REGISTER  


Who thinks the Pope should be Jailed?
This thread belongs to weasel.forumgeeks.net


2010-04-07 22:13 GMT   |   #1

Who here think that he should be jailed for his crimes, and who thinks that he should be immune to punishment ... what with him being a direct line to god and whatnot.
2010-04-07 22:29 GMT   |   #2
 
He can't be jailed because he's a head of state, but it's pretty absurd that the Vatican is considered a state. If any other organization systematically hushed up child abuse for decades and facilitated the continued behaviour of these monsters, the people responsible would be charged with criminal conspiracy and aiding/abetting. Instead, no one is even considering it, and they're lucky to get charges filed against the individual abusing priests, never mind the people who helped them hush up their crimes.
2010-04-08 05:37 GMT   |   #3

Darth Wong wrote:He can't be jailed because he's a head of state


I don't know how I didn't even think about that. And yeah the fact that the Vatican is a state unto itself is entirely insane.
2010-04-08 09:00 GMT   |   #4

GanjaGarden wrote:Who here think that he should be jailed for his crimes, and who thinks that he should be immune to punishment ... what with him being a direct line to god and whatnot.
I’m curious, do you expect really intelligent answers to these questions on a bulletin board about software? :)

Darth Wong wrote:continued behaviour of these monsters
Just an observation, but as an atheist, you don’t believe in evil. Do you? How can you be sure this behavior is wrong?

It’s true that 33% of the Catholic Priests are self-proclaimed gays, and these crimes are unfortunately not uncommon in the Church. The Church has created it’s own demise by letting these “monsters” in.
2010-04-08 09:53 GMT   |   #5

Highway of Life wrote:]Just an observation, but as an atheist, you don’t believe in evil. Do you? How can you be sure this behavior is wrong?


This is a very common misconception. Of course atheists know right from wrong, we know these things for the same reasons that people who believe in whatever set of superstitions and myths know them. Because we're born with most of the knowledge of right and wrong, things like theft, murder, etc. This is a result of some very basic evolution.

If you're implying what it seems like you're implying, that morals only come from belief in a higher power and heave, then what you're saying is that the only reason you do good things is so that you'll get into heaven and you think "someone" is watching. For obvious reasons this is not true morality, nor is there much morality in the main three religions. The god I assume you belive in (the Judeo-Christian god) ordered the genocide of prisoners and rape of virgin girls (see Book of Numbers 31:17)

However, I'm going to assume that you understand why the rape of virgin girls is wrong. And you sure as hell didn't get THAT from the bible. So what mechanism did you use to ascertain that parts (many parts) of the bible are immoral and some parts are moral?

BTW if anyone reading this doesn't understand the evolutionary vehicle by which we obtained morals, don't simply dismiss this notion as many do. Actually read up on it, it's pretty simple.

Cheers,
-GG
2010-04-08 15:14 GMT   |   #6
 
GanjaGarden wrote:
Highway of Life wrote:]Just an observation, but as an atheist, you don’t believe in evil. Do you? How can you be sure this behavior is wrong?


This is a very common misconception. Of course atheists know right from wrong, we know these things for the same reasons that people who believe in whatever set of superstitions and myths know them. Because we're born with most of the knowledge of right and wrong, things like theft, murder, etc. This is a result of some very basic evolution.

If you're implying what it seems like you're implying, that morals only come from belief in a higher power and heave, then what you're saying is that the only reason you do good things is so that you'll get into heaven and you think "someone" is watching. For obvious reasons this is not true morality, nor is there much morality in the main three religions. The god I assume you belive in (the Judeo-Christian god) ordered the genocide of prisoners and rape of virgin girls (see Book of Numbers 31:17)

However, I'm going to assume that you understand why the rape of virgin girls is wrong. And you sure as hell didn't get THAT from the bible. So what mechanism did you use to ascertain that parts (many parts) of the bible are immoral and some parts are moral?

BTW if anyone reading this doesn't understand the evolutionary vehicle by which we obtained morals, don't simply dismiss this notion as many do. Actually read up on it, it's pretty simple.

Cheers,
-GG


Have you ever heard of CS Lewis? He has an interesting take on your "evolutionary morality" perspective.

“The Moral Law, or Law of Human Nature, is not simply a fact about human behaviour in the same way as the Law of Gravitation is, or may be, simply a fact about how heavy objects behave. On the other hand, it is not a mere fancy, for we cannot get rid of the idea, and most of the things we say and think about men would be reduced to nonsense if we did. And it is not simply a statement about how we should like men to behave for our own convenience; for the behaviour we call bad or unfair is not necessarily the same as the behaviour we find inconvenient, and may even be the opposite. Consequently, this Rule of Right and Wrong, or Law of Human Nature, or whatever you call it, must somehow or other be a real thing – a thing that is really there, not made up by ourselves”
2010-04-08 15:30 GMT   |   #7
 
GanjaGarden wrote:
Highway of Life wrote:]Just an observation, but as an atheist, you don’t believe in evil. Do you? How can you be sure this behavior is wrong?


This is a very common misconception. Of course atheists know right from wrong, we know these things for the same reasons that people who believe in whatever set of superstitions and myths know them. Because we're born with most of the knowledge of right and wrong, things like theft, murder, etc. This is a result of some very basic evolution.

If you're implying what it seems like you're implying, that morals only come from belief in a higher power and heave, then what you're saying is that the only reason you do good things is so that you'll get into heaven and you think "someone" is watching. For obvious reasons this is not true morality, nor is there much morality in the main three religions. The god I assume you belive in (the Judeo-Christian god) ordered the genocide of prisoners and rape of virgin girls (see Book of Numbers 31:17)

However, I'm going to assume that you understand why the rape of virgin girls is wrong. And you sure as hell didn't get THAT from the bible. So what mechanism did you use to ascertain that parts (many parts) of the bible are immoral and some parts are moral?

BTW if anyone reading this doesn't understand the evolutionary vehicle by which we obtained morals, don't simply dismiss this notion as many do. Actually read up on it, it's pretty simple.

Cheers,
-GG



You need to read the entire bible, and understand the context of what is happening there. Your basing your opinion on that one verse with absolutely no understanding the the context.

I will give you an example. Lets say for a moment, you have a son. ( You may have a son in real life, so this could very well enlighten you. ) One day I am walking along and I start cursing your child, or verbally assaulting him or her. You would very well want to beat the living pulp out of me right? Lets say for a second that a third person walks along and notices you beating me up in the middle of the street. They would automatically run to my aid. It would be very easy for them to call you a heartless person, beating some innocent man up in the middle of the street, when in fact, if they understood the context, they would have no problem joining in on the beating.

Can you get what I am saying? Anyway, you can read a bit about this verse here...
http://www.apocalipsis.org/difficulties/midianite.htm

I found this on the internet.
2010-04-08 20:08 GMT   |   #8

Darth Wong wrote:He can't be jailed because he's a head of state


So he's allowed to go around on a killing spree if he wanted to?
2010-04-08 20:23 GMT   |   #9

GanjaGarden wrote:Who here think that he should be jailed for his crimes, and who thinks that he should be immune to punishment ... what with him being a direct line to god and whatnot.

the simple answers are

yes he should be jailed for his crimes

no he should not be immune to punishment

AND REALLY, WE ALL KNOW IT

well done GanjaGarden for being brave enough to come out and ask the question ;)
2010-04-08 20:26 GMT   |   #10

Highway of Life wrote:It’s true that 33% of the Catholic Priests are self-proclaimed gays


Citation needed.

Highway of Life wrote:The Church has created it’s own demise by letting these “monsters” in.


I certainly hope you aren't making the absurd claim that homosexuals are "monsters" and pedophiles.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7nextlast