Richard Dawkins planning to have Pope Benedict arrested over 'crimes against humanity

Mongo,

I really don't think you've understood it. He was suggesting that the accusations against the pope were unfair. This is quite different from suggesting that it wouldn't matter if they were true or not. It can't be regarded as any form of apologism for abuse.
It might well be wrong, but in a factual, not a moral sense.

You don't sound calm at all. In fact you sound as if, if you were any less calm than you are, you wouldn't be able to type.

Then I can only assume that your assumptions from reading my posts are well off. My cup of steaming tea is not being spilled, even as I type this with the other hand.

quote:

Originally posted by mongo:

Nor was the post 'moderate'. The content and tone were directly dismissive of the real content of this thread.

EXACTLY,david obviously missed this.

For what it's worth:
JWM's post came across as rather dismissive
Mongo comes across as less than calm
(to me, obviously)

I don't have a lot of time for the Catholic Church (individual Catholics are another matter), and it's very tempting to gloat as it sows what it's reaped through its repressive attitudes towards sex, a perfectly natural human activity.

I guess it's worth considering whether the media have blown the story up out of all proportion - it wouldn't be the first time, would it? But then, if the claims are true, the behaviour of certain figures in the church is hard to stomach - unless JWM can point us to more sober coverage of these events that might lead us to adopt more moderate views.

quote:

Originally posted 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.

Cookies wiped so whole post viewed prior to log in. ( not that it'll be believed. )

JWM made the perfectly reasonable coment that people should not believe everything they see or read in the press, and queries the reasons behind some posts - again, perfectly reasonable behaviour.

To say that this makes him guity of encouraging child abuse is probably actionable, as well as being ridiculous.

I've not heard mention that the Priests actually sodomised the children; "abused", yes; but not sodomised.

You just can't resist me can you Mike?

quote:

I've not heard mention that the Priests actually sodomised the children; "abused", yes; but not sodomised

Mike you get dafter and dafter.

What do you think it means???

You pinko's make me barf.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Lacey



I've not heard mention that the Priests actually sodomised the children; "abused", yes; but not sodomised.

you cannot be serious.

Totally - I'm simply saying I've not heard about any Sodomy.

This is not the same as denying it happened, is it? I'd rather remain calm and rational and not leap to any conclusions if thats OK with you.

quote:

Nor was the post 'moderate'. The content and tone were directly dismissive of the real content of this thread.

I see your point about the tone, but I was referring to the position expressed, ie. scepticism about the reliability of the press. Mongo's post was quite fabulously extreme and completely unreasonable in both tone and content and I suppose this may have made JW appear less inflammatory by contrast than he actually was.

151,

I swear quite a lot in my daily life I must admit, but I get really tired of seeing all the swear words in your posts. It's somehow much uglier when it's written down - and when it's so unremitting.

Not pretending I can tell you what to do, but could you not just curse under your breath before you post and spare the rest of us?

How did that happen? The post I was replying to is after mine now! For clarity's sake it was the one about playing with words.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Lacey:
Totally - I'm simply saying I've not heard about any Sodomy.

This is not the same as denying it happened, is it? I'd rather remain calm and rational and not leap to any conclusions if thats OK with you.

your just playing with words talking shit.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by David Scott?:
151,

I swear quite a lot in my daily life I must admit, but I get really tired of seeing all the swear words in your posts. It's somehow much uglier when it's written down - and when it's so unremitting.
QUOTE]david, you really must grow a thicker skin, never the less i will do my best just for you. see not one swear word

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Lacey:
Totally - I'm simply saying I've not heard about any Sodomy.

This is not the same as denying it happened, is it? I'd rather remain calm and rational and not leap to any conclusions if thats OK with you.

Lol and Lol again.

''The brains of a pedant however full, are vacant.''

Lord Brooke.

''Pedants, who have the least knowledge to be proud of, are impelled most by vanity.''

Wilkie Collins

Mike unless you suffer from rather acute OCD, there is little excuse for your completely over the top, frankly insulting, pedantry.

151,

Thank you.

David

Anyway, to get back on topic, surely we must believe what the Pope says?

He is, after all, infallible?

quote:

Originally posted by Kevin-W:
Anyway, to get back on topic, surely we must believe what the Pope says?

He is, after all, infallible?

Well bugger and eternal damnation, I must have forgotten!

Perpetual hellfire for me then.

Sodomy (pronounced /ˈsɒdəmi/) is a term used in the law to describe the act of "unnatural" sex, which depending on jurisdiction can be one or more of oral sex, anal sex or bestiality.[1].....ok, its only from wikipedia so probably doesn't count as a true definition, but hey-ho...

So, of what is Dawkins planning to accuse the Pope?

Personnally, I would be less sceptical of the reasons behind any allegations if the accuser were almost anybody OTHER than Dawkins.

Cheers

Don

quote:

Originally posted by Don Atkinson:
Sodomy (pronounced /ˈsɒdəmi/) is a term used in the law to describe the act of "unnatural" sex, which depending on jurisdiction can be one or more of oral sex, anal sex or bestiality.[1].....ok, its only from wikipedia so probably doesn't count as a true definition, but hey-ho...

So, of what is Dawkins planning to accuse the Pope?

Personnally, I would be less sceptical of the reasons behind any allegations if the accuser were almost anybody OTHER than Dawkins.

Cheers

Don

Hi Don.

He appears to accuse the pope of simply one more cover up amongst who knows how many.

That there are cases to be covered up is beyond dispute. And Dawkins, for better or worse has a lot more clout and influence, and a louder voice, than buggered little boys.

More power to him.

That an organisation that claims a moral high ground tries to and does bury evidence of life destroying perversion in it's own ranks is so vile as to defeat my vocabulary.

That there are so many apologists is expletively repugnant.

quote:

He appears to accuse the pope of simply one more cover up amongst who knows how many.

So you don't know.

Anybody else?

Cheers

Don

ANOTHER COVER UP.

Mongo

Take Mikes advice. Stop jumping to conclusions.


In the Telegraph article Richard Dawkins planning to have Pope Benedict arrested over 'crimes against humanity' Apart from the headline, there is nothing to indicate this is the case.

It’s sad that people can’t see beyond the headline.

quote:

Originally posted by Don Atkinson:

quote:

He appears to accuse the pope of simply one more cover up amongst who knows how many.

So you don't know.

Anybody else?

Cheers
Don

''The charges arise out of the Pope's alleged cover-up of sexual abuse in the Catholic church while still a Cardinal and even as Pope. This weekend a new furor arose regarding a letter he signed in 1985 - while in charge of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith dealing with sex abuse cases - which submitted that the “good of the universal church” should be considered before defrocking an American priest who had committed sex offences against two boys''

Best I can do Don baby.

Of course it's not a notarised copy of the summons.....

quote:

Originally posted by fatcat:
Mongo

Take Mikes advice. Stop jumping to conclusions.


In the Telegraph article Richard Dawkins planning to have Pope Benedict arrested over 'crimes against humanity' Apart from the headline, there is nothing to indicate this is the case.

It’s sad that people can’t see beyond the headline.

Clearly you didn't as a little further the article specifies.

this is becoming a save the holy bum boys thread.