http://www.gazette.com/opinion/religion-96744-science-leftmain.html
A good explanation of why science is not a religion:
“Given that science and religion are often perceived as being at odds, asking whether science is just another religion may seem strange. After all, how could things cast as polar opposites, faith and reason, be the same? But, more and more I’m finding the assertion, “science is just another religion,” to be a common denunciation of the scientific enterprise.
To begin with, the use of the word “just” in the statement above would seem to slur religion as much as science. By saying “just,” one seems to imply that you can reduce science by bringing it “down to” the level of religion. This disregards the fact that religion and the spiritual life it supports are important parts of the human experience. Most people would describe themselves as having a spiritual life. Additionally, religious practices are a unique and almost universal aspect of humanity. Then again, it’s not clear to me that detractors of science want to impugn religion in the same breath as science, so for now, I’ll drop the adverb “just” and leave the question thus: is science another religion?
The chief aim of science is to give a naturalistic account of the world. A naturalistic explanation does not require any forces standing outside the natural chain of events to explain things. While scientists may not understand how everything works, they resist postulating entities that stand outside of nature to explain nature.
Religions, on the other hand, assume that there is another existence standing either above or in contrast to our physical existence. Sometimes we refer to this as a spiritual existence. But, because we see it as existing beyond our physical existence, we believe that there is no need to explain it by appeals to physical processes. Indeed, most religions allow that our spiritual existence simply is. And so, religions rely upon a mystical understanding of our existence.
Thus, these two perspectives are thus fundamentally at odds with one another. That is not to say that people who do science cannot also be religious. Many are. But, scientists — by nature — do not appeal to God or other entities standing outside of nature to explain nature. So, by itself, science lacks a fundamental characteristic of religious beliefs and therefore cannot be considered a religion.
I think what science deriders are trying to say is that science is another belief system. And here, the word “just’ makes more sense. If “science is just another belief system,” then it is no more worthy of our esteem than any other belief system. Say, for instance, are scientific theories of the big bang on par with the belief of the Mansi people of Siberia that the Earth was created when two loons dove into primeval waters and brought a piece of the bottom up to the surface where it grew into the Earth?
This criticism of science as “just another belief system” was once common among some philosophers of science in the 1980s and ’90s. And while this criticism doesn’t carry much weight in philosophical circles today, its demise is instructive.
Consider, if science is just another belief system, it is unlike any other belief system ever imagined. First, scientific beliefs are dynamic. Unlike other belief systems that tend to be static, our scientific understanding of the world is constantly being elaborated upon.
Sometimes, this gives the people the heebie jeebies. Remember the uproar in some quarters when Pluto was demoted from a planet? “Can’t scientists make up their minds?!”
Second, most belief systems only reference a core text or authority. Science, on the other hand, adds to its beliefs by determining which beliefs best fit with observation.
This accounts for science’s dynamic nature — it is always being updated and elaborated upon to make way for new observations — but also insures that science is self-correcting. New observations make for better understanding.
Lastly, and this is what is truly amazing, science works. If we seek reliable and useful knowledge about the world, then science has proven itself extremely productive. The incredibly rich body of useful knowledge that science generates makes it difficult for even philosophers to argue that science is just another belief system.”
I’ve never been able to understand the argument that science is just another religion, especially when it comes from the religious. As the article points out, this would degrade all religions.
Thursday, April 8, 2010
1 2 3 Blasphemy!
http://www.examiner.com/x-8947-LA-Atheism-Examiner~y2010m4d6-Irish-artists-thumb-their-noses-at-new-blasphemy-law
Irish atheists have been protesting the blasphemy laws. Now artists are joining in on the fun.
“Ever since the new Blasphemy law came into effect in Ireland on January 1, Irishmen have been racing each other to put this legal holdover from the Middle Ages to the test and challenging the government to prosecute them (There's a €25,000 fine involved. That's about $35,000 US). Ireland's atheists were among the first out the gate by publishing 25 "blasphemous" quotations by sources as diverse as Mark Twain, Salman Rushdie, Bjork, Mohammed and Jesus (Yes, Jesus. All a person needs to do to break the blasphemy law is say or publish anything "grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion, thereby causing outrage among a substantial number of the adherents of that religion" and Jesus did that…
But atheists haven't been the only ones to challenge the law. On Good Friday (April 2), a new art exhibition entitled Blasphemous opened at the Irish Museum of Contemporary Art (IMOCA) in Lad Lane, off Baggott Street, Dublin 2. It's the second Irish art exhibition to thumb it's nose at the blasphemy law and artists are hardly the only segment of the population dissatisfied with it. Under mounting pressure, Dermot Ahern, the Irish Justice Minister who proposed the blasphemy law, has said he will propose a referendum, later this year, to remove the reference to blasphemy from the Irish Constitution; a move that would allow the law to be repealed.”
The fun is too good to pass up. Fuck the Catholic Church.
Irish atheists have been protesting the blasphemy laws. Now artists are joining in on the fun.
“Ever since the new Blasphemy law came into effect in Ireland on January 1, Irishmen have been racing each other to put this legal holdover from the Middle Ages to the test and challenging the government to prosecute them (There's a €25,000 fine involved. That's about $35,000 US). Ireland's atheists were among the first out the gate by publishing 25 "blasphemous" quotations by sources as diverse as Mark Twain, Salman Rushdie, Bjork, Mohammed and Jesus (Yes, Jesus. All a person needs to do to break the blasphemy law is say or publish anything "grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion, thereby causing outrage among a substantial number of the adherents of that religion" and Jesus did that…
But atheists haven't been the only ones to challenge the law. On Good Friday (April 2), a new art exhibition entitled Blasphemous opened at the Irish Museum of Contemporary Art (IMOCA) in Lad Lane, off Baggott Street, Dublin 2. It's the second Irish art exhibition to thumb it's nose at the blasphemy law and artists are hardly the only segment of the population dissatisfied with it. Under mounting pressure, Dermot Ahern, the Irish Justice Minister who proposed the blasphemy law, has said he will propose a referendum, later this year, to remove the reference to blasphemy from the Irish Constitution; a move that would allow the law to be repealed.”
The fun is too good to pass up. Fuck the Catholic Church.
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
But We Aren't Racist
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2010/04/05/safrica-terreblanche.html
If you need proof that racists are fucking morons here it is:
“"This was such an unnecessary thing," Terreblanche's brother Andries told the Associated Press at the gravesite. "We are not racists, we just believe in purity of race."”
Hey, dumbfuck, I’m pretty sure that is the definition of a racist.
If you need proof that racists are fucking morons here it is:
“"This was such an unnecessary thing," Terreblanche's brother Andries told the Associated Press at the gravesite. "We are not racists, we just believe in purity of race."”
Hey, dumbfuck, I’m pretty sure that is the definition of a racist.
Evolution is not a Belief!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-zimmerman/facebook-friends-for-evol_b_524911.html
Michael Zimmerman founder of the Clergy Project discusses the fallacy of calling evolution a belief:
“Without intending to be hypocritical, I'm going to recommend an action about which I have mixed feelings! On the whole, however, I believe that the positives outweigh the negatives and thus I hope you will follow my recommendation.
My recommendation? Go to Facebook and become a fan of the page entitled "We can find 1,000,000 people who DO believe in Evolution before June."
Let me explain my two main reservations.
The best place to begin is by saying simply that the concept of "belief" in science makes little sense. Scientists, and I hope the general public, accept scientific ideas because experimentation and observation have provided a wealth of data in support of their claims. Belief, or a conviction that something is true regardless of evidence, should play no role in science.
The National Academy of Sciences addresses this point clearly while differentiating religion from science. The Academy writes, "Many religious beliefs do not rely on evidence gathered from the natural world. On the contrary, an important component of religious belief is faith, which implies acceptance of a truth regardless of the presence of empirical evidence for or against that truth. Scientists cannot accept scientific conclusions on faith alone because all such conclusions must be subject to testing against observations. Thus, scientists do not 'believe' in evolution in the same way that someone believes in God."
My second concern is that the validity of a scientific idea is absolutely independent of its popularity in the general population. Even if the vast majority of non-scientists attested that they did not believe in evolution, it would have no impact on the scientific legitimacy of evolutionary theory. Again, scientific advances proceed on the basis of experimental and observational evidence rather than on popular opinion. Collecting signatures in support of a scientific concept is thus an utterly meaningless action from a scientific standpoint.
And yet, I'm encouraging you to join with me in signing on to this Facebook page! And I'm doing so for political rather than scientific reasons.
The page itself began as a political response to a creationist ploy. Earlier this year, creationists began a Facebook page designed to sign up 1,000,000 people who did NOT believe in evolution and while this page is every bit as meaningless from a scientific perspective as is the pro-evolution page, it is possible that it will generate significant media attention. So, the pro-evolution page was created to provide balance and to demonstrate that lots of people support evolution.
This is important stuff because the evolution/creation controversy, after all, is all about politics. It's clearly not about science since the world's scientific community has spoken out regularly about the centrality of evolution, the power evolutionary ideas have to explain much about the natural world, and the overwhelming data from a host of biological subfields supporting evolutionary theory.
And the evolution/creation controversy is clearly not about a conflict between religion and science since more than 13,000 clergy members have joined The Clergy Letter Project and said that evolutionary theory is fully compatible with their religion. It's also well worth noting that Christian religious denominations in the United States representing a majority of Christians are comfortable with the teaching of evolutionary theory.
No, the evolution/creation controversy is solely about people with one particular religious belief wanting to impose that religious belief on the rest of the world. Political outlets, from school boards to state legislatures, have regularly been used to promote this narrow religious perspective. This has been the case regardless what the creationists have called their ideas, from creationism through "scientific creationism" to "intelligent design." The Discovery Institute, the world's foremost proponent of the non-science of "intelligent design," has made this point more clearly than I ever could when it wrote that "Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions."
I'm not in the least interested in "a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions" and I suspect that neither are the vast majority of people. Rather, I'm interested in a science that helps us understand the natural world. Religion, whatever you may think of it, exists for a different purpose.
So, for the political statement it will make, I urge you to go to Facebook and become a fan of "We can find 1,000,000 people who DO believe in Evolution before June." Even though this page was started after its creationist counterpart, as of this writing it has exceeded the creationist version by more than 200,000 fans. Spread the word and increase the margin!
(I want to conclude with an aside to deflect a criticism that I'm certain some will level against me and The Clergy Letter Project. I've made it clear that I don't believe that the validity of evolutionary theory is enhanced by petitions and yet, some will surely say, "isn't that exactly what The Clergy Letter Project is all about?" The answer is a simple and unqualified NO! The purpose of The Clergy Letter Project is to demonstrate that thousands of religious leaders see no conflict with their religion and evolution. These people are uniquely qualified to make this statement, a powerful statement that is both theologically and politically based.)”
I’d join that group. I’d then point out how it shouldn’t be called a belief.
Michael Zimmerman founder of the Clergy Project discusses the fallacy of calling evolution a belief:
“Without intending to be hypocritical, I'm going to recommend an action about which I have mixed feelings! On the whole, however, I believe that the positives outweigh the negatives and thus I hope you will follow my recommendation.
My recommendation? Go to Facebook and become a fan of the page entitled "We can find 1,000,000 people who DO believe in Evolution before June."
Let me explain my two main reservations.
The best place to begin is by saying simply that the concept of "belief" in science makes little sense. Scientists, and I hope the general public, accept scientific ideas because experimentation and observation have provided a wealth of data in support of their claims. Belief, or a conviction that something is true regardless of evidence, should play no role in science.
The National Academy of Sciences addresses this point clearly while differentiating religion from science. The Academy writes, "Many religious beliefs do not rely on evidence gathered from the natural world. On the contrary, an important component of religious belief is faith, which implies acceptance of a truth regardless of the presence of empirical evidence for or against that truth. Scientists cannot accept scientific conclusions on faith alone because all such conclusions must be subject to testing against observations. Thus, scientists do not 'believe' in evolution in the same way that someone believes in God."
My second concern is that the validity of a scientific idea is absolutely independent of its popularity in the general population. Even if the vast majority of non-scientists attested that they did not believe in evolution, it would have no impact on the scientific legitimacy of evolutionary theory. Again, scientific advances proceed on the basis of experimental and observational evidence rather than on popular opinion. Collecting signatures in support of a scientific concept is thus an utterly meaningless action from a scientific standpoint.
And yet, I'm encouraging you to join with me in signing on to this Facebook page! And I'm doing so for political rather than scientific reasons.
The page itself began as a political response to a creationist ploy. Earlier this year, creationists began a Facebook page designed to sign up 1,000,000 people who did NOT believe in evolution and while this page is every bit as meaningless from a scientific perspective as is the pro-evolution page, it is possible that it will generate significant media attention. So, the pro-evolution page was created to provide balance and to demonstrate that lots of people support evolution.
This is important stuff because the evolution/creation controversy, after all, is all about politics. It's clearly not about science since the world's scientific community has spoken out regularly about the centrality of evolution, the power evolutionary ideas have to explain much about the natural world, and the overwhelming data from a host of biological subfields supporting evolutionary theory.
And the evolution/creation controversy is clearly not about a conflict between religion and science since more than 13,000 clergy members have joined The Clergy Letter Project and said that evolutionary theory is fully compatible with their religion. It's also well worth noting that Christian religious denominations in the United States representing a majority of Christians are comfortable with the teaching of evolutionary theory.
No, the evolution/creation controversy is solely about people with one particular religious belief wanting to impose that religious belief on the rest of the world. Political outlets, from school boards to state legislatures, have regularly been used to promote this narrow religious perspective. This has been the case regardless what the creationists have called their ideas, from creationism through "scientific creationism" to "intelligent design." The Discovery Institute, the world's foremost proponent of the non-science of "intelligent design," has made this point more clearly than I ever could when it wrote that "Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions."
I'm not in the least interested in "a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions" and I suspect that neither are the vast majority of people. Rather, I'm interested in a science that helps us understand the natural world. Religion, whatever you may think of it, exists for a different purpose.
So, for the political statement it will make, I urge you to go to Facebook and become a fan of "We can find 1,000,000 people who DO believe in Evolution before June." Even though this page was started after its creationist counterpart, as of this writing it has exceeded the creationist version by more than 200,000 fans. Spread the word and increase the margin!
(I want to conclude with an aside to deflect a criticism that I'm certain some will level against me and The Clergy Letter Project. I've made it clear that I don't believe that the validity of evolutionary theory is enhanced by petitions and yet, some will surely say, "isn't that exactly what The Clergy Letter Project is all about?" The answer is a simple and unqualified NO! The purpose of The Clergy Letter Project is to demonstrate that thousands of religious leaders see no conflict with their religion and evolution. These people are uniquely qualified to make this statement, a powerful statement that is both theologically and politically based.)”
I’d join that group. I’d then point out how it shouldn’t be called a belief.
Saturday, April 3, 2010
Christian Terrorism
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/yasmin-mogahed/are-all-christians-militi_b_519968.html
Yasmin Mogahed discusses the unwillingness of the West to scrutinize Christianity in the wake of the arrests of members of a Christian militia.
“Nine members of a Christian militia group, Hutaree, were charged Monday with plotting to kill a police officer and slaughter scores more with homemade bombs. According to the indictment, the actions were done in hopes of igniting an uprising against the U.S. government.
News of this terror plot is likely to spark a great deal of discussion around the idea of domestic terrorism. But there are some things that are not likely to be part of that discourse. For example, we're not likely to hear experts discussing whether or not Christian doctrine teaches its followers to overthrow governments and kill people. And, although the Hutaree website quotes scripture passages that allude to battle and sacrificing lives for the greater cause, the Bible is not likely to become condemned for inspiring acts of terror.
Hutaree means "Christian Warrior," yet the American public is not likely to blame Christianity. And Homeland Security probably isn't going to single out all people with Christian names in the airport security line. The FBI most likely isn't going to start wire-tapping Churches and Christian homes, and it's unlikely that the whole world will be expecting every peace-loving Christian to apologize for actions they had nothing to do with -- just because it was done in their name.
Unfortunately, these rules do not apply to Muslims. When a Muslim commits a crime, the Quran goes on trial. For example, after the failed "Christmas bombing," a January Wall Street Journal piece highlighted the fact that Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab had studied at the San'a Institute for Arabic Language. "He knew how to read and write in Arabic because he had learned to read the Quran being a Muslim, but his speaking abilities were very limited," recalls Mohammed Al-Anisi, the institute's director. Abdulmutallab may have also studied French poetry as a student, but that probably wouldn't have been considered relevant to his crime. The study of the Quran and Arabic, on the other hand, seems to be.
If there's news of a Muslim terrorist, Islam becomes complicit in the crime. Yet few people are going to accuse Christianity of motivating the terrorism of the Hutaree militia. These Christian terrorists are considered violent criminals who've perverted a peaceful religion.
Muslim terrorists, on the other hand, are just following a violent, perverted religion. A Christian terrorist is considered violent in spite of his or her faith, whereas a Muslim is violent because of it. Some might claim that this assumption is because the Quran is full of violent passages while the Bible teaches only peace and love. But in a recent NPR piece, religion historian Philip Jenkins explained that in fact there is more violence in the Bible than in the Quran. "Much to my surprise, the Islamic scriptures in the Quran were actually far less bloody and less violent than those in the Bible," Jenkins said. He explained that violence in the Quran is largely defensive.
"By the standards of the time, which is the seventh century A.D., the laws of war that are laid down by the Quran are actually reasonably humane," says Jenkins. "Then we turn to the Bible, and we actually find something that is for many people a real surprise. There is a specific kind of warfare laid down in the Bible which we can only call genocide."
Are we now going to create a new brand of crime called "Christian terrorism"? Is the entire Christian community going to be put on the defensive, while media pundits begin the mantra: "Why aren't Christians condemning acts of terrorism?" Probably not. The question is: why should someone named Christopher need to condemn the acts of the Hutaree militia any more than someone named Mohammad does? And why should Mohammed be expected to condemn the acts of the "Christmas bomber" any more than Christopher?
As FBI agent Andrew Arena said, Hutaree is just "an example of radical and extremist fringe groups which can be found throughout our society." Their crimes are committed in spite of their religious affiliations -- not because of them.”
Now there are two words you’ll almost never read side by side in the press: “Christian terrorist/terrorism”. I disagree with what comes across as a defense of Islam by Mogahed. The faith has its share of fanatics influenced by the holy books. Still, it’s refreshing to see someone pointing out the unwillingness of the Western press to start questioning whether or not Christianity can also give rise to the extremism that Islam is often accused of influencing.
It’s all the same. Irrational violent delusions motivated by scripture.
Yasmin Mogahed discusses the unwillingness of the West to scrutinize Christianity in the wake of the arrests of members of a Christian militia.
“Nine members of a Christian militia group, Hutaree, were charged Monday with plotting to kill a police officer and slaughter scores more with homemade bombs. According to the indictment, the actions were done in hopes of igniting an uprising against the U.S. government.
News of this terror plot is likely to spark a great deal of discussion around the idea of domestic terrorism. But there are some things that are not likely to be part of that discourse. For example, we're not likely to hear experts discussing whether or not Christian doctrine teaches its followers to overthrow governments and kill people. And, although the Hutaree website quotes scripture passages that allude to battle and sacrificing lives for the greater cause, the Bible is not likely to become condemned for inspiring acts of terror.
Hutaree means "Christian Warrior," yet the American public is not likely to blame Christianity. And Homeland Security probably isn't going to single out all people with Christian names in the airport security line. The FBI most likely isn't going to start wire-tapping Churches and Christian homes, and it's unlikely that the whole world will be expecting every peace-loving Christian to apologize for actions they had nothing to do with -- just because it was done in their name.
Unfortunately, these rules do not apply to Muslims. When a Muslim commits a crime, the Quran goes on trial. For example, after the failed "Christmas bombing," a January Wall Street Journal piece highlighted the fact that Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab had studied at the San'a Institute for Arabic Language. "He knew how to read and write in Arabic because he had learned to read the Quran being a Muslim, but his speaking abilities were very limited," recalls Mohammed Al-Anisi, the institute's director. Abdulmutallab may have also studied French poetry as a student, but that probably wouldn't have been considered relevant to his crime. The study of the Quran and Arabic, on the other hand, seems to be.
If there's news of a Muslim terrorist, Islam becomes complicit in the crime. Yet few people are going to accuse Christianity of motivating the terrorism of the Hutaree militia. These Christian terrorists are considered violent criminals who've perverted a peaceful religion.
Muslim terrorists, on the other hand, are just following a violent, perverted religion. A Christian terrorist is considered violent in spite of his or her faith, whereas a Muslim is violent because of it. Some might claim that this assumption is because the Quran is full of violent passages while the Bible teaches only peace and love. But in a recent NPR piece, religion historian Philip Jenkins explained that in fact there is more violence in the Bible than in the Quran. "Much to my surprise, the Islamic scriptures in the Quran were actually far less bloody and less violent than those in the Bible," Jenkins said. He explained that violence in the Quran is largely defensive.
"By the standards of the time, which is the seventh century A.D., the laws of war that are laid down by the Quran are actually reasonably humane," says Jenkins. "Then we turn to the Bible, and we actually find something that is for many people a real surprise. There is a specific kind of warfare laid down in the Bible which we can only call genocide."
Are we now going to create a new brand of crime called "Christian terrorism"? Is the entire Christian community going to be put on the defensive, while media pundits begin the mantra: "Why aren't Christians condemning acts of terrorism?" Probably not. The question is: why should someone named Christopher need to condemn the acts of the Hutaree militia any more than someone named Mohammad does? And why should Mohammed be expected to condemn the acts of the "Christmas bomber" any more than Christopher?
As FBI agent Andrew Arena said, Hutaree is just "an example of radical and extremist fringe groups which can be found throughout our society." Their crimes are committed in spite of their religious affiliations -- not because of them.”
Now there are two words you’ll almost never read side by side in the press: “Christian terrorist/terrorism”. I disagree with what comes across as a defense of Islam by Mogahed. The faith has its share of fanatics influenced by the holy books. Still, it’s refreshing to see someone pointing out the unwillingness of the Western press to start questioning whether or not Christianity can also give rise to the extremism that Islam is often accused of influencing.
It’s all the same. Irrational violent delusions motivated by scripture.
The Shield of Religion
http://www.examiner.com/x-10853-Portland-Humanist-Examiner~y2010m3d31-Religion-Pope-claims-legal-immunity-Vatican-Bishops-defend-coverup
Is there anyone who would deny that the Pope is using religion as a shield to protect him from allegations of complicity in covering up the rape of children? If so, they need to get their head checked.
“Pope claims legal immunity; Vatican, Bishops, defend cover-up. The never ending tragedy of the sexual abuse of children by Catholic clergy and the cover-up of that abuse by top Church officials continues to dominate the headlines.
In Kentucky, Vatican lawyers argue that 1) the Pope should not be compelled to testify in a lawsuit because he is a head of state, and 2) that American bishops who oversaw abusive priests were not employees of the Vatican. While the first claim may be true, the second is patently false. There is no question that US Bishops report and answer to the Vatican. To argue otherwise is sophistry.
And the sophistry is the problem. The Vatican, and Pope Benedict XVI, are ducking their responsibility for promoting a worldwide culture of cover-up and secrecy that only served to perpetuate and further the sexual abuse of countless children. Abuse that continues to this day.”
If such crimes were committed by a secular institution there would be no cover. A theocratic state is giving protection to the child raping priests.
“While a cardinal at the Vatican, Joseph Ratzinger, now the pope, wrote a 2001 letter instructing bishops worldwide to report all cases of abuse to his office and keep church investigations secret under threat of excommunication.
The letter is the smoking gun; the Pope is a criminal.”
If a CEO of a company or a government official was to take similar action we’d demand that he/she be thrown on the street for a public beating before being tossed in jail and left to rot. Now is the time to stand up and demand action against the Pope.
Is there anyone who would deny that the Pope is using religion as a shield to protect him from allegations of complicity in covering up the rape of children? If so, they need to get their head checked.
“Pope claims legal immunity; Vatican, Bishops, defend cover-up. The never ending tragedy of the sexual abuse of children by Catholic clergy and the cover-up of that abuse by top Church officials continues to dominate the headlines.
In Kentucky, Vatican lawyers argue that 1) the Pope should not be compelled to testify in a lawsuit because he is a head of state, and 2) that American bishops who oversaw abusive priests were not employees of the Vatican. While the first claim may be true, the second is patently false. There is no question that US Bishops report and answer to the Vatican. To argue otherwise is sophistry.
And the sophistry is the problem. The Vatican, and Pope Benedict XVI, are ducking their responsibility for promoting a worldwide culture of cover-up and secrecy that only served to perpetuate and further the sexual abuse of countless children. Abuse that continues to this day.”
If such crimes were committed by a secular institution there would be no cover. A theocratic state is giving protection to the child raping priests.
“While a cardinal at the Vatican, Joseph Ratzinger, now the pope, wrote a 2001 letter instructing bishops worldwide to report all cases of abuse to his office and keep church investigations secret under threat of excommunication.
The letter is the smoking gun; the Pope is a criminal.”
If a CEO of a company or a government official was to take similar action we’d demand that he/she be thrown on the street for a public beating before being tossed in jail and left to rot. Now is the time to stand up and demand action against the Pope.
Archbishop of Parramatta
http://www.smh.com.au/national/thank-god-were-not-all-atheists-archbishop-says-20100401-ri4q.html
The archbishop of Parramatta has some interesting (see: fucking stupid) things to say about atheism:
“GODLESSNESS and secularism led to Nazism, Stalinism, mass murder and abortion, according to Anthony Fisher, the new Archbishop of Parramatta, who has used his inaugural Easter message to launch a scathing attack on atheism, while ignoring the sex abuse scandals besieging the Catholic Church worldwide.”
I hope it’s not necessary to explain what’s wrong with that statement another than to say Fisher is a moron.
“''Last century we tried godlessness on a grand scale and the effects were devastating,'' he said.
''Nazism, Stalinism, Pol-Pottery, mass murder and broken relationships: all promoted by state-imposed atheism or culture-insinuated secularism.''”
Right, and given the recent sex scandals in the Catholic Church, you have no right to claim the moral high ground.
I would never make the argument that being an atheist makes you morally superior. It is just a shame to see the religious trying to convince others that they hold the high ground.
The archbishop of Parramatta has some interesting (see: fucking stupid) things to say about atheism:
“GODLESSNESS and secularism led to Nazism, Stalinism, mass murder and abortion, according to Anthony Fisher, the new Archbishop of Parramatta, who has used his inaugural Easter message to launch a scathing attack on atheism, while ignoring the sex abuse scandals besieging the Catholic Church worldwide.”
I hope it’s not necessary to explain what’s wrong with that statement another than to say Fisher is a moron.
“''Last century we tried godlessness on a grand scale and the effects were devastating,'' he said.
''Nazism, Stalinism, Pol-Pottery, mass murder and broken relationships: all promoted by state-imposed atheism or culture-insinuated secularism.''”
Right, and given the recent sex scandals in the Catholic Church, you have no right to claim the moral high ground.
I would never make the argument that being an atheist makes you morally superior. It is just a shame to see the religious trying to convince others that they hold the high ground.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)