I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours - Stephen Roberts
Sometimes when sitting flicking though the channels at night I end up with those hateful religious evangelicals venting their biblical bile from the screen reminding us of all the horrors that await us if we don’t share their opinion. It reminds me of zombie movies, although nowhere near as viewable, where the lead zombie works the stupefied mob into a torpid trance. There is a collective lip movement accompanied by unintelligible mumbling and then they all go off to hate happily ever after: their pockets lighter and the wallets of their preachers bulging. I find few things in life as genuinely phoney as evangelicals professing to be brimming with something called Christian love. Love and televangelism seem a chalk and cheese combination. Ted Haggard and Christian love? Nah, Ted Haggard and boy love has a more authentic ring to it.
Whatever motivates the shower of hate blusterers it is not love. Although I think they are much more representative of their god than the other sickly sweet lot who run around with false faces and ersatz smiles, blessing people with the sign of the cross and offering forgiveness. The evangelical lot seem more at one with a god that hates with a perfect hate, the only type of god that could exist given the hatred he seems to inspire. As has been said, you always know god is on your side when he hates the same people you do. To people like me, the idea of a god of love is incomprehensible. It would make more sense if believers were to tell me ‘god exists and he hates us all; he is the god of hunger, hate, war, poverty, natural disaster, child rape and genocide.’ I could sort of make sense of that without conceding the existence of a deity. But when they tell me he loves me and he will burn me in hell if I don’t love him, I tend not to get it.
The hate is howled and the venom spat while I sit scorning them. Whatever the bible bashing merchants of Hate TV believe in I have no interest in listening to them spout it so the channels are flicked through rapidly. Money features a lot, with their buckets bigger than bibles. As George Carlin was fond of saying, the one thing god can’t manage is money; always a dollar or two short and forever in need of a little top up. No loaves and fishes equivalent there.
Last night my five year old son asked if I was watching ‘the mad’ again. He likes to watch ‘the mad’ probably because he enjoys my reaction to them, and would on occasion ask me to turn the mad channel on. I asked him if he liked ‘the mad.’ He replied ‘they are always shouting.’ At home here we still laugh from the time when he said to his mother ‘mammy, daddy is watching the bastards.’ Can’t blame a five year old for copying what he hears shouted at the television whenever the holy creeps appear.
At least I can honestly claim to have given him a good start.
257 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 257 of 257 Newer› Newest»Stefan
'Something PQ'ers may or may not find exciting is the news this week of new insights discovered into the history of the Bible.'
Riveting stuff. I haven't come dowm from an exalted state of excitement since reading it!!
It's as well we have humour Stefan! Be a boring old blog if we couldn't slag each other.
Marty,
If that's all you have to worry about a few statues about the place then you should consider yourself very fortunate.
I don't know anything about Priest's monies, I have never given enough to lose any sleep over.
I think this is nit picking at its worst.
i saw on yahoo yesterday scientists have found evidence life came to earth from space on giant hemaroids.
i never knew God had piles.
I agree with Nuala its a pity baby p didnt have them for parents
Stefan,
To answer your questions, yes, Jesus had free will.Yes he was subject to intense temptation on his fast in the desert and while praying in the garden of Gethsemane but Jesus was God incarnate to show a standard for mankind.
Isn't it a bit rich for a perfect, all-powerful being to expect his weak, flawed creations to live up to his standards?
The richness of diversity inevitably includes the wrong aswell as the right path.
If we were created in the image and likeness of God, there wouldn't be so much of the "wrong path" in this world.
Without that conscious choice in taking the correct way of righteousness we cannot be full and accountable souls for our actions
But you accept that Jesus has conscious choice too, that he is capable of doing evil, but always chooses good. If Jesus were incapable of doing evil, if he were not subject to temptations, then, as you say, he would not really be choosing good when he did it. Also, you must surely accept that humans do not possess the moral strength that Jesus has to resist temptation and invariably choose good, for if we did, you would imagine that humans would not sin half as much as they do. So my questions are, why make people weak? Why set them up to fail? Why run this silly, sadistic experiment called life in the first place? The only answer that makes sense to me is that there is no driver behind the wheel, that we are on our own and that we should do our best to make one another's short lives here as happy as possible.
With regard to Elton John's baby, I have no problem, provided he and his partner provide a good home for the child.
Nuala if Roberts mates were to erect statues of king Billy on the roundabouts would you be prepared to have such a liberal attitude,as for the monies issue hon its just an example of how unaccountable these people you seem so fond of are,it may be nit picking in your opinion but if the catholic church was forced to live by the rules the rest of society have to live by a great many childrens lives may not have been ruined,
MartyDownUnder,
Is right. I do not see religion as positive. There is so much hatred of basic human rights in it as well as a desire to control people’s lives. Why should any woman or gay person be dictated to by some old tosser from the ‘men only’ club? They have as much right to set moral standards for the rest of us as any golf club. None.
I have seen that douche bag Benny Himm. A total charlatan out to shafte people for every last cent they have. Some of the Australian ones are into mad creationism I notice.
Ryan,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SrpdkRU-rhE&feature=related
so funny.
Stefan,
‘but the personal recollections of Father Aloysius claim shortly before facing the firing squad he "Heard Connolly's confession and gave him Holy Communion.'
Don't know how true this is. I recall Lady Hope being ridiculed for attributing her own falsification to Darwin's last words.
Wish I could remember the name of the show that you're on about Anthony, if it's the same one I'm thinking of the 'preacher' would remind you of Paisley in his prime. It's full of doom and foreboding from revelations, complete with pictures of demons and devils with eerie music in the background, hilarious stuff! If I can find a link I'll post it, worth only a look just to see the insanity of it.
The fastest growing religion here is pentecostal and the leader by far of that is HillSong, a bigger bunch of crooks you'd be hard pushed to find. Members are obliged to donate 10% of their wage to the church and the minister in charge, Brian Houston makes no attempt to hIde his wealth with the usual flash cars and bikes. His old man was a convicted paedo preacher in New Zealand I belief. Though it's the fastest growing it also has the most people leaving, obviously people cop onto themselves only when they've been bled dry. A glorified cult that yet again holds undue influence on Australian politics.
Benny Hinn is something else, belief he's been in the Waterfront in Belfast, all that phony curing the sick and miracles, he on e claimed that he would raise the dead!
John and Larry you may find this letter that appeared recently in the daily socialist paper 'the Morningstar' of interest regarding your discussions of territorial claims.
Don't mix up the UK and Britain
Wednesday 12 January 2011
Somewhere at the Morning Star there is a subeditor who doesn't know the difference between "Britain" and "the UK."
Much of the time it's not very important but when the subject is Northern Ireland it is crucial. That is because the UK is Britain plus Northern Ireland.
Before Parliament partitioned Ireland, UK meant "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland." This was established by the Act of Union 1800.
Prior to that, Britain was just a kingdom and Ireland was another, albeit with the same king. That is why the flag, in use since 1801, is called the "union flag" - it's about the union of two kingdoms.
On December 8 2008 the Morning Star published a book review by me, titled Essential reading on the Rising, in which a subeditor, evidently ignorant of the above, replaced "the UK" with "Britain."
This meant that I thought that the 1916 Easter Rising had occurred in Britain. Having obtained an unpublished apology from the arts editor, who was not responsible, I hoped the lesson had been learned.
In my recent letter, titled The Star shouldn't collude in imperial Ulster whitewash (M Star January 5), I find the error repeated.
In the sentence "France has many provinces which, when combined, make up France, but this doesn't apply to the UK" a subeditor has changed "the UK" to "Britain."
I actually laughed out loud when I saw it, because my letter was all about the need for the Star to choose its words carefully and our need to remember British-Irish history.
Ken Keable
Stoke-sub-Hamdon
Link to original...
http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/index.php/news/content/view/full/99707
Stefan,
Whilst appreciating the letter, which does display the ignorance of even educated Englishman over the name of their country, there is a further issue here.
It is just inconceivable to me that any Irish Republican would refer to a part of Ireland as the UK.
I guess Larry was joking!
I'm inclined to accept reality regardless of how distasteful. SF and the Provos abandoned their fight to remove the last 6 counties from British rule. SF now administer that rule on Westminsters behalf at Stormont. SF have called for people to inform on present unreconstructed/turned Republicans to the PSNI.
The 6 counties remain under British rule. In the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
That's another wee FACT John, or maybe your Catholic monthly news-sheet will 'debunk' that too?
Everyone:
How does a gay couple raise a child? Gay or straight? Do gay couples give any thought to how that child is going to feel once old enough to understand that this is not the norm...daddy married to daddy or mommy married to mommy? What about when that child goes to school and their friends or other kids poke fun at them? I can't help but feel that adoption by same sex couples is more about them and NOT about the child they adopt.
Helen,
You could also have written:
"How does a mixed race couple raise a child? Black or white? Do mixed race couples give any thought to how that child is going to feel once old enough to understand that this is not the norm... a white man married to a black woman or a white woman married to a black man? What about when that child goes to school and their friends or other kids poke fun at them? I can't help but feel that a mixed race couple's desire to have a child is more about them and NOT about the child they have."
You could also have written the above passage about disabled couples instead. Kids ridicule each other for all sorts of reasons; I was bullied because of my unusual name and because my parents were seen as wealthier than other kids' parents. Does the intolerance by some people in our society mean we should all conform to perceived social norms and hide any differences we may have?
Alfie,
you beat me to it. My own sentiments
In reference to the 'gay marriage' debate, I would agree with this from the Catechism.
2202 “A man and a woman united in marriage, together with their children, form a family. This institution is prior to any recognition by public authority, which has an obligation to recognize it. It should be considered the normal reference point by which the different forms of family relationship are to be evaluated.”
Some may object that this is only Catholic dogma, but I would say rather it is just plain common sense that is based on our entire millenial civillization, which we overturn to our detriment.
I just realized that the two men are supposed to be named on the birth certificate as parents, and the mother is not.
See
http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/david-quinn-mums-and-dads-are-optional-extras-in-the-evolution-of-families-2481459.html
Would supporters of this care to justify the blatant lie that is on this document?
Alfie,
Alfie,
You are still comparing a heterosexual relationship in these two scenarios. Men married to men and women married to women is not the norm. I am not against their choice to live together; however, I don’t think a child should be raised in same sex relationships. Just my opinion.
helen and john
agree with you both. To me there's something wrong here. Political 'correctness' gone insane. You can put a horse over a donkey and get a mule. Mixed race couples are capable of breeding. Put a man over a man or a woman over a woman and you get sweet fuck all.
Ten times around the block here will not bring about a new reality on the matter. Elton and his bumchum are incapable of having a child, they should NOT be allowed to buy one. Is that not some form of slavery bargain?
politically correct numpties can be more absurd than religious zealots methinks.
Antoin Mac C.
My issue has never been with race/religion nor whether men live with men and women live with women. My issue is the child. Regardless of how anyone wants to put a "spin" on it. Men married to men and women married to woman is not the normal "family" environment for a child. It has got to confuse the child and how is that child going to be raised? Gay or straight? What people do with their lives is their business, but I still don't believe children should be part of that particular scenario. Call me old fashion, but I still believe the “family unit” should remain a heterosexual couple if children are to be involved.
MartyDownUnder
"coincidentally I was looking through an old copy of An Glór Gafa this morning, came across a piece about Gerry standing trial in Freiburg, here we are more than twenty years later and he's in court again only this time I doubt you'll see the case in The Republican News (if it's still going). As Marty says the only reason he's there is didn't toe the line".
That’s correct MDU. What I find really infuriating is if McGeough had been killed in action during the troubles, psf would be planting flowers on his grave every year and reminding everyone what a great soldier he was and how he gave his life for a re-united Ireland. However, he survived the troubles and sincerely tried to work alongside of psf to the best of his ability. However, he also had the courage to move on when he was no longer in agreement with them. Gerry is on trial because of his political differences with them and his anti-PSNI stance. No doubt about it! Regardless of whether Gerry would have won a seat during the 2007 elections is really not the point. He was a Provo and a voice to reckon with. They didn’t like it. After all, one of their own (so to speak) going against the status-quo who couldn’t be bought and has integrity...they couldn’t tolerate it. So how do they get rid of him? They hand him over to the Brits to deal with and sit back and let it all go down until the man is financially broken or dies of a heart attack from the stress and frustration of the injustice of it all. Another point: With this case hanging over Gerry’s head, he certainly can’t run in the 2011 election now can he? Another voice of Irish republicanism silenced…for now.
Larry,
"You can put a horse over a donkey and get a mule. Mixed race couples are capable of breeding. Put a man over a man or a woman over a woman and you get sweet fuck all."
By that logic, you must also have an objection to infertile heterosexual couples adopting or using surrogates.
Antoin,
I totally agree that no one has the right to dictate to another how they should live their life, and regardless of my child's sexual preference I would still love him/her unconditionally. A child being raised in a heterosexual environment doesn't have any guarantees either. Agreed. It is just such a very foreign concept to me that children are allowed to be adopted by homosexuals? Something seems so wrong with that concept and it has nothing to do with religion. I only wish more people could be as “politically correct” about morality, family values and what used to be considered the “norm,” as they are about the reverse. Times they are a changing and not necessarily for the best.
P.S. BTW, I didn’t take your comments in a negative way at all. Nice posting with you.
Alfie,
‘but to blame it all on Vatican II and sexual liberation seems a little facile to me’.
Exactly. Sounds too much like the securocrat argument which is an unwillingness to face up to responsibility.
I think Ratzinger does have a case to answer. But the more they squirm in self-denial the more they look like crooks and charlatans. And they end up like the British judiciary a few years back who bristled with self righteous indignation in the face of criticism. They draw down first disdain then ridicule. The church is just a human institution, with all the problems that go with that. As an institution it has been at best criminally irresponsible. There are very few people who believe that the cover up has not been pervasive from top to bottom.
Alfie
id go with Helen on the family scenareo. Unfertile couples, husband and wife giving a child a secure environment and a hope for their future is ok. Two gay men bringing up a young child to believe that theirs is 'the norm' in relationships is frankly just fucked up.
Alfie
im all for sensible adoption in the child's best interest. Being born and sold on for money then being raised thinkin its NORMAL to have two daddies or two mammies isn't gunna do the kids head much good in the longer term.
Elton should just accept like the rest of us, there are dreams in this life that are exactly that, dreams. He is dealing in human trafficking. God forgive the mother, if she has a God.
John,
‘I thought this might be of interest, as it is the recent work of a Jewish scholar about Pius XII.’
I am aware that there has been a brand of writing which argues for a reassessment of his role and there is a surprisingly high number of Jewish people uncomfortable with the standard characterisation of his role. However, there remain many issues that have not been satisfactorily addressed and until they are there should be no veneration of the man. I think the same thing is happening with John Paul II. And that has caused you some problems. I believe these things are put in motion as a result of political factors rather than ‘saintly’ ones.
Besides the whole business of men on earth organising the seating arrangements in heaven seems bizarre.
Alfie
‘Leon Podles thinks that "probably 7-10% of priests have had sexual contact with minors".’
No surprise if it is true. It would be considerably lower were they not assured of the cover up.
Stefan,
‘on project Steve...Quote a Discovery Institute spokesperson "if Project Steve was meant to show that a considerable majority of the scientific community accepts a naturalistic conception of evolution, then the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) could have saved its energies - that fact was never in question. The more interesting question was whether any serious scientists reject a naturalistic conception of evolution"
Sort of puts their overblown claims into context. Which was the tongue in cheek purpose of Project Steve to begin with. Serious scientists must produce serious scientific work in research programmes and peer reviewed journals. ID doesn’t do so well there at all.
‘Michaelhenry said sex and love is all about what two consenting adult's want- nobody else's business and Anthony confirmed this with "Sums it up for most people I would think." Where it becomes somebody else’s
business is in cases like the Catholic Children's Rescue Service. Back in 2007 its directors said they have been forced to stop recruiting,
assessing or approving couples who want to adopt children because of
new legislation which means they cannot follow their religious beliefs by turning away homosexual couples.’
The people affected here are children because bigots would rather see them not adopted because of a bigoted religious opinion that cannot reconcile itself to gays having the same rights as everyone else.. Imagine a golf club deciding members of another golf club should not be allowed to adopt. The zealots also tried it with marriage ceremonies and that was booted into touch as well. Who are they to say whether or not they will marry people? ‘I’m not marrying you because you don’t support Liverpool.’ Or ‘I demand the right to discriminate against people whom this society says shall not be discriminated against, on grounds of sexual orientation.’ Whether they support Liverpool or god is neither here nor there. It is not part of their job description.
There is absolutely nothing about religious opinion that should allow it to be privileged. It should exist on the same plane as other opinions.
John,
I just found this link which addresses this.
http://www.newoxfordreview.org/article.jsp?did=1110-samra
This explains nothing. The most interesting line is ‘Many of their criticisms of the Catholic hierarchy’s mismanagement of the situation — transferring pederast and pedophile priests from parish to parish and covering up their crimes — are valid.'
But read the following rubbish
'It’s high time someone confronted the “experts” who screened and treated pederast and pedophile priests and asked them some hard questions, such as: What is your view of sexuality? Do you believe that pederasty is sinful? What is your view of religion? Are you a practicing believer, and do you believe that faith has an important role in the healing process? ..'
Psychiatry a science? Maybe, but it never struck me as such. No more than psychology.
Hate TV
Stefan,
weeks behind on this one.
Anthony, the substance is in 'Theism corrupted by Darwin becomes Deism with the overall goal of Atheism.'
Too many believers don’t agree and have not found that to be their experience.
‘Deism destroys all the deposits of Catholic faith’
Wouldn’t worry about that. The Catholic faith can compete with other opinions for position. While Catholics might delude themselves that their invisible man makes them more special than the other invisible men make their followers, for those of us who are not Catholic it is all guff.
‘and if you give validity to the historical documentation of Gods interaction with humankind as written in the many books that go under the one Title of the Bible, as I do then Deism isn't a compatible concept.’
Talking snakes and all that. Why would I give validity to that? Apart from politicians how many talking snakes have you met? If the bible is the basis for your view of the world and the history of humanity there is little point in us discussing things. Your attitude that it is a sacred text and mine that it made good toilet roll in the jail will never meet.
Helen,
‘One question for those who do believe in God? Why do people blame God
for what men do? We all have a free will. Where that takes us has
nothing to do with God.’
One billion years ago god knew where you would go when you die. That knowledge cannot be contradicted or be proved wrong otherwise god is not all powerful. If he knows you were going to hell there is absolutely nothing you can do about it.
John,
“Pedophilia is permitted in the Qur'an, was practiced by Muhammad and
his companions, and some Muslims today continue to commit the crime,
following their prophet's example.”
Where in the Koran? I have one in the house but like the bible I have never turned a page. (not exactly true about the bible – once upon a time I leafed though it).
Like much else on the web this is disputed. Not that I know one way or the other. But in my view the argument can be made that Mohammed was a paedophile. I know some Muslims but none who advocate sex with children.
‘Those who abuse in the Catholic Church do it by rejecting the teachings
of their Founder and their Faith, those in Islam do it in imitation of
their founder and it is sanctioned by their teachings.’
This is too stark a contrast. Given the annoyingly close identification between the Moslems and their prophet you would imagine if he really advocated paedophilia many more would be doing it. According to Tariq Ali, some Moslem clerics have been raping boys. But I don’t hear them justifying it. And given that there is even less tolerance in Islam for gays than there is in your creed the clerical rape of boys would seem to be deviation from the Koran.
A more germane reason for Catholicism being discussed rather than Islam in our circles is that it s what we have grown up with. It is a cultural reference point in a way that Islam is not. Islam is a body that we are only recently familiar with. And where it attacks women and gays it gets lambasted. And if it attacks kids it gets the same. I doubt if we have any favourite religion. They are all bunkum to me.
Anthony,
(I said);
“Pedophilia is permitted in the Qur'an, was practiced by Muhammad and his companions, and some Muslims today continue to commit the crime, following their prophet's example.”
‘Where in the Koran?’
Here is a link to a relevant passage that takes it for granted, (65,4).
http://islam-watch.org/Amarkhan/pedophilia-in-islam/pedophilia-islam.htm#Ch2
You will see that this is a comprehensive site which deals with the question as it is in the Koran, and in Islam’s officially endorsed Hadiths. It is important to bear in mind that Islam is not a merely a religion of the ‘book,’ like fundamentalist protestants, but there are three main sources of their religion, the Koran, the Hadiths and the Sunnah, (or words and deeds of Mohammed). Any verse of the Koran, (such as 65, 4), can only be interpreted in light of these. That is mainstream Moslem teaching.
‘…But in my view the argument can be made that Mohammed was a paedophile.’
I agree.
‘I know some Muslims but none who advocate sex with children.’
Most Moslems would be horrified by the thought of it, but you will find it defended by many of its clerics and those who don’t defend it are silent because they cannot oppose it as they cannot criticize their ‘prophet.’
Also, there have been cases where people convicted and gaoled for paedophilia have converted to Islam to enable them to attempt to justify their vice, if not to others, to themselves.
(I said);
“Those who abuse in the Catholic Church do it by rejecting the teachings of their Founder and their Faith, those in Islam do it in imitation of their founder and it is sanctioned by their teachings.”
‘This is too stark a contrast. Given the annoyingly close identification between the Moslems and their prophet you would imagine if he really advocated paedophilia many more would be doing it.’
I suspect that most Moslems are lax in imitating Mohammed as most Catholics are lax in imitating Christ. Both religions are adamant that their respective founders ought to be imitated. Thank goodness for the laxity of Moslems as their founder was a rapist, a paedophile, and a murderer.
‘According to Tariq Ali, some Moslem clerics have been raping boys.’
Paedophilia within Islam is generally against girls, rather than boys and it is generally in the form of child brides. For example in Iran, ‘girls can be engaged before the age of nine and married at nine’, (The Truth About Muhammad, Robert Spencer).
Indeed Ayatollah Khomeini married a ten year old girl, when he was twenty eight. He also wrote a book which defended having non-penetrative sexual contact with babies.
‘A more germane reason for Catholicism being discussed rather than Islam in our circles is that it s what we have grown up with.’
I take your point here, although things are changing.
‘It is a cultural reference point in a way that Islam is not. Islam is a body that we are only recently familiar with.’
But at the current rate of Islamic expansion, one that will all too soon be the dominant force in Europe.
John,
Thanks for contributing on this.
‘I am always very suspicious of those who seek to lower the age of
consent, as quite often they have sinister motives.’
I think the argument can legitimately be made. I also think the raising of the age for consent argument can be legitimately be made as well. These things are not fixed and timeless but evolve with human society.
‘but those seeking lowering the age are not always doing it for altruistic motives.’
This always happens. But it is no reason to rule the suggestion out of court. The bin man does not lift the bin for altruistic reasons but it is good that he lifts the bin all the same. It is good that free inquiry should exist so that we may better understand the phenomena that confront us.
The Pope would not get away with saying it because of the context in which he operates. But it would not be ethically wrong for him to argue for shifting the age of consent up or down. Tatchell, I think, stayed on the right side of the line but took his boat very close to the wind. Yet, this happens when boundaries have to be probed. That is how knowledge proceeds.
John,
"I just realized that the two men are supposed to be named on the birth certificate as parents, and the mother is not. ... Would supporters of this care to justify the blatant lie that is on this document?"
No, I would not. I believe that only the biological parents should be on the birth certificate. If a gay couple has a child via a surrogate, then the one who is not a biological parent can always adopt the child to become one of its legal guardians. I also believe that if a married heterosexual couple require an egg or sperm donor to conceive, then the donor's name should be on the birth certificate.
Anthony,
"‘Those who abuse in the Catholic Church do it by rejecting the teachings
of their Founder and their Faith, those in Islam do it in imitation of
their founder and it is sanctioned by their teachings.’"
'This is too stark a contrast. Given the annoyingly close identification between the Moslems and their prophet you would imagine if he really advocated paedophilia many more would be doing it.'
See a good study here, especially links to current day child brides:
http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Islam_and_Pedophilia
Or here where it is commonplace in their schools:
Madrassas hit by sex abuse claims
By Paul Anderson
BBC News, Islamabad
A Pakistani minister has revealed hundreds of cases of alleged child sex abuse at Islamic schools, or madrassas.
There were 500 complaints this year of abuse allegedly committed by clerics, Aamer Liaquat Hussain, a minister in the religious affairs department, said.
That compares with 2,000 last year, but as yet there have been no successful prosecutions, Mr Hussain told the BBC.
The minister's revelations have sparked death threats and infuriated some religious political leaders.
Mr Hussain said he had received death threats from clerics, but that he had done his job and his conscience was clear.
Leaders angered
The time had come for his country to face the bitter truth - the sickness of child abuse, he said.
The allegations involving Pakistan's Sunni majority and Shia minority referred to a tiny proportion of the country's 10,000 or so madrassas, he said.
He added that the body responsible for them, the Federation of Madrassas, was willing to co-operate with investigations because some clerics were bringing a bad name to Islam.
However, the revelations have angered some Islamic leaders. At a parliamentary meeting this week, some demanded he apologise.
The abuse revelations were made during a week in which the Pakistani government has been meeting religious leaders to build awareness of the spread of HIV/Aids.
Pakistan is stepping up its anti-Aids campaign, and the idea is to utilise the clerics' unique reach into communities to increase HIV/Aids awareness and to preach prevention.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/world/south_asia/4084951.stm
Published: 2004/12/10 10:53:05 GMT
Hate TV
John,
Not only am I opposed to this priest being censored I am uncomfortable with you labelling him a degenerate for expressing an opinion contrary to your own. For this reason I think you weaken your ground hitting out at Larry for calling you a perv. I happen to think both you and Larry are singing from the same hymn sheet on this. ‘Degenerate’ and ‘perv’ are not terms that we could slip a razor blade between. Nor is he ‘an apologist of abuse.’
‘But again it is Islam that I hate.’
This to me this is religious hatred. There are some who would want you jailed under some blasphemy law for that. But don’t worry John, you will not find me amongst them. We would have to parade up and down chanting ‘Free the PQ one’!
‘a good Moslem is far more immoral than the worst of all the most treacherous priests. ‘
This is a further example of that religious hatred. The Moslems are as good or as bad as the rest of us.
Why can’t the lot of you just practice your religion on yourselves and let be those with no interest in it? If the pope doesn’t want to wear a condom he has that choice. But he should leave those who choose differently alone.
The terrible things that have been carried out in the name of invisible men.
Helen
‘This has been one of the most interesting and intellectual debates on religion I've come across in a long time. An excellent contribution
by all regardless of viewpoints.’
Nice that someone is reading it!
Evangelists strike me as cranks.
Anthony,
‘Not only am I opposed to this priest being censored I am uncomfortable with you labelling him a degenerate for expressing an opinion contrary to your own.’
Well, Anthony, if he doesn’t like the teaching of the Catholic Church, he knows where the door is. What really upsets me is when those in positions of authority who want to reinvent Catholicism, rather than hit the road and found another sect.
Whilst I hope that this priest opposes child abuse, I believe his policies, and those of priests like him, have led to it. Now I might be wrong, but if I am right, is it any wonder that I swipe at him in this way? Yes, I was harsh, but the time for mealy mouthed liberalism is over in my view. For too long we have listened to priests like him, and their approval of homosexuality flies diametrically opposed to the natural law, family life, society, and the Catholic Faith.
“But again it is Islam that I hate.”
‘This to me this is religious hatred. There are some who would want you jailed under some blasphemy law for that. But don’t worry John, you will not find me amongst them. We would have to parade up and down chanting ‘Free the PQ one’!’
I fully expect to be gaoled over my views on Irish freedom, Islam or homosexuality one day. Of course, when Islam takes over, they will deal with the homosexuals too. You might have trouble raising too many PQ’rs to defend me. They might just be throwing rotten tomatoes at me as I’m led into the court.
'The Moslems are as good or as bad as the rest of us.'
I agree, thank God for hypocrisy. It is when they take their religion seriously that they blow up buildings, chop off heads and practice paedophilia, all in imitation of or obedience to their 'prophet'.
There is an interesting debate, on YouTube, with the motion ‘The only good Moslem is a Bad one’, between Robert Spenser and Peter Kreeft. If you ever want to spend a really worthwhile 45 minutes, I would recommend it. You will see that I am not saying anything lightly or without grounds.
Of course, I do not dispute that as individual human beings, you are just as likely to have a good Moslem, as a good Catholic, as a good atheist, or even a good protestant. I guess we are using ‘good’ in two senses. I meant good in the sense of faithful to every tenet of their belief. I belief when they are this that is when Jihad is waged. If it is used in the sense of 'morally good' I am certain their are many tens of thousands of good Moslems.
‘Why can’t the lot of you just practice your religion on yourselves and let be those with no interest in it? If the pope doesn’t want to wear a condom he has that choice. But he should leave those who choose differently alone.’
The Pope, by the nature of his office, has to teach his flock, if they disagree, let them seek another shepherd. Besides, you don’t all have to listen you know, as he reminded us in his latest book, but I believe you would be wise to.
John
I don’t think you need to come on this blog to explain you are not a perv or an apologist who defends priests abusing kids. That you do is because of some of the invective that is at times hurled your way. There is nothing to suggest that you are not above reproach on these matters and are as free to debate on the same terms as the rest of us without having to explain yourself.
‘I don’t think the most I have done is ask for evidence against the Pope’
True.
‘which doesn't seem to be available.’
Not so. You just choose not to deal with it or to ignore it. That is not to say the evidence would ever lead to a verdict against the pope but to deny it is not even there is simply wrong.
‘the PQ 'yes-men' who act like clapping seals’
I am not defending the people on this blog but they are not yes men. Getting them to agree would be like herding cats. If they are saying yes I don’t know who they are saying it to. The whole lot of them have had a go at me for example on different things. That’s what we do.
Saint?MaryHedgehog
‘All ppl should be free to believe what they wish without some religious arsewipe trying to con/manipulate them into seeing things their way. Live it and shut your gob is my spirituality... I have seen the glare of religion shining in the orbs of those obsessed with converting others all me life and flee it.’
On of the problems I have with it too. Your comments on suffering and free will were straight to the point. The free will defence merely convinces me of the bunkum status of religion.
Anthony,
“‘… the most I have done is ask for evidence against the Pope’”
‘True.’
“‘which doesn't seem to be available.’”
‘Not so. You just choose not to deal with it or to ignore it. That is not to say the evidence would ever lead to a verdict against the pope but to deny it is not even there is simply wrong.’
I have to admit I was going to get that book by Robertson, but when I read parts of it in the bookshop it just did not seem to be a serious work, and I could not justify the £6.99 I would have to fork out to buy it, so will try to obtain it in the local library, (that is just the sort of book the protestant library boards are happy to stock).
On doing some research since then I have learned that much of what Robertson claims is similar to the scurrilous attacks on Benedict XVI, of Christopher Hitchens, well and truly refuted here;
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0329.htm
Talking of Hitchens have you read his brother’s book, ‘The Rage against God.’ It is well worth a read.
“‘the PQ 'yes-men' who act like clapping seals’”
‘I am not defending the people on this blog but they are not yes men.’
Sometimes you confront me with things I can hardly believe I wrote. It must have been during a heated exchange, I believe I only had one individual in mind, and was giving him a kind of ‘royal’ plural. By no means did I mean to impugn the average person who writes on your blog, let alone the above average.
‘Getting them to agree would be like herding cats. If they are saying yes I don’t know who they are saying it to. The whole lot of them have had a go at me for example on different things. That’s what we do.’
And long may it continue.
For some reason my links don't often work, but if you google
"sean murphy catholic cover-up 2001 full version" it should be the first hit.
‘That is the reason that I am so 'in hate' with the likes of Hans Kung and Owen O'Sullivan, because I believe that they, spurred on by a mistaken notion of the good, developed and shaped a Church which has given rise to these evils.’
I think the church is quite capable of giving rise to evils without the help of Kung or Sullivan. It was burning people at the stake long before these two appeared.
If Vatican II was reversed I think we would see a declining Catholic community.
Bishop Sandborn – he has been in more sects than a modern Trot!
‘In the words of St Augustine: "Since God is the highest good, He would not allow any evil to exist in His works, unless His omnipotence and goodness were such as to bring good even out of evil."’
But why would he bother? It resonates of the old ‘he left the fossils just to play tricks on us’. Sounds complete rubbish to me. The type of explanation to be pulled out when all else has failed.
Yet, my mother sent me in The City of God while in prison in the early 80s and I devoured it. She loved the writings of Agustine and Thomas Merton and would send them to me. I used to read lots of theology John. Around the time I read Augustine I read six (I think) volumes of Coplestone’s the History of Philosophy. He was a Jesuit so his work dealt with the theological issues. Much of it was complex to my mind but I would test my reading of it against John MacAreavey (the current bishop), a very scholarly guy, when he came in to say mass. He would often throw me a teaser from the books– one day it was how did I rate Occam’s Razor!!
Anthony,
‘If Vatican II was reversed I think we would see a declining Catholic community.’
Would that necessarily be a bad thing? I would rather a smaller Church of people who do believe than a larger one of those who don’t.
‘Bishop Sandborn – he has been in more sects than a modern Trot!’
I’m not aware he has ever been in any sects. He is now, and always has been, as far as I know, a Catholic. He was a member of the Society of Saint Pius X, and was expelled in the early 80’s by Father (now Bishop) Williamson, (who has gained a degree of notoriety, and risks suspension himself). The reason for his expulsion was purely disciplinary and revolved around whether they should accept the 1962 Missal or the one in use up to the death of Pius XII. He then formed a similar society called the Society of Saint Pius V. These are both religious fraternities, certainly not sects.
‘Yet, my mother sent me in The City of God while in prison in the early 80s and I devoured it. She loved the writings of Agustine and Thomas Merton and would send them to me.’
Well you will be aware how long St Monica had to pray for her son, before he converted. Maybe it will pay off yet, :)
'I used to read lots of theology John. Around the time I read Augustine I read six (I think) volumes of Coplestone’s the History of Philosophy...'
I always enjoyed Fr Coplestone’s trouncing of Bertrand Russell in their radio debate. You can’t beat the good Jesuits, very few of them left, and Coplestone’s works are to be recommended.
‘… I would test my reading of it against John MacAreavey (the current bishop), a very scholarly guy, when he came in to say mass.’
I can’t comment on him as I have only seen him at Michaela’s Requiem Mass and don’t know him personally.
‘He would often throw me a teaser from the books– one day it was how did I rate Occam’s Razor!!’
Maybe he was hinting that you needed to shave!
‘A Pope certainly has moral responsibility for what goes on in the Church, but he is very reliant on those below him providing the correct information to him.’
Sort of the king is alright. It is just his conniving advisors. Give out the CDF papers and we will have a much more rounded idea about the flow of info.
‘I don’t know of any judicial authority who would be able to try a Pope who is also the head of a Sovereign State.’
The Sovereign state one is a very dubious concept when applied to the Vatican or Holy See. There is so much stacked up against in terms of history and law. The process of becoming a state with the aid of Mussolini seemed to be an agreement that was not what they might call a ‘gentleman’s one.’ But interestingly, it is because the pope claims to be a head of a sovereign state that people like Geoffrey Robertson argue that he is more vulnerable to prosecution. I suppose we would need to know more about international law. Robertson gives what is an opinion. It cannot be regarded as definitive.
Have to go John. I am late for mass!!
John,
‘The world is full of anti-Catholic journalists ready to pounce on and twist the least thing. It is very rare that they give a balanced view in their attempts to implicate the Pope.’
Reminds me of the SF howling after the Northern Bank robbery. It is very rare that the Church hierarchy give a straight answer or balanced view as to why so much went wrong on its watch. The instinct has been to cover up, smear and silence. What improvements have taken place were wrenched out of it.
‘imagine a Pope had actually abused a child. What a sickening thought. Do I think it has happened? No.’
I would say without doubt it has happened. Statistically, if say there are 2 out of every hundred priests who are abusers, and we count the number of popes, the chances of some pope having abused is high. Which one we can never say. If I am not wrong a Belgian cardinal was caught at it, admitted to it I fact. We can safely presume there are more. After all they are only priests with promotion. So it does not seem outlandish to feel some pope has been at it. I think it is much less likely that a future pope will have been at it than a past one.
‘If that were to happen, I imagine a process would be begun where
Cardinals would demand he should quit.’
I take the opposite view. I think they would move to silence criticism, go into denial, blame the journalists and the abused children, and get up to all the usual antics we have come to expect from them over the years. Only when there was no running away from it would they find some way of easing the pope out, even making him a saint. They are in the process of making JP2 a saint and given his record in mismanagement of the abuse cases this seems wholly inappropriate.
‘In fact, I believe we have had a series of rotten Popes since the death of Pius XII. I guess we get the Popes we deserve, the priests we deserve, the Republican leadership we deserve, the GAA we deserve.’
It’s all our fault then. You usually don’t sound so despairing.
‘All of these things indicate to me that we must be a pretty bad bunch all round both as Catholics, and patriots. If we want to get a holy Pope, holy priests, a fearless Republican leadership and a courageous GAA we need to improve ourselves and they will inevitably follow.’
Human nature produces it. It is our imperfect world. Those who seek perfection often end up trying to impose it with disastrous consequences. I guess it is why I have a gradualist approach to things now.
Yip Anthony I hear you have a very gradualist approach to things mo cara especially when its your shout! John mo cara you get the popes /priests etc you deserve,now I,m not saying here for one moment that you are in someway a bad person, but if you insist in believing in fairies/santa god, then surely con artists will be attracted to you like moths to the flame or should I say bees to the honey pot,and as we all know our older people are described as being vunerable because age has impaired their ability to act or defend themselves from rouges, now people who are brainwashed into strong religious faith must be vunerable and open to explotation from rouges especially if the same rouges have special priviliges within the state, amen mea culpa mea culpa
John,
AM: ‘Hans Kung ...may be wrong in so many things but he did the right thing there.’
JM: ‘Is it possible that you could be mistaken on this?’
Would you accuse me of infallibility if I were to deny the possibility of error? !! Enjoyed that.
Larry,
‘On the Elton john baby issue, it doesn't sit well with me. I may attract politically correct ire but it makes me squeemish.’
I found it odd myself. Elton John in charge of a dog never mind a child would cause me concern of some sort. But I would feel the same way if he was with a woman. He is so volatile and temperamental. Yet at the same time I see no reason for same sex couples not to have a child. If for example a man (use a woman if we wish) with a child from a straight relationship moves in with a gay partner and brings the child with him, there seems no reason that I can think of as to why that child should be removed from them.
‘People used to get pythons, monkeys and even lion cubs as pets, now it seems madona and wealthy rock stars are unfulfilled without a human child of their 'own'.
If indeed the motivation that would raise a serious question mark. But the less well off as well as the wealthy adopt children
Anthony,
"AM: ‘Hans Kung ...may be wrong in so many things but he did the right thing there.’"
"JM: ‘Is it possible that you could be mistaken on this?’"'
'Would you accuse me of infallibility if I were to deny the possibility of error? !! Enjoyed that.'
I think we are all infallible at times. E.g. If I say 2 plus 2 equals 4, I am infallible. We are often infallible on a daily basis.
The really strange thing would be if God could become man, and found a Church, yet no-one would ever know what He tought because He could not protect that Church from error.
John,
Usual distinction, ‘hate the sin, love the sinner.’
This is unpersuasive. It sounds so much the Iris Robinson attempt to conceal her hatred for a certain category of people. You don’t strike me as having a love for homosexuals particularly if you use terms like ‘degenerate’ to describe a person who merely asks for toleration and understanding.
‘The leaders of 1916 hated British oppression, and loved the idea of a free Ireland. The two are always together.’
It is a good point. I don’t like it but that doesn’t make it untrue.
‘I do not consider myself morally superior to them (gays). But I do maintain that if they are practising homosexuals, they are engaging in a lifestyle that is objectively wrong.’
But the term degenerate is one of strong moral opprobrium. Are those clerics like Sean Brady who sought to silence children not objectively wrong?
Marty,
‘its a pity baby p didn’t have them for parents.’
Agreed. I have to admit to having that feeling of Larry’s when I heard the news. But it is the conditioning we have gone through over the years. They say that people with rings in their ears laugh at people with rings in their noses. There is no compelling reason that I could conceive why they should not be allowed to bring the child up. It can be done. Two brothers could do it and no one would bat an eyelid. It is just this prejudice against homosexuality and the religious need to inflict punishment on them that has people screaming about this. On the other hand if there is sound material evidence that this is harmful to the child and not merely harmful to religious opinion, I would be willing to reconsider my views on it.
Nuala,
‘What is the grave injustice, the idea that the child will not be reared in the modern nuclear family?’
This makes so much sense. The grave injustice is that bigotry/zeal/prejudice/religious opinion/macho bias, call it what you will, can prevent a child being brought up but two caring adults of the same sex.
If two Catholic priests were to bring up an abandoned child I think the opposition would be much more muted. It seems that gays per se are being targeted here.
Alfie,
'The only answer that makes sense to me is that there is no driver behind the wheel, that we are on our own and that we should do our best to make one anothers short lives here as happy as possible.'
Agreed. It is all about what makes sense. If god had a license in order to get behind the wheel, he has long since been disqualified.
In reference to the 'gay marriage' debate, I would agree with this from the Catechism.
2202 “A man and a woman united in marriage, together with their
children, form a family. This institution is prior to any recognition by public authority, which has an obligation to recognize it. It should
be considered the normal reference point by which the different forms
of family relationship are to be evaluated.”
And I would disagree!! It just means you agree with the catechism.
John,
‘http://islam-watch.org/Amarkhan/pedophilia-in-islam/pedophilia-islam.htm#Ch2’
Just glanced at the site John due to little time. I am no fan of any religion but feel there is a tendency to go over the top when it comes to Islam. The Bible can justify the murder of children, if I am not mistaken. Very few Catholics would practice it. It also clearly encourages violence against children entreating parents to use the rod on them.
‘Most Moslems would be horrified by the thought of it, but you will find it defended by many of its clerics.’
I haven’t read up on it but do not recall hearing any cleric justify it. I have no doubt that some of them like priests and rabbis engage in it but openly endorsing it is another matter.
‘Paedophilia within Islam is generally against girls, rather than boys’
How come if homosexuality is what lies behind the instances of clerical paedophilia?
‘But at the current rate of Islamic expansion, one that will all too soon be the dominant force in Europe.’
Political Islam is the problem not Islam per se. Give a religion state power then crucifixions and burnings will surely follow. They simply cannot stand others not living their lives outside the moral prescripts of the religious.
John,
I read the BBC piece you pasted in about clerics abusing kids in Pakistan. There seemed to be little difference there between the mullahs and the priests.
‘if he doesn’t like the teaching of the Catholic Church, he knows where the door is.’
I would imagine it is his right to try and change it rather than being forced out of it. He has a right to speak and the Church has no right to censor him.
‘Whilst I hope that this priest opposes child abuse, I believe his policies, and those of priests like him, have led to it.’
I would say the institutional protection afforded to abusers was infinitely more responsible for child abuse than the actions of this priest merely expressing his opinion about sexuality.
‘Yes, I was harsh’
True. You were also demeaning.
‘but the time for mealy mouthed liberalism is over in my view.’
He defended a human right which can’t be dismissed as ‘mealy mouth liberalism.’
‘For too long we have listened to priests like him, and their approval of homosexuality flies diametrically opposed to the natural law, family life, society, and the Catholic Faith.’
For too long priests like him haven’t been listened to. They have been censored. If he flies in the face of Catholic prejudice, fine. Something needs to.
“But again it is Islam that I hate.”
‘I fully expect to be gaoled over my views on Irish freedom, Islam or homosexuality one day.’
Just as I might for blasphemy.
I agree, thank God for hypocrisy. It is when they take their religion seriously that they blow up buildings, chop off heads and practice paedophilia, all in imitation of or obedience to their 'prophet'.
The history of Islam is more complex than that. I think it is right to blame Qutb for a lot of it but not Islam in general.
If it is used in the sense of 'morally good' I am certain their are many tens of thousands of good Moslems.’
As many as there are good Catholics I imagine
‘The Pope, by the nature of his office, has to teach his flock.’
Let him. But he can’t prescribe for those not in his club. And the rules of his club should never be allowed to trump societal law.
John,
‘I have to admit I was going to get that book by Robertson, but when I read parts of it in the bookshop it just did not seem to be a serious work.’
It is a very serious work. Polemical surely but no less serious for that. Have a look at the Terry Eagleton review of it. Eagleton is no card carrying atheist. He is a big critic of Dawkins.
‘On doing some research since then I have learned that much of what Robertson claims is similar to the scurrilous attacks on Benedict XVI, of Christopher Hitchens, well and truly refuted here; http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0329.htm’
Read the book if you fancy and make your call after that. Whatever you decide after that is fair game.
‘Talking of Hitchens have you read his brother’s book, ‘The Rage against God.’ It is well worth a read.’
Will make a note of it. Have a few Hitchens ones to read. Finished his God is Not Great one quite some time ago and need to put a review together for TPQ.
‘Sometimes you confront me with things I can hardly believe I wrote.’
I know that feeling.
We try to restrain no one. We hope that civility finds its own level. People can be as sharp as they like with each other but name calling and ranting is a waste of time. When Michaelhenry can hack it with all his critics something has been achieved. He is as much a part of it now as the rest of us.
John,
'I would rather a smaller Church of people who do believe than a larger one of those who don’t.
And have so many alienated from what you regard as a loving god?
'These are both religious fraternities, certainly not sects.'
The difference escapes me
‘The really strange thing would be if God could become man, and found a Church, yet no-one would ever know what He taught because He could not protect that Church from error.’
Point is he didn’t protect it from error.
Post a Comment