Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘pope benedict’

– There’s another problem facing Africa which kills many more children every year than Joseph Kony.

– Hmm. Apparently when the Pope isn’t protecting child-abusing priests from prosecution or blaming all the ills on the world on a fantasy of militant secularism, he’s claiming that the heliocentric model of the solar system – that is, the idea that the planets orbit around the Sun – “can’t be empirically demonstrated“.

– One of my favourite blogs of recent times has launched a podcast version. So check out Facing The Singularity in its new, too-lazy-to-read-it-yourself format.

Five Things Rush Limbaugh Doesn’t Know About Contraception.

Advertisements

Read Full Post »

This article from TIME begins with the phrase “The latest sex-abuse case to rock the Catholic Church”.

After checking the date and seeing that it was posted just over a week ago, I still wasn’t sure if this was going to be actual news, or just yet another in a long list of old stories I’ve already heard about.

A headline about a sex-abuse case that rocked, say, Microsoft, would be an eye-catching novelty. The slightly exciting and immoral sex lives of footballers are still making massive news at a time when nobody could possibly be surprised by something as dull as celebrity infidelity.

But the Catholic Church being involved in the institutional molestation of children? Eh, I heard about that already.

Father Riccardo Seppia was allegedly recorded on tape saying the following words to a Moroccan drug dealer:

I do not want 16-year-old boys but younger. Fourteen-year-olds are O.K. Look for needy boys who have family issues.

He is also said to have traded cocaine and money for sexual encounters with boys.

This is all particularly embarrassing for the Cardinal of Father Seppia’s archdiocese, who has recently been working with the Pope on “reforms to respond to prior scandals of pedophile priests”.

Yeah.

I think for something to invoke outrage, it needs to be somehow shocking. And this just isn’t, these days. Which is sad.

But don’t let’s get sidetracked from the important issues here. There are some monasteries out there were the monks and nuns are said to engage in regular sessions of dancing. Now that’s the kind of ungodly abomination that the Pope needs to put a stop to immediately. It’s a matter of priorities, people.

And remember the advice of Bill Donohue of the Catholic League: what really matters is that it’s not technically pedophilia, because many of these victims were post-pubescent.

Just in case you were forming an unfairly low opinion of the Catholic priests who’ve been using drugs to pay for 14-year-olds to have sex with.

Read Full Post »

After the nightmarishly enjoyable drama that’s been ensuing in the comments thread below yesterday’s post (1,600 pageviews, 59 comments and counting), I thought I’d lighten the mood with a little joke.

What’s better than feeding starving people in the third world?

Paying the costs of travel and accommodation when an accessory to institutional child abuse and his massive team of personal security come to visit!

… Hmm. The mood doesn’t feel very lightened.

Yes, news is emerging that the Department for International Development transferred £1.85 million to the Foreign Office last September, to fund the visit from His Popiness, Joey Ratzo.

The visit ended up costing taxpayers around £10 million total, which is bad enough, but it does seem to only make it horribly worse that some of that money was diverted from foreign aid.

The defense offered by a spokesperson for the department included the phrase:

Our contribution recognised the Catholic Church’s role as a major provider of health and education services in developing countries.

Which should elicit some severe head-desking from anyone passingly familiar with the Church’s stance historically on, to pick a totally non-random example, the role of condoms in preventing the spread of AIDS.

Certainly not everything the Catholic Church does in its attempts to provide health and education is evil, or even misguided. There’s no doubt been some good work there, in amidst the terrible stuff which tends to get wider publicity. But the good stuff isn’t anything that couldn’t also be done by legitimate apolitical organisations with a much better track record.

That’ll do. Maybe I’m just too tired to get very angry about this tonight.

h/t New Humanist

Read Full Post »

An attempt to change the damn record already is edging into sight. To that end, I’m just linking to a few things tonight, some of which will continue the Popey protesty theme, but with strictly limited accompanying ranting from me:

– It’s annoying when the Guardian gets stuff really wrong. It has many excellent regular columnists, a political stance largely not far from my own, and a clearer interest in at least making an effort at things like impartial fact-checking than I’ve come to expect from most tabloids.

It doesn’t render the whole paper worthless or deplorable whenever they simply print something I profoundly disagree with, but it is frustrating. This column by Andrew Brown especially so, for the reasons Greg Laden explains.

You don’t have to like or agree with Richard Dawkins about everything, or about anything much – I’m not going to link to that Neil deGrasse Tyson clip again, but it can certainly be done. But to think that he was really “comparing every Catholic in Britain to Adolf Hitler” is just bafflingly wrong-headed. It makes me wonder how badly someone would have to want to hear Dawkins expressing unadulterated contempt for all religious people (because it’s such a convenient narrative to suppose that that’s what he always does) for them to so completely misconstrue his point. It’s almost like something you get from creationists who’ve taken half a fact about evolution out of context to make it sound ridiculous.

I said something about limiting the ranting, didn’t I? Sorry.

I’m with Jerry Coyne. There, much pithier.

– Also, when the Pope was here, you may have recalled the terrifying conspiracy that was bravely foiled, in which foreigners had been scheming a devilish plot to explode the Pope to bits.

Except none of it was ever really happening. There was a massive furore, with incredibly blatant speculation about “Islamic terrorists” with “links to Al Qaeda” that seem to have been entirely fictionalised by the tabloids. And then, depending on what papers you’re reading, you get a tiny paragraph on page nine later on, explaining that no charges were ever made against anyone.

Mark Steel’s summary of events is excellent.

– Republican Senate candidate Christine O’Donnell is the latest prankster comedian to hit the headlines with her wacky in-character antics. Forget Borat and Joaquin Phoenix – she’s been doing this full-time for years. And the results are hilarious.

– There already was a Mosque at Ground Zero (neither of which was true about the “Ground Zero” “Mosque”, remember). It was there before it got that name, though, back when the site was called the World Trade Centre.

– Apparently it’s offensive to suggest that some Muslims aren’t terrorists. A newspaper recently apologised to its readers for printing a photo which implied that sometimes Muslims are just pretty ordinary people who pray – on September 11th, of all days – without even bringing up all the mass murder they’re probably thinking about. This was clearly a grave error of judgment. Muslims aren’t a diverse, complicated demographic encompassing much of the variety to be found in humankind as a whole; 9/11 is the only thing that there is about them, and it’s important that we never ever forget that. Or let them forget it.

– Finally, there’s one point I’ve seen raised by detractors of the Protest The Pope campaign which deserves highlighting. It was still couched in “stop banging on about the Pope and his pedophile army” whining, but aside from that it’s worth considering.

Not everyone who’s been tormented or abused as a child was suffering at the hands of a religious authority figure. Without looking up any actual numbers, I believe sexual and other kinds of abuse are likely more prevalent among families than churches.

So, while highlighting the crimes of the Catholic church, don’t let’s end up inadvertently marginalising victims of abuse from other directions, whose needs aren’t served by waving signs at a man in a dress. I’m not saying this has been happening, but it’s worth being careful about. And I wanted to give the protest-bashers partial credit for getting something nearly right.

That’ll do for today. Comment with your thoughts on any of this. Or say something about the protests to piss me off again, if you prefer the way things used to be.

Read Full Post »

People are still going after Richard Dawkins and the Pope’s protesters for all the wrong reasons.

I commented yesterday on Buffy’s article about her objections to Dawkins, in which she disavows the entire atheist movement, and the very word “atheist”, because of the way some prominent non-believers are behaving. The parallels to the things she’s criticising Dawkins for in the first place – condemning all of religion and lumping in moderate believers with the extremists – seem strikingly hypocritical.

It’s sloppy, lazy, ignorant, and offensive to imply that simply because extremists exist that everyone who believes anything (even if that belief is no belief) agrees with the extreme views.

Yes, it is. I’ve never seen Dawkins do this. But in the way she disassociates herself from atheism because of what she sees as an extremist fringe, it looks like this is exactly what Buffy’s doing.

The latest swathe of anti-Dawkins criticism kinda reminds me of that SciencePunk piece I had a go at a while back. His problem was that he was taking other skeptics to task for being hostile and unapproachable communicators, but he communicated this message in a really hostile and unapproachable manner. Similarly, those deriding Dawkins for his smug tone usually manage to achieve comparable levels of self-satisfaction themselves.

I really want to hear some criticism of Dawkins’s style, from someone who doesn’t essentially shout that all those “New Atheists” are as bad as any religious fundamentalists, using exactly the kind of broad generalisation for which they’ve supposedly taken a dislike to him in the first place. Neil deGrasse Tyson makes a good point well, for instance. I know it’s simply not reasonable to expect people to be quite as awesome as Neil deGrasse Tyson, but it’s worth at least giving it a shot, guys.

But the criticism of the protest that I’ve seen so far just seems eager to make assumptions about the zealous irrationality of the people involved, using emotive language (“brawling mob”, “unholy crusade”) to paint a diverse group as a monolithic ideological force, blindly following a self-elected despotic leader. (Again, doing exactly what they claim to be fed up with when the other guys do it.)

@violet_towers said to me yesterday:

So many reports paint the protest as Peter Tatchell’s baby, in a dismissive way, like ‘oh, it’s a gay thing, it’s not for us.’

I hadn’t even thought of this, or really been aware of Peter Tatchell’s involvement at all – but this says a lot about the perspective some of us were coming at this from. I and the people I follow tended to be involved with the atheist/secularist side of things, but a lot of the protesters might not have even known that Dawkins was there. Or maybe they were attending as part of a campaign for gay rights, and gave Dawkins a cheer in passing when they saw him standing up for what seemed important. The idea that this entire crowd was there just for him, hanging dogmatically on his every word with some sort of divine fervour, is an assumption at least as unjustified and bigoted as anything I’ve heard from Dawkins himself.

This comment excellently sums up a lot of the problems with the anti-protest criticism, particularly that described in the post it responds to. I’ll defer to that in lieu of banging on about this any more, for now.

Read Full Post »

On Twitter yesterday, Graham Linehan raised some concerns about the tone of the Protest The Pope campaign. He was more careful, measured, and reasonable than most complainants, and raised some points worth considering. I still don’t think there’s anything to panic about myself, but he mooted the question in a way that expressed the possibility of legitimate concerns.

Ben Goldacre responded, in part, as follows:

not sure if there were others, but the one i spoke at was focused on equality and diversity, and challenging discrimination…

coverup of child rape, and campaigns against condoms. it was misrepped as anti religion by bbc and others, which is sad.

if antipope protests consist only of atheists, thats because christians failed to speak out about these problems. source of sadness

There’s definitely a place for a discussion about the role of the atheist movement in protests like this, and making sure that a campaign against widespread child abuse doesn’t turn into some sort of atheist crusade. None of my recent moaning about this should be interpreted as an attempt to quash dissent.

As it happens, the impression I get is that atheism was far less of a theme for most protesters than you might be led to believe by much of the campaign’s media coverage. But there’s nothing wrong with being kept on our toes to make sure we don’t wander too far down that path in future.

However, even given that secularist or atheist sentiment might have been running strong in places, how much is it really on non-religious shoulders to make protesting the Pope “accessible” to those who aren’t part of the atheist crowd?

Even people who don’t support the atheist effort claim to abhor the actions of many high-ranking members of the Catholic church. But if those actions are more important than the smug tone of some atheists (which I think would be hard to deny), what’s stopping them from protesting anyway? Why have Christians apparently failed to speak out about this, in such large numbers?

Personally, I’d welcome some Catholics standing up to condemn atrocities perpetrated by members of their church. And for all that some commentators have tried to paint him as the manic leader of a band of zealots, I’m convinced that Dawkins would too.

But if the religious majority aren’t willing to take a strong position against child abuse, just because some atheists are getting a little rowdy, how much do they really care?

Read Full Post »

Richard Dawkins in a lecture in Reykjavík

The laughing face of smug, despicable EVIL. (Image via Wikipedia)

The Pope’s left us alone now, and the protest march is over. A comprehensive summary of the event, reportedly attended by 12,000 people, has been written up Noodlemaz, and it all sounds to have gone rather well. Benny Sixteen himself won’t have been swayed on anything, but the very real opposition to his dangerous and misguided policies was expressed, and a lot of people will have gotten to hear about why so many others find him objectionable, and perhaps been prompted to reconsider their own position.

But some people still don’t like all these people standing up and expressing their dismay at the evil actions of this global institution. And Daily Mail wankery aside, this piece in particular just pisses me off.

I tweeted earlier:

People continue to be more loudly outraged at the people getting cross about child abuse than at the people abusing children. Bewildering.

Which sums it up as well as I could manage in 140 characters. This is not the only lengthy, angry, disparaging diatribe I’ve seen online which talks about how “bigoted” all these atheists are, with much more fervour than it employs to decry the sexual abuse of children which has gotten these angry atheists so angry in the first place.

I think it’s the lack of perspective that’s most frustrating. It’s not just that the author disagrees with Richard Dawkins about something, it’s that this is apparently the most important thing to him about the whole business. The “glee” with which Catholicism is being attacked is what he’s “not comfortable with”, while the fact that thousands of children have been raped is breezed over in a cursory nine-word sentence in an introductory paragraph, with an air of tired impatience.

Yes yes, alright, the Catholic church has done some appallingly inhuman things – but never mind that now, some atheists are being smug

It’s still the cry of “smug” which is made against these deplorable, militant atheists with the most vitriol, as if the accuser could imagine nothing worse than a snooty attitude.

And yet the exact same self-assured smarminess is no less evident in those attempting to distance themselves from the “New Atheist” movement. All they seem able to do is sneer contemptuously at the people who actually have something to say, and are getting together to make themselves heard. Dismissive terms like “media luvvies” means he doesn’t even have to consider whether they might possess any valid arguments, from up on his high horse.

See how easy it is to make someone you disagree with sound like a twat by using ugly words like “sneering” and “smarmy” to describe what they do? I was being disingenuous there – the author of the post isn’t noticeably more smug than anyone else blogging snippily about something that’s annoyed them (hello!). But throwing that kind of word around is an effective and lazy way to make it seem like what your opponent’s saying isn’t that important, because their tone should be enough to make you dislike and disagree with them.

There are a lot of simply bad arguments in the middle of all this, too. If similar accusations were made against another group, we’re told – say, if “Catholics” was substituted for “Muslims” or “Jews” – it would likely come across as “Islamophobic, anti-semitic and downright racist”.

Well, perhaps. If you apply a derogatory term to a minority group, of course it has a different impact than when the target is a dominant force around the world. That’s just how language works.

A black person called me a “honky” once. I was outraged. If the roles were reversed and you simply substituted “honky” for “nigger”, people would have said I was racist.

My point being, it’s not a ridiculous double-standard when the cases you’re comparing are entirely different. Last I checked, neither Muslims nor Jews were running an immensely influential global institution that’s systematically covered up child abuse among its ranks.

Moreover, the criticism against the Pope is said to be largely “framed… in terms of the so-called ‘New Atheism'”. You must have been watching a very different set of protests than I was if you really think they were driven by any kind of atheism more than, say, the fact that our government is tacitly (or perhaps outright) endorsing an organisation than has repeatedly protected its members from justice for the abuse of thousands of children over the course of decades.

Which still sounds to me like a bigger problem than the attitudes of some non-believers who aren’t touching anyone’s kids.

I know I’m harping on this point, but I kinda feel like this point is worth harping on about.

And when the author cites some examples of anti-papal bigotry, it makes me wonder if I should try explaining the concept of humour from first principles. “Now, look at this line here: ‘I hate the Pope; the Pope’s folks grope’. This is a reference to a popular phrase that… oh, never mind.” If anything, jokes like “Abstinence makes the Church grow fondlers” are treating child abuse with inappropriate jocularity, and go far too easy on criminals who ought to be locked up.

He even cites this BBC article as an example of the irrational anti-Catholic hatred he so deplores, indicating that he clearly either hasn’t read it or has trouble understanding what words mean. It quite carefully lays out the Protest The Pope campaign’s criticisms of the Vatican’s policies, and everyone quoted in it is entirely reasonable in their care to target these policies and not every single member of the Catholic church.

And towards the end it just gets weird. He’s just as displeased about the “arbiters of political and moral rectitude who had a field day condemning people who thought Raoul Moat was ‘a legend’, were quick to castigate BNP voters in the European elections”, and so on.

I’m firstly perplexed at this use of the term “arbiters of political and moral rectitude” being used in such a derogatory fashion. Remember, kids: publicly expressing your opinion on the morality of other people’s actions is bad and you should feel bad. Obviously this blogger would never go so far as to call other people’s actions morally misguided, bigoted, or… oh.

But also, what exactly is your problem with these arbiters expressing the view that Raoul Moat was not, in fact, a “legend”? He shot three people, and not in any kind of self-defence. He may deserve sympathy for some kind of mental problems he may have suffered from, but criticising a loving memorial website maintained by his “fans” is wrong how? And criticising atheists yourself in exactly the same tone isn’t hypocritical why?

I’m honestly not against the idea of legitimate criticism against Dawkins, or the protest movement. I’ve disagreed with the man before, and there may well be ways the campaign could improve the effectiveness of its message, or adjust its tone. But I’ve not heard any of that from articles like this one. It’s all just whining about how terrible and obnoxious these atheists are being, the way they give a fuck about things like child abuse and are taking a stand against it. The cunts.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

%d bloggers like this: