Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Recency  | 
Page:  « First  ‹ Previous  1 2 3 4 5 (5 total)
05:18 PM on 04/19/2010
Once again, a religion apologist wastes what little social capital they have left, taking pot-shots a the messenger. It's really amazing. I have said it before and will inevitably have to say it again: the pope should not be arrested for enabling pedophiles and protecting them from justice, because Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens or anyone else says so. He should be arrested because he enabled pedophiles and protected them from justice. And the more the church, and its supporters continue to try to sell themselves as the victims here, the more people are going to see it for the fraud it really is.
05:05 PM on 04/19/2010
So if Dawkins is a clown, I assume you'll lower the rating on the church officials that shuffled pedophiles and didn't report them as well? They don't get a pass just because they wear funny hats.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
04:38 PM on 04/19/2010
This piece sounds like it was written by a church official desperately trying to defend the criminals at the church who are covering up horrible crimes.
05:48 PM on 04/19/2010
04:21 PM on 04/19/2010
He did NOT turn himself into a clown. He is still the smartest and brightest star of reason I know of.
My personal data = No Sale
04:10 PM on 04/19/2010
If someone with the prominence and intellect of Dawkins doesn't stand up to the Pope and the Church-sanctioned abuses of young children brought about by so many priests, my question is who will? Or who should? Certainly there are no priests, bishops, or cardinals willing to stand up to Rome. There are no lay persons groups with the clout to try and get the Church to address these vile practices (both the abuse and the systematic protection of those who commit it) and work seriously for change.

So Dawkins uses an attention-grabbing claim that the Pope should be arrested to continue the focus (finally) brought to bear on this subject by more of the media. So what?

The rest of the article is rubbish, when the reader realizes that it's nothing more than another attempt to make Dawkins and the pursuit of reason seem pointless against the "inevitability" of faith. Of course faith might be based in our brains, we lived with it for millions of years. And of course we might still need it, even in an age of reason, like many of the other purely vestigial organs our bodies posses. That still doesn't make religion a requirement for evolution. It's more likely that it's just another hurdle to it, in fact.
11:05 PM on 04/19/2010
Religions are slowly being relegated to their true place in society. It isn't because they are under attack by Dawkins, Hitchens, et al, but because they are constantly acting like, and demonstrating that they are mere political and social organizations.
That's fine if they stick to those arenas. There are 'good works' to be done, (especially by the gals).
Attempting to be the 'divine' consciences for us all, or the overseers of sexual conduct (which appears to be an obsession with them) is what has them show up like they do.

The days are gone when the churches 'old boys club' could persecute their detractors. The fear of the sword, the stake, etc. and religious tribunals kept them powerful, but now you need to show a more human side where it isn't about some god's wrath. This means they have nothing left in their little bag of tricks to use to impose their subservience.

You'd think that after a couple thousand years, someone in the organization would look around and ponder, "Well, damn! This experiment ain't working! Anybody got any fresh ideas from god lately?"
02:44 PM on 04/20/2010
Yes. Particularly lame is the notion that religion is good for you because it helps your brain's serotonin cycle. Pills would be cheaper and easier in all respects if so.