These are high stakes and make no mistake about it. Your finite existence will be punished by infinite torture if you make just one decision that your creator does not like. If you are male and you suck just one penis, you are going to go to Hell. Just one, and even if you were drunk at the time! Eternal damnation for having the temerity to enjoy a penis, that sounds a bit harsh to me.
There is no escape from this problem. Your God knows what you have done, and also knows what you will do, so your fate is sealed even before birth. You must act and think in a specified manner else you will suffer when you finally check out. This must fill you with terror, creating a hell-on-earth for all true believers. Even if you are "currently" saved, you don't know what the future holds and you still may end up in the underworld.
A person who genuinely believes that he or she is being constantly watched and judged would never digress. It is basic economics, the price is too high. Failure to observe instructions to the letter will result in a punishment that never, never ends. Unless of course you don't really believe this shit. For example, if I knew that my mother was watching me, I would not masturbate. Nothing on earth could convince me to play "Mr. Wobbly Hides His Helmet" if I knew my mother was watching. I reiterate, nothing!!!
But believers digress all the time. Here is just a shortlist of high profile disgraced preachers;
Homosexual sex, infidelity, bearing false witness, theft, so many commandments broken by these believers. Why would these people break God's laws if they thought that in doing so they would suffer in Hell for all eternity without respite or the hope of redemption? I can hear you shouting, "but they were not true Christians", but please spare me the fallacy. If you consider that the above were not really believers but were conmen, than how do you separate the conmen, sinners and criminals that preach to you BEFORE they are exposed? Perhaps you are being conned in the first instance about the existence of a peeping Tom who will punish your indiscretions.
Live your life, be a human, fuck up from time-to-time, and don't worry about it because there probably isn't a god.
One of the problems frequently encountered with theists is that they just don't know how to think. In a case of laughable irony I came across a Christian blog going by the name "Thinking In Christ". I delved in looking for some examples of actual thinking, especially in the form of critical or skeptical thought. Alas, I came up blank. This this blog post regarding the Federal Court's decision to rule a National Day of Prayer as unconstitutional is a perfect example of the fuzzy thought processes of your average Christian believer.
"The atheist sneaks across the religious/nonreligious line, steals a bit of morality from the religions he doesn’t claim to believe in, and then sneaks back to bash those religions he doesn’t believe in with their own morals—in which he doesn’t believe. For if atheism is true, then there’s no reason for anyone to care about how you feel about anything. There’s no moral basis on which to stake your claim that I should respect your feelings."
Atheism is not a statement of belief, it's a lack of belief in a deity or deities, so it does not claim to be true or false. It's not a position that makes claims, an atheist will simply request evidence to support the existence of a supernatural creator, and so far this evidence is embarrassingly (for theists) lacking. But was irks most is the theistic assertion that morality is claimed by the domain of religion. The canard that atheists "sneak across" to steal morals from the religious and scamper back to the other side is fuzzy thinking at its finest. Morality is a system of ethics that has evolved to enable societies to function, and morals (ethics) differ greatly from society to society. No religion required. Religion hijacks morality claiming that without God there can be no morals and it's every man for himself. Every religion claims it is the moral religion and that it is its God that imparts morals and behavioral mores upon the innately sinful human being.
But the morals of religion are seriously flawed insomuch as they offer rewards and punishments based on the behavior and beliefs of the individual. Atheists do not act morally in the hope of a reward and eternal life. or for fear of punishment and eternal torment. This is the domain of the religious. Theists will argue that if there was no God then they would be free to rape. murder and pillage. If ever there was an example of the weak morality of religions this is it. An atheist will be moral because it is the right thing to do, the Golden Rule applies whether religious or not.
It is our evolved nature that imparts morality, not gods, else societies would not have got this far as we would have slaughtered the shit out of each other by now.
"If God doesn’t exist, then there’s no moral basis on which to base your bow to the community, for the community is no better than the individual. In fact, quite the opposite, if atheism is true, then the community is nothing more than one more system to be gamed where possible to get what you want, at the cost of others. The community is something to support as long as it supports you, and not one inch beyond that line."
Again with that "if atheism is true" canard! The author answers the question himself in that the community must support itself or it will not survive. God does not give troops of chimpanzees their morality, and yet they have evolved societies and morals that enable the troop to thrive. I pick your nits, you pick mine.
"The truth underneath all the hubris is atheism comes down to a singular religion, the religion of the triune god me, myself, and I. My feelings are hurt. I feel left out. And if a national day of prayer hurts your feelings so much, why not go after “Earth Day,” which is a pagan ritual enshrined in public policy?"
The theist absolutely owns "hubris" claiming that in this vast universe of billions upon billions of galaxies, we are the special creations of a benevolent god who loves us. That is the very definition of hubris. The case against the National Day of Prayer has nothing to do with hubris or hurt feelings, it is simply defending the constitutional principle of separation of church and state. The government cannot and should not favor one religious faith over another. The Christians would be the first to complain if the US institute a national Praise Thor, or Fall to Your Knees to Allah Day - and that would be about hurt feelings and a persecution complex.
"I must say that I actually do believe in a rather limited form of evolution. There is one specific species on the face of the Earth that actually can “evolve” into something other than what it started as: Man. For only man has the capability to evolve from being a higher order spirit filled being to a lower order animal, living his live based on emotion and anger. That our courts would sanction and approve of such nonsense as “atheism isn’t a religion,” and “my feelings are hurt,” just shows how awry our entire social structure has gone."
What the fuck is a "limited form of evolution'? And evolution is not something you take on faith and believe, it's a scientific theory with abundant evidence. The Theory of Evolution is possibly the most robustly supported scientific theory that there is, with millions of peer reviewed papers, and new supporting evidence coming to light daily. It is not a matter of belief, and you don't get to pick and choose which parts you believe in "limiting" evolution to the parts that do not contradict your religion inspired dogma. That is not how reality works. The authors understanding of evolution clearly requires some work, how does one "evolve" to a higher order spirit?
Atheism is a religion in the same way that not collecting stamps is a hobby. One more time, and I'll say it very slowly, atheism-is-the-lack-of-belief-in-a-deity-or-deities, that's it. Would the author claim that a-santa-ism, or a-tooth-fairy-ism is a religion? I thought not.
Stuart Schneiderman describes himself as a “Life Coach Executive” and he’s pitched in on his blog “Had Enough Therapy?” on Dawkins & Hitchens mission to hold the pope accountable for the crimes committed under his watch while he allegedly protected the perpetrators.
He is of course entitled to his opinion. But what he is not entitled to without being called to task is sloppy research and non-sequitur conclusions.
I rest my case with the sloppy research accusation right up front as he claims Dawkins’ real name is “Dawson”. I doubt it’s a typo as he repeats the mistake. Just in case Mr. Schneiderman edits his blog post (and I have no reason to suspect that he will), here is the original text which I include as an image for the record.
Let’s be generous and put that down to a simple mistake as he did at least get Professor Dawkins’ name correct in the closing paragraph.
Schneiderman launches into a defense of the Catholic Church and lets his canon loose on atheist societies including Stalin’s Soviet Republic as not exactly being paragons of morality. My beef with Mr. Schneiderman here is that he failed to go on to erect the usual canards regarding Pol Pot and Hitler. I hate it when I can’t call him out on Godwin’s Law.
We can begin with his defense of the Catholic church. I quote Schneiderman’s blog entry;
“I recall a conversation I had with a Catholic friend many years ago. He had been disturbed to discover the sordid behavior of many members of the priesthood in the past-- such predations do not date to yesterday-- so he asked a cousin of his, a cardinal in the Church, how he could justify his belief when so much sin has been committed in God's name.
The Cardinal was nonplussed. He responded: if the Church had not been created by God it would never have survived this long.”
God clearly created the Catholic Church as can be demonstrated by its longevity! Do I really need to list religions that are older than, or at least as old as Catholicism and that still remain in existence? Do I really need to remind Schneiderman that Jews still in fact exist?
Schneiderman continues to suggest that the Catholic Church cannot prevent sin (crimes) but it has the ability as ordained by God to forgive them, and this somehow “proves” the effectiveness of the church. The pope’s now infamous “smoking gun” letter most certainly demonstrates the church’s ability to forgive its own. I’m not wholly sure that they have forgiven the Jews for (allegedly) killing their Christ yet though.
Let us now move onto Schneiderman’s facile canard regarding the horrors and deaths caused at the hands of atheists, and of course he brings Stalin and Communism into the mix at this point. According to Schneiderman Stalin was responsible for as much, if not more, death and bloodshed as the Catholic Church. I quote:
“If anything, communist dictatorships murdered more people in a shorter period of time than any religion has ever done. If communism was competing against religion, it emerged victorious in terms of body count.”
Foremost Stalin was a dictator operating a brutal totalitarian regime, and the removal of the powerful religions from his country served a purpose in subjugating the population. Stalin is guilty of many atrocities and many deaths, but his regime was not one based on atheism. He didn’t kill and torture in the name of atheism, he did this to maintain his political agenda. That’s it, plain and simple, atheism was incidental to the politics of the regime and the removal of religion was useful.
But perhaps more importantly, the “they do it too argument” is not in any way a justification for the crimes committed by an institution that claims God given moral authority. The Catholic Church abused, molested and raped those under its care, and an excuse that “atheists did it too” does not fly. If you are going to hold the moral high ground, you must at least act morally. The argument therefore falls flat on its face under the fallacy of non-sequitur.
Schneiderman critiques atheists as lacking in something by not having a religion, and this is substituted with the need to practice secular rituals such as NASCAR, 4th July Celebrations and football.
“Be that as it may, we should also note that people who have absolutely no truck with God or the Bible believe fervently in metaphysical entities like ideas and ideals. As I have said, this amounts to a thinly disguised idolatry.”
With this wibble and woo Schneiderman is arguing that holding thoughts and opinions is a religious practice. Well it’s not and it’s also not metaphysical, it’s otherwise known as living and breathing and getting on with your life.
"Ideas are metaphysical entities, whether you worship them at an altar or not. Once you accept that they exist, though not in anything like a physical sense, you should next ask yourself whether they exist when no one is thinking them. If gravity is an idea that is expressed in the behavior of physical objects, did gravity exist before anyone defined the concept. And if it did, if it was an idea, well then, who or what was thinking it?"
This is as basic as “if a tree falls in a forest and no one is there, will it make a sound?” Before Newton people were not flying off the planet, Schneiderman is arguing that naming a concept gives it its reality.
Schneiderman’s reasoning is flawed to the extreme and nothing more than wishful thinking.
It appears that there is a somewhat of a backlash about two prominent atheists supporting the call to bring Pope Benedict XVI to account for his role in the cover-up of the child molestation and rape scandals immersing the Vatican. Some skeptics are distancing themselves from this declaring that it is merely a publicity stunt and with these two spearheading the pursuit of the pope, it is doing more harm than good to the atheist cause.
In matters such as this the "atheist cause" (whatever that might be) is absolutely secondary to the pursuit of justice against crimes perpetrated by child-rapists. It does not matter a fig who you are, or in which particular deity you have the utmost faith, if you've been implicated in a criminal conspiracy, you must be brought to task to answer the questions posed.
As with the proverbial ostrich with it head in the sand, countries and institutions such as the UN seem to be turning a blind eye to this horrific issue and the vogue of the day is "do nothing and hope it goes away". But no matter how hard they close their eyes and pray to the invisible dude in the sky, this is not going anywhere, and the likes of Dawkins and Hitchens are among the very few who are willing to stand up and say "wait a minute, this is not right".
Frighteningly I discovered this article dating back to 2002 calling on the UN to revoke the Holy See's Perpetual Observer status. And this came from concerned Catholics! As far as I can determine, this plea died a death and no more was done. In 1999 similar questions were posed here and here, and again nothing was done.
Dawkins wrote in the UK broadsheet The Guardian simply asking the question why should he not ask that Joseph Ratzinger be held to account.
"Why is the church allowed to get away with it, when any government minister who was caught writing such a letter would immediately have to resign in ignominy, and face prosecution himself? A religious leader, such as the pope, should be no different. That is why, along with Christopher Hitchens, I am supporting the current investigation of the pope's criminal complicity by Geoffrey Robertson QC and Mark Stephens."
For some reason the fact that Dawkins and Hitchens are atheists should preclude them from asking questions of the Catholic church and its behavior. People seem to be missing the point here by a very wide margin indeed, as some of the comments posted about Dawkins position clearly demonstrate:
(taxesandcuts said) I am an atheist. But this is just daft s**t stirring. If the purpose is to make juvenile attempts to piss off and insult every Catholic then it's not a bad plan. If that is its purpose then it is a nasty divisive idea. So as an atheist "not in my name"
(Rotwatcher said) The Pope may have a case to answer - that's for the courts to decide. But you (and Hitchens) are the wrong people to be involved in this - as poster boys for atheism your particpation shifts the focus onto the religion (which is blameless) and away from the institution (which is arguably to blame).
(Triffid100 said) OK, lets accept the theory about no diplomatic immunity (don't think that will have a cat's hell of chance working but what they hey), for him to be arrested here doesn't he have had to have committed a crime here ? What exactly is the crime you want the police to investigate and charge him with ?
And there are many more similar comments. The point is that under the UN Security Council's resolution of crimes against humanity, child molestation and the failure to protect minors from molestation is covered under international law. If Ratzinger was complicit in the cover-up, then his prosecution would fall under the remit of this resolution and if pursued he would go to trial in The Hague.
In sum, this has nothing whatsoever to do with religion, or atheism, or hating god or Catholics, it is about the basic decency of calling for justice when a crime is apparent. This must follow due process and if there is a case to be answered, those accused must face trial. They may be innocent, but if they are guilty as charged, justice must be done.
I applaud the human decency of Dawkins and Hitchens, and ask you the question, why are you not appalled, whether atheist, Catholic, Hundu, Muslim, black, white, Republican, liberal, Democrat, or conservative? - None of this has anything to do with the fact that criminals must be called to account for their actions. Why is not everyone up in arms about this?
There appears to be abundant evidence that the Holy See was fully aware of endemic, systematic and institutionalized rape of minors by representatives of its organization. Daily new evidence of abuse and cover-ups emerge, and the leader of the church, Pope Benedict XVI seems to be implicated in the cover-up, at the very least demonstrating criminal negligence on his part.
With mounting evidence, a case for prosecution evolves. However, at this point we must stop short at calling for Benedict’s head on a plate as his culpability is yet to be proven in an international court of law.
Much of the disgust and backlash has resulted from the appalling handling of the scandal by the leadership in the “Holy City”. The child rape issue has been top of mind for a number of years now with many cases coming to light. The deflection by the Vatican of the horrors of the perpetrators of the crimes, trivializing the issues with comments such as “petty gossip” and comparing the call for justice to “anti-semitism” has understandably created outrage. The bishop of Tenerife went so far as to blatantly claim that many of the victims were “asking for it” by their behavior and demeanor.
As far as the Vatican and the pope are concerned, however, we have but evidence against them that they were indeed complicit with the cover-up, fully aware of the crimes committed and their inaction, or action to relocate offenders demonstrates culpability. But only after the case is proven or otherwise in a court of law.
The only moral action that the Vatican can perform is to surrender all documentation to the authorities, allow questioning under legal interrogation, and submit those of accused into the hands of the justice system. If they have nothing to fear, they will not even reach a court of law. If they are hiding their guilt under the cover of their religion or status as a state, then the moral bankruptcy of the institution is without question.
The Vatican has the following choices:
1) Claim immunity and ignore or deflect the accusations
2) Claim they have nothing to answer and ignore or deflect the accusations
3) Offer full co-operation to the justice system
The final option is the only moral action that the Vatican can perform. I call on Pope Benedict XVI as the leader of the Universal Church to contact the authorities and offer his full co-operation for an investigation in clear daylight. Any other action would be immoral and demonstrate the implicit guilt felt by the Holy See in this matter, and therefore justice should be sought through coercion.
Our lovable child molesters have kindly pointed out to the rest of us that we are simply engaged in a campaign of "hate" against the virtuous Catholic church and the Vatican.
I'm trying to think of just one good reason why I should "hate" the Catholic church. Wait, I've got one! They support the institutionalized rape of children in their care and then cover-up their tracks and lie about the crimes committed. Excuse me if I'll just go ahead and "hate" them for that.
As stated in the linked article, the campaign of hate is against Pope Benedict XVI for his opposition to abortion and same-sex marriage. I saw no mention of child rape there at all. I guess such a minor point must have slipped their minds.
Well I never knew that the institutionalized and sustained rape of children over the course of a few decades was simply "petty gossip". I rarely indulge in idle gossip, but I'm thinking I might make an exception in this instance. It's almost (but not quite) like the old lady who lives on your street peeking at the goings on from behind her net curtains, noting that Mrs Cartwright has had yet another strange male visitor today.
Having attended a number of Catholic retreats as a small boy myself, I have no memories of abuse, but I do recall that the lunches were fantastic. Especially the Cornish pasties, it was almost worth all the praying and cow towing to the godhead just for the pasties. That was some 35 years ago now, and perhaps I should feel a little insulted that I was not raped by a kindly priest. Maybe I was just an ugly child and none of the priests fancied me.
A collective of
twisted, liberal baby-eating atheists with a penchant for taking the piss out of the religious mindset. Sorry,
we just can't help ourselves.
