Richard Dawkins to Atheist Rally: 'Show Contempt' for Faith, the Eucharist

[CarloMagnus]

Deus, where have the gentlemen gone?

-Karl

 

[anEvilAtheist]

Tim Minchin, ‘comedian’ went on a stage for over 20 minutes making derogatory comments about the Pope, and swore over 75 times, even though there were children around.

I was at the rally and Minchin’s song on the pope was less than three minutes. This was the only one of his songs that focused on the pope or Catholicism.

My nature is to politely discuss differences of opinion with people rather than use explitives and the first time I heard Minchin’s pope song, I didn’t like it at all. When new cases of child sexual abuse have come out, I have on multiple occasions defended Catholicism on these boards, saying that while the crimes are horrible, they say nothing about the truth of Catholicism. However, the crimes are very horrible. It should not euphamisticly be refered to merely as abuse. Children were being raped. Innocent boys were forced to do things that will scar them for life. We can argue about the degree of the pope and the Church’s culpability, but I think we can all agree that they should have done more. There were times where they protected the rapists instead of doing everything they could to bring them to justice.

As I reflected on it more, I came to realize the reason for the explitives. In his song Minchin explains the language by saying this is the language one uses when one is cross about child rape. I think that if there are any acts that warrant cursing, that should be one of them. He also uses the language to inspire self-reflection in the listener. Towards the end of the song, he says that “but if you find me more offensive than the” possibility that the pope protected priests who were raping children, you yourself are just as morally misguided. That made me reflect on my own aversion to the song.

 

[GaryTaylor]

CCC on Atheism

2123 “Many… of our contemporaries either do not at all perceive, or explicitly reject, this intimate and vital bond of man to God. Atheism must therefore be regarded as one of the most serious problems of our time.” [GS 19 § 1] [29]

2124 The name “atheism” covers many very different phenomena. One common form is the practical materialism which restricts its needs and aspirations to space and time. Atheistic humanism falsely considers man to be “an end to himself, and the sole maker, with supreme control, of his own history.” [GS 20 § 2] Another form of contemporary atheism looks for the liberation of man through economic and social liberation. “It holds that religion, of its very nature, thwarts such emancipation by raising man’s hopes in a future life, thus both deceiving him and discouraging him from working for a better form of life on earth.” [GS 20 § 2]

2125 Since it rejects or denies the existence of God, atheism is a sin against the virtue of religion. [Cf. Rom 1:18] The imputability of this offense can be significantly diminished in virtue of the intentions and the circumstances. “Believers can have more than a little to do with the rise of atheism. To the extent that they are careless about their instruction in the faith, or present its teaching falsely, or even fail in their religious, moral, or social life, they must be said to conceal rather than to reveal the true nature of God and of religion.” [GS 19 § 3] [1735]

2126 Atheism is often based on a false conception of human autonomy, exaggerated to the point of refusing any dependence on God. [Cf. GS 20 § 1] Yet, “to acknowledge God is in no way to oppose the dignity of man, since such dignity is grounded and brought to perfection in God…” [GS 21 § 3] “For the Church knows full well that her message is in harmony with the most secret desires of the human heart.” [GS 21 § 7] [396, 154]

 

[_Abyssinia]

I was at the rally and Minchin’s song on the pope was less than three minutes. This was the only one of his songs that focused on the pope or Catholicism.

My nature is to politely discuss differences of opinion with people rather than use explitives and the first time I heard Minchin’s pope song, I didn’t like it at all. When new cases of child sexual abuse have come out, I have on multiple occasions defended Catholicism on these boards, saying that while the crimes are horrible, they say nothing about the truth of Catholicism. However, the crimes are very horrible. It should not euphamisticly be refered to merely as abuse. Children were being raped. Innocent boys were forced to do things that will scar them for life. We can argue about the degree of the pope and the Church’s culpability, but I think we can all agree that they should have done more. There were times where they protected the rapists instead of doing everything they could to bring them to justice.

As I reflected on it more, I came to realize the reason for the explitives. In his song Minchin explains the language by saying this is the language one uses when one is cross about child rape. I think that if there are any acts that warrant cursing, that should be one of them. He also uses the language to inspire self-reflection in the listener. Towards the end of the song, he says that “but if you find me more offensive than the” possibility that the pope protected priests who were raping children, you yourself are just as morally misguided. That made me reflect on my own aversion to the song.

What evidence is there for the claim that the Pope protected priests who abused children? There is no evidence I have heard of. Tim Minchin was making derogatory statements about the Pope and lay Catholics. If Tim Minchin used the expletives because he was angry about child rape then why did he used so many expletives directed at lay Catholics?

I think the reason rally was exposed and will be known for hate mongering.

I remind you of what the Reason Rally website said:

Q: Are we going to trash religion?
A: No. This will be a positive experience.

 

[GaryTaylor]

What evidence is there for the claim that the Pope protected priests who abused children? There is no evidence I have heard of.

None I’m aware of, and most if not all filed case’s have been systematically dismissed for lack of evidence or dropped by the defense attorneys to save face, stating they didn’t believe the funding needed and time invested would prove to be worth the while in the end.

However perhaps there’s one I am not aware of? I would assume there would be a link provided then?

 

[_Abyssinia]

1924 is a long time ago. I don’t think you can simultaneously accuse the Democratic party of being the party of atheists, liberals, gays, ethnic minorities AND white supremacists. All of the evidence I provided leads me to conclude that today’s KKK has more in common with the current GOP than it does with today’s Democratic party.

Not all ethnic minorities are part of the Democrat party. No, I 100% disagree with you, the KKK does not have more in common with the Republican Party, than it does with any other party.

It doesn’t matter to me what your skin color might be or what group you identify with - if you are going to use an artificial construct like “race” to generalize and make assumptions about people you do not even know - then your comments are by definition racist.

By all means, lets continue the discussion…

Here is why I don’t believe your scenario: Roughly 80% African-Americans vote Democratic, but only 24% of African-American households are on some form of government assistance. So what’s going on with the other 56%? They are not getting free food, free housing, and free medical care. A similar pattern can be found among Hispanic households. How do you account for that?

I don’t think ethnic minorities vote Democratic because they want handouts. I think they do it because they are repulsed by the hateful rhetoric of the right. Having observed quite a bit of that first hand during this GOP primary, I really can’t blame them.

I would like an apology, you called me a racist, when I am not.

97% of Black voters voted for Obama in the 2008 election. Black voters tend to be socially conservative, they have traditional views on abortion, homosexuality, they support school choice, something that opposed by most Democrats.

So something else is happening.

There is an element of tradition, if you see everybody around you voting Democrat then your going to follow that tradition.

There is an element of ill education on politics, a few years ago I would of thought that the Democrat party was the party of civil rights, before I educated myself and realized that was not not the case, that Democrats created the KKK, that most Democrats opposed civil rights legislation. If I did not know any of this, then I am sure there are Blacks that are in the same situation. I think a lot of Blacks unfortunately think the Republican party is rooted in racism and slavery, when it is the exact opposite.

The Democrats assume they have the Black vote so they do not deliver much. The static vote leaves Black people in a terrible situation.

Look what the Democrat website said in 2010:

http://www.black-and-right.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/demparty-471x248.gif

This screenshot is nothing but Democrat lies. Democrats are trying to re-write history. Is exposed here:

black-and-right.com/the-democrat-race-lie

And the Dixiecrat myth that Southern Democrats became racist Republicans is exposed here:

black-and-right.com/2010/03/19/the-dixiecrat-myth

 

[robwar]

the only people that are hurt in the Atheist rally are those who came to support Dawkins. Haven’t there been more murder and killing in the name of atheism in the last century than all the previous centuries ( do to communism and nazism). There is a saying “one’s morality dictates one’s theology”. They may swear, mock religion, make all the threats they want but in the end they only hurt themselves for all eternity. That is a pretty tough position to be in, deny that there is God and shake your fist at Him. I pray for their souls and pity them. It is Nietzsche who is dead and not God. The Gates of hell will not prevail against the Church. in the late 60’s John Lennon said the Beatles were more popular than Jesus. Well, John Lennon is killed by a lunatic. Look at where it got him. It takes a lot to deny that there is wind that is blowing.

 

[unafraid]

I was at the rally and Minchin’s song on the pope was less than three minutes. This was the only one of his songs that focused on the pope or Catholicism.

My nature is to politely discuss differences of opinion with people rather than use explitives and the first time I heard Minchin’s pope song, I didn’t like it at all. When new cases of child sexual abuse have come out, I have on multiple occasions defended Catholicism on these boards, saying that while the crimes are horrible, they say nothing about the truth of Catholicism. However, the crimes are very horrible. It should not euphamisticly be refered to merely as abuse. Children were being raped. Innocent boys were forced to do things that will scar them for life. We can argue about the degree of the pope and the Church’s culpability, but I think we can all agree that they should have done more. There were times where they protected the rapists instead of doing everything they could to bring them to justice.

As I reflected on it more, I came to realize the reason for the explitives. In his song Minchin explains the language by saying this is the language one uses when one is cross about child rape. I think that if there are any acts that warrant cursing, that should be one of them. He also uses the language to inspire self-reflection in the listener. Towards the end of the song, he says that “but if you find me more offensive than the” possibility that the pope protected priests who were raping children, you yourself are just as morally misguided. That made me reflect on my own aversion to the song.

Given the venue, and obvious tone of the event, to suggest that this vulgar display was somehow intended to edify, rather than defame, is patently false. So, are we really supposed to believe that this man’s invective was an attempt at moralization amid a sea of immorality, rage, and maliciousness? Nonsense!

 

[prodigalson2011]

I was at the rally and Minchin’s song on the pope was less than three minutes. This was the only one of his songs that focused on the pope or Catholicism.

My nature is to politely discuss differences of opinion with people rather than use explitives and the first time I heard Minchin’s pope song, I didn’t like it at all. When new cases of child sexual abuse have come out, I have on multiple occasions defended Catholicism on these boards, saying that while the crimes are horrible, they say nothing about the truth of Catholicism. However, the crimes are very horrible. It should not euphamisticly be refered to merely as abuse. Children were being raped. Innocent boys were forced to do things that will scar them for life. We can argue about the degree of the pope and the Church’s culpability, but I think we can all agree that they should have done more. There were times where they protected the rapists instead of doing everything they could to bring them to justice.

As I reflected on it more, I came to realize the reason for the explitives. In his song Minchin explains the language by saying this is the language one uses when one is cross about child rape. I think that if there are any acts that warrant cursing, that should be one of them. He also uses the language to inspire self-reflection in the listener. Towards the end of the song, he says that “but if you find me more offensive than the” possibility that the pope protected priests who were raping children, you yourself are just as morally misguided. That made me reflect on my own aversion to the song.

Oh yeah, that song was deep; let me tell ya. Very “family friendly,” too. It’s old hat, frankly. Everyone in the world knows what happened, and everyone, Catholics included, is shocked and reviled. He’s not enlightening anyone; he’s getting cheap laughs by spouting hatred towards Catholics. Don’t try and intellectualize it. This whole post makes me think of those pretentious NPR reviews that rant about the philosophical underpinnings of the latest Lil Wayne song. It’s absurd. Spray all the air freshener you want on it; trash is trash.

Oh, and newsflash for Mr. Minchen: atheists abuse children, too.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

What evidence is there for the claim that the Pope protected priests who abused children? There is no evidence I have heard of.

Here is some relevant evidence:
nytimes.com/2010/03/25/world/europe/25vatican.html?_r=1&hp
nytimes.com/2010/04/10/world/europe/10pope.html?pagewanted=all
nytimes.com/2011/01/19/world/europe/19vatican.html
And the John Jay Report, (executive summary) commissioned by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, identified the following factors as contributing to the sexual abuse problem: failure by the hierarchy to grasp the seriousness of the problem, overemphasis on the need to avoid a scandal, use of unqualified treatment centers, misguided willingness to forgive, and insufficient accountability.

Tim Minchin was making derogatory statements about the Pope and lay Catholics. If Tim Minchin used the expletives because he was angry about child rape then why did he used so many expletives directed at lay Catholics?

In the song, Minchin says that he has no problem with Catholic spiritual beliefs when those beliefs do not harm others, but he thinks that it is right to express outrage against those who rape children, those who in any way protected rapists, and also those who are more offended by his song than by child rapists and those who protected them.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

Oh yeah, that song was deep; let me tell ya. Very “family friendly,” too. It’s old hat, frankly. Everyone in the world knows what happened, and everyone, Catholics included, is shocked and reviled.

What evidence is there for the claim that the Pope protected priests who abused children? There is no evidence I have heard of.

I think it’s interesting that one person responded that she hadn’t seen any evidence that the pope was involved, while someone else responded that Minchin’s song is old hat because everyone already knows about it and is horrified. I wish we were at a place where everyone understood what happened and was shocked and reviled, but I don’t think we’re all at that point yet.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

Given the venue, and obvious tone of the event, to suggest that this vulgar display was somehow intended to edify, rather than defame, is patently false. So, are we really supposed to believe that this man’s invective was an attempt at moralization amid a sea of immorality, rage, and maliciousness? Nonsense!

Minchin has been performing the song for a long time, so the Reason Rally had nothing to do with the intent of the song. I also think you’re a little quick to assume what the overall tone of a 8 hour event was based on a few quotes and video clips that people found shocking enough to write about.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Here is some relevant evidence:
nytimes.com/2010/03/25/world/europe/25vatican.html?_r=1&hp
nytimes.com/2010/04/10/world/europe/10pope.html?pagewanted=all
nytimes.com/2011/01/19/world/europe/19vatican.html
And the John Jay Report, (executive summary) commissioned by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, identified the following factors as contributing to the sexual abuse problem: failure by the hierarchy to grasp the seriousness of the problem, overemphasis on the need to avoid a scandal, use of unqualified treatment centers, misguided willingness to forgive, and insufficient accountability.

In the song, Minchin says that he has no problem with Catholic spiritual beliefs when those beliefs do not harm others, but he thinks that it is right to express outrage against those who rape children, those who in any way protected rapists, and also those who are more offended by his song than by child rapists and those who protected them.

So, you have to be an atheist to be mortified by a pedophilic priest and the mechanism that was put in place to cover it up?

 

[prodigalson2011]

I

I think it’s interesting that one person responded that she hadn’t seen any evidence that the pope was involved, while someone else responded that Minchin’s song is old hat because everyone already knows about it and is horrified. I wish we were at a place where everyone understood what happened and was shocked and reviled, but I don’t think we’re all at that point yet.

Hold it right there. I did NOT mean to imply the Pope was complicit in the coverup. The NY Times is heavily biased against Catholics, like any other liberal media outlet, and there is gross distortion in all of their treatments on this issue. There are plenty of resources, on this site and others, that present a much more accurate picture of the situation. The NY Times is very selective and misleading in what portion of Vatican documents and affairs they present.

Why? Because the Church is the most vocal and powerful critic of the culture our media has built. Any chance to disparage or discredit her is undoubtedly seized with relish.

But anyway, I think it’s foolish to say that we are not all reviled by the behavior of so many priests and bishops.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Here is some relevant evidence nytimes.com/2010/03/25/world/europe/25vatican.html?_r=1&hp

This went to court and it was found that the Vatican is not responsible:

clericalwhispers.blogspot.co.uk/2012/02/murphy-case-vatican-is-not-responsible.html

nytimes.com/2010/04/10/world/europe/10pope.html?pagewanted=all

The New York Times / AP article was full of errors, read this clarification:

Now the key questions:

• Was Cardinal Ratzinger responding to the complaints of priestly pedophilia? No. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which the future Pontiff headed, did not have jurisdiction for pedophile priests until 2001. The cardinal was weighing a request for laicization of Kiesle.

• Had Oakland’s Bishop John Cummins sought to laicize Kiesle as punishment for his misconduct? No. Kiesle himself asked to be released from the priesthood. The bishop supported the wayward priest’s application.

• Was the request for laicization denied? No. Eventually, in 1987, the Vatican approved Kiesle’s dismissal from the priesthood.

• Did Kiesle abuse children again before he was laicized? To the best of our knowledge, No. The next complaints against him arose in 2002: 15 years after he was dismissed from the priesthood.

• Did Cardinal Ratzinger’s reluctance to make a quick decision mean that Kiesle remained in active ministry? No. Bishop Cummins had the authority to suspend the predator-priest, and in fact he had placed him on an extended leave of absence long before the application for laicization was entered.

• Would quicker laicization have protected children in California? No. Cardinal Ratzinger did not have the power to put Kiesle behind bars. If Kiesle had been defrocked in 1985 instead of 1987, he would have remained at large, thanks to a light sentence from the California courts. As things stood, he remained at large. He was not engaged in parish ministry and had no special access to children.

• Did the Vatican cover up evidence of Kiesle’s predatory behavior? No. The civil courts of California destroyed that evidence after the priest completed a sentence of probation– before the case ever reached Rome.

So to review: This was not a case in which a bishop wanted to discipline his priest and the Vatican official demurred. This was not a case in which a priest remained active in ministry, and the Vatican did nothing to protect the children under his pastoral care. This was not a case in which the Vatican covered up evidence of a priest’s misconduct. This was a case in which a priest asked to be released from his vows, and the Vatican– which had been flooded by such requests throughout the 1970s — wanted to consider all such cases carefully. In short, if you’re looking for evidence of a sex-abuse crisis in the Catholic Church, this case is irrelevant.

blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100033774/journalists-abandon-standards-to-attack-the-pope-you-can-say-that-again

nytimes.com/2011/01/19/world/europe/19vatican.html

The Vatican has said it did not aid abuse cover up in Ireland:

…

speaking to Vatican Radio, Fr. Lombardi argued that there is “no reason” to interpret the 1997 letter “as being intended to cover up cases of abuse.”

He explained that the letter was written to the Irish bishops’ conference by the then-papal nuncio in Ireland.

It detailed how their 1996 document “Child Sexual Abuse: Framework for a Church Response” was problematic from a canon law perspective.

Fr. Lombardi emphasized that the letter never told Irish bishops to only address abuse cases from a canon law approach,but that some of the canonical details in the protection policy needed to be amended to prevent them from being invalid.

The letter “warned against the risk that measures were being taken which could later turn out to be questionable or invalid from the canonical point of view, thus defeating the purpose of the effective sanctions proposed by the Irish bishops,” he said.

Fr. Lombardi also clarified that there “is absolutely nothing in the letter that is an invitation to disregard the laws of the country.”

He said that any reference the letter had to bishops providing abuse information to police “did not object to any civil law to that effect” because civil law of that kind did not exist in Ireland at the time.

The Vatican spokesman called the criticism by the government “curious,” saying it’s as “if the Holy See was guilty of not having given merit under canon law to norms which a State did not consider necessary to give value under civil law.”

catholicnewsagency.com/news/vatican-did-not-aid-abuse-cover-up-in-ireland-says-spokesman

 

[buffalo]

Here is some relevant evidence:
nytimes.com/2010/03/25/world/europe/25vatican.html?_r=1&hp
nytimes.com/2010/04/10/world/europe/10pope.html?pagewanted=all
nytimes.com/2011/01/19/world/europe/19vatican.html
And the John Jay Report, (executive summary) commissioned by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, identified the following factors as contributing to the sexual abuse problem: failure by the hierarchy to grasp the seriousness of the problem, overemphasis on the need to avoid a scandal, use of unqualified treatment centers, misguided willingness to forgive, and insufficient accountability.

In the song, Minchin says that he has no problem with Catholic spiritual beliefs when those beliefs do not harm others, but he thinks that it is right to express outrage against those who rape children, those who in any way protected rapists, and also those who are more offended by his song than by child rapists and those who protected them.

Exploring the John Jay Study you will also note that these were crimes of homosexuality as they were adult men preying on post pubescent boys.

 

[_Abyssinia]

And the John Jay Report, (executive summary) commissioned by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, identified the following factors as contributing to the sexual abuse problem: failure by the hierarchy to grasp the seriousness of the problem, overemphasis on the need to avoid a scandal, use of unqualified treatment centers, misguided willingness to forgive, and insufficient accountability.

There is no doubt mistakes were made by individual Bishops in their dioceses in their handling of Priests who were accused of committing abuse, but the Vatican does not ‘micro manage’ hundreds of thousands of dioceses and hundreds of thousands of priests around the world. Cardinal Ratzinger became aware and put in place reforms including child protection reforms which he as continued as Pope Benedict, he has vowed to get rid of the ‘filth’ in the Church.

In the song, Minchin says that he has no problem with Catholic spiritual beliefs when those beliefs do not harm others, but he thinks that it is right to express outrage against those who rape children, those who in any way protected rapists, and also those who are more offended by his song than by child rapists and those who protected them.

Minchin attacks Catholics in his song called ‘I hate Papists.’ ‘Papist’ means a Catholic.

So **** the ************,

And **** you, *************

If you’re still a ************* papist.

You say Minchin ‘has no problem with Catholic spiritual beliefs.’ Minchin’s songs about Catholicism are offensive and obscene.

 

[prodigalson2011]

Minchin has been performing the song for a long time, so the Reason Rally had nothing to do with the intent of the song. I also think you’re a little quick to assume what the overall tone of a 8 hour event was based on a few quotes and video clips that people found shocking enough to write about.

Well, honestly, having been an atheist and being very familiar with the “distinguished speakers” of the rally, as well as the communities that follow them, I know there is one thing that truly gives them a sense of unity: a hatred of religion. Not that all of them are, and not saying you are–you seem to be a peaceful person–but there is no denying the amount of venom and animosity towards religious people that comes from the likes of Dawkins, Randi, Harris, Dennett, et al. Or the majority of "pro-active"atheists.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

So, you have to be an atheist to be mortified by a pedophilic priest and the mechanism that was put in place to cover it up?

Nope, everyone should be. It’s just sad that not everyone is.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Nope, everyone should be. It’s just sad that not everyone is.

Can you present anything…at all…that indicates that there is a group of people who are apathetic or dismissive about this issue and how it has been handled?