Your point at 8:04 intrigues me, because I've also read (from some wholly secular sources) that Ratzinger was one of those who tried to bring the paedophile priest issue to the fore but was blocked (it also didn't help that Pope John Paul didn't really know how to deal with the problem as was the case with Father marciel and his legion of christ).
Sorry - I will try and find the articles again to link to.
scratch that, I accidentally wrote the pope in the first sentence. Not accusing the pope himself of child mollestation, but ignoring these incidents and literally protecting the suspects from the law.
People have gone to Jail; that isn't the issue; the issue for these people is that the Pope needs to go before an international court; which cant be done.
@standinstann England is the country that arrested General Pinochet. However, when Ratzinger landed here, he was given babies to kiss. Disgusting. This has everything to do with the fact that he is a cult leader. He made sure that the victims of child rape were silenced by having them threatened with excommunication, and in most cases denying them access to anyone or anything outside the confines of the church. I believe Saddam Hussein was also a Head of State, right?
Second; unlike General Pinochet, there is no international crime to charge the pope with. It is not against international law to put kids in danger, or to cover up neglect, or to stonewall investigations by stating that it;s an internal matter and you'l handle it your self (and then handling it abysmally).
Third, yes, he did do those despicable things (or at least supported policies that did)
@rationalsalvation A cult is an organization where the adherents are who don't share in the isolated from those who don't share in the ideology of the cult; where the leadership and doctrine can not be questioned, and where no divergence of opinion is allowed.
@standinstann I didn't quite get that, could you please look over your comment and explain more coherently please. The Catholic church is a paedophile ring with religious dogma. In 2008 in Eldorada, a group of tear away Mormons were raided for molesting and polygamising children. The news referred to these people as a cult. I guess that's because there were only hundreds rather than millions of adherents. We don't call the Catholics a cult because of their intimidating numbers.
@rationalsalvation Referring to an organization as a cult because of their numbers, unorthodox beliefs, or dogmas is a mistake, and what's more, supernatural belief systems aren't the only ones capable of being a cult. The ELF, and the followers of Lyndon LaRouche fit the category just fine.
When we say "cult" we're usually referring to an isolationist organization with one charismatic leader who is utterly infallible, revered, and whose doctrine can not be questioned.
@standinstann I'm not sure about "isolationism" but the rest fits the bill, don't you think? Is the pope not considered to be the infallible "vicar of christ on earth"? As far as I'm concerned; once people start believing in infallibility, they can be divided into specific groups and be recognized as cults. Infallibility is a dangerous dogma. Plus, you may be confusing "isolationism" with "exclusivism". The church does preach that; "outside the church there is no redemption".
@rationalsalvation The pope is not, in and of him self, infallible,in fact, if you ask, you won't be able to get a strait, coherent, or consistent answer from anybody as to when and how he teaches infallibly. what's more, Catholicism is a wide spectrum ranging from conservative to liberal, all who can and do disagree with the authority of the church. I can, for example, say that the pope is an irresponsible shithead all i like (con't)
@standinstann If they believed that Ratzinger him self were infallible, and intrinsically holy, you'd be correct, but that is far form the case.
To your last point, isolationism is exactly what i'm talking about. Exclusivity of an organization doesn't make it a cult. for that matter, every political party is exclusive. It's when the outside community, and outside opinions are 'forbidden' that we run into a problem.
@standinstann If that's the case, then why have a pope at all? I mean, I understand that there are a lot of Catholics who probably don't know or even care the current pope is, but isn't this just a case of you being a catholic because your parents are catholic? Could you not just as easily be protestant? You may be Christian, but, as an atheist, I don't see in what sense you consider yourself a catholic. You didn't vote for him, but he's the spokesperson for your belief system.
@rationalsalvation Well now you're on to sort of a different issue; the question "why have a pope at all?" has come up frequently throughout history. The quick answer is, tradition. The long answer is; tradition, money, politics, power, dynasty, and the list goes on.
As for why consider my self a Catholic and not any other denomination, it's because I believe the spiritual teachings of the faith; I don't know what that makes me if not Catholic.
@standinstann I was born to a catholic family, I was sent to catholic school to be taught the story of Jesus as if it were globally accepted historical fact, with no mention of anything that might contradict it, like evolution for example. I just don't get it. Other than the pope, what's the difference between protestants and catholics? The spiritual teachings, what are they?
@rationalsalvation i don't understand what evolution has to do with the story of Jesus, but the primary difference between Catholics and Protestants is the Eucharist, the communion of the Saints (in many cases), the immaculate conception, the biblical Cannon, and the organizational relationships.
For the spiritual teachings, Google the Nicene creed
@standinstann Oh yeah, I get transubstantiation. I meant evolution contradicts Genesis, that's all. My gripe is that; I really feel that if more catholics walked away from the faith, we might actually have a chance at arresting this fucker. If we can bring the numbers down.
@rationalsalvation to the first point; if one reads genesis as stating that a dude in the sky plunked every living thing down to the earth in six days, then yes, evolution certainly contradicts it.
To your second, i still don't know what you want him arrested FOR.
@standinstann For knowingly harbouring child rapists in the Vatican and not handing them over to international justice, but instead using money to cover their tracks and move them to be in range of more children.
@standinstann Is it not breaking the law to harbour those who have raped American children? Shouldn't the UN have a law against children being raped in almost every country on earth, and if not, don't you think they would alter the laws or create one if they were not intimidated by the Catholic church? In almost every country, every other person you meet is a Catholic. It's like Resident Evil! Don't you think that has something to do with why they won't move against Ratzinger?
@rationalsalvation International law DOES recognize institutionalized rape as a crime against humanity; the problem with your case is, there was no policy in the catholic church TO rape children. there was a plicy that, when these shitead psychopaths did rape children, to cover it up and pretend it didn't happen.
As I said, if they had centers where children were being sent TO be raped, that would be a different story. This was a case of neglect which is not actionable.
@standinstann I think we can make the charge that in all likelihood, many of these orphanages were specifically set up as rape rooms. Also, since when has it not been against the law to cover up a crime?
@rationalsalvation Orphanages were not set up as rape rooms and nobody is arguing that they were Second, It is neither against international law to neglect the safety of children, or to cover up those neglect.
@standinstann It might not have been their initial intention, but when rape goes on for decades in an orphanage, it has been set up as a rape room with a wall of silence around it by definition. It's a haven for priests to molest children without being caught. Second, I'm going to assume you know more about international law than I do because I don't know much about it really, my question is: WHY?!
@rationalsalvation To your first point, nobody is even arguing that. What these people are guilty of is neglect, and putting the image and well being of the church before the safety of children. to your second; international law typically pertains to war and commerce. It's a very long way from being "world government" though i do hope it becomes that some day.
@rationalsalvation in a rhetorical sense or a literal sense? I can understand that in a rhetorical sense parish day care centers, and other youth oriented programs have had many an instance of child abuse, but that isn't the same as saying that they are dedicated rape centers; that just isn't the case.
@standinstann No, I'm not saying they got funding from congress to specifically open rape centres. But still, I'm saying it doesn't matter to the victims how they did it. It's the fact that they did it which is the crime, and I just don't understand how covering it up is not a crime. Are you sure? And could you please explain to me WHY it's not a crime to cover up child rape? I'm not arguing morality here, of course we both CONSIDER it a crime, you know what I mean.
@rationalsalvation I'll put it as exactly as I can. In most countries in the world, rape is a crime, child rape is a doubly heinous crime. to put it another way, they're felony's. And in most countries in the world, covering up a felony, and obstruction of justice are also crimes. This is true if just aobut every country in the developed world, and priests have been arrested, charged, and jailed for said crimes, in the countries where they were committed (con't)
@standinstann What cover up of neglect, and obstruction of justice, and even the rape of individual people (non institutionalized rape) is not; is an "international" crime. The reason that they aren't international precisely because these countries are sovereign, and already possess laws regarding these practices. Rome is no exception.
@rationalsalvation No, and nobody is ignoring it. Action has been taken in every country where this has been taken place; civil and criminal action. What's more, donations have been down in the RCC, their priest shortage has gotten worse, and all but their most conservative supporters have jumped ship, because nobody wants to work for, or support these people anymore, and rightly so.
@Sapphonouveau ok do you mean different denominations have different belief, or do you mean individual Protestants believe different things?
If so in the case of the latter religion’s have core beliefs, that it’s members by definition HAVE TO BELIEVE by definition if they want to honestly call themselves followers of that faith, for example you can’t be an Islamic and no believe in the existence of Allah (con’t)
I’m not sure if belief or non belief in "the immaculate conception” falls into the category of “core beliefs”, but if it does you can’t call yourself a Protestant and no believe what the religion tells you to
@255ad Ah, I see what you mean. The immaculate conception is not a core belief for Protestants (though exists amongst high Anglicans like moi). I was taught that the dividing line was how one accepts the Pope's authority. A Protestant can technically believe the religious doctrines a Roman catholic does (though of course in reality that's a rarity!) but the main issue is the Pope's authority, a contention I believe we have in common (to a much lesser extent) with the Orthodox Churches.
Look, the pope and multiple members of the catholic church are responsilbe for multiple incidents of child mollestation. It is pretty much an irrefeutable fact that the church has tried its best to not only cover these incidents up, but let the suspects go without jailtime. There was a book written (literally) by the vatican about what to do in these situations, and, in that book, if you snitch, your excommunicated. As far as I see it, someone needs to go to jail, and the pope is the leader.
@standinstann So how is it not a crime against humanity to have an organization of any kind, knowingly accept these paedophiles (well i know not knowingly per say, they find out but just move them to somewhere else) in to a place with children, yeah, it is not guaranteed, but it has happened, it’s probably happening as we type, and this sort of thing is against their holy book in the first place
@FranklyImaPerson Because what you just described (which is what the A holes did) is negligence and reckless endangerment, which are not crimes against humanity. If they were moving CHILDREN around TO be raped by priests, it certainly would meet that definition.
@standinstann i am still slightly confused, yes they aren't running a rape ring, but as you described it being a willing or acceptence of, and as you told me, molestation is essentully rape, so in fact, they are willingly exepting many of their number commiting this crime, and i know this falls under reckless endangerment, i guess but it's not like this religon has been around for centurys, and thus could learn from mistakes or anythihng
@FranklyImaPerson oh, they NEED To, not only learn from their mistakes, but admit that they made them. There's no question about that. My only point here is that what they did does not meet the definition of crimes against humanity, not that they didn't do anyting wrong.
the ironic thing is that without the some of the (posative I think befor you say) effects of christianity on western morality, child molesting probably would'nt be considerd so nearly as wrong
Question: If someone of authority in the Church threatens to excommunicate you for something of this nature (reporting child molestation), does that excommunication hold any weight?
Can I be denied 'salvation' via a dictate from the church for behaving in a moral and responsible manner?
@Chopstewie The sad problem is, it depends on who you talk to. I would say, absolutely not; a valid excommunication can not be the result of the person doing the right thing, despite the fact that it was against the edict of the people in charge and with the authority. Others would say that obedience superceeds concience. That to defy edict is to defy the will of the holy spirit, not for you to do what's right, but to accept the church's authority.
Also: big fan. I'm an atheist/secular humanist myself, but also deeply skeptical of the New Atheists. It's also kind of refreshing to run into people on YouTube who are willing to be as level-headed and thought-out in their opinions. Keep it real.
i don't think that a centrilized religon was what jesus had in mind. jesus message was that God didn't love us when we followed the rules he loves us when we love eachother. Seting down concret rules and regulaions only gives people an oppertunity to be "christian" without having to actually care and want to care for others.
@the8lbfish I absolutely agree with you. They really do look and act like the pharisees. To your question: " in some way isn't this what catholisium has become?" YES! They have become a political institution that happens to also be a religious faith, but the two are utterly distinct. Nobody 'not' in the church could look at the institution and think that it comes from God.
speaking as a christian (note this has nothing to do with the topic)
it was always my understanding that part of the ministry of jesus was to attack organized religon in the form of judaisum of the time which had become overyly legalistic and wheighed down by numerous abertraty rules and customs.
in some way isn't this what catholisium has become? certinly not all rules set down by the vatican are bad. In fact most are excellent moral guidlines but the fact remains that i don't...
You believe in every spiritual teaching of the Catholic Church? You mean you believe that bad people will go to Hell when they die? And that people who aren't Catholic will go to Hell too, to be punished for eternity? Or that Jesus rose from the dead? Or in miracles?
@standinstann Hi Stan, I did Google the Nicene Creed, and there appear to be a number of different versions. Any particular one I should be looking for?
@standinstann I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made.
@standinstann Who, for us men and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the virgin Mary, and was made man; and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; He suffered and was buried; and the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sits on the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end.
@standinstann And I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of Life; who proceeds from the Father and the Son; who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; who spoke by the prophets.
And I believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church. I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; and I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen. (fin)
My religion is 2000 years old, has whethered every storm that has been put in front of it and is based on the best morals that the human race has. I am so sick of people pointing to those members that have violated its tenets as proof that it is false or a force for evil in the universe. Yes some people do bad things, this is not news and its not a reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater. I am not saying that is what you are doing in this video, I am just frustrated by the situation.
I honestly don't think that anybody is just "using this" to try and discredit the Church, I think that the Church has discredited its self and people are responding to it.
I've said many times that I believe in every spiritual teaching of the church and none of the social teachings, and I find it particularly crass when it conducts its self as though it's a government and not a spiritual institution (con't)
@standinstann Nobody is suggesting that the church disband, and if they are then they're being ridiculous and unreasonable. But if Catholics like you and I don't stand up to this, denounce the church's behavior, and demand that they get their act together; then not only is there no hope, but we become part of the problem. This is our church, not that that Oligarchy in the vatican, and we have a responsibility to act when they put people in danger.
@standinstann I agree entirely and I am not for a moment defending the disgusting actions taken by members of our Church. I was merely responding to the view which I see every day of people who see a problem with the individuals of the Church, as a problem with the faith as a whole. The fact that some people have misused it for there own purposes does not mean that there is anything wrong with the faith and yet I keep hearing these arguements made by others. That's all I was venting about here.
What you're referring to is Conflict of Interest. Anyways, If the current pope was responsible for the cover up of keeping people quiet, then that isn't an act of negligence. You didn't seem to specify if he was being curtain with or without knowledge, but either way he can't just claim negligence when he (as you put it) positively covered the issue up.
The atheist movement formally involving third parties is for litigation is more appropriate than them doing it themselves. I claim you have COI
@AirCanMaster I'm mainly just saying that there is proper motive to try them for crimes against humanity even while they might get lower convictions on the same matter.
@255ad You're missing the legal strategy here. You can't try someone in 'international' court for something that's likely to get nullified by geneva conventions what not. In spite of international claims being very tricky, they dilute the official convictions of said parties being prosecuted, and pretty much round the charges up to the greater crime to enhance the process of inditement.
Maybe I didn´t make claer enough, what I meant. Of course a murderer or rapist acts out his own nature. The mere fact, that he does it (raping or killing) makes it part of his nature. The diffrence to what I meant though is, that those things (raping or killing) are not part of everyones nature. The very most people couldn´t rape or kill a person, but every healthy adult person can have Sex, even needs Sexuality in his or her life.
@playdude92 if you think it's with in human nature too need sex and you think that means they can't be blamed for our actions then that means if it's with in the nature of rapists and murders to kill and rape then they are also blameless that’s the howl crooks of your argument that we can’t go against our nature and can’t be blamed if we do and I’m telling you if that’s so we might as well chuck all morality out the widow.
@playdude92 "The mere fact, that he does it (raping or killing) makes it part of his nature” not neasily you can bee conditioning into a killer by circumstanced
@PostITnoteGUY "I wish the pope would just get a revelation from God that says that people can have unmarried sex only if they wear a condom" the pope isn't a profit he doesn't nor does he claim to have hot line to god what he does is tell Catholics how too behave how to behave and think according too the bible and I think it's made clear in the new testament that sex is an act specifically for procreation between married people.
@PostITnoteGUY "I wish the pope would just get a revelation from God that says that people can have unmarried sex only if they wear a condom. Think of the suffering that could be avoided with just that one sentence"
except it would be a volition of the bible's teachings on the sanctity of life and would probably split the religion.
@0zerosomu0 they still have to get mafia boss legally in some sense, you have to find any crime they committed however small (like getting al capone on unpaid parking tickets) then arrest them for that then the judge can exaggerate the sentence. you can't do that too the pope because when ever he's out of the Vatican he's got diplomatic immunity meaning you can't get him on any offence less then crimes against humanity witch we've already established he's not technically guilty of.
@PostITnoteGUY the howl basis of good and of good and evil in the Christian religion (and morality in general) is that we are capable of ignoring our base instincts and doing what's right.Any way he was making the point that it's not the churches fault if people pick and choice which of there teachings too follow by that logic if I told a child to cross the road when the light turns red and it only listened to the first half of what I said you could could blame me for it's death
@PostITnoteGUY so, we should break the law, bomb people, some who might be innocent, kill a man, all because you think your right. If dawkins is forgiving and mild, you sertenly are not.
I would defenetely see a problem in the chucrch trying to vilify consensual sex between two adults. It would mean, that the people need to deny their own nature and urges in order to please the church. Every healthy adult human needs sexuality and it is as much a part of anyones existence as feelings are. That would make the denial of ones sexuality a sick thing to me. Of course its a whole diffrent deal with pedophilia...
@playdude92 the only difference is that you think paedophiles is wrong (before you say I agree) but don't think people "denning their own sexual nature". if you take the attitude that we can't deny our nature, then you might as well excuse all rapists, paedophiles and large proportion of murders and thieves.
No Stan, it's not that he doesn't know what he wants the pope arrested for. It's that he's not sure of what they can legally get him for. If he did cover up child rape, and promoted against condom use in Africa, he has done very bad things. Unfortunately, it's not an easy thing to nail him on, and Dawkins doesn't know how exactly they'll go about that.
Also, religious people can say, "It's my religion" and get away with more than they usually do. His HoS position is just even more troubles.
@Sines314 ""it's not that he doesn't know what he wants the pope arrested for. It's that he's not sure of what they can legally get him for.""
Then he doesn't know what he wants him arrested for. He knows that he'd like him arrested PERIOD. Is the pope guilty of an international crime? Who knows? Dawkins sure as shit doesn't. You can't insist that the Pope is guilty of crimes against humanity and not know what crimes against humanity MEANS.
"You can't insist that the Pope is guilty of crimes against humanity and not know what crimes against humanity MEANS."
Well, isn't it kind of obvious that the crimes against humanity are 1) To try and hide the fact that hundreds of kids have been molested by priests, priests living in a clearly unfortunate (for the kids) celibacy, all to save face, and 2) To actively disencourage people to use condoms, even uneducated poor Africans who know no better? Those things piss me off.
@anglicantian "Things that piss me off" is not the definition of "Crimes against humanity". Not a single one of those things you mentioned meet that definition.
No, not all "things that piss me off" are crimes against humanity, but to actively add to the spread of HIV IS. To cover up child molestation IS. Molested children and Africans who've been HIV-infected are a part of humanity, so I don't care about dictionary definitions, those ARE crimes against humanity. Arresting the pope is a little far fetched, but arresting the guilty priests and trying to stop the popes' anti-human spewings should be priorities.
@anglicantian Those things do not fit the international court's definition of crimes against humanity, and that is the issue at hand. I understand that you consider those things to be crimes against humanity, and with the exception of the church's TEACHING on condoms, I agree, but we're talking about what the law says, not how we feel.
@anglicantian those aren't crimes against humanity if Richard Dawkins thinks they are then he does "not know what crimes against humanity MEANS" same for you if you think they are
To actively add to the spread of HIV IS a crime against humanirt. To cover up child molestation IS. Molested children and Africans who've been HIV-infected because of the popes' "advice" are a part of humanity, so I don't care about dictionary definitions, those ARE crimes against humanity. Saying otherwise is to go in denial.
Sure, but it's still no use to tell people not to use condoms. Ever. It can only confuse.
"Those things do not fit the international court's definition of crimes against humanity"
Wiki- international criminal court definition:
"particularly odious offences in that they constitute a serious attack on human dignity or grave humiliation or a degradation of one or more human beings". Yes, wiki. I know.
The church isn't lying when they say that condoms are evil, the're wrong. They're LYING when they say that condoms are ineffective, and THAT causes harm.
To your second point, the wiki is so far accurate. there would have to be a policy TO rape boys, and THAT would have to be covered up.
What the church is covering up is negligence and endangerment, which is not a crime against humanity.
@anglicantian there wrong for sure and he should morily be punished but they are not crimes agist humanity not litraly or legaly and theirs no geting around that fact "saying otherwise" realy "is to go into denial"
@standinstann The pope is guilty of things that would likely get him arrested were he not a head of state, or some similar problem. He has done bad things, I don't think you deny that. Nailing him for something, anything, is like nailing Al Capone for tax evasion. It's working within the system to defeat someone who is using the system to avoid persecution.
No, I don't think we ought to start splitting hairs with the law in order to take down somebody we don't like. Once we go down that road, then it only takes "enough" people who dislike Richard Dawkins to get him' on "Religious persecution. you see, TECHNICALLY, he's hostile toward religion, and so hostile toward "members" of religion. So let's arrest him for crimes against humanity because deep down he needs to be stopped for something else. (con't)
@standinstann The definition of crimes against humanity is clear, and ought not to be "creative" with its meaning because we're "Trying" to get somebody that we don't like on "something". It MATTERS whether or not the Pope committed an international crime, and he didn't.
@standinstann I would a assume crimes against humanity have to be proactive policy because there's many things heads of states don't do for what ever reason that if they had could of saved lives.like in the past few years in Britain when there was complaining we needed more grit for the roads when it snow but the government didn't do much about it during the summer because nobody cared any more. so if crimes against humanity could be negligent does that mean you could charge Gordon brown
@standinstann t really wish the pope could be arrested just because I'd love to see out of curiosity alone the reaction of Catholics to such an unprecedented event.
@PostITnoteGUY My policy is this: when it comes to taking sides on an issue, you should never let your guy get away with anything you wouldn't let the opposition get away with. Dawkins ignorance regarding the very crime he is in support of the Pope being charged with would have been enough to get any Holy man laughed out of the marketplace of ideas. I don't know why people still continue to defend this man. He may be right in spirit, but he's wrong in everything else.
Awsome vid Stan glad to have you back. About the condom thing what is the Church's policy regarding comdoms if the couple involved are married and one of them has aids?
The official Church Teaching is that both the Unitive act (sex while married), and the Procreative act (unobstructed possibility of bearing a child by having married sex) must ALWAYS, and in EVERY case, be present, or it's evil.
@standinstann Thanks for responding but I have to admit I have a hard time agreeing with that but that's probably why I'm non religious. I know in previous video's you've admitted to coverting to Catholisism. Would you be willing to give me a list of some of the books on religion that you've read that you find helpful? I've always had an interest in religion but have a hard time finding books that don't outright preach to you. Thanks.
@MegaBeamish One book I can recommend about religion in general is called "Truth in Religion" It's more about what religion is "for", adn the primacy of monotheism than anything else, but it does have aome nice details. by Mortimer J Adler. For Catholicism I would simply read the catechism, it is literally everything the church teaches and why.
@standinstann Thanks! I enjoy seeing people' s perspective's on things whether they be political, religious, or even movie reviews. (I like your brother's stuff as well) But without someone pushing an agenda which is why I find some of the topics people cover on youtube so fascinating but it's often hard to get that from books. Thanks.
What would you answer to someone, who argued that the catholic church helps keeping pedophilia in secret and pedophiles from coming out publicly about their problem, because it taboos talking about anything sexual and vilifies the people who do? Of course in this scenario they wouldn´t do anything remotely illegal but something irresponsible (at best) and just add to the unwillingness of society to talk about that problem. - sry, i got a little of topic but I just want to know, what you think.
@playdude92 well, if they're vilifying both consensual sex acts and pedophilia, I don't see how that's a bad thing. I DO think that our approach to the issue of pedophilia does nothing to fix the problem.
Don't you think the real problem here is the fact that the Vatican city is also a state and has a seat in in the UN? That just rings all the wrong bells for me. The Vatican city doesn't represent a people, it only represents a religion. A situation that is bound to produce problems like this.
>"we don't dissolve states because we think the leaders who made the state in the first place sucked ass."
Well, actually, the Brits sort of DID do that with Napoleon and the Kingdom of Westphalia, but yeah, wars were fought, and it was more a vassal state, I see your point.
@Neocrater also that was a 198 years ago when Brits was a conquering power it's self plus the UN didn't exist yet (in other words that's to far in the past to be really relevant)
I think maybe there is a greater charge to be answered regarding the smuggling of war criminals through the vatican and out of europe, but who would you charge?
It seems to me you exempt the Pope by calling it "negligence" for the cover up of what a cardinal does. A parallel of a much more extreme situation comes to mind. Lets say Hitler was alive and a chief general of his had gone through the trouble of getting rid of evidence of the Holocaust. It would seem odd to let Hitler off the hook by calling it negligence.
(The analogy obviously has many differences, but you get the idea.)
@highwind8124 Stan wasn’t arguing that the pope did nothing wrong or that he deserves no punishment but that in the law he what people deserves rarely maters
"chief general of his had gone through the trouble of getting rid of evidence of the Holocaust" the fact his Hitler did directly order the Holocaust and if some one covered it up it wouldn’t be the fault of the law makes that he got away with it.
As I said, the analogy is obviously not perfect, as Hitler also wrote a book that pretty much tried to curry public favor for such an action and so on.
But my point remains unaddressed. The point is "negligence" seems to be putting it lightly. If someone you hire, that you put into power, continuously does something and you just "neglect" to make them stop... neglect is when you go. "Uh... I'm lazy. What day is it?"
@highwind8124 The Holocaust was a policy 'TO' exterminate Jews. And to tolerate or be complicit with that policy, or smiler policies would meet the definition of crimes against humanity. There is no smiler policy 'TO' rape boys. Only a policy of silence if one finds out that that has taken place. That is not a crime against humanity.
Even though I've repeatedly said there are a number of differences in the analogy, those differences keep getting brought up rather than addressing the point.
If you hired someone who covered up evidence, knew he was doing it, and kept hiring him - what you're doing isn't "negligence". You're an active, hard working guy to be able to hire someone else. You would be willfully not doing anything about it.
Religion is a pretty hot topic right now. Well, I suppose it always is, isn't it. Well, O'Reilly just had an atheist on the Factor last night. That was an argument that went nowhere, lol
Didn't pope Benedict ,Just say that now the church is gonna hold the position that fornicating without protection is 2x worse then fornicating with protection.
You make a good point I'd like to discourse further but I don't think that the comments section is appropriate. If you make the video I will make a response :)
It's videos like this that demonstrate that these YouTube comments should be properly arrayed in a forum, preferably one that arranges posts in a tree to make responses clearer.
Standinastann please be careful about your anti-Catholic propaganda regarding contraception. I'm not a Catholic but most sources that I've seen anti-contraception persons use are taken from the contraception manufacturers themselves.
Nobody using the manufacturer's disclaimers could possibly make the case that condoms are unreliable. They can certainly make the case that they're not 100% effective, but nobody, based on the data, can in good conscience teach that they're unreliable.
@standinstann i would say no one "in good conscience" who's accepted a responsibility to teach people like a school teacher or a priest but if I go out on the street and start spouting all sorts of crap about condoms it'd be your own fault for listing to me
@EqualAndFree Yes, but the policy was TO gas Jews, the policy of the church was not TO rape boys. it was to shut the fuck up if you hear about boys being raped. That is not a crime against humanity. There is no international law dealing with criminal negligence. It's sick, evil, and unforgivable, but it does not meet the definition of crimes against humanity.
Dawkins et al didn't really think it through. It came across as too much as a gimmick and not an attempt to address the very real issue of child abuse - and subsequent conspiracy to protect those that perpetrated it, as well as silencing victims.
Of course, given the fact that the Catholic Church was trying to make sure priest and choir boys wouldn't be alone together over a 1300 years ago - the number of victims is probably astronomical, even if it doesn't check the boxes for international law
@ProphetTenebrae Oh, if the RCC were not also a state those astronomical numbers would be eviscerating their entire organization, and I mean PHYSICALLY. I agree with you btw, I think that, even the appalling number they ADMIT to is less than the real number of cases. they leave out the ones where the parents either agreed to STFU, or they would put their kid on the stand and watch him suffer. You know, kind of like the Mafia. Holy mother church my ass!
@standinstann I think for many parents - especially in strongly Catholic countries - it's a rock and a hard place choice. Do you take the hush money or go against a community figure and risk becoming a pariah?
As to the Dawkins interview - I've not heard it but I absolutely would not blame anyone (even an expert) for not answering questions on the technicalities of international law. It's a fucking quagmire - just the way lawyers like it. I'd say Dawkins was wise to avoid commenting on law.
@ProphetTenebrae I don't think it was so much a case of them possibly becoming social outcasts, I don't know any Catholics who would have scorned a parent for exposing the abuse of their child, and plenty who have scorned and condemned the institution of the church. what the Church was doing was intimidating families into settling out of court. (con't)
@standinstann they basically (in some cases literally) said "We can either put your kid on the stand, embarrass him, and make him recite what had been done to him, or you can take our hush money. They used the kid as leverage.
To your second point, I'm sorry, the technical legal question that Dawkins had no answer for was "What crime is the Pope guilty of?" that was just embarrassing.
@standinstann As you said - a mafia type scare tactic.
As to the interview... yes, that does make him seem ill prepared at best. I suppose the most generous supposition I could offer on that is that either they hadn't finalised what they wanted to charge him with OR that Dawkins didn't want get sidetracked by an argument on the legality of the charges.
It really wasn't a big issue here when he came to visit though, it was pretty fleeting in the headlines, really.
I didn't think it would be. Had it been a coalition of all different kinds of people united in their outrage over the scandal I think it would have been, but as it was, it felt more like a publicity stunt.
@standinstann It would have been better for Dawkins el al to do that, really. Abuse in the Catholic church is still a big issue and then you get people trying to hijack it for their own ends.
I don't think it was malicious just ill conceived. I mean, wouldn't it have been nice to see Dawkins etc. using their substantial public presence in combination with Catholic abuse victim groups and others, working together with no agenda beyond just bringing kiddie fiddlers to justice and stopping them?
@ProphetTenebrae I absolutely agree with you. The sad irony is that if the Pope hadn't been a religious leader, you would never have heard Dawkins (and I really think hitchens and Harri) saying anything at all about it. It would have been like "What? who? okay, what does that have to do with combating religiosity?" I honestly think you wouldn't have.
@standinstann I honestly do feel that at times Dawkins etc can hurt their own cause - and to state an interest I am for scientific naturalism and secularism - but being so narrow in their focus and I agree. If the Pope was just the head of some state - that had a huge problem with state officials abusing children, they probably wouldn't have said anything.
A wasted opportunity to be sure. All we got was a "oh, sorry for all the child abuse, guys!" from the Pope. Hardly awe inspiring.
@ProphetTenebrae He didn't even say "We'll do better next time"! He 'sort of' said that the Bishops didn't handle it right, though he never once admitted to a cover up. So now we literally have a denial of a cover up to cover up the cover up. JESUS CHRIST! (No pun intended).
I'm with that other guy on the BBC interview, this pope is a lost cause.
@standinstann Oh, I agree - it amazes me that people feel a need to get into the somewhat dubious stuff about his past in the Hitler youth. Everything needed to condemn the man is far more transparent in his behaviour as the Catholic equivalent of an enforcer.
But this has been something endemic to the Church before even the oldest of European nation states emerged, the weight of inertia behind it must be immense. It's an imperfect world...
Your point at 8:04 intrigues me, because I've also read (from some wholly secular sources) that Ratzinger was one of those who tried to bring the paedophile priest issue to the fore but was blocked (it also didn't help that Pope John Paul didn't really know how to deal with the problem as was the case with Father marciel and his legion of christ).
Sorry - I will try and find the articles again to link to.
Sapphonouveau 3 months ago
The pope belongs behind bars.
Osho.
briggles 8 months ago
@briggles for what?
standinstann 8 months ago
@briggles For the same reason Richard Dawkins wanted him arrested, I suppose.
briggles 8 months ago
scratch that, I accidentally wrote the pope in the first sentence. Not accusing the pope himself of child mollestation, but ignoring these incidents and literally protecting the suspects from the law.
rsaddiction152439 10 months ago
@rsaddiction152439
People have gone to Jail; that isn't the issue; the issue for these people is that the Pope needs to go before an international court; which cant be done.
standinstann 10 months ago
@standinstann England is the country that arrested General Pinochet. However, when Ratzinger landed here, he was given babies to kiss. Disgusting. This has everything to do with the fact that he is a cult leader. He made sure that the victims of child rape were silenced by having them threatened with excommunication, and in most cases denying them access to anyone or anything outside the confines of the church. I believe Saddam Hussein was also a Head of State, right?
rationalsalvation 7 months ago
@rationalsalvation First, the pope is not a cult leader.
Second; unlike General Pinochet, there is no international crime to charge the pope with. It is not against international law to put kids in danger, or to cover up neglect, or to stonewall investigations by stating that it;s an internal matter and you'l handle it your self (and then handling it abysmally).
Third, yes, he did do those despicable things (or at least supported policies that did)
and yes, Saddam was the head of a state.
standinstann 7 months ago
@standinstann Thanks for clearing that up. Now what do you mean "he's not a cult leader" ?
rationalsalvation 7 months ago
@rationalsalvation A cult is an organization where the adherents are who don't share in the isolated from those who don't share in the ideology of the cult; where the leadership and doctrine can not be questioned, and where no divergence of opinion is allowed.
standinstann 7 months ago
@standinstann I didn't quite get that, could you please look over your comment and explain more coherently please. The Catholic church is a paedophile ring with religious dogma. In 2008 in Eldorada, a group of tear away Mormons were raided for molesting and polygamising children. The news referred to these people as a cult. I guess that's because there were only hundreds rather than millions of adherents. We don't call the Catholics a cult because of their intimidating numbers.
rationalsalvation 7 months ago
@rationalsalvation Referring to an organization as a cult because of their numbers, unorthodox beliefs, or dogmas is a mistake, and what's more, supernatural belief systems aren't the only ones capable of being a cult. The ELF, and the followers of Lyndon LaRouche fit the category just fine.
When we say "cult" we're usually referring to an isolationist organization with one charismatic leader who is utterly infallible, revered, and whose doctrine can not be questioned.
standinstann 7 months ago
@standinstann I'm not sure about "isolationism" but the rest fits the bill, don't you think? Is the pope not considered to be the infallible "vicar of christ on earth"? As far as I'm concerned; once people start believing in infallibility, they can be divided into specific groups and be recognized as cults. Infallibility is a dangerous dogma. Plus, you may be confusing "isolationism" with "exclusivism". The church does preach that; "outside the church there is no redemption".
rationalsalvation 7 months ago
@rationalsalvation The pope is not, in and of him self, infallible,in fact, if you ask, you won't be able to get a strait, coherent, or consistent answer from anybody as to when and how he teaches infallibly. what's more, Catholicism is a wide spectrum ranging from conservative to liberal, all who can and do disagree with the authority of the church. I can, for example, say that the pope is an irresponsible shithead all i like (con't)
standinstann 7 months ago
@standinstann If they believed that Ratzinger him self were infallible, and intrinsically holy, you'd be correct, but that is far form the case.
To your last point, isolationism is exactly what i'm talking about. Exclusivity of an organization doesn't make it a cult. for that matter, every political party is exclusive. It's when the outside community, and outside opinions are 'forbidden' that we run into a problem.
standinstann 7 months ago
@standinstann If that's the case, then why have a pope at all? I mean, I understand that there are a lot of Catholics who probably don't know or even care the current pope is, but isn't this just a case of you being a catholic because your parents are catholic? Could you not just as easily be protestant? You may be Christian, but, as an atheist, I don't see in what sense you consider yourself a catholic. You didn't vote for him, but he's the spokesperson for your belief system.
rationalsalvation 7 months ago
@rationalsalvation Well now you're on to sort of a different issue; the question "why have a pope at all?" has come up frequently throughout history. The quick answer is, tradition. The long answer is; tradition, money, politics, power, dynasty, and the list goes on.
As for why consider my self a Catholic and not any other denomination, it's because I believe the spiritual teachings of the faith; I don't know what that makes me if not Catholic.
standinstann 7 months ago
@standinstann I was born to a catholic family, I was sent to catholic school to be taught the story of Jesus as if it were globally accepted historical fact, with no mention of anything that might contradict it, like evolution for example. I just don't get it. Other than the pope, what's the difference between protestants and catholics? The spiritual teachings, what are they?
rationalsalvation 7 months ago
@rationalsalvation i don't understand what evolution has to do with the story of Jesus, but the primary difference between Catholics and Protestants is the Eucharist, the communion of the Saints (in many cases), the immaculate conception, the biblical Cannon, and the organizational relationships.
For the spiritual teachings, Google the Nicene creed
standinstann 7 months ago
@standinstann Oh yeah, I get transubstantiation. I meant evolution contradicts Genesis, that's all. My gripe is that; I really feel that if more catholics walked away from the faith, we might actually have a chance at arresting this fucker. If we can bring the numbers down.
rationalsalvation 7 months ago
@rationalsalvation to the first point; if one reads genesis as stating that a dude in the sky plunked every living thing down to the earth in six days, then yes, evolution certainly contradicts it.
To your second, i still don't know what you want him arrested FOR.
standinstann 7 months ago
@standinstann For knowingly harbouring child rapists in the Vatican and not handing them over to international justice, but instead using money to cover their tracks and move them to be in range of more children.
rationalsalvation 7 months ago
@rationalsalvation None of those things are a violation of international law. They're reprehensible, but we're talking about law.
standinstann 7 months ago
@standinstann Is it not breaking the law to harbour those who have raped American children? Shouldn't the UN have a law against children being raped in almost every country on earth, and if not, don't you think they would alter the laws or create one if they were not intimidated by the Catholic church? In almost every country, every other person you meet is a Catholic. It's like Resident Evil! Don't you think that has something to do with why they won't move against Ratzinger?
rationalsalvation 7 months ago
@rationalsalvation International law DOES recognize institutionalized rape as a crime against humanity; the problem with your case is, there was no policy in the catholic church TO rape children. there was a plicy that, when these shitead psychopaths did rape children, to cover it up and pretend it didn't happen.
As I said, if they had centers where children were being sent TO be raped, that would be a different story. This was a case of neglect which is not actionable.
standinstann 7 months ago
@standinstann I think we can make the charge that in all likelihood, many of these orphanages were specifically set up as rape rooms. Also, since when has it not been against the law to cover up a crime?
rationalsalvation 7 months ago
@rationalsalvation Orphanages were not set up as rape rooms and nobody is arguing that they were Second, It is neither against international law to neglect the safety of children, or to cover up those neglect.
standinstann 7 months ago
@standinstann It might not have been their initial intention, but when rape goes on for decades in an orphanage, it has been set up as a rape room with a wall of silence around it by definition. It's a haven for priests to molest children without being caught. Second, I'm going to assume you know more about international law than I do because I don't know much about it really, my question is: WHY?!
rationalsalvation 7 months ago
@rationalsalvation To your first point, nobody is even arguing that. What these people are guilty of is neglect, and putting the image and well being of the church before the safety of children. to your second; international law typically pertains to war and commerce. It's a very long way from being "world government" though i do hope it becomes that some day.
standinstann 7 months ago
@standinstann Well, I'm arguing that, as is every member of the GCAC on facebook, a survivors group. Check it out.
rationalsalvation 7 months ago
@rationalsalvation arguing what exactly?
standinstann 7 months ago
@standinstann I'm arguing that orphanages have been turned into rape rooms for priests.
rationalsalvation 7 months ago
@rationalsalvation in a rhetorical sense or a literal sense? I can understand that in a rhetorical sense parish day care centers, and other youth oriented programs have had many an instance of child abuse, but that isn't the same as saying that they are dedicated rape centers; that just isn't the case.
standinstann 7 months ago
@standinstann No, I'm not saying they got funding from congress to specifically open rape centres. But still, I'm saying it doesn't matter to the victims how they did it. It's the fact that they did it which is the crime, and I just don't understand how covering it up is not a crime. Are you sure? And could you please explain to me WHY it's not a crime to cover up child rape? I'm not arguing morality here, of course we both CONSIDER it a crime, you know what I mean.
rationalsalvation 7 months ago
@rationalsalvation I'll put it as exactly as I can. In most countries in the world, rape is a crime, child rape is a doubly heinous crime. to put it another way, they're felony's. And in most countries in the world, covering up a felony, and obstruction of justice are also crimes. This is true if just aobut every country in the developed world, and priests have been arrested, charged, and jailed for said crimes, in the countries where they were committed (con't)
standinstann 7 months ago
@standinstann What cover up of neglect, and obstruction of justice, and even the rape of individual people (non institutionalized rape) is not; is an "international" crime. The reason that they aren't international precisely because these countries are sovereign, and already possess laws regarding these practices. Rome is no exception.
standinstann 7 months ago
@standinstann I see. So, how should we proceed? Shall we all just smile and ignore it?
rationalsalvation 7 months ago
@rationalsalvation No, and nobody is ignoring it. Action has been taken in every country where this has been taken place; civil and criminal action. What's more, donations have been down in the RCC, their priest shortage has gotten worse, and all but their most conservative supporters have jumped ship, because nobody wants to work for, or support these people anymore, and rightly so.
standinstann 7 months ago
@standinstann You're right, that's a start. Thank you for taking the time to set me straight on a few things. See you around.
rationalsalvation 7 months ago
@standinstann Protestants don't believe in the "the immaculate conception"?
255ad 6 months ago
Comment removed
Sapphonouveau 3 months ago
@255ad Some of us do!
Sapphonouveau 3 months ago
@Sapphonouveau ok do you mean different denominations have different belief, or do you mean individual Protestants believe different things?
If so in the case of the latter religion’s have core beliefs, that it’s members by definition HAVE TO BELIEVE by definition if they want to honestly call themselves followers of that faith, for example you can’t be an Islamic and no believe in the existence of Allah (con’t)
255ad 3 months ago
Continuation...
@Sapphonouveau
I’m not sure if belief or non belief in "the immaculate conception” falls into the category of “core beliefs”, but if it does you can’t call yourself a Protestant and no believe what the religion tells you to
255ad 3 months ago
@255ad Ah, I see what you mean. The immaculate conception is not a core belief for Protestants (though exists amongst high Anglicans like moi). I was taught that the dividing line was how one accepts the Pope's authority. A Protestant can technically believe the religious doctrines a Roman catholic does (though of course in reality that's a rarity!) but the main issue is the Pope's authority, a contention I believe we have in common (to a much lesser extent) with the Orthodox Churches.
Sapphonouveau 3 months ago
@rsaddiction152439 Ah, I see, unfortunately those are not international crimes.
standinstann 7 months ago
Look, the pope and multiple members of the catholic church are responsilbe for multiple incidents of child mollestation. It is pretty much an irrefeutable fact that the church has tried its best to not only cover these incidents up, but let the suspects go without jailtime. There was a book written (literally) by the vatican about what to do in these situations, and, in that book, if you snitch, your excommunicated. As far as I see it, someone needs to go to jail, and the pope is the leader.
rsaddiction152439 10 months ago
correct me if i am wrong, but isn't molestation a syninim to rape?
FranklyImaPerson 1 year ago
@FranklyImaPerson
More or less.
standinstann 1 year ago
@standinstann So how is it not a crime against humanity to have an organization of any kind, knowingly accept these paedophiles (well i know not knowingly per say, they find out but just move them to somewhere else) in to a place with children, yeah, it is not guaranteed, but it has happened, it’s probably happening as we type, and this sort of thing is against their holy book in the first place
FranklyImaPerson 1 year ago
@FranklyImaPerson Because what you just described (which is what the A holes did) is negligence and reckless endangerment, which are not crimes against humanity. If they were moving CHILDREN around TO be raped by priests, it certainly would meet that definition.
standinstann 1 year ago
@standinstann i am still slightly confused, yes they aren't running a rape ring, but as you described it being a willing or acceptence of, and as you told me, molestation is essentully rape, so in fact, they are willingly exepting many of their number commiting this crime, and i know this falls under reckless endangerment, i guess but it's not like this religon has been around for centurys, and thus could learn from mistakes or anythihng
FranklyImaPerson 1 year ago
@FranklyImaPerson oh, they NEED To, not only learn from their mistakes, but admit that they made them. There's no question about that. My only point here is that what they did does not meet the definition of crimes against humanity, not that they didn't do anyting wrong.
standinstann 1 year ago
the ironic thing is that without the some of the (posative I think befor you say) effects of christianity on western morality, child molesting probably would'nt be considerd so nearly as wrong
255ad 1 year ago
Question: If someone of authority in the Church threatens to excommunicate you for something of this nature (reporting child molestation), does that excommunication hold any weight?
Can I be denied 'salvation' via a dictate from the church for behaving in a moral and responsible manner?
Chopstewie 1 year ago
@Chopstewie The sad problem is, it depends on who you talk to. I would say, absolutely not; a valid excommunication can not be the result of the person doing the right thing, despite the fact that it was against the edict of the people in charge and with the authority. Others would say that obedience superceeds concience. That to defy edict is to defy the will of the holy spirit, not for you to do what's right, but to accept the church's authority.
standinstann 1 year ago
So that would be the final draft, then?
Also: big fan. I'm an atheist/secular humanist myself, but also deeply skeptical of the New Atheists. It's also kind of refreshing to run into people on YouTube who are willing to be as level-headed and thought-out in their opinions. Keep it real.
YaleBreaker 1 year ago
Richard Dawkins hurts my head from his radiating arrogence.
katieburak93 1 year ago
@katieburak93 He makes me want to Redrum
somebody because of how biased he is...
Gh.
LewizX90 1 year ago
Nice to hear from you again, Stan! And I agree with you entirely. You get that things aren't as simple as bad things bad, good things good.
But you do really need to borrow your brother's microphone! :p
trlkly 1 year ago
p.s. i am aware that my spelling is wrong i forgot to fix it my bad
p.p.s i am also aware that catholicism is not the only catholic denomination gulity of this
the8lbfish 1 year ago
continued
i don't think that a centrilized religon was what jesus had in mind. jesus message was that God didn't love us when we followed the rules he loves us when we love eachother. Seting down concret rules and regulaions only gives people an oppertunity to be "christian" without having to actually care and want to care for others.
the8lbfish 1 year ago
@the8lbfish I absolutely agree with you. They really do look and act like the pharisees. To your question: " in some way isn't this what catholisium has become?" YES! They have become a political institution that happens to also be a religious faith, but the two are utterly distinct. Nobody 'not' in the church could look at the institution and think that it comes from God.
standinstann 1 year ago
speaking as a christian (note this has nothing to do with the topic)
it was always my understanding that part of the ministry of jesus was to attack organized religon in the form of judaisum of the time which had become overyly legalistic and wheighed down by numerous abertraty rules and customs.
in some way isn't this what catholisium has become? certinly not all rules set down by the vatican are bad. In fact most are excellent moral guidlines but the fact remains that i don't...
the8lbfish 1 year ago
You believe in every spiritual teaching of the Catholic Church? You mean you believe that bad people will go to Hell when they die? And that people who aren't Catholic will go to Hell too, to be punished for eternity? Or that Jesus rose from the dead? Or in miracles?
chipmunkspunk 1 year ago
@chipmunkspunk Google "The Nicene Creed" That is Christianity, and that is what i believe.
standinstann 1 year ago 2
@standinstann Hi Stan, I did Google the Nicene Creed, and there appear to be a number of different versions. Any particular one I should be looking for?
YaleBreaker 1 year ago
@YaleBreaker There shouldn't be more than one version, unless it's a comparison between the first and final drafts.
standinstann 1 year ago
@standinstann I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made.
(con't)
standinstann 1 year ago
@standinstann Who, for us men and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the virgin Mary, and was made man; and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; He suffered and was buried; and the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sits on the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end.
(con't)
standinstann 1 year ago
@standinstann And I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of Life; who proceeds from the Father and the Son; who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; who spoke by the prophets.
And I believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church. I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; and I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen. (fin)
standinstann 1 year ago
My religion is 2000 years old, has whethered every storm that has been put in front of it and is based on the best morals that the human race has. I am so sick of people pointing to those members that have violated its tenets as proof that it is false or a force for evil in the universe. Yes some people do bad things, this is not news and its not a reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater. I am not saying that is what you are doing in this video, I am just frustrated by the situation.
themanyhandedmonste 1 year ago
@themanyhandedmonste
I honestly don't think that anybody is just "using this" to try and discredit the Church, I think that the Church has discredited its self and people are responding to it.
I've said many times that I believe in every spiritual teaching of the church and none of the social teachings, and I find it particularly crass when it conducts its self as though it's a government and not a spiritual institution (con't)
standinstann 1 year ago
@standinstann Nobody is suggesting that the church disband, and if they are then they're being ridiculous and unreasonable. But if Catholics like you and I don't stand up to this, denounce the church's behavior, and demand that they get their act together; then not only is there no hope, but we become part of the problem. This is our church, not that that Oligarchy in the vatican, and we have a responsibility to act when they put people in danger.
standinstann 1 year ago
@standinstann I agree entirely and I am not for a moment defending the disgusting actions taken by members of our Church. I was merely responding to the view which I see every day of people who see a problem with the individuals of the Church, as a problem with the faith as a whole. The fact that some people have misused it for there own purposes does not mean that there is anything wrong with the faith and yet I keep hearing these arguements made by others. That's all I was venting about here.
themanyhandedmonste 1 year ago
What you're referring to is Conflict of Interest. Anyways, If the current pope was responsible for the cover up of keeping people quiet, then that isn't an act of negligence. You didn't seem to specify if he was being curtain with or without knowledge, but either way he can't just claim negligence when he (as you put it) positively covered the issue up.
The atheist movement formally involving third parties is for litigation is more appropriate than them doing it themselves. I claim you have COI
AirCanMaster 1 year ago
@AirCanMaster I'm mainly just saying that there is proper motive to try them for crimes against humanity even while they might get lower convictions on the same matter.
AirCanMaster 1 year ago
@AirCanMaster what lower conviction then crime agents humanity could there be, I thought that was all you could charge him with
255ad 9 months ago
@255ad You're missing the legal strategy here. You can't try someone in 'international' court for something that's likely to get nullified by geneva conventions what not. In spite of international claims being very tricky, they dilute the official convictions of said parties being prosecuted, and pretty much round the charges up to the greater crime to enhance the process of inditement.
AirCanMaster 9 months ago
@AirCanMaster your not saying the popes blamless are you
255ad 1 year ago
@255ad
Maybe I didn´t make claer enough, what I meant. Of course a murderer or rapist acts out his own nature. The mere fact, that he does it (raping or killing) makes it part of his nature. The diffrence to what I meant though is, that those things (raping or killing) are not part of everyones nature. The very most people couldn´t rape or kill a person, but every healthy adult person can have Sex, even needs Sexuality in his or her life.
playdude92 1 year ago
@playdude92 if you think it's with in human nature too need sex and you think that means they can't be blamed for our actions then that means if it's with in the nature of rapists and murders to kill and rape then they are also blameless that’s the howl crooks of your argument that we can’t go against our nature and can’t be blamed if we do and I’m telling you if that’s so we might as well chuck all morality out the widow.
255ad 1 year ago
@playdude92 "The mere fact, that he does it (raping or killing) makes it part of his nature” not neasily you can bee conditioning into a killer by circumstanced
255ad 1 year ago
@PostITnoteGUY "I wish the pope would just get a revelation from God that says that people can have unmarried sex only if they wear a condom" the pope isn't a profit he doesn't nor does he claim to have hot line to god what he does is tell Catholics how too behave how to behave and think according too the bible and I think it's made clear in the new testament that sex is an act specifically for procreation between married people.
255ad 1 year ago
@PostITnoteGUY "I wish the pope would just get a revelation from God that says that people can have unmarried sex only if they wear a condom. Think of the suffering that could be avoided with just that one sentence"
except it would be a volition of the bible's teachings on the sanctity of life and would probably split the religion.
255ad 1 year ago
You arrest the pope the way you bust the shit out of a mafia boss. Stop beating around legality and definations. If possible crucify him. Period.
0zerosomu0 1 year ago
@0zerosomu0 they still have to get mafia boss legally in some sense, you have to find any crime they committed however small (like getting al capone on unpaid parking tickets) then arrest them for that then the judge can exaggerate the sentence. you can't do that too the pope because when ever he's out of the Vatican he's got diplomatic immunity meaning you can't get him on any offence less then crimes against humanity witch we've already established he's not technically guilty of.
255ad 1 year ago
@PostITnoteGUY the howl basis of good and of good and evil in the Christian religion (and morality in general) is that we are capable of ignoring our base instincts and doing what's right.Any way he was making the point that it's not the churches fault if people pick and choice which of there teachings too follow by that logic if I told a child to cross the road when the light turns red and it only listened to the first half of what I said you could could blame me for it's death
255ad 1 year ago
@PostITnoteGUY so, we should break the law, bomb people, some who might be innocent, kill a man, all because you think your right. If dawkins is forgiving and mild, you sertenly are not.
shedininja001 1 year ago
@standinstann
I would defenetely see a problem in the chucrch trying to vilify consensual sex between two adults. It would mean, that the people need to deny their own nature and urges in order to please the church. Every healthy adult human needs sexuality and it is as much a part of anyones existence as feelings are. That would make the denial of ones sexuality a sick thing to me. Of course its a whole diffrent deal with pedophilia...
playdude92 1 year ago
@playdude92 the only difference is that you think paedophiles is wrong (before you say I agree) but don't think people "denning their own sexual nature". if you take the attitude that we can't deny our nature, then you might as well excuse all rapists, paedophiles and large proportion of murders and thieves.
255ad 1 year ago
No Stan, it's not that he doesn't know what he wants the pope arrested for. It's that he's not sure of what they can legally get him for. If he did cover up child rape, and promoted against condom use in Africa, he has done very bad things. Unfortunately, it's not an easy thing to nail him on, and Dawkins doesn't know how exactly they'll go about that.
Also, religious people can say, "It's my religion" and get away with more than they usually do. His HoS position is just even more troubles.
Sines314 1 year ago
@Sines314 ""it's not that he doesn't know what he wants the pope arrested for. It's that he's not sure of what they can legally get him for.""
Then he doesn't know what he wants him arrested for. He knows that he'd like him arrested PERIOD. Is the pope guilty of an international crime? Who knows? Dawkins sure as shit doesn't. You can't insist that the Pope is guilty of crimes against humanity and not know what crimes against humanity MEANS.
standinstann 1 year ago
@standinstann
"You can't insist that the Pope is guilty of crimes against humanity and not know what crimes against humanity MEANS."
Well, isn't it kind of obvious that the crimes against humanity are 1) To try and hide the fact that hundreds of kids have been molested by priests, priests living in a clearly unfortunate (for the kids) celibacy, all to save face, and 2) To actively disencourage people to use condoms, even uneducated poor Africans who know no better? Those things piss me off.
anglicantian 1 year ago
@anglicantian "Things that piss me off" is not the definition of "Crimes against humanity". Not a single one of those things you mentioned meet that definition.
standinstann 1 year ago
@standinstann
No, not all "things that piss me off" are crimes against humanity, but to actively add to the spread of HIV IS. To cover up child molestation IS. Molested children and Africans who've been HIV-infected are a part of humanity, so I don't care about dictionary definitions, those ARE crimes against humanity. Arresting the pope is a little far fetched, but arresting the guilty priests and trying to stop the popes' anti-human spewings should be priorities.
anglicantian 1 year ago
@anglicantian Those things do not fit the international court's definition of crimes against humanity, and that is the issue at hand. I understand that you consider those things to be crimes against humanity, and with the exception of the church's TEACHING on condoms, I agree, but we're talking about what the law says, not how we feel.
standinstann 1 year ago
@anglicantian those aren't crimes against humanity if Richard Dawkins thinks they are then he does "not know what crimes against humanity MEANS" same for you if you think they are
255ad 1 year ago
@255ad
To actively add to the spread of HIV IS a crime against humanirt. To cover up child molestation IS. Molested children and Africans who've been HIV-infected because of the popes' "advice" are a part of humanity, so I don't care about dictionary definitions, those ARE crimes against humanity. Saying otherwise is to go in denial.
anglicantian 1 year ago
@anglicantian The pope/church also "advises" abstinence if you might kill someone by having sex with them, if he/they, didn't you might have a point.
standinstann 1 year ago
@standinstann
Sure, but it's still no use to tell people not to use condoms. Ever. It can only confuse.
"Those things do not fit the international court's definition of crimes against humanity"
Wiki- international criminal court definition:
"particularly odious offences in that they constitute a serious attack on human dignity or grave humiliation or a degradation of one or more human beings". Yes, wiki. I know.
That would seem to encompass my examples, no?
And BTW, didn't mean to be rude.
anglicantian 1 year ago
@anglicantian
The church isn't lying when they say that condoms are evil, the're wrong. They're LYING when they say that condoms are ineffective, and THAT causes harm.
To your second point, the wiki is so far accurate. there would have to be a policy TO rape boys, and THAT would have to be covered up.
What the church is covering up is negligence and endangerment, which is not a crime against humanity.
standinstann 1 year ago
@anglicantian there wrong for sure and he should morily be punished but they are not crimes agist humanity not litraly or legaly and theirs no geting around that fact "saying otherwise" realy "is to go into denial"
P.S computer spell check broken
255ad 1 year ago
@standinstann The pope is guilty of things that would likely get him arrested were he not a head of state, or some similar problem. He has done bad things, I don't think you deny that. Nailing him for something, anything, is like nailing Al Capone for tax evasion. It's working within the system to defeat someone who is using the system to avoid persecution.
Sines314 1 year ago
@Sines314
No, I don't think we ought to start splitting hairs with the law in order to take down somebody we don't like. Once we go down that road, then it only takes "enough" people who dislike Richard Dawkins to get him' on "Religious persecution. you see, TECHNICALLY, he's hostile toward religion, and so hostile toward "members" of religion. So let's arrest him for crimes against humanity because deep down he needs to be stopped for something else. (con't)
standinstann 1 year ago
@standinstann The definition of crimes against humanity is clear, and ought not to be "creative" with its meaning because we're "Trying" to get somebody that we don't like on "something". It MATTERS whether or not the Pope committed an international crime, and he didn't.
standinstann 1 year ago
@standinstann I would a assume crimes against humanity have to be proactive policy because there's many things heads of states don't do for what ever reason that if they had could of saved lives.like in the past few years in Britain when there was complaining we needed more grit for the roads when it snow but the government didn't do much about it during the summer because nobody cared any more. so if crimes against humanity could be negligent does that mean you could charge Gordon brown
255ad 1 year ago
@standinstann t really wish the pope could be arrested just because I'd love to see out of curiosity alone the reaction of Catholics to such an unprecedented event.
255ad 1 year ago
@PostITnoteGUY My policy is this: when it comes to taking sides on an issue, you should never let your guy get away with anything you wouldn't let the opposition get away with. Dawkins ignorance regarding the very crime he is in support of the Pope being charged with would have been enough to get any Holy man laughed out of the marketplace of ideas. I don't know why people still continue to defend this man. He may be right in spirit, but he's wrong in everything else.
confusedmatthew 1 year ago
Good stuff. I always learn something from a Standinstann video.
MikeRyu 1 year ago
I enjoy your views on the matter
WARMAKER1814 1 year ago
Awsome vid Stan glad to have you back. About the condom thing what is the Church's policy regarding comdoms if the couple involved are married and one of them has aids?
MegaBeamish 1 year ago
@MegaBeamish
The official Church Teaching is that both the Unitive act (sex while married), and the Procreative act (unobstructed possibility of bearing a child by having married sex) must ALWAYS, and in EVERY case, be present, or it's evil.
standinstann 1 year ago
@standinstann Thanks for responding but I have to admit I have a hard time agreeing with that but that's probably why I'm non religious. I know in previous video's you've admitted to coverting to Catholisism. Would you be willing to give me a list of some of the books on religion that you've read that you find helpful? I've always had an interest in religion but have a hard time finding books that don't outright preach to you. Thanks.
MegaBeamish 1 year ago
@MegaBeamish Do you mean Catholicism or religion in general?
standinstann 1 year ago
@standinstann Really just anything you've found to be a useful guide perhaps maybe one book about each.
MegaBeamish 1 year ago
@MegaBeamish One book I can recommend about religion in general is called "Truth in Religion" It's more about what religion is "for", adn the primacy of monotheism than anything else, but it does have aome nice details. by Mortimer J Adler. For Catholicism I would simply read the catechism, it is literally everything the church teaches and why.
standinstann 1 year ago
@standinstann Thanks! I enjoy seeing people' s perspective's on things whether they be political, religious, or even movie reviews. (I like your brother's stuff as well) But without someone pushing an agenda which is why I find some of the topics people cover on youtube so fascinating but it's often hard to get that from books. Thanks.
MegaBeamish 1 year ago
What would you answer to someone, who argued that the catholic church helps keeping pedophilia in secret and pedophiles from coming out publicly about their problem, because it taboos talking about anything sexual and vilifies the people who do? Of course in this scenario they wouldn´t do anything remotely illegal but something irresponsible (at best) and just add to the unwillingness of society to talk about that problem. - sry, i got a little of topic but I just want to know, what you think.
playdude92 1 year ago
@playdude92 well, if they're vilifying both consensual sex acts and pedophilia, I don't see how that's a bad thing. I DO think that our approach to the issue of pedophilia does nothing to fix the problem.
standinstann 1 year ago
Don't you think the real problem here is the fact that the Vatican city is also a state and has a seat in in the UN? That just rings all the wrong bells for me. The Vatican city doesn't represent a people, it only represents a religion. A situation that is bound to produce problems like this.
marco054 1 year ago
lol its all so crazy
of all the things to attack to through a blanket and call it crimes against humanity is not a specific case
to through a blanket or net because you don't like that person or organization is an absorb wast of time
toadenk 1 year ago
Sure is strawman.
Imjustaguy123 1 year ago
>"we don't dissolve states because we think the leaders who made the state in the first place sucked ass."
Well, actually, the Brits sort of DID do that with Napoleon and the Kingdom of Westphalia, but yeah, wars were fought, and it was more a vassal state, I see your point.
Neocrater 1 year ago
@Neocrater also that was a 198 years ago when Brits was a conquering power it's self plus the UN didn't exist yet (in other words that's to far in the past to be really relevant)
255ad 1 year ago
I think maybe there is a greater charge to be answered regarding the smuggling of war criminals through the vatican and out of europe, but who would you charge?
DonAlcopop 1 year ago
It seems to me you exempt the Pope by calling it "negligence" for the cover up of what a cardinal does. A parallel of a much more extreme situation comes to mind. Lets say Hitler was alive and a chief general of his had gone through the trouble of getting rid of evidence of the Holocaust. It would seem odd to let Hitler off the hook by calling it negligence.
(The analogy obviously has many differences, but you get the idea.)
highwind8124 1 year ago
@highwind8124 Stan wasn’t arguing that the pope did nothing wrong or that he deserves no punishment but that in the law he what people deserves rarely maters
"chief general of his had gone through the trouble of getting rid of evidence of the Holocaust" the fact his Hitler did directly order the Holocaust and if some one covered it up it wouldn’t be the fault of the law makes that he got away with it.
255ad 1 year ago
@255ad
As I said, the analogy is obviously not perfect, as Hitler also wrote a book that pretty much tried to curry public favor for such an action and so on.
But my point remains unaddressed. The point is "negligence" seems to be putting it lightly. If someone you hire, that you put into power, continuously does something and you just "neglect" to make them stop... neglect is when you go. "Uh... I'm lazy. What day is it?"
There's clearly an ongoing partnership.
highwind8124 1 year ago
@highwind8124 Catholics didn’t elect the pope the Vatican did and Catholics are faith bound to abide by there decision
255ad 1 year ago
@highwind8124 The Holocaust was a policy 'TO' exterminate Jews. And to tolerate or be complicit with that policy, or smiler policies would meet the definition of crimes against humanity. There is no smiler policy 'TO' rape boys. Only a policy of silence if one finds out that that has taken place. That is not a crime against humanity.
standinstann 1 year ago
@standinstann
Even though I've repeatedly said there are a number of differences in the analogy, those differences keep getting brought up rather than addressing the point.
If you hired someone who covered up evidence, knew he was doing it, and kept hiring him - what you're doing isn't "negligence". You're an active, hard working guy to be able to hire someone else. You would be willfully not doing anything about it.
highwind8124 1 year ago
Big deal,It's just a pope.
Triperiokstas 1 year ago
I don't even like the pope... but of course he should be allowed to spread his nonsense.
hossrex 1 year ago
Religion is a pretty hot topic right now. Well, I suppose it always is, isn't it. Well, O'Reilly just had an atheist on the Factor last night. That was an argument that went nowhere, lol
AlexSmithMusic 1 year ago
Didn't pope Benedict ,Just say that now the church is gonna hold the position that fornicating without protection is 2x worse then fornicating with protection.
Obasiliasfilosofos 1 year ago
I saw the video title and thought: "Do we really dare to live the American dream?" =)
highwind8124 1 year ago
@highwind8124 huh?
standinstann 1 year ago
@standinstann
(Just a goofy comment I stole from a Simpson's joke.)
highwind8124 1 year ago
You make a good point I'd like to discourse further but I don't think that the comments section is appropriate. If you make the video I will make a response :)
theepsilon2010 1 year ago
@theepsilon2010 awesometastic, should be done in a week or so.
standinstann 1 year ago
It's videos like this that demonstrate that these YouTube comments should be properly arrayed in a forum, preferably one that arranges posts in a tree to make responses clearer.
marscaleb 1 year ago 2
@marscaleb HERE HERE!
standinstann 1 year ago
and sorry I meant anti-"Catholic Propaganda" not that you are propagating anti-Catholicism specifically . I am not making that generalization sorry!
theepsilon2010 1 year ago
Standinastann please be careful about your anti-Catholic propaganda regarding contraception. I'm not a Catholic but most sources that I've seen anti-contraception persons use are taken from the contraception manufacturers themselves.
theepsilon2010 1 year ago
@theepsilon2010 Anti,... Catholic-Propaganda distinction understood =)
Nobody using the manufacturer's disclaimers could possibly make the case that condoms are unreliable. They can certainly make the case that they're not 100% effective, but nobody, based on the data, can in good conscience teach that they're unreliable.
standinstann 1 year ago
@standinstann i would say no one "in good conscience" who's accepted a responsibility to teach people like a school teacher or a priest but if I go out on the street and start spouting all sorts of crap about condoms it'd be your own fault for listing to me
255ad 1 year ago
first* rofl
theepsilon2010 1 year ago
@EqualAndFree Yes, but the policy was TO gas Jews, the policy of the church was not TO rape boys. it was to shut the fuck up if you hear about boys being raped. That is not a crime against humanity. There is no international law dealing with criminal negligence. It's sick, evil, and unforgivable, but it does not meet the definition of crimes against humanity.
standinstann 1 year ago
Dawkins et al didn't really think it through. It came across as too much as a gimmick and not an attempt to address the very real issue of child abuse - and subsequent conspiracy to protect those that perpetrated it, as well as silencing victims.
Of course, given the fact that the Catholic Church was trying to make sure priest and choir boys wouldn't be alone together over a 1300 years ago - the number of victims is probably astronomical, even if it doesn't check the boxes for international law
ProphetTenebrae 1 year ago
@ProphetTenebrae Oh, if the RCC were not also a state those astronomical numbers would be eviscerating their entire organization, and I mean PHYSICALLY. I agree with you btw, I think that, even the appalling number they ADMIT to is less than the real number of cases. they leave out the ones where the parents either agreed to STFU, or they would put their kid on the stand and watch him suffer. You know, kind of like the Mafia. Holy mother church my ass!
standinstann 1 year ago
@standinstann I think for many parents - especially in strongly Catholic countries - it's a rock and a hard place choice. Do you take the hush money or go against a community figure and risk becoming a pariah?
As to the Dawkins interview - I've not heard it but I absolutely would not blame anyone (even an expert) for not answering questions on the technicalities of international law. It's a fucking quagmire - just the way lawyers like it. I'd say Dawkins was wise to avoid commenting on law.
ProphetTenebrae 1 year ago
@ProphetTenebrae I don't think it was so much a case of them possibly becoming social outcasts, I don't know any Catholics who would have scorned a parent for exposing the abuse of their child, and plenty who have scorned and condemned the institution of the church. what the Church was doing was intimidating families into settling out of court. (con't)
standinstann 1 year ago
@standinstann they basically (in some cases literally) said "We can either put your kid on the stand, embarrass him, and make him recite what had been done to him, or you can take our hush money. They used the kid as leverage.
To your second point, I'm sorry, the technical legal question that Dawkins had no answer for was "What crime is the Pope guilty of?" that was just embarrassing.
standinstann 1 year ago
@standinstann As you said - a mafia type scare tactic.
As to the interview... yes, that does make him seem ill prepared at best. I suppose the most generous supposition I could offer on that is that either they hadn't finalised what they wanted to charge him with OR that Dawkins didn't want get sidetracked by an argument on the legality of the charges.
It really wasn't a big issue here when he came to visit though, it was pretty fleeting in the headlines, really.
ProphetTenebrae 1 year ago
@ProphetTenebrae
I didn't think it would be. Had it been a coalition of all different kinds of people united in their outrage over the scandal I think it would have been, but as it was, it felt more like a publicity stunt.
standinstann 1 year ago
@standinstann It would have been better for Dawkins el al to do that, really. Abuse in the Catholic church is still a big issue and then you get people trying to hijack it for their own ends.
I don't think it was malicious just ill conceived. I mean, wouldn't it have been nice to see Dawkins etc. using their substantial public presence in combination with Catholic abuse victim groups and others, working together with no agenda beyond just bringing kiddie fiddlers to justice and stopping them?
ProphetTenebrae 1 year ago
@ProphetTenebrae I absolutely agree with you. The sad irony is that if the Pope hadn't been a religious leader, you would never have heard Dawkins (and I really think hitchens and Harri) saying anything at all about it. It would have been like "What? who? okay, what does that have to do with combating religiosity?" I honestly think you wouldn't have.
standinstann 1 year ago
@standinstann I honestly do feel that at times Dawkins etc can hurt their own cause - and to state an interest I am for scientific naturalism and secularism - but being so narrow in their focus and I agree. If the Pope was just the head of some state - that had a huge problem with state officials abusing children, they probably wouldn't have said anything.
A wasted opportunity to be sure. All we got was a "oh, sorry for all the child abuse, guys!" from the Pope. Hardly awe inspiring.
ProphetTenebrae 1 year ago
@ProphetTenebrae He didn't even say "We'll do better next time"! He 'sort of' said that the Bishops didn't handle it right, though he never once admitted to a cover up. So now we literally have a denial of a cover up to cover up the cover up. JESUS CHRIST! (No pun intended).
I'm with that other guy on the BBC interview, this pope is a lost cause.
standinstann 1 year ago
@standinstann Oh, I agree - it amazes me that people feel a need to get into the somewhat dubious stuff about his past in the Hitler youth. Everything needed to condemn the man is far more transparent in his behaviour as the Catholic equivalent of an enforcer.
But this has been something endemic to the Church before even the oldest of European nation states emerged, the weight of inertia behind it must be immense. It's an imperfect world...
ProphetTenebrae 1 year ago
@standinstann regardless of law do you think the pope deserves some form of punishment.
255ad 1 year ago