Give us your misogynists and bigots

1) Yes, the Catholic Church discriminates between men and women. Just like every professional sports franchise. Calling this misogyny is just silly.

2) Dawkins calls the Catholic Church's position on condoms' ineffectiveness in Africa "lies". Again, odd. Perhaps he should explain why condoms haven't stopped AIDS there. And he should explain it to the atheist Edward Green, PhD, who agrees with B16 - selling condoms as the solution is a lie since real-world failure rates of condoms are around 8% and often much higher in Africa for many reasons. You heard that right - use a condom in normal circumstances 100 times and you're almost guaranteed 8 failures. that's 16 failures per year for the average sexually active African male and that's ONLY IF HE USES ONE EVERY TIME - which is far from a given. But keep calling Catholics liars if it makes you feel better.

3) When did we lower the standard for credibility to include those who are dripping with hatred for the subject of their criticism? Who thinks more clearly when they steep themselves in contempt?

God bless you, Richard.

Mr. Dawkins, as a Catholic man who struggles with same-sex attractions and strives to live a chaste life with the help of God, I can tell you that your charge that the Catholic Church is prejudiced against homosexuals is false. While it is true that the Church teaches that homosexual acts are sinful and that marriage is an institution between one man and one woman, it does so out of love, not hate and prejudice. The Catechism of the Catholic Church even states very clearly that people with homosexual tendencies "must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity" and that "every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided." From my own experience, I can tell you that I have been shown nothing but love, respect, and sensitivity from those in the Church. I have never encountered any prejudice or homophobia in the Catholic Church.

Let's not forget the beautiful Catholic teaching that children who die before being baptised don't go the big fairy land in the sky but instead get door #2-eternal "Limbo" or door #3- the ever popular "purgatory".

What a shame this beautiful Catholic tradition is no longer being upheld. I mean, really, what's more heart-touching than the eternal condemnation of children?

Do a google search and read about the numerous "brainstorming" sessions that Catholic clergy engaged in over the years in order to try and come up an "accepted" solution to this little problem.

Richard Dawkins

You do seem to be at least somewhat biased about the Catholic Church.

Granted, the Catholic Church is not perfect, no institution on this planet is.

Even tho you do not believe that Jesus is God-Incarnate and that the Catholic Eucharist is Jesus, you are wrong on both counts.

Jesus never said that the "Church", which Jesus said He would build and is His "Church", would be perfect, only that the "gates of the netherworld" would not prevail against it.

The "Catholic Church" teaches that being a "member" does not necessarily mean one belongs to the "Church" and that not being a "member" excludes one from being a member of the "Church".

In the above paragraph, I speak of the "Catholic Church" as the instituion and the "Church" as that built by Jesus.

Sometimes one needs to crack thru the "religion" to get to the "Faith".

As I have said many times: God is a searcher of hearts and minds, not of religious affiliations or lack thereof.

As I have also said, "I am Catholic and I cherish my Catholic Faith" which I consider a "Gift from God".

The "Catholic Church", which in your "blindness" you seem to claim can do "no good", has in fact done quite a bit of good thru the ages in addition to doing quite a bit of wrong, which if anyone noticed is one of the things that Pope John Paul went around the whole world speaking of.

Pope John Paul made public penances for the "sins of the Catholic Church" thru out the world, speaking not of the "individual people" but the "Catholic Church" as having sinned.

It is up to the "individual" to take "responsibility" for what they do on their own but it was Pope John Paul who spoke of the wrongdoing done by the "Catholic Church".

I don't know you personally or know much at all about you but if you have anything at all to do with "science", isn't this to be "objective" and to look at "all available data" not just what conveniently fits one's bias's and preconceived notions?

By the way, there seem to be quite a few that know "God's Name" and yet seem to know nothing else about God.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Dear Catholic apologists:

Referring to the abstract notion of how much the Church loves everybody is not a sufficient defense of the specific allegations Prof. Dawkins has mentioned.

A wife-beater also tells his bruised wife how much he loves her and he'd do anything for her... and yet he beats her.

Bet let us put the past behind us; water under the bridge and all that. Let's look to the future. When the Vatican starts demonstrating some of this 'universal love' that Jesus supposedly embodied in forms other than misogyny and homophobia, then you might have yourself something.

So there you go. End the sexism and the gay-bashing, maybe cut down on the medical advice based on a book that says diseases come from demonic possession, and maybe we can sit down over coffee and listen to what Augustine and C.S. Lewis have to offer.

In the meantime, the rest of us will endeavor wholeheartedly to hate the bigotry and love the bigot. We sincerely hope you won't put us on the rack (of love!) for our heresy.

Regards.

Oh but Mr. Dawkins, we Catholics HAVE denied these "charges" you make of us - do read the comments, especially those of FrederickNacino. For your notions of what is evil about the Catholic Church stem from a misunderstanding of the why behind our actions and beliefs. Catholics have a worldview which centers on Love. In fact, our worldview centers on that of a particular Person, Jesus, who is also God and whose whole identity is that of Love. Think about this... love is both very demanding and very joy-filled. This is what human love is like, and on a much deeper scale, this is what it's like to know God. And this is what characterizes our actions and beliefs, this demanding and joyous love. This is what we Catholics operate from. Transcendence is a mystery, yet entirely knowable. Sin is a reality, but Love is a stronger reality.

The "Invisible Magic Friend" parodies added lately to your piece are quite ridiculous. You (and whoever wrote it) suppose that God operates like that, but He does not: He operates out of Love. The real story and its richly layered meanings are incredibly beautiful. And Catholics never claim to be sensible, but we do claim to be reasonable. Faith and reason are two sides of the same coin. Those who disagree have not really looked into it, but dismiss such a thing out of hand. Those commenters here who dare to call me unthinking and brainwashed because I believe in God and His Church would do well to stop the name calling and do a bit of research. In an objective, rational, truth-seeking manner. Anyone care to take me up on that?

Start here: "Faith and Reason" by Pope John Paul II, 1998
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_15101998_fides-et-ratio_en.html

Dear Professor Dawkins:

I find it curious that you, as an evolutionary biologist, devote so much of your time and energy to the public criticism of religion (in general) and the Catholic Church (in particular).

I find it especially curious that you have used your position as a scientist and author to make normative judgments about religion, a subject which you have never studied. Your disdain for religion reminds me of something that the like-minded Professor Stephen Pinker once told me; namely, that he thought the object of his criticism, religion, was unworthy of his serious consideration.

Certainly you can appreciate that this sort of rhetoric and "straw man" argument does not meet your exacting standards for logical academic inquiry. Rather, this sad polemic is the product of your personal ideology.

One might wonder why any media correspondent would consult someone who is clearly not an expert on religion or the Catholic Church on a delicate question of inter-denominational relations. The answer is obvious.

No one expects you, Professor Dawkins, to have a sensible or well-informed opinion on these matters. Rather, you have a reputation for being controversial and inflammatory, and you are consulted because it is understood that you will provide some measure of editorial entertainment. You provide the modern intellectual equivalent of the ancient Rome's 'panem et circenses.'

I imagine it must bring you great sadness to think that the meme (to use your word) of religious faith will endure long after your body has returned to dust. Consider that no matter how much you write or shout, with the passage of time your contribution to the human race will be of no more significance than the pitiful ruins of Shelley's "Ozymandias."

The potty-mouthed prof and his equally foul-tongued acolytes: perfect prophets--and Dicky D. really ! profits--for a dumbed down age.

Voltaire was better at the Catholic-bashing than you Richard....at least he knew what he was talking about.
As for alleged bigotry and hatred propogation, I observe your supporters have a nice expertise in that. So cut the cr*p, like your evangelical forebears you just can"t stick Papists

I don't know who "Murdok" is, but birth-brahmins are the greatest force for evil in my reckoning.

I would never use a platitude empty of meaning as karma. It is pointed to say there are consequences. This is available to experience - Pavlov's dog is conditioned by experience. The reference is Newton's Principia which refines and generalises the calculus of this human intuition.
The brahmin culture is chockful of empty pronouncements of the barbarian nomads who exploited their depigmentation against the constant challenge of the indigenous dravidian.

Loved the satire piece from Platitudes! Dawkins is spot on so far as the goofy supernatural doctrines of Catholicism goes.

The historical horrors generated by an absolute belief in such complete nonsense is hard to duck - e.g. the blood of 'heretics' boils down through eternity.

And now they want the bones of Henry VIII - somehow it all seems perfectly unsurprising....karma come full circle.

But whatever will the Vatican do with ordained Anglican priests of the distaff kind? You see, men are never the problem. But the women? Now there's the rub - off with their heads!!

* "The RC Church really does teach the dotty notion of transubstantiation,"

Sure we believe in a God, and transubstantiation was His promise to His Church. You teach there is no God. You believe in the "dotty" notion that this Universe came into being from nothing by nothing for nothing. In a strange offworld universe this could look like the pot calling the kettle black.. what makes your unscientifically based silly notions more meaningful than mine?

* "it really does teach that only men, not women, are capable of performing the trick,"

This is not misogyny in disguise which is probably what you are getting at here. You'd have to say it would be misogynistic in its origins and misogynistic in practice, and that is not the case. Everyone is set apart, not only by gender but by age, and skill level, and privilege.. And because we recognize these differences, it is not the same thing as saying that that we see one group as less holy or any less a person than another. But you are trapped in a box that can't see humanity in any other way. Take abortion for instance. The Catholic Church recognize the humanity of the tiniest embryo.. do you?

* "it really does tell lies about the alleged inefficacy of condoms to prevent the spread of AIDS,"

The head of a Harvard-based AIDs prevention center says the Pope is "correct" to claim that condom distribution risks aggravating the transmission of HIV.

See Mr. Green's article at the Washington Post title "The Pope May Be Right": http://j.mp/TKcZ9

Also this one might be helpful from a 2003 NY Times article "Low Rate Of AIDS Virus In Philippines Is a Puzzle": http://j.mp/2wISxf

FYI AIDs cases in the Philippines where condom usage is shunned: 3,000.. AIDs cases in the smaller population of Thailand where condom usage is reported to be "working": 1,000,000.

* "it really does promote prejudice against homosexuals,"

Catholics believe sex outside of marriage is immoral for anyone regardless of sexual orientation. Mother Theresa was thoroughly Catholic. Declared a saint of the Church. Where was that prejudice when she set up the first Hospice for NY AIDs patients in 1985 when homosexual prejudice was pretty darn high? And again in San Francisco and Atlanta?

* "and it really does cover up the crime of sexually molesting children."

Sure there were too many individual priests and bishops that have acted badly and have covered things up, but as a policy of the Catholic Church, this has never been the case.

Fitzhamilton, when you are done telling us how you love Richard Dawkins but think he's an idiot (so you 'love' in what sense, exactly? Because you can laugh at him?) and telling us what a great bunch of lads Catholics are, would you - or anyone else - please, please, please answer the question: does the Catholic Church deliberately protect paedophile priests? The answer to this is not 'there are a lot of Catholic-run hospitals.' The answer to this may be 'yes'. It may be 'no'. Other good acts carried out by Catholics have no bearing on it. It is the Catholic Church as an institution we are concerned with. Does it or does it not knowingly protect paedophiles?

Posted by: Tokeloshe | October 29, 2009 4:31 PM

"Oh, this is just precious. You admit that in actual fact those hospitals are public hospitals, paid for with public funds, but you still want the credit for them!"

Public funds go where the public goes.. you think that the public gets their funding stripped from them when they get to the doors of a Catholic hospital? Nice!

Let's put this in another perspective.. supposed we had a hospital run by black people.. and if for some reason the black hospital provide great service to everyone not just black people, so the public starts going to them in increasing numbers.. but government steps in and says you people can't take your public funds into black hospitals.. those people will have to pay for all your healthcare themselves.. what would we call that?

Dr. Dawkins has (and I suspect this is not the first occasion) missed the point altogether. England, first evangelized by St. Augustine of Canterbury, sent by Pope Gregory in 595, is perhaps on the verge of returning to the faith from which King Henry violently divided it five centuries ago. Dr. Dawkins seizes this occasion to tell us that he prefers the face of the Archbishop of Canterbury to that of the pope, that the Catholic Church teaches certain doctrines to which he himself does not hold, to speculate upon the motives of those involved, to re-publish a parody concerning a person he professes not to know, and to offer other commentary which bears with equal force upon the topic of Anglican/Catholic reunion. None of this comes as a surprise to those who know anything of Dr. Dawkins' views, except perhaps the extent to which they proceed from speculation rather than evidence, and his taste in humor, which may be described charitably as undemanding. Anglicans considering reunion with Rome will give Dr. Dawkins' views due consideration, and matters will proceed. Although Dr. Dawkins may not have shed much light upon the topic of religious reunion, he has in the course of his commentary revealed quite a bit about himself, and I'm afraid none of it does him credit.

A lot of commentators so far just don't seem to get it (surprise, surprise!). Someone, like Richard Dawkins, who criticises an institution of hatred and bigotry does not automatically make that person a hate-filled bigot as well. Likewise, someone who criticises fascist ideology is not a fascist in kind.

But anyone who is an apologist of that ideology will often feel threatened by the likes of Dawkins, who does have the guts and intellect to challenge such a disgusting ideology, so the only thing they can do in retaliation is throw out those accusations because it's the only defense they have - and a pathetic one at that.

And for the idiot worried about Sharia Law, such a thing only applies to Muslims who wish to have marital ceremonies etc by way of Sharia Law. I'm sure any Christian living in a (tolerant) Muslim state would wish to get married (or divorced) within a Christian tradition. So why should Muslims be subject to traditions that don't apply to them? You obviously assume that everyone who isn't a Muslim will be subject to Sharia Law. This is not the case. But then an ignorant moron would never bother to get the facts.

For once, Dawkins seems to have got it exactly right. His reasoning sounds adjusted and rightly tempered. Dawkins is spot-on in his assessment of the RC and how it compares with the Anglican church. We need the eloquence of many million Dawkins to expose the slow poison that is seducing and monopolizing the globe in the guise of, say, Mr. Murdok and his endless coterie.

Please do not associate me with Dawsons hate for God.

Wish away the the pedophlia into the cornfield.make it go away.The catholic church can do no wrong.

Apologies to those atheists who believe that catholics should spend their evenings producing statistics which prove that sexual abuse is a rare event in the catholic church, which you will then ignore and continue slandering priests.

When Dawkins makes a serious point about theism, catholics take it seriously and issue rebuttals: Fr Thomas Crean's book springs to mind. When Dawkins goes on rants about why he doesn't like the catholic church, we take that less seriously, especially when it's accompanied by love letters to Rowan Williams. Much as I'd love to have a cup of tea and a fatherly cuddle with RW, he does believe we should have shariah law - something which I would have thought would have given atheists praising him pause for thought. Obviously not.

Have a nice day!

Thank you mandraolo, for that quasi denial of all vatican atrocities. You mentioned that the historical writers could have got things wrong because they were ignorant of religious matters.Ive heard that befor. Bravo. OK, so if they knew every word of catholic canon law, they would see the inquisition as a good thing? No, or better yet, they wouldnt report it at all.Ive been waiting for this.No artocities were committed by the catholic church.That settles the issue.No molestations etc.Let me introduce to the world the Holy Roman Catholic church

Farnaz1Mansouri1

Why, please tell me, would Josephus and Tacitus mention Jesus if he didn't exist? A tad coincidental, don't you think, that all these first century writers, evangelists, Jewish and Roman historians, colluded to invent this Jesus of Nazareth whom you hate so much?

Gimme strength!

Posted by: mandraolo | October 29, 2009 4:16 PM

Has the Church been caught not only hiding pedophiles within its ranks but putting those pedophiles in positions where they can abuse again?

And in enough countries that this couldn't be claimed to be isolated incidents?

Have any of the priests who have been caught been reported by the Catholic Church itself? Even after the scandal erupted?

What the Catholic Church has done is throw chaff in the air - "Other people do it too" is one particularly contemptable example of this.

Lots of people commit fraud, that doesn't stop it being a crime to rob people's pension funds.

We have seen the Catholic Church tell the UN human rights council that it was the gays at fault.

What we haven't seen is a policy change.

Very attractive to any Anglican pedophile priest, once the heat dies down at least.

Now for doctrine - the Anglican Church is going through a painful experience where it is modernising. It recognises female priests and doesn't mind gay marriage.

The conservative (Or more accurately homophobic mysogenist) element don't like this - so part of the sales pitch to them is "No female priests, no gay marriage."

Posted by: FrederickNacino | October 29, 2009 8:08 AM

Oh, this is just precious. You admit that in actual fact those hospitals are public hospitals, paid for with public funds, but you still want the credit for them!

That these hospitals are more publically funded than the actual public hospitals tells us one very basic truth - you are credit where it is not due.

You are proclaiming your virtue off of the backs of everybody else's taxes. That isn't actually virtue, that is the precise behaviour you resent in people where you are employed when they take the credit for your work.

And the people who actually pay to run those hospitals, the humble taxpayers of America have their glory stolen by religious institutions claiming charity with other people's money.

If you want credit for the hospitals, here's an idea for the Catholic Church - fund some of them. Otherwise, guess what, when you raise the old saw about those hospitals, well we are going to demonstrate how that actually makes you look worse.

OK Bozoboy, if that makes you happy, I say that most of these charges are false, or unfair, or miss the point (because of the writer's crass ignorance about anything religious) or single out the Catholic Church as the one felon in the whole history, implying that everything She did and does is evil. Feel better now?

As far as your remark about the blessed Mary dressing as a nun - ooh, the outrage!!! - let us know how do you think ancient Hebrew women should be dressed.

I find notably entertaining the link below all the comments: "REPORT OFFENSIVE COMMENT". Does this newspaper realize that Mr. Dawkins's remarks themsleves are assarted in an hateful tone, which wouldn't be tolerated if the target were anything different from the Catholic Church?
Just to know...

hi folks, still no catholics who wish to deny any of the afore mentioned charges? OK , heres a new charge; the catholic church lies to its believers. Example; the church puts Mary in catholic nun clothes in most pictures and on most statues, i mean idols. Thats lying. Mary was Hebrew, not a fricken catholic nun.

"Who most deserves the title of greatest force for evil in the world? In a field of stiff competition, the Jews are surely up there among the leaders."

New Game: substitute any religious group for "Catholics" in liberal rants and ask if it would ever be published by the WP.

It's fun! Play it at home!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFXIALf9zDA

amylpav22,

The Church and its presence in the world today most definitely is his "business," as you put it, as it is and should be the concern of all of us.

You're misunderstanding this essay and the concerns expressed in it (which are also the concerns expressed by most critics of the Church.) No one is trying to take away your personal religious beliefs. No one is saying that you don't or shouldn't have the right to practice those beliefs as you see fit.

No, the point is this: not only does the Catholic Church use their superstitious beliefs and their Church doctrine to make epistemological claims, but they also attempt to force those claims onto the world. In other words, when the Church makes a claim that they have some sort of knowledge about the world (i.e. that the "Natural Law" tells us that women are subordinate to men and that homosexual individuals are "sinners"), and that this knowledge is absolutely true, and then attempt to force others to believe it to be true and to respect their assertion of its truth (even though it has no basis in reality and no empirical evidence in support of it), they are attempting to exert great control over public and/or political discourse and the laws that are made and shaped by the influence of that discourse, and, without evidence to support their claims, and when those claims are based solely on faith and on their religious doctrine, we have absolutely no reason to "respect" or to accept those claims. At all. Thus, OF COURSE it is all of our "business" and is the concern of anyone living in any culture/society/country, etc. in which the Church attempts to influence public and/or political discourse and debate through epistemological claims.

And when the Church does succeed at influencing public and/or political discourse enough so that both Catholics and non-Catholics are either strongly encouraged to or are legally forced by law to follow their teachings and/or their "truths," then the Church truly is forcing itself into not only public and/or political discourse, but also into the day to day life-changing decisions and events of peoples' lives.

And, for this, and for countless other reasons, they truly do have blood on their hands, and truly are one of the greatest forces for evil in the world.

Again, believe what you'd like and practice those beliefs in whatever way you see fit. But until the Church stops making baseless epistemological claims, stops forcing those claims into public and/or political discourse, and stops exerting their power in order to influence action, policy, and law, then OF COURSE it is our "business" and of course it is of concern to and has an effect on all of us.

That's the point.

Hi everyone. lots of jibber jabber from catholics.Still not one has said that the charges against the church are untrue. One has to be born into the church and indoctrinated from a child to have that kind of blind faith.

Why are we getting a renown atheist viewpoint "On Faith" matters anyway? How can anyone take a person seriously who starts with:

"What major institution most deserves the title of greatest force for evil in the world? In a field of stiff competition, the Roman Catholic Church is surely up there among the leaders."

And continues on calling the Church:

"an institution where buggering altar boys pervades the culture."

And:

"that disgusting institution"

All within one article. I mean come on, is this real opinion or a screed? There are more important things to say "On Faith" of the historical nature of this event from an Anglican and Catholic viewpoint and we get this rubbish. Nice! Way to go Washington Post.

"Turns out, Catholic hospitals are more public than the public hospitals."

duh.. funding goes where the patients go. Because patients don't trust secular hospitals to take care of them isn't a boon for how public hospitals do more with less funds. That's a dumb argument. It's also a dumb argument to only look at the United States when it comes to the hospitals. Catholics have established hospitals centuries before the founding of the US, and the US has had a large anti-catholic sentiment up until about 80 years ago.

Also, Dawkins comment on condom v. the AIDs epidemic? Please! Look up the difference between how AIDs was handled using condoms between Thailand and the Philippines. Also leading caregivers who do actual work in Africa on AIDs have commented that the Pope was right when dealing with AIDs on an epidemic scale.

Posted by: fitzhamilton | October 29, 2009 2:25 AM

Nice try with the hospitals, but you see, because atheists come up against this a fair bit, we did a bit of research on that subject (At least when it comes to American ones.)

http://www.atheists.org/The_Question_of_Atheists_Hospitals

Turns out, Catholic hospitals are more public than the public hospitals.

The Roman Catholic church's refusal to admit (i.e. employ) women as priests is against the laws of dozens of nations. How is it the church is not prosecuted? Similarly, its homophobiia is illegal in many countries. All schools (not just Catholic ones) should be banned from promoting religion. Richard Dawkins's is both very outspoken and very correct. All religion is bunk and the world would be a far more peaceful and happier place without religion.

I would like to know how publicizing prejudiced hate speech like this aids On Faith's purported goals of improving understanding and promoting good thinking.

The Catholic Church is the "greatest force for evil in the world?"

Wow. Mr. Dawkins is a ridiculous bigot.

Honestly, it's pretty shocking that the Washington Post would publish something so scurrilous.

There are too many absurdities, here. I'll just make a couple observations:

The idea that people who ignore the Church's teaching on sex being restricted to marriage, catch AIDS because they're obeying the Church's teaching against condom use is..

How to put this?

Idiotic.

But it is true that the *huge* Catholic health care system (largest private system in the world) distributes no condoms.

But get this: About 25 per cent of the world’s HIV-positive people receive treatment from Catholic hospitals and clinics. In some African countries it is as high as 50 per cent.

This from the Catholic Relief Services (CRS) website:

The Church runs 5,378 hospitals: most of them in America (1,669) and Europe (1,363); 18,088 dispensaries mainly in America (5,663), Africa (5,373) and Asia (3,532); 521 Care Homes for people with Leprosy mainly in Asia (293) and Africa (186); 15,448 Homes for the elderly, or the chronically ill or people with a disability mainly in Europe (8,271) and America (3,839); 9,376 orphanages, about one third in Asia (3,376); 11,555 creches ; 13,599 marriage counseling centers mainly in Europe (5,919) and America (4,827); 33.146 social rehabilitation centers and 10,356 other kinds of institutions.

The Church also runs the largest private educational system in the world, often serving the poorest of the poor.

Very evil stuff. Truly anti- human. Obviously backward and anti -reason.

I'll just close by saying that the belief in the sacredness of the human person that is at the heart of the Catholic Faith that I embrace means that I must love Mr. Dawkins despite his contempt for what I believe.

What I will not do is sit here and listen to him shout that we believers are evil idiots, without pointing out that the transcendence that we preach is the necessary condition for him to exist at all.

For if the human being ceases to exist at death, is merely organized energy that dissipates at death, then human personhood is an illusion.

Which is to say that if Mr. Dawkins is right, he should just save himself a lot of energy and just shut up, because he doesn't even exist at all. He's merely deluded that he does.

But he is clearly an idiot, and just can't help himself.

I was brought up Catholic but at an early age I became disgusted at the greed and hypocrisy of the hierarchy, living in palatial luxury while preaching abstinence and simple living to the flock that they fleeced. Everything that has happened within the church since then has strengthened and confirmed my contempt for the Vatican and its minions.

The first commenter above claimed that "anticatholicism is the new antisemitism." This is a very stupid remark. I'm all too familiar with bigotry and racism against individual Catholics, having often been on the receiving end. "They breed like rabbits, they worship idols, they are sunk in superstition" etc. etc. Though I'm proud to be an atheist now, I will not stand for such ignorant bigotry against individual Catholics.

But that is not what Dawkins is doing. He is saying what any decent person has a duty to say: that the Vatican is a corrupt, homophobic, misogynistic, backward, reactionary secretive organization that cares only about its own wealth and power, and has caused incalculable suffering throughout the world and throughout its history.

Someone remarked that anticatholicism is the new antisemitism. By that he or she meant that if you need someone to heap the blame on go get a Catholic. Unlike many Muslims believers we take it all on the cheek and turn the other for another shower of insulting blows. Muslim cousins cannot understand why Catholics put up with it and sometimes I wonder too. But Someone did put up with it, Someone greater than I, so responding to comments on blogs is as far as it gets.
Nevertheless those that harp on about the cruelties inflicted on the young and impressionable by sexually repressed priests and religious should be cautious. In the US cases of abuse in the public school sector are hardly rare and I believe run into numbers far in excess of those brought against the Catholic Church. That the Church in the US bowed to pressure and paid out money to compensate those abused was a strategic error bringing every Tom, Dick or Harriet with a complaint, real or imagined, against the Church flocking to the door expecting a big dollar payout. In Europe individuals not organizations, in this instance the Church, appear in the dock and "compensation'' is by no means automatic if the responsible are found guilty and imprisoned.
In the Irish case the Catholic Church was a framework in which the social agenda of the Irish State was carried out by men and women too many of whom were ill equipped for the religious life but found in the Church education, job, board and lodgings in a poor agrarian society where such were largely the preserve of the small middle class.
What went on in some of the Church run institutions was a disgraceful abuse of authority and deserves exposure and some form of public penance.
However, before secularists become too self righteous the British State shipped tens of thousands of orphaned or illegitimate children to Australia to boost the white population. This went on with government approval until the 1960s.

This may be the moment where we see that Dawkins has finally jumped the shark.

OH, Ben? Your comment: "In fact the Catholic Church's regard for women is incredibly high, both in theory and practice..." is based on what?
1Timothy? I tend to agree with Ehrman (and many others) that the church hierarchy inserted this language sometime well after Paul. The exclusion makes no sense given Paul's language elsewhere (Galatians.)

The church as a reactionary institution is intent on its own survival and as Dawkins points out what's true in Ireland is true elsewhere especially here in the states. There aren't enough new priests to replace the ones dying off.

More miracles are needed.

"As I said, I don't care what the Catholics think."

Oh, Mansouri: Untruer words were never, ever spoken. Though it *is* irrefutably true you have *no idea what* Catholics think.

Oh, and I see you're Jewish again. For the purposes of this thread, at least. Still a woman, too?

Oh, and enjoy the last word again. I know how precious it is to you.
------------------
Price,

I never stopped being Jewish. I don't observe very much. Occasionally, however, I do attend services at a temple whose rabbi is brilliant. I do this for my husband, primarily.

Just lay off Jews prayer-wise. Tell your pope. We do not accept that God has relatives. We never will. Thank God.

In the meantime, I shall propose a prayer for the Catholics, along the lines indicated below. If I can work one in for you as in PLEASE let PRICE REALIZE THAT AD HOMINEM ATTACKS ARE NO SUBSTITUTE FOR OPENING ONE'S EYES.

Again, someone reportedly said, "And the truth shall set you free."

Think about that.

As a humanist I'm disappointed in Richard, to say the least. I regard all religious faith as incorrect, because it is based on the unbelievable and unprovable central premise that the universe was created by a supernatural force. I also understand (or have understood) this to be Dawkins' view. If you hold that view, in essence you regard all religion as merely a social construct, and therefore it shouldn't really matter what brand of the social construct is on offer. But Richard has picked on one brand and attacked it in a quite vicious way. That isn't science, nor is it philosophy - but it's a good effort at sectarianism. I'm afraid he's let the side down on this occasion.

Speaking of calling people names, isn't that all Dawkins has done?

Hi all. It seems that catholics who comment about this article just focus on calling Dawkins names. I guess they dont feel like disproving the well known atrocities committed and will be committed by the catholic church. Pedophilism, homosexuality, cruelty and beatings in orpanages in underdeveloped countries, land theft, pogroms, inquisition, burning people at the stake, selling indulgences(which are worthless), cover-ups. Enjoy your religion catholics. Some advice in closing; if you drop your wallet in a catholic church, kick it down the street to a protestant church and then pick it up.

For a guy who has written books about his slavish devotion to the unbiased examination of evidence, Dawkins certainly shows a flair for fact-free animus when the occasion moves him.

Needed to be said and needs to keep being said.

Posted by: ottomanboy | October 28, 2009 10:00 AM

Let me put it this way:

The Irish scandal, goes further than pedophilia. The church, which you say is being so horribly maligned, used the law in order to take people's children away from them. It did this because the Irish government gave a childcare grant for the children.

The children were sytematically neglected, the bare minimum was spent to make sure they ate and had something resembling clothing. The money, which was intended for these children, instead went to gold toilet paper for the pope.

At the same time the Catholic Church was running another programme for "fallen" women. These women were used as slave labour for the Catholic laundries - when they weren't being beaten.

Remember Ireland when you talk about the church's good deeds.

In Brazil recently, a 9 year old girl was raped by her stepfather. She fell pregnant with twins, and the medical consensus was that she would die if she brought them to term.

The doctors and her mother, who made sure she got the abortion, were excommunicated. Her rapist, on the other hand, is still a member.

Now, the pedophilia scandal, after it exploded and it exploded in a lot of places, the Catholic Church decided the best way to deal with it, was to blame the gays - while keeping the priests' identities a secret if they could.

And in Africa the Pope came out and said condoms increase the risk of AIDS. People are going to die because he said that - and you don't care.

All of this was fine with you, but when PZ Myers desecrated a cracker, well that went beyond the pale.

While this was going on, while every week we hear of a new attrocity by the Church, the Pope, that Nazi loving Pope, came out and blamed atheists for global warming - as well as the rest of the world's ills.

Now, here is the difference between the Jews and Catholics, not just the holocaust, but this: They don't go around blaming atheists for things we have nothing to do with.

The Catholic Pope has done. Repeatedly.

So you are not going to get any sympathy from this atheist with your whine about how "If you said this about the Jews..."

AMYLPAV22

I've heard similar views expressed by Muslim women in Saudi Arabia and Yemen. It just doesn't make it so. Are you really seriously denying that the church is misogynist and patriarchal? Or is that somehow OK because you find being treated as a subordinate is spiritually uplifting? In either case, you might want to consult a shrink.

Dear WP, You publish this lunatic's ravings and you're worried about offensive comments???!! Wow.

DrJohnNewton

So Dawkins is wrong because, umm, well,uhh, you say so and look he is meeeaaan. That's about the best you can muster.

Prof Dawkins has frequently been criticised in the past for not understanding what Christianity actually teaches.

If this little gem is anything to go by - "the dotty idea that a priest, by blessing bread and wine, can transform it literally into a cannibal feast" - the charge is true.

He seems to have no grasp of the metaphysics behind transubstantiation (the changes is in the substance) and redicules what he apparantly does not understand.

Reading his words you can almost hear the straw flying around as he vanquishes his enemy.

So that is what it means to be a "bright". If Dawkins had written such a poisonous script about Judaism, rather than Catholicism, he would have been labelled a viscious antisemite and quite rightly so. Shame on the Washington Post for allowing this irrational bigot a platform for a hatred that the English language media seems to be legitimizing. Buggering altar boys! sounds like Der Stuermer Herr Professor....what with that and your, whisper it, views on eugenics you were really born too late.

I love this. Mr. Dawkins, have you ever talked to Catholic women, or those with SSA, who live according to the teachings of the Catholic Church? Have you ever bothered to ask them WHY? No? Really? Why is that? Is it because they'll tell you things you don't want to hear? As a Catholic woman, my equality is not contingent on whether or not I can don liturgical garb and stand at the altar. Likewise, my dignity as a human being - which extends far beyond my sexuality - is not compromised if the Catholic Church says sex (be it homo- or heterosexual) outside the confines of a sacramental marriage is a sin. I believe God loves me, but that I have certain obligations as a woman and human being - two of which are respecting that CHRIST established the all-male priesthood and that SEX isn't the end-all, be-all of our existence.

Putting it mildly, it's condescending for people - who are free to believe or not believe whatever they wish - to speak for those of us who CHOOSE to believe in the Catholic Church, and how the Catholic Church forms its doctrines and teachings. The Catholic Church is supposedly misogynistic, but people like Mr. Dawkins have no problem telling women like me that it's wrong for us to believe in Catholicism and that we would be so much happier if we could play priestess! The Catholic Church is supposedly homophobic, but people like Mr. Dawkins criticize gays who choose to live chastely, via their condemnation of Church teaching.

Frankly, it's none of your business because - despite what Dan Brown tells you - there are no albino monk assassins who force us to go to Mass every week and recite the Creed. People CHOOSE to do this willingly. And that's what your problem is. This is all about control for people like Dawkins. It's not about free will or free thought, it's about telling people they HAVE TO believe in whatever liberal cause du jour is most important (be it women clergy, atheism, or gay marriage), and hanging them when they don't. The Pope gave people who are tired of being screwed over by liberal clergy and ideologies (who EXCLUDE such conservative thought) a chance to get out and THAT'S what ultimately makes you angry. You are losing control over some of your fellow, conservative Anglicans.

Liberals often like to say, "Don't like abortion? Don't have one!"...well, to them I say, "Don't like Catholicism? Don't be Catholic!" It's really that simple. Anglicans have excluded their conservative brethren, Rome is welcoming them (and everyone else) united under the common beliefs and practices of the Catholic Church.

"As I said, I don't care what the Catholics think."

Oh, Mansouri: Untruer words were never, ever spoken. Though it *is* irrefutably true you have *no idea what* Catholics think.

Oh, and I see you're Jewish again. For the purposes of this thread, at least. Still a woman, too?

Oh, and enjoy the last word again. I know how precious it is to you.

It's science!

ewrdmail

Hitler was a Catholic. It is a matter of official German tax records. His public life included a lot of protestations of his faith and while he was critical of the church in private there is nothing to indicate that he didn't believe in God.

In fact he banned all of Germany's atheist organisations upon reaching power and then boasted about how the Nazi party had stamped out atheism.

There is no excuse for claiming that Hitler was an atheist. None. You sir are a liar.

You know what are you to be to us. What is youre reasoning to be to us. You're dillusional imaginations of reality and the truth is more than likely drug induced like most of modern proffesionalism. I dont know just a wild guess due to the institutes post hippie syndrome. I think the most important thing to remember is you may believe there is something better about the world and its image then the one you hold in youre heart against the roman church. I really dont like the roman institute myself. A I just dont have any real reason to subject myself to it. However Roman catholics are the church. My worst hatred is for hypocrites with titles from colleges that Profess them as a higher reasoning source of wisdom. Im not even a college graduate but I can honestly say I do not owe the institute as the institute believes I do. I could shoot as well as any college graduate in the army. I can work as well with my hands. I would be confident my reasoning skills are better than most. I can think of no worse evil then the school systems and the media. The media has been the nastiest phoniest experince about college grad people. The Gay rights movement may suffice the hippie aftermath. How about those early american decendants who dont owe hippie and their 2nd and 3rd generation spawn. I dont hate hippies but I dont want to live like one either. Or live with one. I find it hard to think of thier molestations as acts of love but the roman catholic church's an evil cancer. The fact is supposed molestors and abusers were probably just free love advocates who used to much dope and joined the monasteries or those gay rights movement people who were born into catholic families and wanted to prove they could be priests to and ended molesting people. I dont know It probably all starts at the school systems or the homes of the teachers and students . Maybe really at the white house those freemason molestors meetings.

Oh true there are words to dig up evil of just about anything in this world. You for instance Mr. Dawkins. The bible states that the wicked dig up evil. The Roman catholic church isnt the only rite of the catholic church. Having so many enemies like yourself I should believe it is more likely men like yourself who pretend to be clergy with plots to defile the catholic institutions reputation. However the blood of christ is itself the mystical cleansing of those stains. Why isnt youre remark regarding the public schools the same could of been said about them. How about the cubscouts, Maybe the white house, HOw about youre child hood what was it like?. I wonder!!. The neighborhoods of this world which one is safest from these kind of things. Maybe muslims are kinder. I know athiests like hitler are far more respectable and virtuous. I suppose it is the proffesors of the college institutes you know the masters of molestation who lead the masses to believe in heresy and pervade the truth to hide their own dark nasty image. Isnt there some more intelligent then retarded message you could have conveyed to the readers.

Here is the thing: Richard Dawkins writes this story, and the very, very best the Catholics can do is complain about his tone.

They can't actually answer his charges - because what he is saying is true, and if he comes off as angry it is because it is frankly disgusting how Catholics try to minimise the institutionalised abuse of children that their church practices.

It wasn't a few Bishops, it was official church policy to shuffle abusers around to new parishes whenever the locals got wise. The entire scandal in Ireland, was basically the Church taking people's children so it could abuse them and claim money off of the state.

And lets get into the condoms genocide the Catholic Church is perpetrating on my continent - the claim that condoms spread AIDS.

And the faithful wives of HIV positive men - they aren't getting the disease by sleeping around but you do not hear the self-righteous Catholic appologists going on about why they deserve it, which lets face it is behind your claims of "The church preaches chastity." The Church opposes condoms even in wedlock if one of the partners is HIV positive.

And the Pope has the gall to claim the world's problems are due to "Godless culture." Which is why Nigeria is heaven on earth while Denmark is a hellhole known for fraud - oh wait, its closer to the other way round now isn't it?

And people will cry "hater" at this, because there is no answer to it. The child abuse scandals, there are no answers for it. Lying about condoms, there is no answer to it.

There is no answer to the fact that the church will accept a male Bishop who denies the holocaust, or who molests children, or who has engaged in genocide before it will accept a woman. The lowest of scum provided it has a penis is fine while no woman can ever be good enough to be a priest.

And we will hear about how people who post things like I have are "haters" just like we heard it when we were protesting Bush's stance on torture with about as much validity. You call us haters because you do not want to confront yourselves, you do not want to have to think, to change, to actually fix things.

Because it is so much easier just to claim "haters" than confront the problem.

The Catholic Church promotes its anti-gay agenda with the assurance that Jesus Christ and God are leading the way, in what really is nothing more than a mean-hearted and brutal bigotry against ones fellow man. In this regard, the Catholic Church IS destructive, and is a force of wicked malevolence in the world.

Why, then, do Catholics demand respect, when others treat them the same way?

And to add additional insult to anyone with an ounce of sense and half a brain, this anti-gay agenda is promoted by a clergy and a Pope who are themselves, repressed, and self-hating gay men. This is hypocrisy. Unloving, mean spirited, top-down, follow the leader no matter how deranged the marching orders may be, hypocrisy.

What about this don't Catholics understand?

If Catholics do not want to be the object of scorn and ridicule, then they can conduct their personal religion as they wish, and keep out of the politics of the real world, which has progressed some, since the days of all-powerful Medeival Church.

I do not think that many Anglicans will emigrate to the Catholic Church, even if they do share some points of bigotry in common, because I do not think the Catholic top-down regimentation of belief and theology will fly among these disgruntled people.

Oh, and PatriciaMargaret, Josephus had difficulty defending "History" in his own period. Tacitus cribbed from Josephus.

Read a book.

You are almost as mixed up as Dawkins!

But hey, if you don't even know (as you manifestly do not) that Jesus was mentioned by both at least one Jewish and one Roman historian in the first century - i.e. that he actually DID exist in history - then I ain't going to waste a single minute dealing with the rest of your rant.

Catholicism is here to stay, Sugar Plum. Live with it...

Posted by: PatriciaMargaret | October 27, 2009 7:54 PM
--------------------
I don't care whether it stays or leaves. Just keep me out of your prayers.

Frankly, I see no reason why Jews should not return the favor the Catholics have bestowed on us. They've done us so many favors, haven't they?

Let us do one in return. Shall propose a prayer for the Catholics this week at the enormous synagogue I sometimes go to. I'll probably edit it, however.

As for Jesus, if he existed, questionable, he was a human being like everyone else, including you. Moreover, there was no Sanhedrin meeting as the entire scholarly world now agrees, since the Sanhedrin could never, would never have met on Passover. (It's a Jewish thing.) The only time Passover can be interrupted is if a human life can be saved in no other way. Someone must be in mortal danger. Not merely sick and needing care. That has been the case for six thousand years. It is the case today.

Second, no Jew or Hebrew, at any time in the history of the world would have engaged in the last supper eucharist. The equation of blood for wine, meat for flesh, would have been anathema to them as it is to us today, not that we care what the Catholics do.

JEWS MAY NOT INGEST BLOOD. KOSHER MEET CONTAINS NO BLOOD, no blood of any sort.

Again, as reputable scholars point out, like much in the Jesus myth, this transubstantiality was borrowed from the mystery religions of the region.

Finally, at least for now. The stick figure Pharisees who appear in the NT (sic) were not put there by Hebrew hands. They represent a Greek literary convention of the period, not a Hebrew.
----------------------------------
As I said, I don't care what the Catholics think. Ditto, all Jews. Unlike Catholicism, Judaism holds that the deity, Hashem, has a covenant with all peoples--all peoples would include you.

So, tell you what, leave us alone, and I do mean leave us alone, leave us the hell out of your prayers.

You have never done anything but harm to us, religionist of Love.

I forgot to say in my previous post (so apologise for cluttering up the thread) that if Richard Dawkins's opening paragraph is not up there among the most obvious examples of "hate speech" today, then I'd like to know what is: he wrote -

"What major institution most deserves the title of greatest force for evil in the world? In a field of stiff competition, the Roman Catholic Church is surely up there among the leaders.."

Now insert almost anything else you care to insert where "RC Church" is - (dare I say) Islam or (dare I say) Judaism or (dare I say) --- you get my drift --- the world would be on fire. Perhaps literally.

I'm no fan of Dawkins, never have been. Now, I think he is THE most ignorant and bigoted pseudo-scientist since records began.

What's the bet he buys long-lasting light bulbs and recycles his socks?

Amen Selah

You are almost as mixed up as Dawkins!

But hey, if you don't even know (as you manifestly do not) that Jesus was mentioned by both at least one Jewish and one Roman historian in the first century - i.e. that he actually DID exist in history - then I ain't going to waste a single minute dealing with the rest of your rant.

Catholicism is here to stay, Sugar Plum. Live with it...

Richard Dawkins,

Gee, say what you feel, Rich. Meanwhile check this out. Below are the "revised" Catholic prayer for us Js. At least the Anglicans include ALL infidels. Now, comparing the clergy to us Js, I really wonder who should be praying for whom.

FELLOW J PEOPLE: Take note, the Catholics are praying for us (LOL!). I think the least we can do is return the favor.

Proposed prayer for the Catholics:

Blessed be G-d, Lord of Israel, please help the Catholics to give up their worship of a man who may or may not have existed in the first century, said (possibly imaginary person) deemed the "Son of God" (sorry), via the "Holy Ghost" (sorry) inseminating a virgin, one "Mary, Holy Mother" (sorry), etc.

Please also help them to give up their transubstantial metaphorically canabalistic ritual in which they eat and drink the above-mentioned "Son." (Sorry)

Please have them end the process of canonizing seeking evidence of increased divine substance. (Sorry)

Please also have them get rid of the statues in their churches. (Sorry)

Please let them get rid of the pedophile-shielding Cardinal Levada, summoned to Rome to deal with pedophile priests worldwide, after he obstructed justice in the US. (Sorry). Also, Levada will be welcoming the disaffected Anglicans. (Sorry)

Amen Selah

continued

CATHOLIC PRAYER FOR US JEWS
Let us pray for the Jewish people, the first to hear the word of God, that they may continue to grow in the love of his name and in faithfulness to his covenant. Almighty and eternal God, long ago you gave your promise to Abraham and his posterity. Listen to your church as we pray that the people you first made your own may arrive at the fullness of redemption.[13]

Anglicanism

One of the Solemn Collects said:

O merciful God, who hast made all men, and hatest nothing that thou hast made, nor wouldest the death of any sinner, but rather that he be converted and live; Have mercy upon all Jews, Turks, Infidels, and Heretics, and take from them all ignorance, hardness of heart, and contempt of thy Word; and so fetch them home, blessed Lord, to thy flock, that they may be saved among the remnant of the true Israelites, and be made one fold under one shepherd, Jesus Christ our Lord, who liveth and reigneth with thee and the Holy Spirit, one God, world without end. Amen.[16]

To compare a great religion to one founded by an adulterous, misogynist and murderous king is laughable. Go say half of this about the religion of peace. I dare you.

Oh, and to refer to this guy as "professor" serves only to diminish professors everywhere.

Dawkins' evident hatred of the Catholic Church leads him into some rudimentary errors in logic - or is it the errors in logic that make him hate the Church?

To take but one example, distinguishing between roles is not the same as discrimination. Is it discriminatory to say that only women can be mothers and bear children? Clearly not. Nor does it belittle men. It's just different. LIkewise, only men can be priests, because that's what Jesus authorised and is the example he left. We may not understand why, but it in no way belittles women: he never did that!

In fact the Catholic Church's regard for women is incredibly high, both in theory and practice - much more so than a modern culture that views them as sex objects, who can be shunted off to abortion clinics if they are inconsiderate enough to fall pregnant as a result of men taking their pleasure...

The Catholic Church is more and more becoming a church of bigots.

Therefore, Catholics have ZERO crediblity when they complain about "anti-Catholicism."

They can dish out the bigotry in great big heaping spoonfuls to everybody else.

But no one is supposed to reply?

I don't think so!

A closetted gay clergy, bent on the suppresseion and destruction of gay people, presided over by, well a Pope of dubious sexual orientation.

What theology!

The Catholic Church is more and more becoming a church of bigots, just bunch of a fancified Baptists.

Therefore, Catholics have ZERO crediblity when they complain about "anti-Catholicism."

They can dish out the bigotry in great big heaping spoonfuls to everybody else.

But no one is supposed to reply?

I don't think so!

A closetted gay clergy, bent on the suppresseion and destruction of gay people, presided over by, well a Pope of dubious sexual orientation.

What theology!

Well, well, well. The allegedly great Richard Dawkins in full fling. What a bigoted, ignorant rant. In the part of Scotland where I live, the only people heard spouting such rubbish do so very late on a Saturday night and usually have their fifteenth glass of beer in one hand and their nineteenth whisky in the other!

If Dawkins had taken five minutes to google the history of the Catholic Church, he'd know that even in places where there were no priests for decades, the Faith did not die out. Japanese Catholics had no priests for 200 years, but the Faith survived. That's because it is of divine origin and is sustained by God. Even the (minority) of sexual perverts in the priesthood today will not kill off Catholicism any more than the minority of parents who abuse their offspring will kill off marriage.

As for the rest of Dawkins' nonsense, it's not worth answering, although I have to say that it amazes me that this "great scientist" (sez who?) doesn't even seem to know that the places with the highest AIDS/HIV rates in Africa are the very same places where Catholics are in a very significant minority. Where Catholics are present in significant numbers, the HIV/AIDS incidence is negligable. What a silly man.

It is clear that Richard Dawkins is a zoologist.

Would Mr. Dawkins rant against militant Islam or Zionism the way he has against soft-touch Christianity? Not a chance of it, he picks his targets very carefully.

Has anyone wondered why Mr. Dawkins is hitting out with such venom against a religion he doesn't believe in?

The average atheist wouldn't trouble himself with religion, yet this guy makes it his business to hound the Catholic religion. I say this is a man with a bad conscience. Perhaps he's not quite so convinced an atheist as he would have us believe!

An attempt to answer the questions raised by wahingtonpost above. My answers under his questions>

Q1: Has the RCC consistently condoned and covered up child rape by a significant proportion of its clergy ?

Yes many Bishops and priests failed to act properly. They failed to report cases of abuse to the Police - this is clear from www.bishopaccountability.org

The proportion is significant some 2-5% of the clergy especially since many had taken Solemn Vows of Chastity and were trusted by the children in their care.

But when Professor Dawkins says the RC Church is "an institution where buggering altar boys pervades the culture." he goes too far.

Q2. Is the RCC committing genocide in Africa by claiming that condoms are not an effective prophylactic against AIDs ?

No the Church teaches chastity. AIDS is spread by promiscuity.

Q3 Is the RCC a bastion of homophobic bigotry ?

No the Church's teaching on Homosexuality is consistent with its teaching on the Natural Law. It is not, as Professor Dawkin's suggests "gay-bashing". Is he here suggesting the Church encourages violence against homosexuals?

Q4 Is the RCC a patriarchal, misogynistic organization that treats women as brood mares ?

No the Church venerates Mary the Mother of God and teaches that women are to be respected. Women are the backbone of the Church as teachers, mothers and religious sisters.

Professor Dawkins says of the Anglo-Catholics "One wonders how their wives can stomach a husband whose contempt for women is so visceral that he considers them incapable even of the humble and unexacting duties of a priest." If the duties are so "unexacting" and clearly irrelevant to anything why is Professor Dawkin's getting so upset that the Church reserves the Priesthood to men?

Posted by: wahingtonpost | October 26, 2009 1:15 PM

Personally I find this essay to be an excellent example of hatefulness. Dawkins shows his true colors, washed in the black of hate.

If there is an example of one that could indeed use some infusion of Christ Consciousness, this one I would

What is clear from this rant is that Dawkins cannot separate his foaming hatred from rational mind, hence twist of logic and perception. He has one view of the RCC, and that is warped toward the dark side, Luke, and there is no coming back.

All this was amounted to a venting of bile, and served no betterment but for Dawkins, who probably feels better for the vomiting, but with no healing of what wounds him we can know that more vile bile is on it's way.

There is no doubt that the RCC has a very mixed history, but it is also clear that they do a great deal of good, and charity, in the world, even if they have an easily criticized hierarchy.

With this and other Dawkins opinions as examples it is clear who does greater good. It certainly is not this guy. This one is a real hater, and has no fear of proving it.

At least he can't be tried for his thoughts! Leastwise not in court. But I done seen 'bout enough to pass judgment that here is a first class hater.

Arun Ghandi is as good as any on hate and hateful behaviour:

A law may stop people from showing their hate but it will never eliminate hate. A law can only protect a person from the physical manifestation of hate, but it cannot transform the hater...

In spite of these laws, people still nurture strong prejudices. Hate is the logical extension of prejudice so one may well say that prejudice is normal human behavior, just as violence is touted to be. I disagree with both of these contentions. Neither are innate human behaviors. They are both learned and nurtured by ignorance...

We have not done much to educate children [and Richard Dawkins?] about human behavior and human culture..."

Children need to be educated but it is too late for Dawkins.

Is this an example of "A Crime to Hate"? If so, it's on the wrong discussion group. If not, it's a great example of hatred and belongs there.

Or maybe we should amend A Crime to Hate? 's title. It's not a crime to hate if you're Richard Dawkins and what you hate is Catholicism. Then it's OK to hate. OK, A Crime to Hate? (but only selected objects) It's not a crime to hate Catholics. They deserve it.

There. That's better.

What expertise does Professor Dawkins bring to this discussion? Is he a student of Anglican-Catholic relations? Is his commenting on this significant debate not a bit like a prelate discussing the relationship between the North Korean Communist Party and the Chinese Communist Party? Only I seriously doubt that many prelates would be sufficiently arrogant to claim any knowledge of such debates.
One part of Professor Dawkin's article I particularly enjoyed was his observation that Jesus himself would recognize in the Anglican communion and that he is of the opinion that Archbishop Williams is saintly - even the Pope delegates such judgments to The Congregation for the Causes of Saints.

I just had a look in my dictionary and I'm struggling to understand how it can be called poaching. Are the trad Anglicans the personal property of Rowan Williams? Were they wandering around happily in the CofE until Papa Ratzi crept up and grabbed them by the neck? Or perhaps you meant like poaching eggs, that makes about as much sense.

What else could I call it? How about "offering them a choice which they are free to accept or decline". Obviously you don't like it (or do you? I'm confused, the logic seems to be "I'm furious the pope has done this and taken all these people away from the lovely CofE because they're all awful", which leaves me wondering what exactly you want or why you care). I don't much care. They aren't going to become different people than they were before whatever they called themselves and frankly the Anglicans are pretty insignificant numerically either way. so any influx is hardly going to make much difference to the Catholics either.

Incidentally the numbers now in Catholic seminaries in the UK and Ireland are higher now than they have been for years and Rowan Williams believes much the same about transubstantiation as the Pope. And at least so far as the CofE are concerned the anglo-catholics are hardly gay-bashers. Rather the contrary.

Dawkins ignorant and out of date on subject outside the narrow confines of his discipline non-shocker. But he really ought to get a dictionary.

Wow...what a drubbing! Richard Dawkins speaks the blatant truth. Sorry Catholic apologists, there is little time to waste on decorum when people in Africa are dying due to some midieval religion (strange how they never defend the church's position on contraceptive? could it be that their silence is bought by the fact that they do not strictly follow this dogma themselves? They love the "do as I say, not as I do" dogma most. Only this time it kills people. Oh well, they are only Africans.

Paula Kirby's answer is also terrific. It can be read here

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/paula_kirby/2009/10/business_as_usual_for_vatican_enterprises_inc_1.html

This is an excellent, powerful, important, and fearless piece.

Catholic leaders often portray themselves and the Church itself as unassailable and beyond reproach. To hold such an attitude, one must possess an almost unbelievable sense of entitlement. It's so important to refuse to let them get away with hiding behind their beliefs and the "respect" they insist those beliefs deserve. If they want to have influence in the world and want to be a part of public and political discourse and action, then they need to be willing to take responsibility for their misdeeds and selfish actions, yet they've shown time and time again that they're far from willing to do so.

When a powerful institution presents itself as beyond reproach and as more than willing to play the "but our beliefs must always be respected!" card when they don't want to own up to their mistakes, then speaking out against them and their egregious, dangerous, and hateful behavior is a brave, powerful, and important thing to do.

Perhaps the fearlessness of this piece will inspire similar bravery in other authors. I certainly hope so.

Excellent and perceptive article. Gets right to the point.
Too much religious homophobic and misogynistic bigotry goes without criticism.

The Vatican is a medieval organisation representing medieval attitudes (though they do have fantastic hats!)

'he should have issued a counter-challenge: "Send us your women, yearning to be priests"'

If the counter-challenge said "Send us your gay priests, yearning to come out" the RCC would fall over.

If you follow this link you will see that the suspicion is that the catholic church is involved in genocide in a very real way, not just their keeping prophylactics from people and ignoring aids
www.catholic-hierarchy.org/country/brw.html

Sadly, anti-Catholicism remains one of the last fashionable prejudices.

As so often appears to be the case, the loyal believers come to the table empty-handed, with only ad hominum attacks and unsupported assertions:

To Herzliebster: Nothing there but personal opinion. Keep it. No one else wants it.

To Avia_Star: Dawkins does NOT claim to rail against hate, judgement or prejudice anywhere in the article. I think it's pretty clear that he's commenting on the proposed changes to the Apostolic Constitution that would clear the path for Anglicans who favor the Catholic church's misogynist and homophobic beliefs to the more humane, enlightened position of the Anglican church.

To Bruce18: Yet again, another ad hominem attack that makes assertions ("your screed says more about you than any of the people and institutions you discuss") but fails to back them up with evidence or examples.

To Nicolaasjansen: Ad hominem attack and blind, unsupported speculation about Dawkin's motives (apparently Catholics are now mind-readers, as well as cannibals).

Conspicuously absent from each of the above comments, cogent, directed rebuttal appears to be a discussion tactic that Catholics eschew. As one who describes himself as a "reluctant agnostic," their comments serve only as a reminder of how I arrived at this crossroads and why atheism may be the more rational path to continue down.

TRUE !

And thank you Professor Dawkins for saying so...

This is not hate speech - the hatred comes from within these bickering minorities, not from the bemused spectators.

The 'other side of the coin' with this undignified debacle is that it may well hasten the hoped-for disestablishment of the Church of England. As one of the good professor's fellow country'persons' I heartily wish this to be true.

I'd like to see the RCC apologists address the facts presented by Richard Dawkins:

- Has the RCC consistently condoned and covered up child rape by a significant proportion of its clergy ?

- Is the RCC committing genocide in Africa by claiming that condoms are not an effective prophylactic against AIDs ?

- Is the RCC a bastion of homophobic bigotry ?

- Is the RCC a patriarchal, misogynistic organization that treats women as brood mares ?

Bruce18, Avia_Star and Herzliebster

I would have to assume from your responses that you are Roman Catholic, and not Anglican, since Dawkins article is quite complimentary toward them.

As for atheism, it simply means we don't believe in god or gods. That has nothing to do with spirituality, morals, etc.; just as not believing in Santa Claus doesn't mean we aren't generous, compassionate, and gift-giving during the winter solstice - a pagan festival renamed by the Catholic church as Christmas.

Free speech is a freedom too few people take advantage of. If only politicians could be as honest in their opinions as Dawkins, especially when supported by evidence.

Bruce18, Avia_Star and Herzliebster call this hateful and bigoted. I call it honest, truthful and accurate.

Is it true that the Catholic church lies about the efficacy of condoms in protecting against HIV infection? You bet.

Is it true that the Catholic Church (like Muslims) treat women as second class citizens? My friend's daughter is one of his 5 children in a strong Catholic family. Elizabeth is smart (college on a full academic scholarship), articulate, compassionate (volunteered in summers working with people in Africa).

In this country, Elizabeth's opportunities are limitless. In the Catholic church, she can never be a leader. Does the Catholic Church discriminate against women solely on the basis of their gender?

You bet your azz they do.

NICOLASSJANSEN - Quite a leap you make there - to loathe the Catholic church (or any other religious institution of whatever faith) is to loathe spirituality. Perhaps it's the most truly spiritual people, who feel most keenly the deep human yearning for meaning in existence because they experience it themselves, who can't refrain from expressing their anger and disgust at its perversion into that most banal aspect of all primate societies - patriarchy, and all the dehumanization and brutality that patriarchy unleashes on mankind. PS. I don't own a "lap dog" and I like my coffee black, no sugar. Is that alpha-male enough for you?

There is a great deal of selfless charity work done by clerics and lay people associated with the Catholic Church. The fact that the Church advocates irrational and monstrous dogmas, some of which cause great harm, has to be judged separately from acts of charity and kindness, which exist and are not undermined even if they are motivated by irrational and monstrous dogmas.

Excellent piece. A man who doesn't mince words and doesn't fear to speak the truth about the fascistic (and I mean that word in its true sense) monstrosity that is the Roman Catholic Church.

Let's be clear about Mr. Dawkins: He is a militant hater! He hates religion because it involves something bigger than himself, but mostly because it involves most of sentient humanity. Whether he is bashing one Christian faith or another is immaterial to him. Like the Chinese communists, anyone with an ounce of spirituality is to be smashed to bits, and must listen to his iron tongue. Here is some news for the militant atheists: your side lost the cultural war, you can suck on your lattes 'til your lap dogs are done doing there business, but most importantly, the human race has given up on your hatred of all things spiritual and human(e)!

Dear Mr. Dawkins,
Your screed says more about you than any of the people and institutions you discuss. It's not flattering.

Agreed, Herzleibster. This article is exactly what Dawkins claims to be railing against: hate, judgement, and prejudice.

What a bigoted, ugly, unhelpful piece.