Ratzinger is the perfect pope

For a man who is supposed to be the leading intellect among atheists Dawkins comes across as very shallow in his thinking. Did he write the above piece when he was drunk? Or is it Hitchens who liked to get smashed. Either way if the leading atheists keep this up the Catholic Church will go from strength to strength. The lukewarm Catholics will abandon the Church, at no cost to the Church, whilst the more intelligent of the population, who can see through the guff that Dawkins and his ilk are writing, will be drawn to the Church.

> "May God help you, and if you reach the level of spiritual growth of the Catholics you are attacking, I could scarcely ask higher."

> Was that the Catholics who raped children? Or those Catholics who covered up the raping of children?
> I'm not sure child raping priests are that high a level of spiritual growth, nor do I agree that an institution that supports child raping can be expected to foster spiritual growth.

@Seraphima2, perhaps I did not make this clear, but "Catholics who raped children" and "those Catholics who covered up the raping of children" do not cover the entire Catholic Church.

"U.S. soldiers who committed atrocities in Vietnam or Abu Ghraib" and "U.S. citizens who participated in coverup" do not cover the entire range of U.S. citizens.

The Catholic Church is, a bit like the U.S., comprised of many people and is a very mixed bag, from wonderful to terrible. And it is not just outsiders who fight abuse in the Catholic Church, just as it is not just people in other countries who hate the U.S. who opposed Vietnam or Abu Ghraib.

The invective in the original article is against all Catholics, period, including many people not included in the two basic options you require all Catholics to fit into: the dilemma is a false dilemma, like the leading questions and dilemmas included in the Reid technique. And maybe the worst of Catholics are worse than anti-religious bigotry, but I would truly be rejoicing if Richard Dawkins were to reach the same level spiritually as many of the Catholics I know who fight abuse as a cancer in their ranks.

Oh, nevermind. I just saw the comment to which you were referring. Ad hominem attacks are the last resort of those lacking the "intelligent design[ing]" abilities to formulate a cogent argument. Yawn...

It seems fairly clear Tuffnell was responding to the 'hope' expressed by meherbaba that Dawkins will turn out to have been a rapist of children all along.

I agree with Tuffnell; why focus your ire on dawkins and an imagined revelation of child abuse when you have ACTUAL CHILD ABUSE to deal with? That screams bigotry to me.

Mr. Tuffnell, I do not understand the premise or purpose of your comment. Would you mind elucidating it for me, please?

"Protestant scamsters like Ted Haggard, Jerry Falwell, Rick Warren, Pat Robertson, Benny Hinn, and faith healing cheats like Paul Dinakaran, Ezra Sargunam, etc., will rush to fill the gap."

Are they raping any children? Bad as they might be, I think the child rapists might be worse.

"May God help you, and if you reach the level of spiritual growth of the Catholics you are attacking, I could scarcely ask higher."

Was that the Catholics who raped children? Or those Catholics who covered up the raping of children?
I'm not sure child raping priests are that high a level of spiritual growth, nor do I agree that an institution that supports child raping can be expected to foster spiritual growth.

Maybe you just admire the level of spiritual growth found in those Catholics who prefer AIDS to condoms? Or those who support segregated education? Or maybe you're a fan of Pope Pius XII's approach to fascism?

Catholicism is not the only institution that has problems, not by a long shot, but to suggest Catholicism is a step up for those seeking spiritual growth is laughable.

Let's not forget this is the institution that condemned Galileo rather than allow scientific progress. It took 100 years for the work of Galileo to be authorised by a previous Benedict, and even then it was censored.

Slow to move, fearful of progress; The Catholic Church.

"I would take it as a heavenly sign should a 38 year old man accuse Dawkins of having molested him 25 years ago and I would beleive it in a second."

Hold on to that hope, dearie. Meanwhile, we have confirmed reports of the current Pope actively protecting child-rapists, and you save your anger for the guy who calls them on it.

Oh, for those of you who require justice in this life, the priest who raped me when I was seven committed suicide several years ago. I'd call that justice.

From the most personal experience of being raised Catholic, and by being a survivor of sexual abuse by a priest, I, of course, have strong opinions regarding the Catholic church and its immoral need to cover-up the countless number of abuses by its clergy.

I respect Mr. Dawkins. I read all of his books, and I have loved his work for many years. I remain a Christian who is very much in love with God, and His Word. I consider myself to be a THINKING Christian. I question and argue and disagree regarding the dogma that the Christian and Catholic churches hold to be "infallible". They are quite simply WRONG in their literalist approaches to the historical text of the Bible and other documents which they insisted be removed from a people's history.

If Pope Ratzinger is true to his calling, he would, of his own volition, step down because he had no faith in the God he alleges to serve. If he had, he would have done the right thing by refusing to cover up the rapes of countless children. He should not have protected the "institution" --. His first responsibility is to God who makes it every Christian's first responsibility to "feed His sheep" -- to take care of His people.

Asking someone to cover-up sexual abuse is a form of rape in and of itself. By asking someone to remain silent about an assault on her body and on her soul is like stripping her further of her dignity, the last shred of self-respect, the last inkling that she may hold that she is worthy of protection.

I left the Catholic church so long ago, but I remember some beautiful things about it. Until I was raped at the age of seven by a priest who later was promoted as a cardinal and moved to the Vatican, I remember the peaceful ambience of the church sanctuary, the comfort of the message of Christ, the love of Jesus' mother, Mary, the soothing incense. The church offers beauty and comfort even to this day; it also offers lies and coercion.

I'm sorry Mr. Dawkins is filled with so much rage for the church that when formulating his arguments, that rage is truly the only thing we see.

Social scientists have proved that religion is a unifier of people, an institution that coheres us as a people. Prayer calms different parts of our aggressive brain and is a beneficial stress reliever. There is still much that is good about religion. As is anything in life, it is NOT all bad.

I still need God. I still seek God. I speak out against humans who use religion to control others. I speak out against religions that hide their abuses behind a cloak of religiosity. It is never okay to hide the truth.

I do not dismiss the benefits of religion or of believing in God. God works for me; he may not for others.

I posted something in response to peterhuff that was by no means offensive. Why was it not displayed?

You know, my own experiences with the Catholic Church have left something to be desired; to put it politely, something seriously wrong happened (though not nearly as wrong as abusing children), and letters up to and including the Pope have so far not resulted in any response, let alone helping restore things where a restoration of what went wrong would be possible and could play into friendly overtures to the Orthodox Church. In general Orthodox tend to be a bit concerned about the Rome that wants us in the same fold, and in my case there's something personal, as in a dream and a career...

But you have my prayers, Dr. Dawkins; this article is not a rational critique of the Catholic Church, of which many are to be made, but spite and wrath that have pounced on an occasion to vent. May God help you, and if you reach the level of spiritual growth of the Catholics you are attacking, I could scarcely ask higher.

In no way can the Church make amends for the centuries of evil it has done to the human race, especially children. There is only one act that's left for ROME and the POPE to take: Give ALL of their wealth and property to International Law to be dispensed with. Also International Courts(like those that handled the NUREMBERG TRIALS) should be established to arrest and try all those holding power from priests to the Pope.This is as close to justice as humanity can get.

While I personally believe that the Church is in dire need of reflection and reform, and while I think the men responsible for the abuse and the cover-up should be subject to every instrument in the arsenal of secular law, to move from the topic of scandal to a description of the Church as: ”the whole profiteering, woman-fearing, guilt-gorging, truth-hating, child-raping institution” seems something less than rational, impartial or even ‘good’–in terms of wording. In his tone it is only evident that there needn’t have been any scandal at all. This bile was not born in the darkness of these deeds; this bile is opportunism at its worse. And it is a disservice to the discussion to allow those blinded by personal bias to the nuance of terms like ‘good’ and ‘evil,’ particularly when applied to institutions which include hundreds of millions of individuals–the vast majority of them not ‘truth hating’ misogynistic child rapists–to have a say in a reputable forum.

But, perhaps more importantly, these accusations are also irrational. In truth, research indicates that priests do not sexually abuse children at a higher rate than do men in general. The Catholic Church is far from alone in the world of institutions which try to hide their crimes. Institutional theory suggests that it is the nature of all institutions, regardless of their founding impetus, to evolve an imperative for self-preservation. Furthermore, and unfortunately, some studies indicate that children are more likely to be sexually harassed or abused in a secular, public school environment than in a Catholic school. That these facts matter not at all to the scientist as he lashes out with labels clearly indicates that it is not his rage over child sexual abuse which motivates him, but rather his personal distaste for the church. Far from a practical analysis of the problem and its potential solution, his work here is nothing more than empty name calling. That he acts as if the scandal justifies the pre-existing condition of his hatred, that his indignation is limited or righteous, is intellectual dishonesty. Dawkins’ bile is not the product of reason; it does not require a scandal, whether or not he is shamelessly willing to cash in on one .
http://www.antiantichristian.com/

To Gotosleep,

GTS: "I said "live a full and productive life, at the end it won't matter where anything came from just what you left."
How does that transfer to nothing will matter once you are dead?"

It translates to meaning being whatever the individual makes it and when he is dead what he makes it means nothing to him because he no longer exists. It doesn't matter. And if every individual ceases to exist upon death morality makes no difference either. If there is no justice for a persons actions, once they are dead, then all morality boils down to is personal preference. At least this is where his worldview leads.

Good implies a standard. If that qualitative standard is constantly changing, if good is relative to an individual, a culture, then it is just the preference of such individual or culture. If it is just the preference of individual or culture, why 'should' such preference apply to those who disagree with that preference? It boils down to force makes right, the battle of the strongest. In order for morality to have meaning, there must be an objective, ultimate, universal standard or measure, a source, to base it upon. Subjectivity is relative, it relies on self and force without that ultimate measure.

GTS: "I have learned a lot from reading your posts. I have learned that I can only mock and laugh at a person that has convinced themselves that " humans are made in the image and likeness of God."

I've learned a lot from reading yours too. Avoid the discussion at all costs. Mock and attack but don't give any meaningful dialog, don't show why what you say is true, don't justify how your position can be validated.

GTS: "But with free will, so that if things take a turn for the worse god's hands will be clean, of course. Your writing is filled with circular reasoning and contradiction."

You will is not free. It is governed by your faulty premises and your foundational beliefs. You work within the box, oblivious to anything outside it. Self is where it is at. 'I will, I am, I do, I decide, I am right.' Why and who says? What is your ultimate reference point?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Peterhuff:"From your point of view nothing will matter once you are dead, so why does it matter now?"

I said "live a full and productive life, at the end it won't matter where anything came from just what you left."

How does that transfer to nothing will matter once you are dead?

I have learned a lot from reading your posts. I have learned that I can only mock and laugh at a person that has convinced themselves that " humans are made in the image and likeness of God."

But with free will, so that if things take a turn for the worse god's hands will be clean, of course. Your writing is filled with circular reasoning and contradiction.

Richard Dawkins recently took down the discussion forum on his own website in order to censor personal insults he was receiving on it yet he himself has no hesitation in personally abusing people who disagree with him, talk about rank hypocrisy.

Unfortunately when it comes to religion, Dawkins is becoming more and more a mirror image of the very religious fundamentalists he so despises.

Back this weekend if anyone wants to resume the discussion.

Hi Carson,

CARSON: "As usual, I have nothing to add when Dr. Dawkins is on the case. Eloquently intolerant of religious immorality and stagnation of society, thank goodness we have him. I would also mention that while the catholic church is a very easy target, the root of such evil is in the foundation of religion in general. It is truly ironic that people of faith tend to claim morality is their domain while maintaining absolutely no standard of it within their institutions or among their leaders."

God doesn't call us to a set of religious does and don'ts but to a relationship with His Son that we may truly know Him. Those does and don'ts have been fully met in the Son on behalf of the believer and we live a life of faith based on what Jesus has done and is doing in us. That life in Jesus brings with it a new nature, a nature that is open to God and to His laws, His justice and righteousness.

Every faith base has those who live on their own terms, not according to the tenants of their faith. Some atheist's live according to a standard that does not come from their core beliefs. They have even written books on the altruistic gene. But without an ultimate, objective, universal standard and measure, a source outside the subjective, it is all preference and opinion. And when you look at the world around you it is evident.

The thing that does tie us all together so that we know the difference between right and wrong is that we, as humans are made in the image and likeness of God, so that we can reason and know morals. That is part of what makes us different from animals.

There reason we don't necessarily live by the standard of God is because we suppress the truth in unrighteousness (Romans 1:18). We want to do things our own way. We want to be our own ultimate authority, each man his own judge on moral issues. It is the same story as happened in the Garden of Eden, where man replaced the authority of God for his own. Hence, the problem of evil and suffering.

Immorality is all around us because we refuse to submit to God's ultimate standard and refuse to admit that He is Lord, sovereign and has the right to set the rules. He created the universe and everything in it.

Knowledge is a deadly friend when no one sets the rules or when everyone has their own set of rules. In the one you have anarchy, in the other relativism.

What has atheism contributed to the world in the last two hundred years? Some would say the most bloody regimes and greatest numbers of mass genocide in world history to date.

Hi Barferio,

BARFERIO: "Many of the questions you ask are common among believers shortly before they abandon it. I've seen it before."

I almost skipped this statement.

Why would I abandon something I know as true for something that is speculative and uncertain? Why is your subjective way of looking at things THE way? What makes you right?

"We KNOW that we are children of God, and the whole world is under the control of the evil one. We KNOW also that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we may KNOW Him who is true. And we are in Him who is true - even in His Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life." (1 John 5:19-20)

If you don't know Jesus, you don't know God. (John 14:6)

Hi Psolus,

In response to my statement, "We are all people of faith" you said,

PSOLUS: "This is simply something that you have been taught to believe."

And it is something that you have been taught not to believe. Faith is true for everyone. Every belief has certain core or foundational starting points that rest on faith. They rest on something that cannot be scientifically replayed by experimentation. You believe certain things that science cannot prove; it just assumes because it looks at the evidence from a certain frame of reference. Evidence/artifacts/facts are interpreted, but whether truly or not depends on your starting point(s). A rock with a fossil in it does not come stamped "Made three million years ago." You were not here to witness the start of the universe. You do not witness life emerging from non-life. These are things you believe based on your starting point.

You do not witness evolution taking place. Things don't change from kind to kind before your eyes. You see things that have similarities and you link them together to a common ancestry. These are things you believe based on trace or circumstantial evidence, that again is based on your worldview. Certain ideas you will not entertain because they cross the boundaries that make your worldview viable. To believe otherwise would be to abandon your core building blocks. So you look for ways to explain these things that come from within the perimeters that will allow your philosophy to remain intact.

That is were Christianity stands head and shoulders above every other worldview. Without God ultimately nothing makes sense, everything becomes relative, including knowledge. The standards and measures used a century ago have been abandoned for "better" standards and measures. But the problem is that standards require a true measure, a final reference point, a qualitative and objective source. Where does that source come from and who determines it? Does it come from a universe steeped in/originating by chance. God is that necessary source. Without thinking His thoughts after Him it is just opinion and preference.

Truth is narrow, it is absolute, it does not change. It is objective, it is universal. How do you know what you believe is true? Because someone else has reasoned with you that it has to be this way? What makes them the ultimate authority? Scientific standards change, so how certain are you that the facts are being interpreted right, that we are correctly following the relationship that the fact has on other facts, since we do not see the interconnectedness in every detail? It is something you take by faith because it SEEMS reasonable to you. You weigh the evidence.

But where does the intellect you use come from? How does logic arise from anything but mind and how does mind arise from something non-living? Can you make sense of any of these questions from the framework of your worldview?

POSTED BY: PSOLUS

Hi Barferio,

The video is not available in my area. I live in Canada.

As usual, I have nothing to add when Dr. Dawkins is on the case. Eloquently intolerant of religious immorality and stagnation of society, thank goodness we have him. I would also mention that while the catholic church is a very easy target, the root of such evil is in the foundation of religion in general. It is truly ironic that people of faith tend to claim morality is their domain while maintaining absolutely no standard of it within their institutions or among their leaders.

-Carson

Peter Huff, see the program listed here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00pv1c3

The Secret Life Of Chaos.

Try to understand the mathematics. Many of the questions you ask are common among believers shortly before they abandon it. I've seen it before.

"We are all people of faith."

This is simply something that you have been taught to believe.

Hi JSmith,

JS: "Should only people of faith be able to comment on issues of faith? "Think" about that for a moment. Let us know if you need help.

We are all people of faith. Think about that. It is the foundation you build on that counts. Is it able to answer the tough questions of life?

The language of faith is "I believe, perhaps, in my opinion, to the best of our knowledge, probably, possibly, the best evidence shows, reason suggests, etc. Evolutionary science uses this language all the time. It bases its worldview on something ultimately untestable.

Hi Peter Sanders,

Sorry about the non-capitalization of your last name. I missed it in my proof reading, which is quite common for me.

Peter Sanders: "The evidence suggests you do not understand the process of Natural Selection. It is not unguided. The point is it is guided by natural phenomena. Indeed what else is there evidence (not assertion) for BUT nature?"

How does something without mind guide?

Actually Pam challenged me to read a book on evolution, something I had not done in many decades - Why Evolution is True, by Jerry Coyne. I'm still working on processing all this information together, but when I say unguided, there is no mind behind it, no intent, no deliberate plan of design, for intent and planning comes from mind. Macro-evolution is not something that I think you would find many people saying was planned.

Jerry Coyne says, "If evolution offers a lesson, it seems to be that we're not only related to other creatures but, like them, are also the product of blind and impersonal evolutionary forces." p. xvii

Did you get that? Blind and impersonal forces. In other words not guided. Your starting product is unguided, chaotic, blind, unplanned, unorganized. It's happenstance, it just happens.

The amazing thing about thinking on evolution, apart from the fact that it takes personality to do this, is that we structure and categorize it, organize it and analyse it, as Jerry says into components, "evolution, gradualism, speciation, common ancestry, natural selection, and non-selective mechanisms..." p. 3.

Only something intelligent can do this? So how does something that is not intelligent produce intelligence? How does something impersonal produce personality? How does something non-living produce life? How does something without intent produce something with intent? How does something arising from random, chance, blind beginnings produce laws, logic, language and uniformity in nature?

And how does this process begin from inside the box? In other words, where does mindless matter come from if it is not created by mind, that is to say if no being started the process?

Scientist's believe this universe and everything in it had a beginning. There are a number of factors that suggest this to be true. So how does something that does not exist create itself? Logically this is an impossibility, since it would have to exist before it could create.

Part 2

PS: "Perhaps you believe that natural non living processes cannot achieve complexity and organisation ? Consider the distribution of pebble, rock and sand grains on a beach. This is not random, but objects are distributed as a result of wave action in a non random way."

I believe the processes of nature are guided by the supernatural mind of God, and that He is outside the box we call the universe. In this way life comes from life, intelligence from the intelligent, personality from the personal, intent from mind, order and design from plan, meaning and purpose from knowing Him. That is sensible.

Outside of Him you have to ask how everything got here? And if the universe had a beginning, as seems to be the popular consensus, how does something come from nothing and how do you know this? It is not something that science can test by observable experiments. They can only speculate.

PS: "Similarly, intelligence (at various levels) is something which can come about as a result of a long natural process combining interaction between living and nonliving components. With the emphasis on long, far outside our normal experience."

Is this something you know for fact or are you just speculating? How does this happen? How does something non-thinking begin to think? How does something non-living, inorganic, material begin to live? How do you bring the stones to life?

PS: "On a personal note, other people have complained about your posts, but I enjoyed reading them. Anyone who genuinely wants to understand I will try to help. I am willing to have my ideas changed by evidence and debate. Are you ?"

Thank you! My intent is not to be unkind, it is to point you in the direction of God as the only absolute, objective measure for truth and certainty. We are skimming the surface if we don't ask the ultimate questions of life.

I am willing to exchange ideas and debate on such issues. That doesn't mean that we are going to necessarily agree. When the debate become mean spirited or to the point where I can't answer your questions, or visa versa, I will still point to the God of Christianity as the only justifiable and plausible answer.

As I said before, it takes as much faith (I would argue a great deal more) to be an atheist as it does to be a Christian.

Hi Peterhuff, responding to your "That an unguided process produces intelligence and personality, go figure." as a criticism of Dawkins.

The evidence suggests you do not understand the process of Natural Selection. It is not unguided. The point is it is guided by natural phenomena. Indeed what else is there evidence (not assertion) for BUT nature ?

Perhaps you believe that natural non living processes cannot achieve complexity and organisation ? Consider the distribution of pebble, rock and sand grains on a beach. This is not random, but objects are distributed as a result of wave action in a non random way. Similarly, intelligence (at various levels) is something which can come about as a result of a long natural process combining interaction between living and nonliving components. With the emphasis on long, far outside our normal experience.

On a personal note, other people have complained about your posts, but I enjoyed reading them. Anyone who genuinely wants to understand I will try to help. I am willing to have my ideas changed by evidence and debate. Are you ?

Desscorp slings "Why is Richard Dawkins... a man who not only doesn't even believe in God, but loathes religion and wants to criminalize its very practice... being given space in the "On Faith" section?:

First, Dr D, your unhinged thought process is revealed by your preposterous claim that the other Dr D wants to "criminalize" religious practice. Are you a member of the Tea Party?

Should only people of faith be able to comment on issues of faith? "Think" about that for a moment. Let us know if you need help.

Wow, another measured and totally rational article from Prof. Dawkins. An example to us all.

For all those atheists out there who have the urge to preach, etc:

http://firstchurchofatheism.com/

"As a legally ordained minister, you will be able to perform weddings, funerals, commitment ceremonies, and other functions that are reserved for members of clergy.

Since its inception, the First Church of Atheism has amassed quite a following around the world. FCA ministers come from all walks of life. They are every race, ethnicity, age, and creed. The one thing binding every FCA minister is his or her belief in science, reason, and reality.

The First Church of Atheism wants you to pursue and cherish your realistic beliefs without interference from any outside agency, including government or church authority. We provide our service for free, as we believe it is every atheists right to perform these clergy functions."

"Because what he believes in takes faith, a giant leap of faith, that everything in the universe is a result of materialistic means."

This is simply something that you have been taught to believe.

It seems strange to me, to read the believer's posts here complaining about Dawkins being an atheist and commenting On Faith. How dare a man without faith comment about faith?

At the same time, a corps of believers are insisting that atheism is a belief system, just like theirs, and that atheism requires the same kind of faith as they claim for themselves.

So which is it, believers? You want to accuse us of the same delusion possessing you, yet you want to keep for yourselves only the privilege of commenting on such delusion?

To Peter sanders,

PS: "Firstly, why is Dawkins being given space in the faith section ?"

Because what he believes in takes faith, a giant leap of faith, that everything in the universe is a result of materialistic means. That an unguided process produces intelligence and personality, go figure.

Hi Thomas Baum,

THOMAS: "When God-Incarnate spoke to us before we killed Him, He said, "Love the Lord your God... and Love your neighbor...", ALL THE LAW AND THE PROPHETS..., how much more clear, precise and to the point did He need to be?"

Yes, the law hinges on these two commands.

That is true. He also said to contend for the truth and for the faith that was once, for all delivered to the saints.

You do that in part, but you constantly compromise His words to "speak the truth in love" on the whole council of God, because you make His words to be untrue. Words like "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me." (John 14:6)

Thomas, why do you constantly compromise this portion of His message in preaching universal atonement?

THOMAS: "Neighbor is absolutely everyone else, it is much easier to JUDGE than to even attempt to live up to what Jesus actually taught."

Yes, that is true. Neighbor is absolutely everyone. Jesus said to His neighbor, "I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am the One I claim to be, you will indeed die in your sins." (John 8:24)

He always made Himself the issue, not some other religious leader or some other faith.

"Whoever believes in Him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son." (John 3:18)

It requires faith in Him to know the Father.

Why do you not think the whole of the message is not worth telling? Because you don't want to offend? What is going to happen if we don't tell these people not just about the love of God but also about the warnings?

If they are so steeped in natural philosophy that they will not reason properly what hope do they have for a better future?

Hi Gotosleep,

GTS: "I'm sick of hearing crap questions like those of Peterhuff. It's a waste of time. Live a full and productive life, at the end it won't matter where anything came from just what you left."

From your point of view nothing will matter once you are dead, so why does it matter now?

What gives life ultimate meaning and purpose, and says who?

To Likeme,

LIKEME: "I recently posted an article in our local daily newspaper which I believe is relevant here. It is my firm conviction that no child should be exposed to any religious instruction, at home or in school prior to being introduced to the fact based, peer reviewed science of the study of evolution."

What makes you think that evolutionary science itself is not faith based? Read how many times science texts that push evolutionary theory have faith based words like, "we believe, perhaps, it is widely held, probably, possibly, and words to such effect.

Also ask yourself the question of where this matter and the universe came from before you rule outside the box an impossibility. Since the trinket is in the box, how did it get here if no one put it in?

LIKEME: "If I, and increasing numbers of people like me, who grew up in religious households, can now see how organised religion has indoctrinated societies around the world, think how differently students would see life and the universe around them without the superstitious ignorance we were exposed to!"

And you think you are not indoctrinated, you who are thinking only inside the box?

God has provided a written revelation of Himself in the Bible, the rest is man made, man's attempt to create God in his image.

And one quick reply to Thomas Paul Moses Baum, "before we killed him" etc. But of course, as Christians never tire of telling us, he wasn't really killed. So poof goes that argument. Civilians at Hiroshima and Nagasaki on the other hand were REALLY killed. See below.

The notion that children are born sinful and can be redeemed by torturing another human or even a "god" creature is utterly repugnant and immoral. Time to wake up and realise we all have capacity for good and evil, more and less, depending on chance, circumstance and experience.

In reply to "Why is Richard Dawkins... a man who not only doesn't even believe in God, but loathes religion and wants to criminalize its very practice... being given space in the "On Faith" section"

Here we have some very interesting text. Firstly, why is Dawkins being given space in the faith section ? I can think of a few reasons. He is an ex Oxford Professor who has published a best selling book about the issue of "faith" (belief without evidence)in human minds. He has identified the pernicious behaviour of faith as a toxic influence, and here the structure built on faith and credulity is being exposed for the evil organisation it is. He has been voted Britian's top public intellectual. But probably it is because his opinion pieces sell newspapers.

Just because someone loathes something does not mean they should be denied the opportunity to write about it in the appropriate section of the Post. Otherwise, only criminals will be allowed to write in the crime section !

Secondly, Dawkins does not wish to make religious behaviour illegal, that is simply a lie. He does however want crimes done IN THE NAME of religion reconised as such and due process undertaken. Does the writer not wish the same ?

Perhaps not. For too long, the appelation "Father" or Reverend" or "Rabbi" has given a free ride to some of our fellow primates.

To those who say that the various churches have done such wonderful good for humankind, I point out that belief in a deity is not required to do good things. But telling lies to children sure makes it easier to suck money out of a community in order to support the administration of a huge property empire by elderly virgins.

Why is Richard Dawkins... a man who not only doesn't even believe in God, but loathes religion and wants to criminalize its very practice... being given space in the "On Faith" section?

"What does this have to do with Professor Dawkins's theory of evolution?"

Nothing.

"Is evolution a competing ideaology to Christianity?"

Evolution is not an ideology.

I recently posted an article in our local daily newspaper which I believe is relevant here. It is my firm conviction that no child should be exposed to any religious instruction, at home or in school prior to being introduced to the fact based, peer reviewed science of the study of evolution. If I, and increasing numbers of people like me, who grew up in religious households, can now see how organised religion has indoctrinated societies around the world, think how differently students would see life and the universe around them without the superstitious ignorance we were exposed to!

What does this have to do with Professor Dawkins's theory of evolution? Is evolution a competing ideaology to Christianity?

Peterhuff say: Why are we here, where did we come from, how do we know, what difference does it make, what happens when I die, why is there evil, what standard is right, is truth absolute, can you make sense of things without using logic? If none of these matter to you then do what you like, go out an have a good time. Eat, drink and be merry for as long as you can. Why waste your time replying to me on an On Faith Forum of all places?

If these questions are to be answered they won't be answered by talking to your self, by the pope, or any other way religious people "receive" information from their god. And it probably won't happen anytime soon, it's easter morning and I haven't seen Jesus walking around any where. If these kinds of questions can be answered (and i'm not sure what relevance they have to our lives any ways, i.e. God says:I created life. Religious person says: Yes, I was right. God says: Ok, now I'm going to end the world.) they be answered by scientists.

I'm sick of hearing crap questions like those of Peterhuff. It's a waste of time. Live a full and productive life, at the end it won't matter where anything came from just what you left.

Obviously ordination in any religion is not assurance of good behavior !!!!!

Neither is coronation!!! e.g. Henry VIII, King David.

Neither is being elected president of the US!!! e.g. Billy "Boy" Clinton.

Neither is being blessed with athletic skills!!! e.g. Tiger Woods, Wilt Chamberlin

Neither is marriage as 50% of those convicted of pedophilia are married.

Neither is being an atheist since pedophilia is present in all walks of life.

Dawkins' views are a vital clarion call of frank and ethical reason.

The Catholic Church's mishandling of the tsunami of child rape by its clergy shows how irreparably divorced from the lived reality of human existence and bereft of moral authority this unaccountable this disproportionately influential and wealthy institution has become.

What are civic leaders doing about it? This is vile corruption that demands stern public action and extensive reparations. The Church's reputation should be the last priority.

How dare anyone seek to deflect from the crimes of commission and omission against children by the Catholic Church hierarchy. Quit making excuses. It's time to pay the piper.

Hey Richard and all you atheist bone-heads. I have an idea. How about if the media would now also focus on all the rapes and disgusting things that atheists and scientists have done to young kids. The atheists camps for kids, especially set up by Richard Dawkins, to "groom atheists". Hmm. I wonder what goes on there at night? Do a web search if you don't believe me. The scientists, well, I'm sure they have taken advantage of kids, dressed in "research" and told to keep their mouths shut. Again, do a search online and find the articles about perverted scientists. Now I believe that a full investigation needs to done right away on Richard Dawkins' camp and what those kids are going through, in the name of "reason". Mr. Dawkins, I believe your stench-filled atheist camps need to be investigated too, for possible pedophilia. You and your followers think that what you say is TRUTH, and that everyone else is dumb, because what you proclaim is supposedly based on "fact". Well, I'm sure a media storm investigating you and your kind for possible child abuse would really put you to a halt. I am calling the media to investigate those atheist camps, because such things to happen there are imaginable to the highest degree, not just innocent-looking priests. If WP erases this post, it's OK, cuz it's already submitted elsewhere on the net, where they would be happy to show this post.

Jimmy-Boy,

"YEAL9 said: It's not that I don't appreciate how Catholic-bashers and Church-haters, from certain comedians to some members of the punditocracy, are having a field day with this tragedy. I do. And frankly, they should be ashamed of themselves. Their "I told you so" ranting about the Church serves no good, except to their own careers."

Those comments were made by Rabbi Hirschfield, not me.

YEAL9 said: It's not that I don't appreciate how Catholic-bashers and Church-haters, from certain comedians to some members of the punditocracy, are having a field day with this tragedy. I do. And frankly, they should be ashamed of themselves. Their "I told you so" ranting about the Church serves no good, except to their own careers.

It serves "no good" to stop priests and bishops raping children? What a strange perspective you have. We are stopping them. They are not stopping themselves. This debate does my career no good whatsoever (I'm an accountant - so really: pointing out some truths about of the RCC is an important moral point for me. the career suggestion is a stupid slur).

And collecting us into 'Catholic bashers' and 'Church haters' is a helpful way for you to avoid having to address the truth of what is being said perhaps? Why not avoid the ad-hominem arguments and think about some of the points made?

You know: it's not pointing out the truth as I see it now that makes me ashamed. I am ashamed that once I was a member of the RCC. Deeply ashamed.

It is still as amusing as a year ago to follow the circular reasoning of PH and his desperate and futile zeal to find "truth".
Peter, imagine just for a little moment: If you were born in a society that has never heard of the particular brand of superstition you follow, Christianity: Would you regard your life as worthless? I don't think so. You wouldn't even know there is something you don't know about. (quoting Rumsfeld)

peterhuff

You wrote, "What you are proposing is changing biblical ethics and adopting your own. As a follower of Jesus Christ as Lord, why should your ethics be adopted in place of God's in regards to gay marriage, sex before marriage, divorce or in any number of issues that you have with the Christian worldview and that are not biblical?"

When God-Incarnate spoke to us before we killed Him, He said, "Love the Lord your God... and Love your neighbor...", ALL THE LAW AND THE PROPHETS..., how much more clear, precise and to the point did He need to be?

Neighbor is absolutely everyone else, it is much easier to JUDGE than to even attempt to live up to what Jesus actually taught.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Brad Hirschfield: When Priests And Rabbis Commit Sexual Abuse

Mar 29, 2010 ......

www.huffingtonpost.com/rabbi.../when-priests-and-rabbis-c_b_516386.html

“The words used by Pope Benedict and others in responding to the Church's ever-deepening sexual abuse crises reflect a sickness that is not unique to the Catholic community. In fact, that sickness creeps into all religious communities of which I know, and leaves a trail of victims in its wake every time. I refer to the way in which religious leaders and the communities which they lead wear the mantle of victimhood to cover their naked moral failings.
In the past days I have heard Catholics tell me again and again that "the Church is under assault." Under assault by whom? Is this "assault" the real problem? Or is it a deflection from the horrors of child abuse committed by the religious?
In his Palm Sunday address, Pope Benedict spoke about allowing neither himself nor the Church to be "intimidated by petty gossip". "Petty gossip"? Is that how the Holy Father understands the outcry against the evil acts which members of the Church have committed? Is it really his view that the Church is a victim of gossip mongers more than the thousands of children have been victims of the Church?
It's not that I don't appreciate how Catholic-bashers and Church-haters, from certain comedians to some members of the punditocracy, are having a field day with this tragedy. I do. And frankly, they should be ashamed of themselves. Their "I told you so" ranting about the Church serves no good, except to their own careers.
But however ugly such ranting is, it hardly compares to the ugliness of what happened to the victims in these cases, and the sluggish response, if not full out cover-up, by the Church. For the Church or its leaders to portray themselves as the victims at this moment, is beyond reprehensible, it actually lays the groundwork for further abuse.

continued below:

"This is no different than when leading members of the Jewish community have attempted to silence those who were sexually abused by rabbis. The arguments in defense of such behavior are the same as those made by many in the church, including, it now seems, by the Pope. "It's not as bad as they say", "the charges are motivated by anti-Semitism/anti-Catholicism", "we can handle this ourselves", and "if we don't keep it in the community, we will all undermine our community/church." It doesn't matter where those arguments are made, they are all grotesque.
Faithfulness is not proved with silence, raising a voice of moral conscience is not betrayal, admitting horrific abuses is not defeat, and public accountability is not gossip. Frankly, any religious community which doesn't know these things is neither genuinely religious or truly a community.
I don't know what the Pope should do, but I know that hiding behind the mantle of victimhood at moments such as these is what brings down communities and their sacred institutions. As well it should.
The "rock upon which the Church is built" could crumble if the Vatican doesn't figure that out soon, and so will those Jewish institutions which fall prey to the same ugly institutional protectionism which abets protecting abusive rabbis instead of their young victims."

peterhuff says: There are certain essentials that you cannot deny and still be a Christian, which I believe you never were otherwise you would still believe in Jesus Christ. You got tied up in the ideas of demigods, of those who are wise in their own eyes and suppress the truth of God (Romans 1:18). You have exchanged the truth, bought into the lie my friend, sad to say.

Sez you! Where do you get off?

Why am I bothering? OK - I'll try again. You accuse me of moral relativisim (a charge I accept fully, being a human being with all the limitations that brings - as opposed to someone with a hotline to a god somewhere). And then suggest that 1) there is an absolute definition of a Christian (do you have the faintest clue how stupid that sounds to those of us outside your spectacularly diuse club?) and b) even better, you definitively know what that is (presumably because you have some kind of hotline to your god?), and c) it gets better again, because eventually I rejected it, I never was a Christian! What an odious little man you are.

So: it would have been hard for anyone to deny that I was a Christian when I said I was. I myself was utterly convinced, I prayed, studied my bible, begged god on my knees for forgiveness for my sins - totally sincerely. And you, having never known me, want to say I wasn't a Christian because eventually I spotted that it was a big fraud? Blimey: no wonder Christians are un-popular!

Here's a thought: desparately wanting there to be an absolute source of truth doesn't make it happen. All you can do is the same as me: apply your intellect to the problem and come up with a solution. Why have you chosen your particular flavour of god - and not Zeus, Odin, Osiris, and of the Hindu gods etc? Because you have applied your brain to the situation and come to a conclusion. And those who do the same and come to a different conclusion are wrong? You are somehow specially ordained to get it right? What kind of god do you believe in? One that picks some people and rejects others?

If your god exists let the genocidal, rapacious, egotistical, psychotic, murderous coward and come and tell me so himself. Until such time...I am listening - but strangely it's very quiet.

peterhuff:

I'm not a philosopher, but it seems that if your "objective, absolute standard" of morality depends upon the free will of a god, then it wouldn't seem to be objective or absolute. It would seem to be subject to your god's free will and, therefore, also changeable.

For instance, I assume you think killing babies is wrong. But if your god commanded you to kill babies (as the Christian god apparently did on many occasions in their Old Testament); would you then think that killing babies was OK?

Why are monotheistic traditions (Christianity and Islam) unable to live in peace in pluralist societies?

It costs 145 billion dollars to operate global Christianity, records a book on evangelization. The Church commands 4,000,000 full time Christian workers, it runs 13,000 major libraries, it publishes 22,000 periodicals, it operates 1,800 Christian Radio and TV stations. It runs 1,500 universities and 930 research centers. It has 250,000 foreign missionaries and over 400 institutions to train them. These are 1989 numbers. No wonder Church needs Nazi gold looted from Jews of Europe and drug money to support this gigantic multinational operation.

Mahatma Gandhi wrote: "Only the other day a missionary descended on a famine area with money in his pocket, distributed it among the famine stricken, converted them to his fold, took charge of their temple, and demolished it. This is outrageous."

On November 6, 1999 Pope John Paul II in his sermon at the Sacred Heart Cathedral of New Delhi, INDIA, openly stated, "Just as in the first millennium the Cross was planted on the soil of Europe, and in the second on that of the Americas and Africa, we can pray that in the third Christian millennium, a great harvest of faith will be reaped in this vast and vital continent [Asia]"

This is a story from INDIA, where this - priests raping nuns and boys - disease is spreading like AIDS.

http://myexperimentsagainstprejudice.blogspot.com/2009/02/church-sex-and-scandals.html

JB: "Imagine the possibility that your particular flavour of god doesn't exist for a moment. Wouldn't your views then seem utterly disgusting - even to you? The judgement of minorities for eg. If he/she/it does exist - those views are still disgusting by the way."

Here you are making value judgments, such as what is and is not disgusting, but why is your standard THE one that all others "should" hark to? Why do you get to choose? What makes what you say true? These are questions that I suggest you look into more deeply. Then maybe you will come to your senses about God.

JB: "And let's be clear: the views you call biblical are debated ad-nauseam by theists (so aren't quite as clear cut as you want to believe in your sad insecurity),"

There are certain essentials that you cannot deny and still be a Christian, which I believe you never were otherwise you would still believe in Jesus Christ. You got tied up in the ideas of demigods, of those who are wise in their own eyes and suppress the truth of God (Romans 1:18). You have exchanged the truth, bought into the lie my friend, sad to say.

JB: "while we (who reject all of your sky fairies - not just all minus one like you) look on and wish you'd stop hurting the people in the society around you."

Another qualitative judgment - hurt. You can't stop imposing your morality, judging, implying that in all your wisdom you know when any of your actions are hurtful to others. Have you ever considered that your belief system may be hurtful to others? What are they learning from you and how do you know? How do you know? And truth may hurt when you are opposed to it, but is it better to believe something untrue?

Hi Jimmy-boy,

JB: "Hey peterhuff: if you were to pose an original or vaguely intelligent question I might think about trying to answer it. Until then I'll pick my toes perhaps."

Excuses.

It is not always the most interesting questions that we should be pursuing, but the ones that really matter, the ultimate ones. Sure you can go on picking your toes, but any worldview that doesn't or can't answer these ultimate questions is not worth listening to or believing in.

Why are we here, where did we come from, how do we know, what difference does it make, what happens when I die, why is there evil, what standard is right, is truth absolute, can you make sense of things without using logic? If none of these matter to you then do what you like, go out an have a good time. Eat, drink and be merry for as long as you can. Why waste your time replying to me on an On Faith Forum of all places?

No, you are here for a reason, either because you believe your worldview is superior to others, you enjoy idle philosophy and the ever changing ideas of men, or because you are looking for something that is true, looking for a clue for something that can actually make sense, that has purpose and meaning other than what you make it, something that is real.

JB: "I spent 30 years desparately trying to hold christian views in a single coherent world view. I concluded reluctantly that it's impossible to do so - and then realised how liberating it is to throw it all away and get rational for once."

Well, without an objective, absolute standard and reference - God - I would be interested to discover how you could ever arrive at reason or intent or purpose or life/existence. If you have no answers for those questions, or just choose to brush them off, so be it.

You see, God is necessary to make sense of anything ultimately, because of the impossibility of the contrary. An ever changing standard cannot be a meaningful measure for good or evil. How do you ever arrive at your qualitative standard, a measure of good without an objective, all knowing reference? Who decides it. Who decides what harms someone else? Can you tell that your actions that you meant for good (as you define it) will actually turn out that way?

This is where atheists keep falling on their faces (Sorry Richard). They have no suitable answers. Some just want followers so that their name can be immortalized as great thinkers. It is a power game. But their philosophy is empty. Look into it. Dissect it. Find out its substance.

Hey peterhuff: if you were to pose an original or vaguely intelligent question I might think about trying to answer it. Until then I'll pick my toes perhaps.

I spent 30 years desparately trying to hold christian views in a single coherent world view. I concluded reluctantly that it's impossible to do so - and then realised how liberating it is to throw it all away and get rational for once. And I am deeply ashamed of myself for (publicly) holding such silly views for so long - but glad that at least I grew up eventually.

Imagine the possibility that your particular flavour of god doesn't exist for a moment. Wouldn't your views then seem utterly disgusting - even to you? The judgement of minorities for eg. If he/she/it does exist - those views are still disgusting by the way.

And let's be clear: the views you call biblical are debated ad-nauseam by theists (so aren't quite as clear cut as you want to believe in your sad insecurity), while we (who reject all of your sky fairies - not just all minus one like you) look on and wish you'd stop hurting the people in the society around you.

Hi Danielinthelionsden (MARCH 31, 2010 2:06 PM),

What you are proposing is changing biblical ethics and adopting your own. As a follower of Jesus Christ as Lord, why should your ethics be adopted in place of God's in regards to gay marriage, sex before marriage, divorce or in any number of issues that you have with the Christian worldview and that are not biblical?

Obviously ordination in any religion is not assurance of good behavior !!!!!

And then we have those ordained in atheism via their own words, books and or/actions.

And no doubt there are plenty of pedophiles who are atheists.

Hopenow2004 said:

"Jimmy-boy, we get your revulsion and hostility, but how 'bout transfering some of that wasted emotion into compassion for the victims, suggestions for changes and reform in the Church, and prayer from the laity."

I have some suggestions for changes in the Roman Catholic Church.

First of all, lift the ostracism of gay people. It is unjust and mean in spirit. Regarding gay people as just people like everyone else should be easy enough, and should help open the closet for young Catholic gay men, help them to accept themselves more openly instead of feeling secret shame, and should neutralize the Priesthood as a way to atone for being gay, and as a good way to disguise being gay, reserving the Priesthood for more serious purposes.

Allow women to be Priests.

Allow Priests to marry.

Of course, these two suggestions lead to more complications and difficulties, such as Priests who end up unhappily married, and who might want a divorce; but hey, that is life, which must be dealt with. It is at least a better problem than pediphile Priests.

All doctrinal attitudes towards human sexuality should be revised and updated to conform with the consensus of knowledge that we now have, that a happy sex life makes for healthy well-adjusted people, and the suppression of sexual desire is not good, in itself.

And the business and governmental side of the Church also needs reform.

There should be a Catholic Parliment, with democratic features, with powers to help in selecting the Pope, who should have a single finite term of office, or a mandatory retirement age. And the Pope's authority should be revised so that the Pope is regarded as the traditional leader of the church whose opinion is consulted and well-regarded on most things.

And the nature of church dogma and authority needs to be revised, with ministries, councils, and seminars, to define and discuss theological matters of controvery and interest, for the purpose of expressing opinons, which may or may not be adopted as official Church opinion, rather than fundamentalist dogma. In short, the Church must recognize that a cafeteria is not evil, and the term Cafeteria Catholic could be a good thing, and not a bad thing.

And there needs to be a First or Primary Minister of the Church to manage its business and finances, separtely from matters of theology.

The issue is bigger than an ability to prove personal liability of this Pope. Indeed, the Church's culpability is a much wider issue.

Have a look at my book "Double Cross: The Code of the Catholic Church".

Hi Jimmy-boy,

Your tone suggests that you are not open or interested in answering the difficult question that your worldview poses. Am I right?

"Seems pretty obvious that one need not believe in God or gods to have a self-righteous, sanctimonious, holier-than-thou attitude, does it?"

Are you angry because he's working your side of the street?

"Take care, be ready."

Don't worry, be happy.

"Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum."

Insincerely, Peregrine Bartleby Rumpelstiltskin Solus

Seems pretty obvious that one need not believe in God or gods to have a self-righteous, sanctimonious, holier-than-thou attitude, does it?

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Obviously ordination in any religion is not assurance of good behavior !!!!!

Nothing for me to add here. Pretty much says it all.

And peterhuff - I for not one moment suggested your friend had no right to express his opinions. Atheists leave repression of other's views firmly with the theists.

We on the other hand believe strongly that everyone has a right to believe and express anything they like: arguments stand or fall on their merits without need for coercion (physical or mental). Interesting how you assumed I would want to stop expression of someone's views though. Opression and censorship are pretty deep in the theistic psyche clearly...

peterhuff - no idea who you are are you someone very special? Oooooh!!!) - but you are very much one of a type. A blinkered theist who has redefined the term evidence. The site you asked us to visit was a sad apologetic from an ex-atheist. The fact that someone is ex-something doesn't really add huge gravitas to their arguments by the way. It is the arguments themselves that are either persuasive or not. So I'm an ex-Christian - but I don't expect anyone to take any more notice of what I say as a result.

So the site posits apparently atheist arguments and then knocks them down: that's just pathetic. Really - go and read some atheist literature (having perhaps taken your blindfold and bridle off) and you will find that the points made on your friend's site have been pretty conclusively refuted (about a zillion times - which is perhaps why I and many others sound a bit exasperated to hear the same tired old theistic defences being trotted out: when can this debate move on????). So - fine: if you want to redefine the concept of 'evidence' - but surely you can see there is going to be some pretty strong reaction, particularly when it is tied to an attempt to propagate that same sad old set of middle eastern myths (all utterly ridiculous once that blindfold and bridle have come off). Right?

It's not that there is no evidence for the existence of your particular flavour of sky fairy: more compellingly, the evidence is massively against.

Hi again Jimmy-boy,

JB: "If you have to misrepresent atheism (spectacularly so) in order to defeat it you've lost before you start (obviously)."

I think you might be mistaking my thoughts as promoting an atheist site. That was not my intent if you read my thought again, think upon it the other way.

Hi Jimmy-boy (JB),

JB: "peterhuff please could you do a little bit of reading before posting in public? That is a really embaressingly poor website you directed us to."

No it is not.

JB: "If you have to misrepresent atheism (spectacularly so) in order to defeat it you've lost before you start (obviously). Honestly, the atheist world ate your poor arguments for breakfast a very long time ago."

Considering that Jim Wallace was an atheist until age 35, I think he has a right to speak of his experience and how his old worldview could not give the best or most adequate reason for what exists.

And I don't think I have misrepresented atheism. Not from my vantage point. In posting they always went out of their way to avoid the relevant questions, or couldn't explain them sufficiently.

JB: "There is nothing wrong with demanding evidence. In fact - what else is there other than speculation and sad folks like yourself?"

There is nothing wrong with looking at evidence, it is just the nature of that evidence and the bias that you come to it from. Is origins observable, repeatable or do we have to interpret trace or circumstantial evidence to arrive at our belief, and believe me, you have a belief that takes great faith.

I think more to the point is determining how you can know with certainty what you believe is true (epistemology). That includes reason, your inner experience and confirmation of the outer experience around you, and the practicality of your belief, as noted by Ronald Nash in Life's Ultimate Answers, p26-28. In order to do that it is also necessary to examine your highest authority. So who or what is it and what makes it/them/him/her true?

I like the argument Jim gave about the box and the trinket in the box as an analogy of the universe and matter. Did you listen to it or are you just angry with me that your view is challenged? Would you like to give an adequate explanation of how the trinket got in the box if no one put it there, and then how it came to be in the first place?

On your personal attack, how well do you know me?

peterhuff please could you do a little bit of reading before posting in public? That is a really embaressingly poor website you directed us to.

If you have to misrepresent atheism (spectacularly so) in order to defeat it you've lost before you start (obviously). Honestly, the atheist world ate your poor arguments for breakfast a very long time ago.

There is nothing wrong with demanding evidence. In fact - what else is there other than speculation and sad folks like yourself?

ignatius3 - the other organisations are getting their criticism too. But that's not the point. Should we have laid off criticising Pol Pot because Mobutu was pretty bad too?

Your attack disgusts me. And many right thinking, independent minded moral people who have not been brain washed (I use the term carefully) by Rome. Richard was quite mild in his criticism (as is his style in fact).

So you quote from a catholic web site - and suggest that we are missing the truth here? Do you know the word 'irony'?

If the attack is libellous let the pope sue Dawkins. He won't of course because Dawkins words here are mild compared with what Ratzinger deserves. And as for moral? Let no catholic ever use that word again while they stay within their church that has raped our children so rampantly. We will no longer be lectured to on morality by such an utterly evil and sick bunch of criminals.

"Why did today's prelates/preachers, so focused on society's sexual sins, lose sight of clerical sexual sins?
"
FEAR, SHAME and GUILT and COVER IT ALL UP!!!

And it goes even beyond the RCC:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah%27s_Witnesses_and_child_sex_abuse

“As with other religious organizations, Jehovah's Witnesses have been obliged in recent years to develop child protection policies to deal with cases of child abuse in their congregations. Details of the policy have been published in Jehovah's Witnesses' publications and press releases issued by their Office of Public Information.[1][2] Some details are found only in letters to elders which, while solely for internal use, have been made available on the Internet.”

“Facing calls to curb child sex abuse within its churches, in June the Southern Baptist Convention — the largest U.S. religious body after the Catholic Church — urged local hiring committees to conduct federal background checks but rejected a proposal to create a central database of staff and clergy who have been either convicted of or indicted on charges of molesting minors. The SBC decided against such a database in part because its principle of local autonomy means it cannot compel individual churches to report any information. And while the headlines regarding churches and pedophilia remain largely focused on Catholic parishes, the lack of hierarchical structure and systematized record-keeping in most Protestant churches makes it harder not only for church leaders to impose standards, but for interested parties to track allegations of abuse."

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1855948_1861760_1862212,00.html#ixzz0jg0lEyZj

I am not an atheist, more like a radical agnostic - so I don't know what Dawkins might think of me and my take on faith. I don't much care either.

But he's pretty much on target here. The human race, especially Catholics, have nothing to lose from the collapse of the Catholic Church, an institution exactly as corrupt as it is ancient. IMO, the same goes for all organized religions, but it's a bit more obvious in this case.

It is surprising how few comments in this forum have come to defend the RCC and the Pope. I see a justified moral outrage from most of the participants. The ashamed silence of those who the RCC is trying to get support from, is much more eloquent.

YOU ARE INVITED TO PARTICIPATE IN A NEW BLOG…

…that tackles Church abuse, separation of Church and State, Atheism, Buddhism, Existentialism….

Just posted:

CONCEPTS + LOGIC = KNOWLEDGE, by Blacksun
MAN AND REASON, by Randall Duncan
RATZINGER’S VATICAN: SEX, LIES AND SECRETS, by Emily Helm.
THE NEW BUDDHIST ATHEISM, by Mark Vernon

http://theexistentialatheist.blogspot.com/

“The only way to cure the cancer of Catholicism, and stop the pedophilia, is to begin each ceremony of ordination to the deaconate with castration.”

Just look into a scientific religion as given in the link http://sowingseedsofthought.blogspot.com/2010/03/scientific-validation-of-vedas-by.html
Is there anything scientifc like this, these Papacy folks atleast stood for, forget about practising it ? All it stood for was some superfluous customes like Celibacy which don't have any meaning in the absence of complementing lifestyle? How these folks can inhibit basic human desires after having Non-vegetarian foods and spreading lies ! The end result is there for us to see all over the world.

If the Catholic Church ended the practice of priest celibacy, would that put an end to the recent scandal? No, in fact even if the priests put an end to the practice of child rape and the systematic cover-up of such crimes that would still not end this scandal.

For a long time it has been known that the Catholic Church has been obstructing justice. They have moved criminal priests from city to city, country to country so that they could avoid prosecution for their crimes.

You can read the rest of my response to this topic:
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-8928-Philadelphia-Atheism-Examiner~y2010m3d30-On-Faith-Is-the-Pope-above-the-law

I will be responding to every issue posted in the 'On Faith' section. If you would like to be notified when my new response is up, please subscribe.

I am a practicing Christian, but not RCC. My horror and rage at this despicable situation has nearly consumed me. The Bishop of Rome, sometimes known as the 'pope', is supposed to be the Servant of the Servants of God. Instead he has become the Pimp of Pederasts. The RCC hierarchy, in their shielding of criminals, has defiled the message of Christ. They have done the equivalent of pissing right on the Gospels. If anything, Dawkins was holding back with his criticism.

Hi Richard,

There is obviously something wrong with an aberrant Christian institution that lets its clergy get away with such crimes. I agree with you in this respect. But taking it to the next level, where does your authority to judge these ethical issues come from - convention or evolving standards, or are you, yourself, the authority that makes the final judgment?

This has always been the biggest issue I have with atheism. There is no objective qualitative measure or reference point. It is unable to come up with one, and yet the system or belief called atheism wants its say on the world stage. It is morally bankrupt.

I would invite you to look at a site called 'Please Convince Me' under atheism for some good refutations of the atheist's ability to answer the important, ultimate, vital questions in life.

http://www.pleaseconvinceme.com/index/mn37357/The_Popularity_of_Atheism

http://downloads.pleaseconvinceme.com/files/10%20Past%20iTunes%20Podcasts/PCM%20Podcast%2086%20-%20Can%20Science%20Explain%20the%20Origin%20of%20Life.mp3

These are the questions that atheist's should be asking themselves.

Wow, apparently the truth is not of interest to most here, to whom any stick, whether imaginary or real, is good enough to bash the Catholic Church with.

And to think that people deride us Catholics for not thinking for ourselves. A "leering old villain" has indeed been exposed here, but it isn't the Pope.

In case anyone is actually interested in the truth, and not just feeding their hatred with well-spun lies, read the NYT opinion piece in the New York Times today by John Allen, and the article by the priest who was actually in charge of the Father Murphy trial (below)

http://catholicanchor.org/wordpress/?p=601

There is plenty of blame to go around and the anger at the Church is justified (though one might wonder where is the equivalent anger for the many other organizations who covered up, and in many cases continue to cover up, sexual abuse), but Pope Benedict XVI is an unfair target who had nothing to do with the Fr. Murphy case. Archbishop Weakland and the Milwaukee diocese has to take the full share of blame on that one.

This attack is libelous and immoral.

Once again:

I doubt the Catholic Church survives much longer considering the constant barrage of sexual abuse cases around the globe and the obvious flaws and errors in the theology and history of Catholicism and Christianity in general.

A thorough review of the abuse situation has been posted at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_sex_abuse_cases .

It is suggested everyone reads this review to see at least what the USA Catholic Church has or is doing about the situation.

An excerpt:

"In a statement, read out by Archbishop Silvano Maria Tomasi in September 2009, the Holy See stated "We know now that in the last 50 years somewhere between 1.5% and 5% of the Catholic clergy has been involved in sexual abuse cases," adding that this figure was comparable with that of other groups and denominations."

"The report found that 10,667 people had made allegations of child sexual abuse between 1950 and 2002. Of these, 3,300 were not investigated because the allegations were made after the accused priest had died.[citation needed] After investigating the remaining 7,700 allegations, the dioceses were able to substantiate 6,700 accusations against 4,392 priests in the USA, about 4% of all 109,694 priests who served during the time period covered by the study. The known number of abuses increased in the 1960s, peaked in the 1970s, declined in the 1980s and by the 1990s had returned to the levels of the 1950s.[14]"

And stop imagining "defensive" and "apologetic" dust bunnies under the bed when they clearly aren't there.
Posted by: hopenow2004

Let's see now:

It was the parent's fault (what a charmer old Bill Donohue is)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2fBqeYK1Yo&feature=player_embedded

Or 'leave us alone: everyone had their hand in the cookie jar' - from the Arch-Diocese of NY (what big names these lovely chappies think up for their institutions...)

http://blog.archny.org/?p=581

Or the lovely, it's petty gossip (from his royal rape-protectorist, Ratzi himself)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/mar/28/pope-benedict-sexual-abuse-scandal

So - hmmm...let me think: is the RCC hierarchy publicly taking down the structures that systematically protect child rapists all over the world or... are the RCC phone lines buzzing with calls to and from the big boys trying to work out damage limitation tactics? I wonder now...

hopenow2004 - you have no idea of the extent of my hostility to the Catholic church and revulsion to its exploitation. I was brought up to be a priest. Sent to a boarding school run by Irish clergy. My headmaster went to prison for abusing children (no help - just obstruction - from the church when it came to prosecuting him of course). So - actually: I have every sympathy for the victims - which means I am committed to ending the cycle of violence and abuse against them, and that means exposing the RCC and the evil that it represents.

I am now an aid worker and I see the damage being done in the name of their sky fairy all over the world. I was there in Rwanda - where the Catholic clergy were at the forefront of the genocide. Just stray individuals - not the church? (It's the usual argument). But no: led by priests, nuns and bishops who the vatican has since protected. (This reports the official response to one trial http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1380348.stm)

I have seen with my own eyes the deaths from Catholic wives in Africa and the far east, dead from Aids infection given by their husbands - told that they cannot use a condom by a bunch of sick old murderers in dresses with screwed up notions about sex (which is generally why they joined an organisation that insists on celibacy, of course).

My revulsion and hostility to this sick empire go far. My sympathy for the poor victims of their abuse on the other hand is not testified to in words.

Pretty good, but for an even stronger response there's Pat Condell's latest Youtube video, "Is Satan A Catholic?"

The Catholic Church is one of the most destructive organizations in the history of the world, if not THE most.

The harshest criticism is much too mild.

It is monstrous, and the pope is as vile as it gets.

My, what a paragon of dispassionate reason this Dawkins be!

Jimmy-boy, we get your revulsion and hostility, but how 'bout transfering some of that wasted emotion into compassion for the victims, suggestions for changes and reform in the Church, and prayer from the laity.

And stop imagining "defensive" and "apologetic" dust bunnies under the bed when they clearly aren't there.

hopenow2004 - it takes a Catholic to turn criticism of serial child rapists and the hierarchy that protects them into (a beautiful choice) child abuse! Wonderful! Until pew catholics hold their criminal and despotic leaders to account, the abuse will continue. Get this: we are completely, utterly, totally, mind-drainingly, body-sappingly sick and tired of post-hoc apologies (and now defensive criticism!) from an organisation which, ironically, claims to have devine moral authority.

Brown 4, you at least make your points cogently and with civilility compared to the skateboard punk, ad hominem attacks that the self-proclaimed "brights" such as Dawkins engage in.

The Chinese character for "crisis" and "opportunuty" is the same . Hopefully this crisis in the Church will bring about the changes in leadership and policy which you and many others suggest should occur.

Nice one, Richard!
Stick it to 'em!

Professor Dawkins makes a strong case--and a simple historical point illuminates the problem further. The Catholic Church has never accepted the authority of civil law over it and its priests-- neither does it accept the legitimacy of any law to which it objects. As God's representative on Earth, the Church believes its authority outweighs that of any human, secular form of government. So it's hardly surprising that the Church has chosen, over and over, to conceal crimes, especially crimes against victims it could keep silent. There are indeed some wonderfully good and kind individuals in it. It would be nice if they could somehow gain control and bring the institution to accept the limits to its authority and behave responsibly and lawfully-- but the underlying assumption, that the Church is the sole representative and interpreter of God to humanity, would inevitably corrupt even a perfectly reformed Church. The deepest sin of the Church is its absolute authoritarianism--until that is given up, Pope Benedict, erstwhile head of the inquisition and the ongoing cover-up (including threats excommunication against whistle-blowers, but never acting against abusers and their enablers) will remain the perfect leader.

Besides his trademark puerile hostility and tortuous casuistry, the creepiest aspect to Dawkins harangue is his lack of compassion toward the abuse victims. He is so consumed with his Catholic Church "gotcha" moment that he seems to consider the molested children as mere collateral damage in his infantile crusade against the Vatican.

That is truly sick!

@Philip Lyndon Saunders - let's see, the Catholic church has been closing their eyes to institutionalized child rape for freaking DECADES, all over the world, and the problem here... is that pointing that out isn't sufficiently "classy"? Right. Thanks for clearing that up.

What is On Faith? Let's ask the Post:

"And so, in a time of extremism....how can people engage in a conversation about faith and its implications in a way that sheds light rather than generates heat? At The Washington Post and Newsweek, we believe the first step is conversation-intelligent, informed, eclectic, respectful conversation-among specialists and generalists who devote a good part of their lives to understanding and delineating religion's influence on the life of the world. The point of our new online religion feature is to provide a forum for such sane and spirited talk..."

What am I missing?

Given the enormity of the offenses and the ensuing cover up, I'd say that Professor Dawkins has been the epitome of restraint. I had the good fortune to meet Prof. Dawkins last year and I have never met anyone less shrill. He was polite, pleasant and soft spoken. If he is in any way offensive, it's because some folks don't like having someone point out their flaws in a clean mirror.

But look at the situation itself. If this had been the dictator of a small country and his ambassadors had been caught committing acts of child abuse then claiming diplomatic immunity, the world would be calling for his head. But because it's the leader of a powerful church, its followers turn a blind eye and insist that the rest of the world do the same.

I challenge those defending the Pope and the actions of the church to really, really consider what they're defending. No, I wouldn't say that you are defending child molestation. But you are defending wholesale whitewashing that makes the Watergate affair look like a kid caught stealing an extra cookie. If it weren't for civil cases, there would be little punishment for the offenders.

The only way to make this better is for the church to clean up its own mess, own up to its offenses and get on about its business. Until they do, I simply refer them to Matthew 23:27-28.

@Philip Lyndon Saunders
"That certain priests abused children is the fault of the priests who abused children; not the catholic church."
True, however that these priests are put again in a position where they can commit their abuse again, and are just covered for their previous ones, is nobody else's fault but the church.
"Should it really be slandered for trying it's best to find a path, no matter if it's a scientifically inaccurate one, but a path nonetheless, to achieving peace and happiness for the people of the Earth? Is that so evil? " When your unscientific approach leads to advice people that condoms are unnecessary and a sin, and thus risks AIDS spreading in a continent already devastated by the virus, it is not evil, it is criminally evil.

Philip Lyndon Saunders,

I really think that it is you who is causing a problem here. You are trying to find flaws in one of the world's most renound athiest writers. Richard Dawkins, actually, shows excellent writing skills whilst proving his point of view. It is clear and decisive and portrays his views on the latest scandal of the catholic church. Dawkins has simply written a short piece about his perspective on the Pope and his actions, he has not made any historical errors and really, the pope does come out on his balcony wearing some pretty wacky outfits.

His article is brief and clear as are his points of view. Through his writing, Dawkins is able to keep it 'classy' as you put it by not using such long and extensive language. That in itself is a gift that not many writers possess.

Perhaps you should go over the article on last time.

Also, if you are going to try and write an essay in your comment, you might want to go over your format. Actually, just steer away from that genre all together. I know I have in this comment because Dawkins writing skills are very, very good.

@DUTCHDOC
The coment was "LIKE... Jerry Falwell" et al, not "Such as ...." One can resemble a deceased person.

Excellent comments, Professor. Leering old villain, indeed. What a disgusting human being he is.

A more balanced, fair and accurate assessment of Benedict. Completely exculpatory in NY Times

http://nyti.ms/aIRVxW

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/28/opinion/28allen.html

The more germane question is what are the civil authorities going to do given the overwhelming evidence for a history of judicial obstruction in the Vatican State that has been building up for many years now.

One cannot underestimate just how important this matter is for civil and international law. Giving Vatican State authorities a pass on this matter will only help to enshrine a dangerous and illegal relationship between the Vatican State and international laws which criminalize such activities. Vatican State authorities have so far claimed institutional embarrassment as their motive for obstruction, however this is to be expected of any corporate organization faced with such evidence and should not constitute a reasonable defense for a lack of trial.

It is being suggested in many quarters that Joseph Ratzinger be held legally accountable, as head of the organization and as one the principle defendants. Such a trial would most likely need to occur in an international court, or with sufficient political will, through some means of extradition. It has often been claimed that such a trial would put belief in god on trial as well, however no mention of god need ever be made during the proceedings. Such a trial need only focus on the culpability of the defendants, as is proper.

It is hoped that someone, somewhere is putting together this case for international court, whether it comes to fruition or not. The political will may not be there to put Joseph Ratzinger on trial, however the legal exercise at least would sent a strong message.

I don't understand catholics defending their church. In case they hadn't notice it is their children being raped and abused while the institution covered it up. Were angry because what was being done to their children. Why don't they care? Don't they have any morals?

Philip Lyndon Saunders, your concern is very much appreciated. In fact, it is so widely appreciated, the superb atheist blogger Greta Christina has written an essay just for you, expressing how much your advice is appreciated.
You can read it here:

Please read it. And thank you.

So now if you can find your keys you can find any of your storage devices, provide you can get close enough to hear the beep, and the device isn't in a Faraday shield.

Philip Lyndon Saunders, your concern is very much appreciated. In fact, it is so widely appreciated, the superb atheist blogger Greta Christina has written an essay just for you, expressing how much your advice is appreciated.
You can read it here.

Please read it. And thank you.

"This former head of the Inquisition should be arrested the moment he dares to set foot outside his tinpot fiefdom of the Vatican..."

Keep it classy Richard. It seems to me you've become so blinded with hate and spite you can barely suppress your glee at any opportunity to nail the catholic church. Once these tactics were disarming and shocking; now they have become plain obnoxious. I personally am not a member of the catholic but... come on. "A leering old villain in a frock?" "Amid a stench of incense and a rain of tourist-kitsch sacred hearts and preposterously crowned virgins?" Again, keep it classy.

This kind of language is phenomenally unhelpful. It's divisive, short-sighted, and for a man who proclaims to be an intellect, remarkably ineffective. You will never get anywhere by sneering and insulting people; all you will get is further divides. You will only get people's back up and put them on the defensive when you attack them in such a manner.

That certain priests abused children is the fault of the priests who abused children; not the catholic church. It is the individual wayward priests who should tried and put in jail, not the organisation. Why should an organisation be punished for telling everyone to love your fellow man and live virtuously? Should it really be slandered for trying it's best to find a path, no matter if it's a scientifically inaccurate one, but a path nonetheless, to achieving peace and happiness for the people of the Earth? Is that so evil? Child-abusers come in all walks of life, and yes, they are evil. And in an organisation of the scale of the church, with over a billion members, there is bound to be some evil bastards among their ranks. But they don't represent the majority.

Again, thanks for keeping it classy.

Philip Lyndon Saunders

make sure he gets the message, everyone else did...

http://engforum.pravda.ru/showthread.php?t=280780

Einstein puts the final nail in the coffin of atheism...

*************************************

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V7vpw4AH8QQ

*************************************

atheists deny their own life element...

LIGHT
.....

Richard Dawkins,

You are a blaspheming little man who didn't expect that the impossible was possible....

http://engforum.pravda.ru/showthread.php?t=280780

you can't keep the church out of politics or children's pants. Arrest the guilty and close this mess down. Fundamentalists, you terrorists are next.

Imagine if a large organization such as a bank was to be guilty of the same sort of crimes; child rapers being moved from branch to branch, counseling being given to the rapers instead of jail time, threats and intimidation the only solace for the victims, while all the while the CEO and the VPs conspire to keep the crimes of their employees secret, even taking out insurance policies in the event they are caught.

Would they deserve jail time for their Watergate-like cover-up?

Jail the Pope.

When I was raped by a priest in 1964, the police wouldn't investigate, the DA wouldn't prosecute and the Church wouldn't do anything. The archbishop "passed the pervert" to another parish where he raped again.

As I write this 46 years later, little has changed.

What kind of a God would let this go on and let these perverts and the Church that hides them get away with this?

Further proof there is no grouchy-old-man-with-a-beard-in-the-sky-who-fries-his-babies-in-hell-and-looks-the-other-way-while-they're-buggered Catholic version of "god"

Next time the Pope sets foot on US soil, he must be arrested for racketeering in the case of 200 deaf boys molested in Wisconsin.

Demand our public officials uphold US civil law. These old, pointy-hat, pervert-hiders are not above our laws.

On February 1, 1991, former Nebraska state senator John DeCamp filed a civil suit on behalf of Paul Bonacci, against the Catholic Archbishop of Omaha and Lawrence E. King, as well as businessmen Peter Citron, Alan Baer, Harold Andersen, Michael Hoch, Kenneth Bovasso and other Nebraska persons and institutions.

Paul A. Bonacci won a default judgment of $800,000 in compensatory damages and $200,000 in punitive damages in the civil action against Lawrence E. King in which the petition alleged kidnapping, mind control, satanic ritual abuse, sexual abuse, and various alleged personal injuries, both physical and psychological. The judge did not rule on these allegations, but merely ruled on the motion for default judgment.

Google "The Franklin Cover Up' This conspiracy not is only of the Church including Boys Town, but of the FBI and pedophile Republican politicians and lobbyists who arranged late night tours of the White House for their victims.

Last time the (last) pope came here (UK) he was cheered. This time, I think it'll be different: he'll have things thrown at him.

Hi Richard,

"the whole profiteering, woman-fearing, guilt-gorging, truth-hating, child-raping institution..."

You forgot 'gay-loathing'.

I guess that's why it's called the 'Catholic' church -- it has attitudes to offend everyone.

I completely agree with Richard Dawkins. Richard - if you are reading this, please try to ignore the idiocy expressed in many of the responses to your article. The truth generally 'outs' anyway.

Richard Dawkins is using language appropriate to these disgusting crimes and their subsequent cover-up. It reflects his revulsion at a Pope and Church that still seems more concerned with its own reputation and not the young lives that have been scarred.

Anyone who finds Dawkins' remarks offensive does not grasp the enormity of these crimes. Priests were (and no doubt somewhere still are) raping children and the hierarchy was colluding in this by not referring the rapists to a civil court but instead shielding them and often enabling them to rape again. This is indefensible.

make sure he gets the message, everyone else did...

http://engforum.pravda.ru/showthread.php?t=280780

Einstein puts the final nail in the coffin of atheism...

*************************************

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V7vpw4AH8QQ

*************************************

atheists deny their own life element...

LIGHT

Richard Dawkins,

You are blaspheming little man who didn't expect that the impossible was possible....

http://engforum.pravda.ru/showthread.php?t=280780

the Death of Atheism

http://engforum.pravda.ru/showthread.php?t=280780

Einstein puts the final nail in the coffin of atheism...

atheists deny their own life element...

LIGHT OR DEATH, ATHEISTS?

Richard Dawkins indulged himself by writing a latter day Titus Oates rant and the Washington Post indulged him by printing it. Had Dawkins confined himself to explaining what we humans call "child sex abuse" is right but our close evolutionary relatives the bonabos are at night and day regardless of age . It might have some interest. However, I would take it as a heavenly sign should a 38 year old man accuse Dawkins of having molested him 25 years ago and I would beleive it in a second.

@Thurgood: Jerry Falwell isn't going to fill any gap: he died 3 years ago.

Surely reputable scientists ought to present creative, constructive and practical ideas to help society solve problems, rather than just spew invective.

Could not the Vatican provide priests with contact info for dating services specializing in "barely 18" males? The porn industry seems to have no difficulty locating this talent.

And what about linkages with manufacturers of increasingly life-like sex dolls? These companies focus on female designs, but the Vatican surely has the purchasing clout to encourage development of quality male teen / pre-teen product.

Are there surgical techniques for reversible castration?

What about penile engorgement measuring devices to assist risk assessment (to be administered during the taking of vows)?

Catholics will surely continue to need confessors and choirmasters. Let the scientific community focus on how science can help religion solve its problems, rather than shrill and divisive obsession with water under the bridge, and semen beyond the sphincter.

Unfortunately, Richard, the downfall of the Church of Rome will create vacuum. Protestant scamsters like Ted Haggard, Jerry Falwell, Rick Warren, Pat Robertson, Benny Hinn, and faith healing cheats like Paul Dinakaran, Ezra Sargunam, etc., will rush to fill the gap. To some extent that is already happening. While some Catholics have left the Church and Christianity, many more Catholics have left to join the more shadowy Protestant churches.

The thing is, this is mild rhetoric compared to what we see directed at pedophiles in general. Our political relationship with pedophilia is bizarre. When individuals engage in child rape, we prosecute them to the full extent of the law and restrict where they can live and some people even support using the death penalty on them. But when it's the Catholic Church engaging in mass-scale institutionally-tolerated child rape, verbal attacks like Dawkins' here are controversial all of the sudden. Somewhere in the debate over pedophilia, there must be a legal middle ground where the bit-too-kindly old priest and the creepy child-stalking pervert can be given the same reasonable level of punishment.

Talk about speaking truth to power!!!

wow - I thought my comments were strong.