Tim Minchin Sums It Up - The Pope Song

This classic from Tim Minchin is doing the rounds on the blogosphere, and for good reason. It's fucking brilliant!!!

It's not safe for work, so watch the video when you're in safe company, or even better, in the presence of some Catholics.

Listen carefully, some of the lyrics are inspired.

Oh, and before I forget, fuck the motherfucker!!!

British To Hide All Phallic-Shaped Objects for Pope's Visit

LONDON (The Big E).  Taking a lesson from the pope's recent visit to Malta and the scandal about a phallic sculpture the Vicar of Christ might have seen, the British government has taken a bold step to avoid further controversy.

The pope is due to visit the UK in September, already under difficult circumstances as he is the head of an organized pedophilia crime ring. 

This minor controversy pales into insignificance in the face of such obvious phallic monstrosities that are common in Britain, and which might possibly offend the pope's sensibilities.

The British government has ordered the temporary removal of all penis-shaped monuments, towers, chimneys and in fact anything that might be mistaken for an erect cock by a pope type figure.

If he had been interviewed by The Big E, we think that Foreign Secretary David Miliband might have responded, "He (the pope) is an important dignitary and a visiting head of some kind of state-like thing.  We would hate for him to suffer any embarrassment while he comes over here to fiddle with our kids."

Miliband might have gone on to say something like, "We will be taking down Big Ben, Nelson's Column and Cleopatra's Needle for the duration of the pope's visit.  Once he's buggered off home we will re-erect them restoring them to their former pride."

This radical approach has its critics who have not been slow to point out the huge cost to British tax payers.

An alternative approach has been suggested to crowd the "offending" objects with thousand's of choir boys, thus hopefully distracting the pope's attention from the cock-shaped obelisks while he gazes lustfully on the beauty of small children.

We imagine Miliband to also have said, "We are encouraging factory owners with big smoke-stack chimneys to have these removed during the pope's tour of our proud country."

Additional reporting from Paul, our Foreign Penis Shaped Things Correspondent

Atheism: A Cult to Nothing – Debunked

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, 4^th 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.

Catholic Church Must Do Penance Says Man In Big Hat

A man in a very big hat has said that Catholics should do penance for their unspecified sins.  He said Catholics were;

"under attack from the world which talks to us of our sins" and should see the necessity "to recognise what is wrong in our lives".

Despite it being quite tricky to think of any specific sins committed by Catholics a special "Come up with some Sins Committee" has so far agreed on the following tentative list of "sins"

• Not loving god quite enough;
• Hats not quite big enough to reach heaven;
• Not having enough gold with which to praise god;
• A Catholic might have been quite rude to his/her mother one time;
• Once stole a cookie from a jar when no one was looking;

The Sin Committee has acknowledged that this might not be a comprehensive list and that if anyone can "think of any other sins" then they are free to make suggestions.  I'm going to have a good long think about this and see if I can come up with anything that the Catholic church has done wrong.

 <<< A man in a big hat earlier today.

HitchensTalks To MSNBC's Tamron Hall About Arresting The Pope

"Justice is coming!" Christopher Hitchens talking to MSNBC's Tamron Hall about arresting The Pope during his Britain visit in September 2010. For more videos, updates and info on Christopher Hitchens, visit http://www.dailyhitchens.com

Dawkins & Hitchens: Reactionary Atheist God-Haters or Concerned Citizens?

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?

Pope Benedict XVI Innocent Until Proven Guilty

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.

I Will Arrest the Pope - Dawkins Clarifies What He Actually Said

Dawkins chimes in on his website @ richarddawkins.net

Dawkins clarifies on what actually happened saying, "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."

The original article referenced by Dawkins can be found here.

Richard Dawkins: I will arrest Pope Benedict XVI

From the Sunday Times writer Marc Horne RICHARD DAWKINS, the atheist campaigner, is planning a legal ambush to have the Pope arrested during his state visit to Britain “for crimes against humanity”. Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, the atheist author, have asked human rights lawyers to produce a case for charging Pope Benedict XVI over his alleged cover-up of sexual abuse in the Catholic church. The pair believe they can exploit the same legal principle used to arrest Augusto Pinochet, the late Chilean dictator, when he visited Britain in 1998. The Pope was embroiled in new controversy this weekend over a letter he signed arguing that the “good of the universal church” should be considered against the defrocking of an American priest who committed sex offences against two boys. It was dated 1985, when he was in charge of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which deals with sex abuse cases. Benedict will be in Britain between September 16 and 19, visiting London, Glasgow and Coventry, where he will beatify Cardinal John Henry Newman, the 19th-century theologian.

Vatican blasts anti-Catholic 'hate' campaign (and misses the point)

Yet more diatribe from our favorite child rapists (did you spot my clever editorial?  It was subtle so keep alert.)

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.

Deflection anyone, anyone?

Petty Gossip & Child Rape - The Evil Empire

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.