Beleg Cúthalion on 12/4/2010 at 20:46

---

When that Beatles article came out in German, it was a wondeful example of media forming an opinion. In it they quoted the paper from the Vatican saying (about) that they don't take Lennon's statement so serious anymore. The headline was "Pope/Vatican forgives John Lennon" and of course all the commenters (thanks to web 2.0) hopped on the crusades/inquisition/no-condoms-for-Africa train and showed off their simple idea of history and general complexity of the world. On the other hand everyone of them surely would have bashed the media for being superficial etc. if it had been some story about Paris Hilton. That is when I think I understand people burning books... if the general public is unable to view a thing in its context. It's IMHO the same with those Dan Brown novels warming up old fictional myths - just because it was written down people thought there might be something to it. But that's probably too far off topic, right?

Scots Taffer on 12/4/2010 at 23:43

---

It's funny to me that the same people flouting strawmen and getting worked up when challenged in the other thread are the ones rushing to the "defence" of Dawkins in here.

Kaleid on 15/4/2010 at 11:23

---

Ridiculous comparison. When South park made fun of Dawkins no Dawkins fans were setting embassies of fire and the no fatwas were issued. Nor does he preach for any book which tells you what you must believe (in order not to roast for an eternity in hell) nor is there a set of morality which you have to act after.

And a science minded person changes his or hers opinion once new data comes in. This doesn't happen with fundamentalists.

Beleg Cúthalion on 15/4/2010 at 19:59

---

And I half-way thought the NY Times was some sort of...well... quality newspaper. But it probably isn't the NY Times as a whole, it's just one of their columnists. :pThat's exactly it, "feels". I personally knew three monks who were called to their main monastery because of accusations of child abuse etc.. One of them had beaten up one child in the 1970s I think and is otherwise (and probably afterwards) known to me as a reasonable, intelligent and tempered person who doesn't even care too much about some old-fashioned theological guidelines of the Vatican. The second had his non-paedophilia proofed with a psychological opinion because of earlier accusations. The third one's guiltiness is unknown to me but he's already returned from Bavaria so I guess they don't exactly fear him to run amok or something.

Now, fact is that you can get struck by the child abuse hammer by only touching children, that it's one of the more effective tools of divorced women to avoid contact bewteen the children and their fathers, and - most importantly - the accusation is already as severe as the crime itself. Now let there be one guy groping little children, get him accused of child abuse and let a few other "victims" years later hop onto the same train. Now you get a handful of supposed criminals who have to proof their innocence instead of just telling their story first. It's no wonder that you, especially with the media as wolves after it, arrive at an "international battalion". Yes, this is blaming the victims. Every student with a strict teacher would get a raised eyebrow of the latter if this was to be a statement in a scientific thesis.

These guys/this woman are/is behaving exactly like the people who believe in the story of the Americans shooting the Moon landing in a studio and countering every contradicting argument with intentionally released false information, secretly-fixed proof afterwards etc. etc..

It would wind me even more up if I didn't know that it was the same for politicians, people in the economy, computer game publishers...

Bluegrime on 15/4/2010 at 23:07

---

What does that (oddly specific) claim have to do with the catholic church being accused of harboring and possibly institutionalizing the rape of children? This isn't some divorcee crying foul at trial, this is an international uproar over the church failing to protect its most vulnerable from people willing to abuse the word of God to their own ends. Nearly all the evidence from inside and outside the church is pointing towards them not only failing to stop this, but actively protecting members of the church who are accused of child rape rather then investigating it.



Bold by me. Are you trying to imply that the people making these accusations are disingenuous? Do you think people who are part of an anti-homosexual religion are admitting to being molested by male priests to get some kind of reward out of it? I welcome you to find the people suing the catholic church for damages (if there are any) and compare it to the number of accusers. Unless the church is giving out secret hush money, then there would be NO monetary or personal benefit to falsifying accusations of child rape against prominent members of the catholic church.



No, the people who are trying to say that the conspiracy is with the accusers and not the church are the ones who need to start investing in tinfoil.