View Single Post
Old 12-20-2010, 09:52 AM   #17
Senior Member
jrrtoken's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,995
Originally Posted by Dagobahn Eagle View Post
Que? All Phelp's church does is hold idiotic protests and funeral picketings. I'm not aware of them covering up sex crimes within their family.
The fact that you're willing to bring the Pope to his level is what's problematic. Regardless of your opinion of the papacy, comparing the two figures on some scale of moral relativity is absurd beyond comprehension.

I'm just as shocked every time someone posts a response of this kind, because I honestly do not understand the problem. The Catholic Church is covering up sexual abuse up to and including rape. Please, take a step back and think about this. Imagine it's someone else than the Vatican. Imagine it's, say, the Boy Scouts in your country. Imagine that not only are Boy Scout leaders sexually abusing young boys, and that those few that dare tell the superiors about this are threatened with expulsion from the Scouts if they tell anyone, even their own parents. Imagine that you learn that boys or girls have been abused at your local school, and that two girls told the principal and their parents what had happened, only to be expelled from the school. Then imagine you learn that the teachers who committed the crimes were not punished, just given a diciplinary talk and moved to a different school.
I understand that the Vatican has most certainly handled the situation in a paradigm of denial and ignorance, but is that telling that the Vatican is willfully propagating pedophilia amongst its clergymen? Likewise, does that also mean that all clergymen exhibit pedophilic tendencies, and are automatically threats to children? The current anti-papist narrative is one of implicit, universal buggery and intricate conspiracies to assert a pseudo-pro-sexual deviant agenda, honestly.

What exactly is the reason for your anger? That he shouldn't be attacked because he is the Pope? That people who happen to be non-believers shouldn't attack him? What?
That people aren't foolish and crass enough to assume that the Emperor himself is presiding over the Evil Empire. The entire anti-Vatican narrative is based on only a few incidences that are not only exaggerated to vapid proportions, but that the same criticisms can be applied to any religious, political, or philosophical organization. Demagogues, either atheist or fundamentalist Christian, have capitalized on this visit to assert some agenda, and have used populist deception to do. The entire protest is inherently illegitimate; a sham.

So basically, you're correct except you kinda, slightly, sorta turned the matter on its head. It was Ratzinger who compared atheists to Nazis, not the other way around . Dawkins merely pointed out the Vatican's hypocrisity. Hope that clears stuff up for everyone.
The argument still stands; no matter who labels anyone is not important, but the fact that Dawkins & Co. are ready to utilize the same tactics is ironically hypocritical. Comparing anyone to Nazis or Nazism is utterly self-destructive, at least for argument's sake.
jrrtoken is offline   you may: quote & reply,