|Posted Mon Dec 12th, 2011 11:17am Post subject: the catholic church debate
I often see Richard Dawkins vilified in this manner, and I cannot understand why! I have never seen anything but extreme politeness and a civil manner from him, never a raised voice, always reasoned and reasonable statements and gentle questioning of his oponents in live interactions, and always calmly reasoned writing. I've always thought it is simply the religious clinging to their security blankets unable to face the cold light of day, but here an apparently sympathetic person is throwing the same caustic judgement at Dawkins! Why?!
"A handful of the zealous faithful, mostly Saudis with a few Egyptians, armed only with box-cutters and deep religious faith, simultaneously commandeered four large airliners and flew three of them, undisturbed by fighter aircraft or
— mysteriously — (!)
by any immediate government attention at all, into large buildings with catastrophic loss of life. Praise be to Allah. But mark the sequel"
Now Bush is begging the UN to help clean up the mess he created in Iraq, there is a temptation to tell him to get lost. It is a temptation to which I hope the UN will succumb. US armed forces are "overstretched", and that is exactly how they should be. Remember those threatening noises about whether Syria or Iran might be "next"?
He is gloating at attacks on the US army by Islamists and Saddam's former thugs!
And why not get rid of those animals in charge of Syria?
|Posted Mon Dec 12th, 2011 11:42am Post subject: the catholic church debate
Oh, I see... Tallest 44 sent me this as a private message, so I replied to him privately. But now I see that he also posted it as a public message, so I will paste in here my reply to him:
Your "message" is extremely hard to sort out... I couldn't tell what or who you were quoting. After much effort, I have discerned that you are taking a 8 year old quote and applying criticism to Dawkins in the light of subsequent developments, and then trying to tell me that he is condoning attacks on soldiers etc...
I take your disorganised message as a sign of your emotional upset, or perhaps rage... so I excuse your method of obscuring things with disconnected sources etc... however I do think you are reading in that he condones attacks on the soldiers. He is attacking the political masters of those soldiers. Bush's desire to invade and "correct" all the countries he doesn't like is a very dangerous mentality.
I agree that the animals in charge of Syria should be removed, by any means whatsoever... but you can't just wade in like Bush... Iraq was a disaster, and it could have been so different.
But getting back to Dawkins... your attempt to paint him as a vicious type through quoting a political comment from 8 years ago and then bringing in news events only occurring this year is a disingenuous response to my question about why Dawkins is always characterised as belligerent, when in fact he is unfailingly polite and logical in the face of religious mania. That's what I was talking about, and that was the context in which I asked that question.
If you want to talk to me in future, I would appreciate an actual message, rather than a confusion of apparent quotes which have not been demarked as such, nor attributed clearly.
A real man is a kind man.
|Posted Mon Dec 12th, 2011 12:34pm Post subject: the catholic church debate
Since Tallest44 chose to make public his initial message to me, now that he has replied to my reply privately, and I have replied to his privately, I am going to post our latest exchange here, where it properly belongs:
TALLEST44 SENT ME THIS IN RESPONSE TO THE ABOVE:
Dawkins describes parents who raise children to be religious as child abusers.
That is a deep insult toward bilions of people.
I was raised as a Christian.
And it did not do me any harm.
Iraq was a disaster because of the religious civil war that was not the fault of the US but all the car bombs!
(and that never happened in Saddam's time).
Bush did not want to 'correct' a country
but to remove some deeply evil people from power.
Saddam killed as many as one million innocent Muslims!
TO WHICH I REPLIED:
Yes, and the West put him into power precisely to kill the Iraqis who were too socialist minded and too educated to be toadies for American power in the region... his first victims were tens of thousands of moderate educated Iraqi middle class people... we only cut off Saddam when he invaded Kuwait, long after we had sold him the weapons with which he subjugated the Iraqis and massacred whole populations while we turned a blind eye.... After the first Iraqi "war" our sanctions killed a million children in the ten years between the two Iraq "wars".... the second of which was so badly botched by Bush's arrogant assumption that the Iraqis were just a bunch of nobodies who had no life behind Bush's interests. They did not plan for the post invasion needs of the country. It was naked oil-inspired adventurism on the part of ideological maniacs, the neocons who put Bush in as their figurehead. The whole disaster is directly attributable to their blind ambition.
As to child abuse, I also say that indoctrinating the minds of innocent children into the nonsense that calls itself religion is child abuse, a judgement I made long before ever hearing Dawkins say anything. Insult or not, that's the simple truth. And frankly it deeply offends me, as much as any religious feelings could be hurt by anything imaginable. Teaching children they are "born in sin" is an absolutely immoral crime against humanity.
And that's just Catholics... but protestants are always going on about the devil. It's sick. But it would still be wrong to teach people to disregard logic and rational knowledge, to choose faith over science, even without throwing in the deeply confusing supernatural stuff. It's extremely hard for many many people to ever truly liberate their minds from this early warping of their knowledge base and experience. Most never do. That's a deeply insidious prison for the mind.... It's evil. It's child abuse.
A real man is a kind man.
|Posted Tue Dec 13th, 2011 10:43am Post subject: the catholic church debate
Who cares about the needs of a group of fanatics!
Why do people like you never put any blame on the Iraqis?
Are they children?
And a Crime against humanity!
Real abuse destroys people.
It is not carried out by the majority of the English people but by predators, and thugs.
I was not abused by being raised as a Christian!
How many can say truly that what teachers, or mothers did to them was a crime!
|Posted Tue Dec 13th, 2011 11:36am Post subject: the catholic church debate
December 1st, 10:45 http://blairfoundation.wordpress.com/signatories/
Richard Dawkins calls Blair a war criminal.
He slanders my nation's army as a result.
He never signed a letter for Mugabe or Saddam.
There is nothing rational about this letter.
BWCF – THE BLAIR WAR CRIMES FOUNDATION
To The President of The United Nations General Assembly, H.E. Father Miguel d’Escoto Brockmann, and The Attorney General of the United Kingdom, and their successors in office.
RE ANTHONY CHARLES LYNTON BLAIR
We, the citizens of the United Kingdom and other countries listed, wish to uphold The United Nations Charter, The 1998 Rome Statute of The International Criminal Court, The Hague and Geneva Conventions and the Rule of International Law, especially in respect of:-
1: 1949 Geneva Convention IV: Article 146
The High Contracting Parties undertake to enact any legislation necessary to provide effective penal sanctions for persons committing, or ordering to be committed, any of the grave breaches of the present Convention.
2: 1907 Hague Convention IV: Article 3
A belligerent party which violates the provisions of the said regulations shall, if the case demands, be liable to pay compensation. It shall be responsible for all the acts committed by persons forming part of its armed forces.
We therefore call on you to indict Anthony Charles Lynton Blair in his capacity as recent Prime Minister of the UK, so long as he is able to answer for his actions and however long it takes, in respect of our sample complaints relating to the 2003 Iraq War waged by the UK as ally to the United States of America.
We are concerned that without justice and respect for the rule of law, the future for us and our progeny in a lawless world is bleak, as revealed by recent US declarations about the use of torture and the events of December 2008 in Gaza show.
The following are our sample complaints relating to the Iraq War 2003-2009:
1: Deceit and conspiracy for war, and providing false news to incite passions for war, causing in the order of one million deaths, 4 million refugees, countless maimings and traumas.
2: Employing radioactive ammunition causing long-term destruction of the planetary habitat.
3: Causing the breakdown of civil administration, with consequent lawlessness, especially looting, kidnapping, and violence, and consequent breakdown of womens’ rights, of religious freedom, and child and adult education.
4: Failing to maintain the medical needs of the populace.
5: Despoliation of the cultural heritage of the country.
6: Supporting an ally that employs ‘waterboarding’ and other tortures.
7: Seizing the assets of Iraq.
8: Using inhumane restraints on prisoners, including dogs, hoods, and cable ties.
9: Using Aggressive Patrolling indiscriminately, traumatising women and children and wrecking homes and property.
10: Marking bodies of prisoners with numbers, writing, faeces and other degrading treatment.
11: The use of cluster bombs and other indiscriminate weapons including white phosphorous on “shake and bake” missions.
12: Supporting indiscriminate rocket attacks from F16 fighter planes on women and children in Fallujah in Nov 2004
13: Supporting the shooting up of ambulances and medical personnel in Fallujah in Nov 2004
14: Supporting the expulsion of the entire population of Fallujah save for young men of military age, for a reprisal attack on that city in Nov 2004.
Copy to the Secretary General of The United Nations, Ban Ki-moon
Issued by secretaries to Foundation: David Halpin, MB, FRCS and Nicholas Wood MA, RIBA, FRGS
PO BOX 64656 NW3 9NG (UK
David Halpin, MB, FRCS, Nicholas Wood, MA, RIBA, FRGS, Chris Burns-Cox, MD, FRCP, Joyce Morgan, Sara Wood MA (Oxon), Roslyn Cook, Geoff Evans, Dr. Margaret Evans, Nisar Ali Shah, Michael Culver (actor) and Amanda Culver (artist), Jonathan Cook (Journalist), Euan Donaldson (Film Makers Against War), Dr Nawal Saadawi (writer Egypt), Haifa Zangana (Iraqi woman writer and activist), Mark Steel (journalist, comic), Edward S Herman, Ph.D (Berkeley USA – professor, writer), Mundher al adhami (academic), Rikki Blue (journalist), Noam Chomsky, John Pilger, Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, David Edwards, Anabella Pellens (translator Argentine), Sarah Case, Angela Baguena (Barcelona), Jenny Wood (academic), Peter Day, Andrew Goodman, David Miller (Professor of Sociology, Strathclyde),
|Posted Tue Dec 13th, 2011 5:28pm Post subject: the catholic church debate
Alrighty just a heads up I am keeping an eye on this so let's take a breath and chill for a second before proceeding. Debate is good but I'm sensing some anger starting to rise.
I used to be EternalStudent on these forums until the switch over. So don't get excited..I'm not someone new and exciting. I'm just me :P
|Posted Wed Dec 14th, 2011 2:46pm Post subject: the catholic church debate
Then again, you wouldn't recognise Nazism as 'okay' because Hitler created jobs in Germany, would you?
The fundamental ideas of every variation of the church have since day one mainly been about genocide, oppression, unequal values, tyranni and so on. Considering the consequences of the church has mostly been seen through these different values as well, I really can't see the good side of it.
Because they have good PR.
They have also saved Italy from the Huns.
Pope John Paul saved thousands of Jews, and was a firm enemy of Nazism and Communism. He helped end the Soviet Union.
Even Pius saved thousands of Jews during WW2.
He sheltered many in his Palace, and the Church helped save many Jews in Rome and throughout Europe.
He was hardly Hitler's Pope.
The Vatican also tried to stop the horror of WW1.
|Posted Tue Sep 11th, 2012 2:32am Post subject: the catholic church debate
I have long admired Mr Fry's work (hence being here) and found myself randomly wandering around on youtube when i stumbled on this piece. It is stunning to watch how a clever and articulate Stephen can be. Recently, he was in Australia and spoke at a convention for the prevention of suicide and was as eloquent as ever.
however, must get back to the topic at hand. The manner in which the debate was undertaken was interesting. surely, having a bishop that is more comfortable with the larger community would have been a better choice? that isn't for me to argue, but honestly... when someone as strong willed and passionate as Stephen is selected for the opposition, surely the for party should have someone equally so. the affirmative side was outwitted, outmanouvered and outmatched. i loved it.
|Posted Thu Feb 28th, 2013 6:20am Post subject: the catholic church debate
I would not want to get into an argument with him. I would lose horribly. XD
I came across this piece last year via TVTropes. Even though I am Catholic myself, I agreed with a lot he had to say. However, I took the part of the sexually dysfunctional priests and nuns somewhat out of context because I had also discovered at the time that I was asexual. I was beginning to really think there was something wrong with me just because I do not want sex. After some clarification and more exploring, I found that was not the case. Sorry. ^^;;
Now I take it with a grain of salt, considering that he may have a point.
Humans have this natural drive for sex just like any other animal. For some, it is easy to resist the temptation especially if it is for a religious purpose. However, St. Augustine, God love him, pretty much set the celibacy standards for the church in his own anti-sexual attitudes after his conversion. The one problem with this is that not everyone feels this way about sex and to so many people, it is wrong to deny that natural human urge for sex for the sake of religion.
In Augustine's defense, it appears that, before his conversion, he felt empty and hopeless living the way he did and did not want others to suffer the same way. He may have had the best intentions at the time but look what kind of position it has put the church in.
What Mr. Fry seems to suggest in this argument is that this anti-sexual attitude leads to many priests and nuns carrying out their sexual needs elsewhere and, unfortunately, much of them seem to aim for children when it comes to satisfying their sexual desires because they hold power over them. My Diocese has been particularly cross with our Bishop lately because there are allegations that he deliberately ignored the behavior and actions of some of the priests within the Diocese (one in particular actually owned child pornography). It was kind of awkward having him at my church for Confirmation especially because I also knew there was a petition going around to have him removed as Bishop.
On that note, I wonder what Mr. Fry would have to say about the resignation of Pope Benedict XVI. First time in over five hundred years that the Supreme Pontiff has resigned and it sounds like there is a politically driven agenda behind it. Let's see what the Conclave does...
That is an excellent question-- I don't know.
|Posted Thu Sep 5th, 2013 5:21pm Post subject: the catholic church debate
What happened, british fool mongoloids? Where is your master named Stieven Lesbianka Fly? Why are you do not look at my topic in General Sribblings tread?