Richard Dawkins planning to have Pope Benedict arrested over 'crimes against humanity
Posted by: Sniper on 11 April 2010
Richard Dawkins planning to have Pope Benedict arrested over 'crimes against humanity'
Well well....
Vatican cardinals claim sex abuse claims have been orchestrated by enemies of the Pope
Oh dear oh dear.
Vatican insiders declare the Pope a 'disaster'
The thing I don't understand is why anyone in the Vatican ever thought that this ghastly man would ever be anything other than a complete disaster.
Well well....
Vatican cardinals claim sex abuse claims have been orchestrated by enemies of the Pope
Oh dear oh dear.
Vatican insiders declare the Pope a 'disaster'
The thing I don't understand is why anyone in the Vatican ever thought that this ghastly man would ever be anything other than a complete disaster.
Posted on: 12 April 2010 by Mick P
Sniper
Would you be kind enough to predict the outcome of this.
Regards
Mick
Would you be kind enough to predict the outcome of this.
Regards
Mick
Posted on: 12 April 2010 by DAVOhorn
Oh Dear Oh Dear,
More denials of the abhorrent behaviour of members of its clergy.
The church is doomed unless it can prove to its adherents that the conduct of its clergy is beyond reproach.
If half of what i have read is true then the current pope has prevented the legal process in the name of The Church.
This church is not worthy of anyones allegiance.
More denials of the abhorrent behaviour of members of its clergy.
The church is doomed unless it can prove to its adherents that the conduct of its clergy is beyond reproach.
If half of what i have read is true then the current pope has prevented the legal process in the name of The Church.
This church is not worthy of anyones allegiance.
Posted on: 12 April 2010 by Tarquin Maynard - Portly
Does Dawkin have a new book to publicise?
Posted on: 12 April 2010 by Roy T
Perhaps his latest wife may be in a forthcoming Dr Who episode?
Posted on: 12 April 2010 by Mike Dudley
Ratzinger, the revolting protector of priestly paedophiles, is having his little propaganda excercise paid for by the British Taxpayer, wether we like it or not.
Frankly, I'm glad that someone has the kahonas to take on this evil little squirt and his disgusting church. You will notice that Chris Hitchens is also involved, although for some reason he doesn't seem to attract the sort of opprobrium meted out to Richard Dawkins...
How about a few comments on the incredibly awful things that HE'S done as well, which, like Richard's book writing, obviously pale the crimes of the catholic church and it's CEO into insignificance. Don't they.
Frankly, I'm glad that someone has the kahonas to take on this evil little squirt and his disgusting church. You will notice that Chris Hitchens is also involved, although for some reason he doesn't seem to attract the sort of opprobrium meted out to Richard Dawkins...
How about a few comments on the incredibly awful things that HE'S done as well, which, like Richard's book writing, obviously pale the crimes of the catholic church and it's CEO into insignificance. Don't they.
Posted on: 12 April 2010 by Tarquin Maynard - Portly
Given that the Pope tried to cover up crimes to avouid embarrasing the Church, I'd suggest his days in post are numbered.
Stand by for a sudden illness severe enough to warrant a resignation.
Stand by for a sudden illness severe enough to warrant a resignation.
Posted on: 12 April 2010 by Howlinhounddog
quote:Stand by for a sudden illness severe enough to warrant a resignation
Not resignation Mike, however a bout of something that requires him to take to his bed...and then.
John Paul the 1st all over again.
Posted on: 12 April 2010 by JWM
Ah. more from the anti-Catholic conspiracy. You lot ought to read a bit more widely than the chatterati views that simply confirm your own prejudices.
Posted on: 12 April 2010 by 151
its a fact that the pope and some of his bum chums tried to cover up there in house filth there is no acceptable excuse for this, but that has nothing to do with being against the good Catholics.
Posted on: 12 April 2010 by BigH47
Mongo you MUST come down on one side or the other. 
I'm with you this scandal has been going for far to long, it's been minimalised and many attempts made to sweep it under the carpet.
I'm sure there are bum bandits in other churches, but usually they have a sanctioned outlet for their trouser problems.
Maybe it's time for the RC church to re-interpret some of it's dogma, maybe an accurate version the big mans words might a useful place to start, some other religions might also benefit from this too.
I'm with you this scandal has been going for far to long, it's been minimalised and many attempts made to sweep it under the carpet.
I'm sure there are bum bandits in other churches, but usually they have a sanctioned outlet for their trouser problems.
Maybe it's time for the RC church to re-interpret some of it's dogma, maybe an accurate version the big mans words might a useful place to start, some other religions might also benefit from this too.
Posted on: 12 April 2010 by Tarquin Maynard - Portly
quote:Originally posted by JWM:
Ah. more from the anti-Catholic conspiracy. You lot ought to read a bit more widely than the chatterati views that simply confirm your own prejudices.
"anti-Catholic conspiracy"?
Just because some people happen to view the delays by Ratzinger in dealing with a paedophile Priest as worthy of comment neither makes a conspiracy, nor does it make his actions any the less questionable.
The Church even let him stay a Priest after he'd served three years for child abuse, and he actually had to ask to be removed from the Priesthood following his prison spell.
You ought to read a bit more widely.
For example:
Documents obtained by the AP last week revealed similar instances of Vatican stalling in cases involving two Arizona clergy.
In one case, the future pope took over the abuse case of the Rev. Michael Teta of Tucson, Ariz., then let it languish at the Vatican for years despite repeated pleas from the bishop for the man to be removed from the priesthood.
In the second, the bishop called Msgr. Robert Trupia a "major risk factor" in a letter to Ratzinger. There is no indication in those files that Ratzinger responded.
The Vatican has called the accusations "absolutely groundless" and said the facts were being misrepresented.
Posted on: 12 April 2010 by 151
your not seriously suggesting it didnt happen and of course what makes it worse is that the perpetrators supposedly believe in a god how sick is that, sick beyond belief dirty evil bastards .quote:Originally posted by JWM:
Ah. more from the anti-Catholic conspiracy. You lot ought to read a bit more widely than the chatterati views that simply confirm your own prejudices.
Posted on: 12 April 2010 by JWM
quote:Originally posted by Mike Lacey:quote:Originally posted by JWM:
Ah. more from the anti-Catholic conspiracy. You lot ought to read a bit more widely than the chatterati views that simply confirm your own prejudices.
"anti-Catholic conspiracy"?
Just because some people happen to view the delays by Ratzinger in dealing with a paedophile Priest as worthy of comment neither makes a conspiracy, nor does it make his actions any the less questionable.
The Church even let him stay a Priest after he'd served three years for child abuse, and he actually had to ask to be removed from the Priesthood following his prison spell.
You ought to read a bit more widely.
For example:
Documents obtained by the AP last week revealed similar instances of Vatican stalling in cases involving two Arizona clergy.
In one case, the future pope took over the abuse case of the Rev. Michael Teta of Tucson, Ariz., then let it languish at the Vatican for years despite repeated pleas from the bishop for the man to be removed from the priesthood.
In the second, the bishop called Msgr. Robert Trupia a "major risk factor" in a letter to Ratzinger. There is no indication in those files that Ratzinger responded.
The Vatican has called the accusations "absolutely groundless" and said the facts were being misrepresented.
The recent reports in the press about American cases have been highly selective, many UK papers having simply regurgitated the partial coverage of the NY Times and others. They have conveniently ignored subsequent statements by officers involved at the time.
It is also a matter of record that in these cases, the vile individuals were removed from public office. De-frocking or laicisation should not be confused with removal from office.
My point is that this whole issue (which most certainly is not limited to the Church or any religious organisation, and in fact proportionately most is in the secular sphere - is a complex one) and not one that should be argued on the basis of sensationalist headlines and partial coverage by a press with a particular agenda.
Oh, and I am not a Roman Catholic.
Posted on: 12 April 2010 by 151
i have read many posts by jwm and was shocked at this one it seems to be out of caracter
for him i can only think he must be having a bad day i cant believe
he meant it quite the way it came across.
for him i can only think he must be having a bad day i cant believe
he meant it quite the way it came across.
Posted on: 12 April 2010 by Richard Dane
Let's keep it clean and to the point please. I've already had to delete one post here, if you can't moderate your language then something tells me that it won't be long before this thread disappears...
Posted on: 12 April 2010 by mongo
quote:Originally posted by Richard Dane:
Let's keep it clean and to the point please. I've already had to delete one post here, if you can't moderate your language then something tells me that it won't be long before this thread disappears...
There was nothing wrong with my 'language' in the post.
It was simply honest and harsh.
Richard you appear to believe you moderate a children's forum.
I am embarassed for and by you.
Will you delete this too?
BB lives here.
Double plus good.
Posted on: 12 April 2010 by 151
its bound to get a little heated with some strong language when it comes to church men sodomizing children.quote:Originally posted by Richard Dane:
Let's keep it clean and to the point please. I've already had to delete one post here, if you can't moderate your language then something tells me that it won't be long before this thread disappears...
Posted on: 12 April 2010 by Richard Dane
Mongo, no need to be embarrassed for me.
As it happens, when it comes to moderation I have to consider every member here. Just because you may not find some language offensive doesn't mean others won't as well. I give quite a bit of leeway in the Padded Cell, but I'm always mindful of the community in general and that it is Naim's forum. The post was deleted after a couple of complaints. On balance I felt they were justified.
As I posted on another thread recently, bear in mind that this forum is public and is seen not just by members, but by prospective customers and Naim's business partners.
As it happens, when it comes to moderation I have to consider every member here. Just because you may not find some language offensive doesn't mean others won't as well. I give quite a bit of leeway in the Padded Cell, but I'm always mindful of the community in general and that it is Naim's forum. The post was deleted after a couple of complaints. On balance I felt they were justified.
As I posted on another thread recently, bear in mind that this forum is public and is seen not just by members, but by prospective customers and Naim's business partners.
Posted on: 12 April 2010 by Richard Dane
quote:Originally posted by 151:its bound to get a little heated with some strong language when it comes to church men sodomizing children.quote:Originally posted by Richard Dane:
Let's keep it clean and to the point please. I've already had to delete one post here, if you can't moderate your language then something tells me that it won't be long before this thread disappears...
Quite. Hence the need to moderate.
Posted on: 12 April 2010 by Mike Dudley
Posted on: 12 April 2010 by mongo
Richard.
As I understand it there are several tens of thousands of forum users, and more who might be described as readers.
Hence a 'couple of' complaints seems to me a feeble reason to purge opinion.
In many modern situations it seems that the pious/wet/holier than thou/ever so pc creatures only have to cry mummy and all is ordered to their desires.
Pandering to such trivial opinion is more than embarassing for adults with independant minds.
They might even have posted objections to my statement.
It is also very likely that many here would happily agree with my post.
And, of course, I'm quite convinced Naim is big enough to handle Mongo's expressive outbursts without collapse.
As I understand it there are several tens of thousands of forum users, and more who might be described as readers.
Hence a 'couple of' complaints seems to me a feeble reason to purge opinion.
In many modern situations it seems that the pious/wet/holier than thou/ever so pc creatures only have to cry mummy and all is ordered to their desires.
Pandering to such trivial opinion is more than embarassing for adults with independant minds.
They might even have posted objections to my statement.
It is also very likely that many here would happily agree with my post.
And, of course, I'm quite convinced Naim is big enough to handle Mongo's expressive outbursts without collapse.
Posted on: 12 April 2010 by mongo
quote:Originally posted by JWM:
Ah. more from the anti-Catholic conspiracy. You lot ought to read a bit more widely than the chatterati views that simply confirm your own prejudices.
It is much more than obvious that the tone and explicit content of this thread is entirely directed toward the opinion and notion that child sodomisers should be hammered by the law and not be protected by their cult membership.
Your expressed opinion makes you an apologist for the depravity and nothing less.
You therefore join the ranks of those who, by expression of such sanctimonious nonsense,
actively encourage child abuse.
That you may not be able to understand this is no excuse whatsoever.
Not at all.
Posted on: 12 April 2010 by David Scott
Having recently suggested the moderation might be a little strict, I just want to say I think Richard was right to delete Mongo's post. It was not only the language but the unbelievably extreme reaction to a fairly moderate post from JWM and the grave personal insult directed at him - but then I think it was the moderate nature of JW's comment that Mongo found upsetting. He was only suggesting that the press reports might not be accurate not advocating or excusing child abuse. If I was ever wrongly accused of a crime I'd rather not have Mongo and 151 on the jury on this showing.
Personally, I'm quite prepared to believe the accusations may be true and if there is substance to them, I'd be happy for Dawkin's to have him arrested. It won't happen though.
Personally, I'm quite prepared to believe the accusations may be true and if there is substance to them, I'd be happy for Dawkin's to have him arrested. It won't happen though.
Posted on: 12 April 2010 by David Scott
Mongo,
Just read your post above. I think you need to learn to calm down and think things through. There's no virtue in anger that overwhelms reason.
Just read your post above. I think you need to learn to calm down and think things through. There's no virtue in anger that overwhelms reason.
Posted on: 12 April 2010 by mongo
quote:Originally posted by David Scott?:
Mongo,
Just read your post above. I think you need to learn to calm down and think things through. There's no virtue in anger that overwhelms reason.
Perfectly calm David.
I stand by the post.
Nor was the post 'moderate'. The content and tone were directly dismissive of the real content of this thread.
It was weasling, quisling stuff, enough so to rile.
What you call overwhelming anger was simply repulsion at the offhand dismissal. Gross.