As long as I'm criticizing my allies…

Consider me on the pile. I find the idea that this is not a skeptical cause to be bizarre.

Shakespeare?
This is a class joint.

A fun poll about teabaggers: genuine, racist extremists, or a bit of both?

Well, mangled Shakespeare, anyway. Class doesn't stop us from tearing up the classics as suits us.

There's another reason why the pope's nose shouldn't come to the UK in September. His visit might disrupt plans for this year's Tour of Britain http://www.tourofbritain.co.uk/

Let's get our priorities right.

Color me as one confused by Phil's post.

Replace the Catholic Church with anti-vaxxers or moon hoaxers and Phil would be going in with guns blazing and flesh tearing until his final breath no matter what the odds or whose feelings would get hurt.

I particularly like your Point #2, PZ. The crazies use violence, the 'new' atheists use logic, law, reason and verbal abuserepartee.

@#3: How about genuine racist extremist morons? They aren't a 'little bit' of both choices, they are a WHOLE LOT of them. A Venn diagram of 1 circle displaying 2 values.

PZ, stop hogging all the awesome. Other people want some too.

Replace the Catholic Church with anti-vaxxers or moon hoaxers and Phil would be going in with guns blazing and flesh tearing until his final breath no matter what the odds or whose feelings would get hurt.

You could say the same thing about Orac. Or you could substitute Global Warming denialism and say the same thing about Chris Mooney.

Sad how religion divides skeptics in the blogosphere. Sweet irony.

Were you mangling Shakespeare, or maybe Braveheart?

Arrest The Pope Facebook Page

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Arrest-The-Pope/112549038762456

I think Phil's comments are symptomatic of the fractious relationship between the skeptic movement (such that there is one) and atheists.

They have this bizarre idea that any issue can be subjected to skeptical analysis *except* religion, which is a taboo - for reasons that are never properly explained. Even when they do allow religion to be discussed it's only when it directly intersects with science (e.g. evolution), where they are happy to be as snarky and as strident as they choose.

However, on the few occasions when they do comment on religion - you have to be *extra nice*, so you don't come across as strident like those militant atheists.

Disappointing hypocrisy

PZ:

even if we are overwhelmed by the opposition, we must at the very least speak out against the abuse of power…and that includes the privileges that religion has demanded for itself.

Damn straight. Someone has to speak out for what is right, and those who are claiming the moral high ground aren't going to do it.

If there is no struggle there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom and yet deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its many waters. This struggle may be a moral one, or it may be a physical one, and it may be both moral and physical, but it must be a struggle. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will.
- Frederick Douglass

Old Freddy D had them pegged 150 years ago, and they haven't changed since.

Maybe I'm just too medicated to understand this analogy:

Let me make up a scenario: imagine rock-solid evidence came up that Randi had embezzled the Million Dollars, and a few days later — after all the discussion and arguments and self-immolation that would occur on the blogs and fora and the media about it — Sylvia Browne said she would be leading the charge to see him brought to trial. Tell me honestly: would you rally behind her?

Um, what? Was this supposed to make any sense or relate to anything at all?

If evidence came to light that James Randi was likely guilty of criminal wrongdoing, a half-dozen skeptic groups would independently call for investigation. One would be led by PZ Myers, and the other five by people declaring themselves more polite than PZ Myers. (Such is the way of the world.) Remember all of a couple months ago, when everybody got upset at Randi for sounding like a global warming denialist? Yeah. We're perfectly willing to criticize, and we wouldn't have to wait for someone whose ethics we don't trust to "lead the charge" for justice.

This is the problem with weird counterfactual stories as analogies: they don't really explain anything, or predict anything, or provide any genuine illumination; they just serve as confusing distractions.

I think that if wasn't for atheists, skeptics, and any other non-religious groups speaking up loudly that this issue would be swept under the carpet once again.

We can't be intimidated by threats of hellfire made from religious authority. We're immune to such oppression.

Do we need someone forming a "Skeptics United Against the Catholic Church" group? No. But I haven't actually seen anyone suggesting such a thing either.

As "new atheists", "angry atheists", or just plain old "atheist assholes", we're breaking ground in the same way that any other minority has in the last 100 years. By being loud, not bowing down to pressure, and showing that we have more integrity than our opponents.

And it just so happens that we have the confidence as a group to stand up and challenge religious authority and corruption at a time when one particular sect is being exposed for what it is.

I'm not interested in being the huggable, kissable, mostly-flammable atheist. I'm a humanist and god-mythology is the enemy of reason.

dreamfish.org.uk:

However, on the few occasions when they do comment on religion - you have to be *extra nice*, so you don't come across as strident like those militant atheists.

In this case, it's not so much commenting on religion as it is commenting on criminal activities which have gone on for generations under the cover of religion. I'd think skeptics would have plenty to say about that.

@Blake #16

And at no point would Randi be able to claim any sort of moral authority given to him by a divine being that would allow him to skirt normal judicial process.

It was a weird analogy.

WTF Phil??

Oihorse@6, Phil Plait's recent "hot on anti-vax" streak was for the longest time limited in condemnation, he abandoned the "be diplomatic" approach rather late.

@PZ
BRAVISSIMO!!!

And at no point would Randi be able to claim any sort of moral authority given to him by a divine being that would allow him to skirt normal judicial process.

But even then, Plait seems to think that skeptics wouldn't be out in front condemning Randi and calling for justice. I mean, look at the backlash when he said "climate denialist sounding" things -- there was all sorts of waves of condemnation in the skeptical community. And that was just SIWOTI syndrome, with no illegalities involved.

I get that Plait was probably thinking more "you wouldn't rally behind a woomeister to condemn a skeptic", but the analogy even fails there because there are no mainstream religious people making a big deal out of this. There isn't even the chance to rally behind one of them. And if the Cardinal of whereverthefuck was pushing for action against the Pope, you can sure as hell bet skeptics and atheists would support and get behind the effort. But there isn't, so we're straight up ignoring our responsibility as human beings if we don't raise the issue ourselves, even if it requires that we rally behind atheist figures that religious people dislike. If they don't want atheists calling for them to clean their house, they should clean the damn place themselves.

The fewer men, the greater share of honor; let him depart who has no stomach for the fight; I would not be one who, in his old age, was unable to say that he'd stood for what was right, because he feared the host of those who defended what was wrong.

As long as we're "mangling" our Shakespeare, how about making it gender inclusive?

Also, I don't get the argument that "it's a skeptic issue if the Church uses a supernatural defense." Since when does The Skeptical Movement (TM) only criticize claims with "supernatural" content? The set of all bullshit includes, but is not limited to, claims about "supernatural" phenomena.

He's arguing against the whole "let's bring the Pope to justice" idea.

I figured that he could not be arguing any such thing and, reading his piece, of course he is not. But I wonder how many people here will, instead of blindly believing PZ's absurd mischaracterization.

This fraud in his funny hat is accused of complicity in a major crime against humanity. I really doubt that he has the support of all his millions of followers. Many Catholics are just as outraged at the extent of the abuse and the coverups as those outside the church. And these are for acts prior to becoming pope.

Now elected his policies on condoms and AIDS have brought needless suffering to many others. This man should be treated with all the respect he deserves which is very little. Like Mother Theresa he has made a career of promoting the suffering of others. He won't be arrested but ridicule at every opportunity is in order.

Ya know, if Global Warming and Ant-vax denialists were smart, they could immunize themselves against a good portion of the so-called skeptic community by simply entangling their cause with Christianity.

Blake Stacey:

Also, I don't get the argument that "it's a skeptic issue if the Church uses a supernatural defense." Since when does The Skeptical Movement (TM) only criticize claims with "supernatural" content?

I don't get that either. How isn't the church using a supernatural defense? The basis of the whole frigging thing is that it's appointed by god's divine will, the pope is infallible, etc. They've been using the divinely appointed, god's will line since way back when they were busy torturing and burning people.

Also, why the big act, like most atheists aren't skeptics? Do I have to call myself a skatheist now? Geez, this hairsplitting gets absurd.

I know a lot of people are in fear of the catholic church, they have carefully cultivated that fear since their inception. They are not, however, nearly as powerful as they used to be. It's time for people to shed that fear and stand up.

Although it would be interesting to see the entire 'skeptical community' responding with diplomacy and tact regarding a scandal such as this, I have my doubts that it would be received well by believers, regardless. That such an event would come to pass and that no foul-mouthed scapegoat could be located by the church in order to paint itself as the victim, well...is it possible? Moot point now, isn't it?

Perhaps Phil sets his sights too high in thinking that such diplomacy could accomplish anything at all. Of course the church will circle the wagons, no matter how wrong it may be to do so. Does anyone really expect to bring the RCC down through this scandal? I'd be surprised if the Brits even tell the pope to piss off and stay home, much less some actual criminal proceedings, anywhere.

I wonder who is suggesting that 'clearly moral religious people will rally behind you'? Is that the measure of what is right and good? I would choose to do the right thing because it is right, not because of whatever friends I might make while doing it.

1. This is not necessarily a skeptical cause, unless they bring a supernatural defense to bear....

It is a skeptical cause. The whole problem arises from the self-righteousness of an organization that believes its authority comes from a supernatural source. There is an assumption of privilege by the Catholic church that they believe justifies a cover-up (not the child rape; that's deplored as un-Christian, fair enough, but there is a belief that the sanctity of the church must not be questioned.) It should be fair game for a skeptical organization to take on.

Here's what Phil actually said:

Here’s where things get interesting to me. In this country for sure, religion gets a free pass that a lot of other institutions don’t enjoy. They live tax free. They can say all manners of bizarre things, and people just blow it off, saying that personal beliefs are sacred. And religion can get all kinds of tangled up in politics, and again it gets a pass because it’s faith-based.
If the Catholic Church covers up, stalls investigations, moves priests around, and does other reprehensible acts to save itself, that’s one thing. But if it then says the Bible commands them to do it, or uses the religious authority people invest in it to let things slide, or says that the Pope is infallible and therefore what he did must be right, then yes, absolutely, 100%, skeptics need to jump in and cry "foul!"

and

Sure, it enjoys the power bestowed on it as a faith-based entity, and I have little doubt it was the corruption of that power that allowed the rape culture to exist. That is surely something for skeptics to take on.

Be sure to read his article; it's a lot more nuanced and well reasoned than this response might lead one to believe.

Some way long time ago, I posted something to the feeling of this on the BA board:

I would love to sit down and have a beer with with both Dr. Plait and PZ - but with, PZ, we get to storm the castle after!

I am all for storming the castle. And yes, with Plait, I think it would have to be a beer of the root for him. No matter.

JC

dreamfish.org.uk #13

They have this bizarre idea that any issue can be subjected to skeptical analysis *except* religion, which is a taboo - for reasons that are never properly explained.

The reason, there is only one, is quite simple. We're not supposed to upset the goddists. An upset goddist will cling more closely to god and won't pay attention to the skeptic's arguments.

For instance, because PZ put a nail through a frackin' wafer, Catholics are standing steadfast behind the Pope's coverup of child rapists. If PZ hadn't upset the Catholics with his wafer nailing, then Bill Donohue would be calling for Pope Palpatine's head.

QE fucking D!

I figured that he could not be arguing any such thing and, reading his piece, of course he is not. But I wonder how many people here will, instead of blindly believing PZ's absurd mischaracterization.

Plait uses a lot of words to say it, but if you follow his position to the logical conclusion it goes:

(1) There are 75 million Catholics in the US.

(2) We need to be diplomatic in approaching them, because we cannot afford to offend them.

(3) If they refuse to push for action against the hierarchy for the shuffling around of child molesting priests, we're SOL (see 2).

His whole position relies on hoping the religious take action, because "it's not a skeptical issue".

PZ's statement may be misleading, but if you replace "let's" with "let's atheists and skeptics" (which is really his concerned audience, and I don't think it's an unfair assumption), you've pretty much stated Plait's position. He says "All of us need to be standing up to the horrors the Church has perpetrated, just as we would if any organization did such a thing", but goes to great pains saying we should not alienate Catholics in so doing. But that assumes there is a way of standing up to the horrors of the church hierarchy without offending the rank and file, which has sure as hell not been demonstrated. He doesn't say what we should do, just what we should not (offend the religious by being too pushy).

I read his post a couple days ago, and I even commented there. His Browne/Randi analogy was the more serious flaw I (and others) saw.

Truth Machine #26

For once TM is right. Phil didn't say some of the things PZ accuses him of saying.

Truth Machine @26: You're right, though I thought Phil's post was a little muddled. For those interested, this is the part specifically, I think, that makes PZ's characterization inaccurate:

Sure, it enjoys the power bestowed on it as a faith-based entity, and I have little doubt it was the corruption of that power that allowed the rape culture to exist. That is surely something for skeptics to take on. [...] As Rebecca points out, if the Church is relying on blind faith, acceptance of authority, and diversion of blame (like Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone did) then those are absolutely within the skeptic realm, and something we should be talking about.

PZ's only giving as good as he gets; Phil said:

I don’t think PZ Myers’ comments, for example, are helpful. They may foment (some of) the troops, but no Catholic of any stripe seeing that statement will suddenly realize the folly of their ways. Quite the opposite I’d imagine, as I pointed out above.

Now, maybe Phil meant PZ's comments in general, but he linked to a specific post. A specific post that had very little commentary, and what there was is mostly directed at the skeptical community, not at Catholics. I don't see any intent in that post to help any Catholic "realize the folly of their ways," and it's disingenuous to criticize a post for not doing something it wasn't intended to do. In fact, I'd say that PZ's linked post was meant precisely to foment troops, and specifically to foment them against this attitude that speaking out against child abuse and rape could be bad for the movement.

Where I specifically think Phil's post fails is here:

And all the while the skeptics have to tread very carefully indeed if they don’t want to tick off the rest of the world.

Since when are we concerned about ticking people off? How many people does Phil "tick off" every time he brings up the Antivaxxers or the moon hoaxers? If there's one thing that anyone in the skeptical movement should have learned in the last several forevers, it's that it doesn't matter how nice and deferential you are, it doesn't matter how tangentially you approach the controversial topic or how much benefit of the doubt and respect you give, if you're expressing a skeptical opinion, you'll be painted as the loud, angry, evil, anti-[insert woo here] bad guy. Just ask Genie Scott. Or Dan Dennett for that matter.

Yes, tact matters, and we have to choose our battles wisely. But I don't think tone is much of a concern when the other side will just shove you into their pre-made pigeonhole no matter how poorly you fit. That's why measured, perpetually calm Dawkins is "angry" and "shrill," that's why soft-spoken Eugenie Scott is "evil" and patient, rational Steven Novella is a Nazi. We're the bad guys no matter how we phrase our criticisms, we ought at least to phrase them in such a way as to be unignorable.

Re: his analogy. While I wouldn't rally behind Sylvia Browne against an embezzling Randi, I'd still rally against him. And I suspect the skeptical blogosphere would be filled with people saying "I never thought I'd agree with Sylvia Browne, but..." or "Sylvia Browne finally gets something right!"

I tend to agree with Rebecca W. on this. They may not have brought a supernatural defense to bear, but the original crimes were committed using "the supernatural" as a tool. It does not HAVE to be a skeptics issue, but it can be. The fact that it is a little ambiguous is ... well, manageable. Teh Puritee of the Movement will not be forever ruined if a few people move forward with the claim that this is both a skeptical and an theist issue.

I mean, seriously. Technically, a skeptical atheist is only an atheist because their rational (skeptical) review of the world supports, for now, the atheist model. But such a person should not (by Phil's reasoning) NOT attack the pope because, after all, we may not have deveoped the instrumentation yet to measure god, and when we do, we'll have to change our minds!!!!

(Well, Phil does not actually say that, but... some purists might.)

We need to be diplomatic in approaching them, because we cannot afford to offend them.

That's not what he says; he argues for a rational approach, one by which we actually might achieve our goals. He doesn't say -- as accomodationists do -- that we shouldn't offend the tender sensibilities of Catholics, just that attacking Catholics generally is not likely to be an effective strategy for bringing the Pope et. al. to justice.

If they refuse to push for action against the hierarchy for the shuffling around of child molesting priests, we're SOL (see 2).

He doesn't say that either; he says that Catholics should step up to the plate, but it's the secular forces of justice that we should invoke; e.g.,

Let me be as clear as I can here: if Pope Ratzinger in any way stalled or prevented an investigation, Church-based or otherwise, into any aspect of child molestation by priests, then he needs to be indicted and brought to trial; an international tribunal into all this is also necessary and should be demanded by every living human on the planet.

I'm pretty sure that Phil considers atheists and skeptics to be humans living on this planet.

It may not be a skeptic cause, it's certainly an atheist cause, a human cause, and a moral cause. Keep Ratzinger out of my country or arrest him and put him on trial/

Someone previously said loads of Catholics are also angry about this. That is true. They want a change too.

Phil Plait seems to be against pushing at an open door.

For once TM is right

How droll.

"Phil Plait seems to be against pushing at an open door."

Push an open door too hard, it'll bounce back and hit you in the face. He's just saying to push gently/carefully.

Phil Plait seems to be against pushing at an open door.

It may seem that way if you pay no attention to what he actually wrote.

"The fewer men, the greater share of honor; let him depart who has no stomach for the fight; I would not be one who, in his old age, was unable to say that he'd stood for what was right, because he feared the host of those who defended what was wrong."

nice.

Oh dear...I knew this was coming. :(

Withstanding criticism makes various points stronger. That's why I don't hide myself, for example, and criticize various blogs openly.

I've seen more atheists/secular people than catholics. Then again, my scope of the Internet is very small.

I don't see how this is a skeptical issue, or a theological issue, or (as I heard Hitchens describe it) a secular issue. It's a criminal issue. Pretty simple. It doesn't matter what your philosophy is, keeping a child rapist from authorities is illegal. It's appropriate for anyone and everyone who cares about the rule of law to call for the Pope to be arrested. It might be of special interest to groups with a skeptical bent, as it serves as evidence of the fallibility and hypocrisy and unearned privileged position of religion, but it really should be embraced by everyone who doesn't want to live in lawless chaos.

Push an open door too hard, it'll bounce back and hit you in the face. He's just saying to push gently/carefully.

I think it's more of him saying that berating a door for being a door won't make it open up. Ok, that that sucks as an analogy, but it's like this: you can push on the open door by allying with Catholics who are angry about what the church has done and how it reflects upon them, or you can attack Catholicism as superstitious malarkey; it's hard to do both at once, and the latter is likely to undermine the former. I myself am prone toward the latter, but I recognize that it will tend to make Catholics circle the wagons.

or a secular issue. It's a criminal issue

They are pretty much the same thing. "secular: of or pertaining to worldly things or to things that are not regarded as religious, spiritual, or sacred".

It might be of special interest to groups with a skeptical bent, as it serves as evidence of the fallibility and hypocrisy and unearned privileged position of religion

Which makes it a skeptical issue ...

but it really should be embraced by everyone who doesn't want to live in lawless chaos

and a broader one as well.

PZ's only giving as good as he gets

One error does not justify another.

Where I specifically think Phil's post fails is here

Yes, my criticism of his article is the extensive tone trolling.

I don't see how this is a skeptical issue, or a theological issue, or (as I heard Hitchens describe it) a secular issue.

It may or may not be any of these. However, what it is not is an issue that should be dealt with differently by rationalists (or skeptics) than any other issue according to misplaced arguments about 'tactics' (which wouldn't be the case if it weren't religious, such as homeopathy or The Secret).

As I said, I don't think it's specifically a skeptic or anti-religion issue. However, it is a really good chance to improve the reputation of atheists and skeptics if they do exactly what Phil is counseling against, and be as loud, vociferous, vehement, you name it, as possible in condemning the Pope and the Catholic church.

I don't give a damn if a few Catholics try and circle the wagons, as Phil said they would. Instead, this is a golden opportunity to highlight the difference between religion and everything else, and that morality isn't found just in the church (or in this case, in the church at all).

Phil says "People will not rally behind skeptics or atheists simply because they are doing the right thing. Quite the opposite. People will attack the skeptics. And even if there is iron-clad evidence of the Pope’s wrongdoings as well as the Church’s, Catholics will not just suddenly see the light and stand beside skeptics."

IT DOESN'T MATTER. What matters is that it will be crystal-clear who is on the side of the children and justice, and who is not. It ought to shame those fence-sitting Catholics into hearing the rape apologetics emanating from their own mouths and be horrified by it. The worst thing possible that skeptic and atheists groups could do right now is be silent, or accommodating, or acquiescent, because that would make us no better than the pope with regard to this, and you can bet your ass that Catholics would turn right around and skewer us with that the minute the whole episode is dealt with. "Well, where were you when this was happening? Where were your complaints about his conduct? Why didn't you call for him to be brought to justice with every bit of energy you had?"

You do the right thing whether it is politically expedient or not. He's suggesting treating child rape enablers lightly because people who love the child rape enablers might not like us so much? Cry me a river.

#47 Calrity,

Here's where it becomes a skeptical issue: The rapists and abusers are being protected by the church, and are escaping prosecution because they belong to a religious organization.

When the scientologists' Sea Org recently came under fire for abuse of its members, were skeptics saying that it was a criminal matter, and not a skeptical issue? Replace "catholic church" with "church of scientology," and replace "the pope" with "David Miscavige," and we wouldn't have much disagreement about whether prosecutions should take place, and whether skeptics should push for it.

I'm a huge fan of Phil Plait, but he's wrong on this one, especially the on the diplomats vs. warriors front.

PZ, you said exactly what I was thinking when I read Phil's article. It made me think about something David Sloan Wilson talked about in Evolution for Everyone (which I know is a controversial book, but bear with me here). The reason that both aggressive and passive people have evolved is that both aggressive and passive behavior traits are necessary to further human evolution. The Skeptical movement (such as it is) needs both types of people in order to be effective.

@myself, #53

"...further human evolution..." should have been "...help human populations to survive...."

I read Phil's comments when he first posted them and was a little on the fence, but this convinced me. I had forgotten about the Randi global warming thing too. Perhaps Plait did as well.

Anyway, this just proves I have faith in skepticism.

;)

One of the issues I think Phil's argument raised for me was the differentiation between skepticism and atheism.

In my opinion, skepticism is the application of scientific principles to determining the truth about the world, emphasizing doubt and continual testing of ideas against reality.

To me, atheism involves the rejection of religion and religious institutions. While the basis of this rejection is rooted in the skeptical observation that the supernatural claims made by religions as the basis of their legitimacy are unsupported by evidence, atheism also delves into other matters, such as oppression of women by religion, that are primarily moral issues, not truly skeptical ones.

It is possible to view the current Catholic molestation scandal as effectively the same as the recent W.Va. mining disaster. They can both be seen as instances of corrupt, greedy organizations covering up dangerous situations and practices for an extended period, causing immense amounts of harm, in order to protect the vested interests of the organization's leaders. From this standpoint, while both organizations actions are evil (and hopefully legally culpable), they are not truly in the realm of skeptical investigation.

Thus, a person who typically deals with areas of skepticism outside the religious might legitimately feel that the Catholic molestation scandal, while unspeakably evil, was not a skeptical cause any more than Goldman Sachs mortgage dealings or greedy mining executives.

That said, as an atheist, a skeptic, and an ordinary person with a basic moral compass, I'm looking forward to seeing the Pope-Mobile parked in The Hague.

Carlity, Space Rhino sidekick of doom:

You do the right thing whether it is politically expedient or not. He's suggesting treating child rape enablers lightly because people who love the child rape enablers might not like us so much? Cry me a river.

I agree with you. What Plait is actually saying is that we'll push away rank and file catholics who might otherwise be our allies. While he might be right about that, I still call bullshit. If any catholic decides to defend the church/pope/priests at any cost, simply because they don't like atheists a/o skeptics speaking out, they weren't allies in the first place.

These people need to face themselves, they need to face their personal morals and make the decision to do what is right, rather than indulge in a kneejerk reaction. If they're offended so much by non-theists speaking out that they will defend child abuse and rape, they should be smacked with that reality. Hard.

See, in one sense I agree with Phil: This isn't necessarily a skeptical issue. It's an issue that should engage any group of civilized human beings.

In practice it's become a skeptical issue because the skeptics and the atheists are the only group of people who are actually standing up and demanding that this bullshit come to a stop. Seriously, how many times in the last few decades has the issue of priestly paedophilia come up? And every time, it apologetically makes the news for a little while and then goes away again. (As it will again, although each time it does seem to stick around a little longer.)

We aren't stepping forward and making it a skeptical issue, Phil. But if we wind up being the only ones who don't step backwards, then so be it.

If they're offended so much by non-theists speaking out that they will defend child abuse and rape, they should be smacked with that reality. Hard.

Exactly, which is why this particular situation is so important. It is so clear which is right and which is wrong that there is no room for "interpretation" or "alternate positions" or "but the Bible says" or anything of the sort. Anyone even trying to pull that would have to see that they are defending child rapists; if they don't, it's pretty certain that everyone looking at them will see that's what they're doing, including other Christians.

I know it might seem that I'm reversing my first statement, but I don't think I am. I don't think that this is a skeptical issue per se, but I do think it's important for skeptic groups to be vocally on the right side of it.

I'll highlight what I think are Phil's strongest arguments, since I criticized him harshly over at BA:

Let me be as clear as I can here: if Pope Ratzinger in any way stalled or prevented an investigation, Church-based or otherwise, into any aspect of child molestation by priests, then he needs to be indicted and brought to trial; an international tribunal into all this is also necessary and should be demanded by every living human on the planet. Obviously, a very thorough and major investigation of the Catholic Church’s practices about this needs to be held. It is a rock solid fact that there are a lot of priests who have molested children, and it’s clear that the Church has engaged in diversionary tactics ever since this became public (like the abhorrent Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone who says homosexuality lies at the heart of this scandal).

[...]

As an institution, [the RCC] was trying to protect itself, and sacrificed a lot of children’s lives to do it. If this is the case — and it seems very likely — then again the perpetrators need to be hauled in front of a tribunal, and, if found guilty, they get to find out first hand how child molesters are treated in prison.

[...]

and this, with some commentary:

As Rebecca points out, if the Church is relying on blind faith,

Actually I'm not that convinced that the leadership has blind faith; they strike me as a cartel for bullshit and illicit sex. If they have blind faith, it's in the sheer cowardice of humanity because in 2000 years they haven't seriously been called out.

acceptance of authority,

Well that's the whole goddamn foundation, the idea of Christ giving Peter the keys to heaven. The church is nothing without this story of being God's chosen lineage of mouthpieces.

and diversion of blame (like Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone did) then those are absolutely within the skeptic realm, and something we should be talking about.

Well he gave away the counter-example right there, along with bashing Donohue.

It's too bad Phil mucked up these bold statements with so much wishy-washy "think of their feelings" tripe. It's clear that the religious already hate us; our strength comes partially from the fact that our image can't sink much lower. Religious groups, on the other hand, would have to scrutinize their own administrations if they want to call out the RCC, and we can't have that *rolls eyes*

@cbsk9 #56

I think what Phil is talking about is the distinction between capital "S" Skepticism (the Skeptical movement, online community, etc,) and its atheist counterpart, not the definitions of the words. These two communities have a lot of overlap, but they are slightly different. I saw the difference as soon as I became interested in skepticism. I tried talking about critical thinking on an atheist board, and no one knew what the hell I was talking about. Not all vocal atheists who are part of semi-organized atheist communities know about Skepticism.

Likewise, not all Skeptics are atheists (don't ask me why). I prefer the Skeptical community to the atheist community (as far as they are different) because it seems like the (non-organized-skeptic) atheists only want to talk about how much they hate religion. While I'm in favor of this, I get bored if I can't also talk about other topics that piss me off, like alternative medicine and pseudoscience.

Er, correction, Martin Luther called 'em out (that whole Protestant Reformation)... he just didn't go far enough in dismantling the bullshit :p

Not rampaging berserkers charging the Popemobile.

That would be totally awesome if it happened, though.

What? Surely I can't be the only person who thinks so!

#63

Totally with you, Alyson. That would be rad.

Yeah, I'm a librarian and I just said "rad." So?

Ohs noes! Let's not say anything that might make us come off -horror of horrors- unkind!

So when did rationalism become a popularity contest?

"Hurting the cause" is so often thrown around as a way to shut people up. Whilst I would not accuse Phil of wanting to shut anyone up I do think he, like so many others, has become so caught up in the new sceptical movement and all its geeky kittenness that he perceives a uniformity of consciousness that isn't really there. Scepticism is a method of thinking, not a set of ideas, and certainly not an organization.

Faitheists are doing the same thing but they're taking it further; it seems to me they're so charmed with religion that they want to turn their own crowd into one. I am reminded of the Expelled brouhaha with Matt Nisbet telling PZ and Dawkins to shut up and let the diplomats do the talking, for the good of the Movement, and such.

If anyone has any opinion at all, they should voice it and let the arguments commence. Let's have none of this pissing and moaning about how we shouldn't use this or that word, or should apply our brains here but not there, just to appear more likeable to the people whose bullshit we're trying to fight.

Just my two fucking cents.

Plait wrote:

You can argue that Catholics all over the world should be rising up and taking action — and in fact should have been all along, years ago — and obviously a strong case can be made that the culture and nature of the priesthood in Catholicism enables child molestation. But inflammatory and hyperbolic rhetoric won’t help, and is in reality contrary to the cause.

I’ll note that there are some 75 million Catholics in the U.S., a huge number. They outweigh atheists (and skeptics) by a fair margin. Ticking them off, insulting them, saying "I told you so" is not going to help, and in fact will hurt in the longer run. I would think this is patently obvious.

I'd be in favor of letting the Catholics deal with Pope Palpatine except for one niggling little detail. The Catholics aren't dealing with His Popicity. They're wringing their hands and saying "it's a scandal and a shame that these faggot priests are practicing their faggotry on children, it's the Jews who put them up to it." Bill Donohue blames the children for tempting the priests. And I certainly haven't seen the groundswell of Catholic denial of Donohue's argument.

So Plait's wrong. If the Catholics won't do what's right, then it falls to us to do it. If Catholics don't like that, we need to point out to them it's a consequence of their own inaction.

Carlity, Space Rhino sidekick of doom

atheism also delves into other matters, such as oppression of women by religion, that are primarily moral issues

Yah, thanks, you got it just right. Atheism has it's own morality, simplified by it's rejection of some "higher authority".

Do not cause harm to others.

Every abuser who ever lived blames others and plays the victim. The response of the RCC to this ugly affair is definitional.

MarianLibrarian:

I tried talking about critical thinking on an atheist board, and no one knew what the hell I was talking about.

How interesting. I've been on a number of atheist boards/forums, and they've all covered a very wide range of topics and they certainly did (and do) know what critical thinking is and are generally very happy to discuss it.

He has one major point. And that point is where he says "I don’t know if this is specifically a skeptical issue. It’s more a human issue, and a criminal issue." He's definitely not opposed to arresting and trying the pope and his minions, which was what I feared when I read PZ's post.

He is doing the tone thing, though, and I'm a little on the fence there. *IF* being careful not to alienate potential religious allies would *genuinely* help with bringing Ratzi & the Kid Rapists to justice, then OK, I think it's worth doing. I very much want that outcome, and a little politeness to the deluded is a small price to pay for that. But he hasn't actually convinced me that the first part of that conditional is true.

I never thought I'd see the day that you and Phil would come to words on an issue like this. Although I own a telescope and not a microscope and I respect the hell out of Phil for his many insights into the cosmos...I'm with you on this one PZ, 100%!

It all comes down to this for me: do unto others as I want done unto me...and hiding a rather large, global, pack of pedophiles behind robes of chicanery and lies to protect biblical (i.e. mythical) nonsense is not something I'd want done to anyone...let alone innocent children.

To Phil, when we eventually take-off from this planet to the cosmos above...we don't need to take the lies and ages of deceit with.

This isn't just any atheist fight, this is THE atheist fight. There is a serious chance that the entire Catholic Church will shut down their doors if we can win this one. That is one billion people losing faith in their church.

Please join the facebook group: Time to Arrest the Pope.

-Staks

#68 Caine

It could be that I just had the wrong community, but that's pretty much been my experience with every group I've tried that have identified as atheist and not skeptical.

I misspoke about the critical thinking bit, too. They knew what it meant, but it wasn't important to them. I encountered quite a lot of Bill Maher-style atheists. They had a thing against religion, but they didn't really come to atheism through skeptical or critical thinking. Most (I'm sure not all) of the people I talked to in atheist groups online were atheists because they were reacting against their treatment by religious people, and weren't really interested in science (except to support evolution).

Not that there aren't plenty of online communities that are 100% both skeptical and atheist. This one, for example. (And I mean 100% skeptical and atheist in tone, not membership.)

Is it wrong that I think the more people PZ criticizes the more reasonable his original post criticizing the CFI becomes?

Sure PZ flies at the off the handle at the drop of the hat, like some atheist Bill Donohue, but you gotta understand that's just how he is. If he doesn't like you he calls you a bumbling idiot and if he likes you he calls you less of a bumbling idiot. The Trophy Wife only knew they were getting married when she brought up religion and politics and all she got back from PZ was approving nods...

OK, so I'm more making fun of myself here than PZ, actually, because I see that PZ's harsh posts are right afterall I just don't trust my motivation.

MarianLibrarian, again, interesting. I don't know where you landed, but my experience with atheist boards/forums has been pretty much the opposite of yours.

DangerousTalk

That is one billion people losing faith in their church.

Fat chance. Plenty of the faithful are taking the party line: It's teh gayz, it's the Jews, it's a conspiracy against the pope...

The RCC is an abusive culture, it's adherents are going to play the abuser cards: blaming others and playing victim.

DangerousTalk:

This isn't just any atheist fight, this is THE atheist fight. There is a serious chance that the entire Catholic Church will shut down their doors if we can win this one. That is one billion people losing faith in their church.

You know, don't you, that's there is little chance of the Catholic Church "folding", right? This is not about getting people to lose their faith. This is about children being abused and raped. This is about the criminal cover-up of such actions along with aiding and abetting the criminals.

Oh, and give the fucking facebook link a rest. It's constantly being posted. It's been seen.

I am with PZ on this one. All it takes for evil (and child abuse coverups) to flourish is for good/principled people to do (and say) nothing.

ATHEIST FIGHT!!!

I thought I would share the post I put on phil's blog post.

To me this one line sums up most of his article. “I don’t see skeptics needing to be involved more than any other interest group.”

I understand he applied some qualifications to that statement and I get it. I do think that there is an important point he is missing.
The need for a very vocal outcry of the skeptical community is simply this, to show the world it is okay too. We are the leaders in dissembling the power of bronze age thinking. There are many Catholics that hold complete respect and give difference to the mother church. They need to be shown it is okay to dissent. They need to see that the wrath of god is non-existent in the face of defiance. This is what will ultimately bring down religion. We need to flaunt this hypocrisy so every one can see. Once we dis-empower religious beliefs we will see the true end of this delusional thinking. If you in anyway care about your fellow man, how can you think any different?

Sometimes the truth is hard. It is not our duty to befriend every believer to present a rational perspective.
Every mockery of god is a nail in his coffin. So what, if some are offended, so what, if all of them are. Those who can think will, those who choose to die in there ignorance, so be it.
It is our business to be involved. The perpetuation of the species demands it. We need to dis-empower religion, before it destroys humanity. With everything we are as a species we need to end this thinking. Our survival depends on it.
You may think I am being melodramatic but, Look around in the middle east, nuclear weapons will shortly be in the hands of religious fanatics. Look at the USA, some of those weapons already are. Were in big trouble here. Maybe were already to late.
I am not saying that it will solve all our problems, the loss of a huge divisive force would be a positive step forward. We need to speak out loudly. We need to de-fang the dragon, so to speak.

Kamaka,

Carlity, Space Rhino sidekick of doom: atheism also delves into other matters, such as oppression of women by religion, that are primarily moral issues

That one wasn't me, that was cubsk9. (comment clarification for continuity: I changed my moniker to the Rhino temporarily as part of a joke on another thread and didn't think about how it would transfer through to all of them.)

Paraphrasing an old comment here:

fucking trinity: how do they work?
I don’t want to talk to a bishop,
ya’ll motherfuckin' lying and getting me pissed

@#17

By being loud, not bowing down to pressure, and showing that we have more integrity than our opponents.

Mike, yes and I'd add being persistent and calling them on even the slightest religious references in newspaper, magazine, etc, articles. When I see a religious reference or nonsensical gawd-speak of any kind, even one that's made from force of habit, the author gets an email. That's how the feminist movement raised sensitivity in the 70s - by "fixing" the language - and they had no email!! We have the tools.

That one wasn't me, that was cubsk9

Do you disagree with the point that was made?

Kamaka - no, I just didn't want to be given attribution for someone else's point.

OK, I skipped to the end to post, due to my feelings on the issue.

Horse.Fucking.Shit this is a skeptical issue. Every right-minded being on the PLANET should be calling for justice. Damn, people, what's so difficult about this?

pope, schmope, give him a fair trial and a fine hangin'.

MarianLibrarian wrote:
Most (I'm sure not all) of the people I talked to in atheist groups online were atheists because they were reacting against their treatment by religious people, and weren't really interested in science (except to support evolution).

Why should atheists be interested in science? You don't need to be a scientist, or even have an interest in science, to be an atheist, all it takes is a little common sense. The idea that science = atheism, or the opposite, is just an old religionist canard.

Well said Tis Himself @66.

I still say crucify the old bastard. If he wants to repent let's see it.

tomh #87 wrote:
Why should atheists be interested in science? ...&c &c

Well, what else is there? Science, religion, folktales?

I'll put this out there -

Am I right in thinking that some people who are all 'Oh, let's lay low a little' are like this partially because

1) they may be beholden to someone for a paycheck, and/or

2) they're afraid of death threats from the seriously unhinged?

The fact that at least from my perspective it seems that a lot of people are acting like this about religiotardery because of a fear that I admit I share (I have this nagging feeling that one day someone is going to try to hurt me for what I think - which doesn't prevent me from thinking it, but makes me real bloody careful to restrict my discussions of it to situations where the person doesn't appear unhinged/isn't physically strong enough to harm me) is really sad. It's a bit like a modern manifestation of medieval witch-burning.

As much I as I'd like to see the Pope behind bars, I don't think It will happen.

This is one of the reasons I stopped reading Bad Astronomy, as much as I consider Phil Plait a genuinely intelligent guy and, for the most part, on the right side, he has a penchant for being almost, well, accommodationist towards religion. I can almost, but not quite, understand his desire not to piss people off, but he carries it a little bit too far sometimes.

And if you're going to ask me for a cite, I honestly don't remember the precise point I made that decision but, more importantly, don't particularly care if you are convinced. This, like many other things, is a decision you'll have to come to by yourself.

I'm sorry Dr. Plait, but if the people who have no vested interest (ie. the skeptics) in the survival of the RCC don't take a stand on this, who will? The Catholics? Really?

claire-chan wrote:
Well, what else is there? Science, religion, folktales?

The point was that science is not a requirement for atheism. I was an atheist long before I had any interest in science. Like my father before me, who never had much interest in or time for science, but who looked at religion and saw nothing but nonsense and farce.

nuclear weapons will shortly be in the hands of religious fanatics

They already are; consider how many chrislamofascists are already embedded in the US forces.

Religion: So divisive even atheists argue about it

@DangerousTalk.net

This isn't just any atheist fight, this is THE atheist fight. There is a serious chance that the entire Catholic Church will shut down their doors if we can win this one. That is one billion people losing faith in their church.

Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong. This is exactly what Phil was talking about avoiding (though I admit he made a poor case of it.) This is not about anti-religion. Being seen as using the crimes within the church as a means to an end that we're trying to push will simply create an automatic reaction: "Of course the [atheists/skeptics] would say that - what else did you expect?" And the argument becomes just as convincing as the typical bullshit from Faux News.

You treat crimes as crimes. We have specific penalties for them already. That's it, that's all. It's enough. The hard part is going to be convincing enough people that the catholic church should be treated no differently than any other organization. If you pile ulterior motives on top of that, you'll get more resistance - quite possibly, too much to overcome. It would become very easy for this situation to devolve into a "creationist/atheist" fight and lose crucial momentum in the media. It's not like it hasn't already been kicked into gear with the flagrant and intentional misquoting of Dawkins.

Communication on this subject has been pretty screwed up, really. Phil wasn't very clear in what he was saying, and might actually have been urging restraint, but I suspect it was more along the lines of what I said above. PZ, on the other hand, is pretty clearly anti-religious and rarely wastes an opportunity to say so. From my personal standpoint, that lacks true focus - religion is just one aspect of a much bigger and more prevalent problem: lack of critical thinking. Treating the symptom doesn't always cure the illness, and attacking religion might be a lot harder than increasing critical thinking skills, which could greatly reduce religion, alt med, psychics, and a whole host of other idiocies our species is prone to.

Stay focused. The issue here is suppressing crimes against children. It does not matter who did it. While you can argue that religion (or the idea of ultimate authority) is the root cause, you can also argue that the privilege of money/power is instead, like many secular corporations have been guilty of. Who cares? Punish the crime. Leave the personal goals out of it.

Sigh.

Just Al,

The hard part is going to be convincing enough people that the catholic church should be treated no differently than any other organization.

Indeed. Why do you think that is, if it's not the (unwarranted) deference granted to religion?

From my personal standpoint, that lacks true focus - religion is just one aspect of a much bigger and more prevalent problem: lack of critical thinking.

You think that's different from what PZ thinks, or for that matter most rational atheists?
If not, why do you bring it up as if you were schooling us?

[1] Treating the symptom doesn't always cure the illness, [2] and attacking religion might be a lot harder than increasing critical thinking skills, [3] which could greatly reduce religion, alt med, psychics, and a whole host of other idiocies our species is prone to.

1. No, but to not address the symptom at all is hardly the best therapy, especially when it's as pernicious as this one is.
Sometimes the symptoms are the pathological factor, not the illness per se.

2. But, as I implied above, the reason the Church is given such preferential treatment is religion, so it's a direct causal factor in this problem, even if it's also a symptom of a greater underlying pathology.

3. Well, sure. But Phil doesn't hesitate to attack quack medicine, astrology or psychics for the harm they do without eliding its enabling basis, does he?
So, what's different about religion?

Stay focused.

What makes you think we aren't?
We're just not blinkered in this matter, as you seem to be.

[1] The issue here is suppressing crimes against children. [2] It does not matter who did it. [3] While you can argue that religion (or the idea of ultimate authority) is the root cause, [4] you can also argue that the privilege of money/power is instead, like many secular corporations have been guilty of. [5] Who cares? [6] Punish the crime. [7] Leave the personal goals out of it.

1. No argument there, but there are other goals too (e.g. your 6).

2. You've just moved from a future goal to a past event. It does matter, because the enabling factors are of relevance.

3. Was religion an enabling factor that shielded the perpetrators and their accesories, or not?

4. Well, you could, but again, whence did this money/power come from? Yup, the authority and credibility granted to religion.

5. Honest, non-faitheist rationalists and humanists care. I take you don't consider yourself one such.

6. See 2. To punish the crime, you need to know who the perpetrator was.

7. You've stated a personal goal (see 1), now you advocate leaving personal goals out of it?
Coherence isn't your strong point, is it? ;)

I have to say, this strikes me as fear of being seen for what we are. A lot of us "new atheists" aren't particularly deferential to superstition, we find religious faith to have a corrosive impact on peoples' ability to reason coherently, and in most cases we prefer blunt dialogue to flowery pablum. None of this sounds particular outrageous or threatening to me, but I guess there are a lot of people who still can't handle people like us.

But isn't that their problem?

Phil's concerns strike me very much the sort of "schism" that developed in the gay community. Many wanted to be seen as "normal" and "non-threatening" in order to gain social acceptance. Others rightly pointed out that it isn't acceptance for who they are if they have to conform. On the one hand you had smart, confident gays who were certain that the problem was society's, not theirs, and that eventually things would change. On the other you had frightened, self-hating gays who spend all their time worrying that those men who were too gay would "hurt the cause."

I've always hated appeasers, so you can guess which team I'm on.

Phil's position makes perfect sense to me. I don't see that one has to be an atheist or a skeptic to challenge those members of the church who have been involved in covering up the crimes of these priests. I'm a skeptic, atheist, ex-catholic and a gay man. Do I have to identify myself as belonging to one of these groups when criticising the church?
Skeptics deal with evidence and rational thinking but I see a lot of emotive arguments occurring here. Do people seriously believe (and have evidence) that if it weren't for skeptics that no one would be questioning the churches actions. While those such as Bertone and Donahue attempt a semantic smokescreen, others within the church have already admitted to wrongdoing.
Some posts give the impression that no priests have been prosecuted but some in Australia and NZ have been brought to justtice.
What the church has done is wrong but I think there are more similarities with PZ's and Phil's positions are more similar than different. Why do we get so caught up on suble differences in our positions?
Let's go after the church on moral/ethical grounds. I don't see the need to use the battlecry of "I'm a skeptic, I'm a skeptic" while I'm doing it.

H.H.:

On the other you had frightened, self-hating gays who spend all their time worrying that those men who were too gay would "hurt the cause."

There's a certain poster at The Intersection who is the definition of that, and still doesn't have the slightest clue that it's him and those like him who actually "hurt the cause". It strikes me that a whole lot of people need to take a class in basic irony.

mikee,

[1] Let's go after the church on moral/ethical grounds. [2] I don't see the need to use the battlecry of "I'm a skeptic, I'm a skeptic" while I'm doing it.

1. Yes, let's.

2. Um, first, whence this claim of a battlecry?
(citation needed).
Second, if you're not skeptical of the Church's protestations¹, why you go after the Church?

--

¹ that it was never that bad, and that mistakes were made but no longer (but it's the fault of (a) the ghey; (b) the Jews; (c) the Devil; (d) the porn; (d) the victims) and anyway it's all under control now, and furthermore the Pope bears no responsibility and besides they're no worse than any other organisation.

mikee:

others within the church have already admitted to wrongdoing.

Some, yes. Enough, no. For those rank and file catholics who are shocked a/o upset by the current scandals, it's still not enough for them to withdraw their support unless something concrete is done in regard to all the criminal actions. People of position in the church are still busy manufacturing excuses. Some of the latest include a Bishop blaming sex ed. The same Bishop said:

With so much invasion of eroticism, sometimes it's not easy to stay celibate or to respect children," Bishop Felipe Arizmendi said during an annual meeting of Mexican bishops near Mexico City on Thursday.

and:

"Many psychologists and psychiatrists have shown that there is no link between celibacy and pedophilia, but many others have shown, I have recently been told, that there is a relationship between homosexuality and pedophilia," he told a news conference in Santiago, Chile.

A nice little mix of bullshit and outright lies. A mix which enough catholics will accept without question. Theists have a habit of lying, especially to themselves. Delusions of a religious nature require careful nurturing, such as telling yourself and others "oh, this is terrible, but the ways of god are mysterious and..." etc. The religious will find a way to twist things around so the reality can be conveniently ignored. The Catholic Church excels in lies and propaganda. Look at what they have done in regard to condoms and HIV. They have committed crimes and lied, lied, lied their asses off for centuries. They rampaged through peoples lives, tortured and murdered at will. They financed and incited wars. If all that didn't cost them their sheep followers, what makes you think this will?

Some posts give the impression that no priests have been prosecuted but some in Australia and NZ have been brought to justtice.

What exactly, constitutes justice? And what is "some"? That certainly doesn't cover all the cases of child abuse and rape the catholic church has not only covered up over the years, but actively enabled, by simply moving criminals from one parish to another. A couple of years ago, I read a news story about a rest home in Florida which received funding from the catholic church. Why? It was where a group of old pedophile priests were being stashed. The criminal activity is extensive.

What the church has done is wrong but I think there are more similarities with PZ's and Phil's positions are more similar than different. Why do we get so caught up on suble differences in our positions?

Let's go after the church on moral/ethical grounds. I don't see the need to use the battlecry of "I'm a skeptic, I'm a skeptic" while I'm doing it.

The church has done more than 'wrong'. PZ and Phil's positions aren't more similar than different. Phil doesn't want to alienate any of the rank and file catholics. He seems to feel this should be their problem, and only if they don't take it on, then others should have something to say. Phil is wrong in this regard. I've said this already, upthread (obviously, you didn't read the whole thread), that if the catholics decide that non-theists calling the church out for their criminal behaviour is so offensive they have a knee jerk reaction to defend it, they were never [potential] allies in the first place.

If these people cannot find, in their own personal ethics and morality to cry out against child abuse and rape, they need to be slapped with that fact, hard.

No, we don't need a battlecry of "Skeptic!". We also don't need skeptics being accommodationists, aiding the rank and file catholics in their delusion which will find a way to dismiss the actions of the church.

Well, what else is there? Science, religion, folktales?

Booze, sex and sports. That's what most people, atheist or god-addled, are chiefly interested in.

¹ that it was never that bad, and that mistakes were made but no longer (but it's the fault of (a) the ghey; (b) the Jews; (c) the Devil; (d) the porn; (d) the victims) and anyway it's all under control now, and furthermore the Pope bears no responsibility and besides they're no worse than any other organisation.

If I'm to believe the other absurd claims made by various Catholics over just the past few weeks, the real perpetrators are also teaching sex education in the Mexican schools, and despite being Jews, their attacks against the RCC somehow resemble anti-semitism. I'm just surprised that I haven't yet heard someone blame abortionists, people who support the death penalty, or anyone who doesn't believe in the transubstantiation.

It's really quite a picture they've managed to paint: it's some kind of conspiracy by all those gay children teaching sex education and making lots of pornos, who were really just asking for it and who just happen to be anti-semitic Satanists of Jewish descent.

There's more than enough utter bullshit to be skeptical about, if some skeptics lack the basic human decency needed to speak out about it.

How anyone can believe that being civil, or deferential, to anyone with a religious bent in any discourse will appeal to their "sensibilities", is living in cloud cuckoo land.

Tone means not a fucking jot to these people, simply not believing what they believe is enough for the shutters to come down, and for them to class you as "strident" or "shrill".

As for leaving it to the religious to clean their own house, or, we shouldn't comment because we'll alienate any potential allies in the catholic, or any religious field ... BULLSHIT, it appears to me that the only people voicing any kind of moral outrage with the current ( current for this month anyway ) debacle, IS the atheist/skeptical community.

buggeration !

.. that should be "Anyone who can .. " .. I blame a righteous hangover for my lack of writing skills.

John Morales,

I don't believe the churches "excuses" blaming gays, Zionists or anyone else for that matter. But I don't think one needs to be a skeptic to see these excuses for the lies that they are.
I keep rereading Phil's post and he believes that if there is evidence that the Pope is guilty of concealing these crimes he should be brought to trial. I can't see what is apologist or accommodationist about this.
From what I can see, pretty much everyone thinks the pope needs to be brought to justice if he is proven in the courts to be guilty, does it matter if we call it a skeptical issue or a moral issue?
my battlecry comment was probably an overstatement of the position that this is a skeptical issue.
Ask any fair minded person, skeptic or not, athiest or not, and most will express moral outrage about this. I think some skeptics are approaching arrogance in claiming that we are the only ones objecting to the churches cover ups. However, if some one can show me evidence to the contrary I'll happily accept it.
Caine, Fleur de Mal I recall a case in the past couple of years where a priest was brought back to NZ from Australia to face those he abused in court. And I guess I missed absorbing your previous upthread argument. Given the number of comments here, its impossible to comment on every point.
I'm curious as to what people here want - all of those who have abused children and/or covered it up brought to justice in the courts? Or is there a wider agenda to bring down the whole catholic church, including those who have not been involved in child abuse?
Phil's Sylvia Browne hypothetical comment did seem a bit of a silly argument and I agree with some of the earlier responses like those of Blake #16 regarding this.

I think some skeptics are approaching arrogance in claiming that we are the only ones objecting to the churches cover ups.

Where, pray tell, are the outcries from the hordes of outraged Catholics clamoring for the Pope's head? Show us the foreign ministers urging their governments to withdraw diplomatic recognition from the Vatican. Post a video of Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh denouncing Bill Donohue's "blame the victim" tactic.

It seems we're one of the few communities who are vocal in objections to the Church's coverups.

For those who see the churches scandalous behaviour as an opportunity for catholics to see the hypocrisy of their religion, I would ask are they more likely to lose faith if skeptics aggressively get in their faces or if skeptics patiently and humanely point out the failings and hypocrisy of the church. Humans tend to respond to aggression with either fight or flight, neither of which, in my opinion, are conducive to getting them to see the truth about their religion.

I'm curious as to what people here want - all of those who have abused children and/or covered it up brought to justice in the courts? Or is there a wider agenda to bring down the whole catholic church, including those who have not been involved in child abuse?

It is now clear that those currently running the Catholic Church are not fit to do so. No one in a position of authority in the church is blameless. Either they were directly involved in covering up allegations of abuse, and actual incidents of abuse, or they did nothing to stop those who did so.

For those who see the churches scandalous behaviour as an opportunity for catholics to see the hypocrisy of their religion, I would ask are they more likely to lose faith if skeptics aggressively get in their faces or if skeptics patiently and humanely point out the failings and hypocrisy of the church. Humans tend to respond to aggression with either fight or flight, neither of which, in my opinion, are conducive to getting them to see the truth about their religion.

So we have to ask nicely for Catholics to behave like civilised human beings ?

I would ask are they more likely to lose faith if skeptics aggressively get in their faces or if skeptics patiently and humanely point out the failings and hypocrisy of the church.

Right. We mustn't upset the Catholics by telling them what a hypocrite Pope Palpatine is or else they'll venerate the Pope as the mouthpiece of Gawd.

Oh wait....

People other than skeptics challenging the church for it's members behaviour - sex abuse support groups, gay groups, psychologists and health professionals, some catholic hierarchy.

Also, as this abuse has been going on for decades how come, no one, including the skeptical community, moved on this earlier?

Tis Himself OM,

To rephrase my question - are catholics more likely to lose faith in their religion if we aggressively get in their faces about the churches failings or if we patiently point out the hypocrisy of the church?

Also, as this abuse has been going on for decades how come, no one, including the skeptical community, moved on this earlier?

Of course the group who should have been first to act were Catholics themselves.

The fact that rather than being at the forefront of the movement to demand that leaders within the Catholic Church be held to account for the covering-up of abuse the vast majority of Catholics either did nothing, or condones the actions of their leadership does not speak well of them. In this respect they also share some of the blame.

To rephrase my question - are catholics more likely to lose faith in their religion if we aggressively get in their faces about the churches failings or if we patiently point out the hypocrisy of the church?

Since the majority have long been aware of the hypocrisy of their church I suspect the former. After all if they are already aware pointing it out to them is hardly going to be that effective.

Please do try not to ask such easy questions.

To Tis Himself at 108:

Where, pray tell, are the outcries from the hordes of outraged Catholics clamoring for the Pope's head?

Not in Canada, unfortunately. Those in the Catholic community are praising the man and attacking anyone who dares ask for accountability. Another example

[1] I keep rereading Phil's post and he believes that if there is evidence that the Pope is guilty of concealing these crimes he should be brought to trial. [2] I can't see what is apologist or accommodationist about this.

1. Agreed.

2. I didn't say his position was either of those. Did anyone else here say that?

From what I can see, pretty much everyone thinks the pope needs to be brought to justice if he is proven in the courts to be guilty, does it matter if we call it a skeptical issue or a moral issue?

Must it be one or the other?

It's a moral issue because he is and has been an enabler and protector of priests who have abused those who had their trust.
It's a skeptical issue because the power and authority he has to do so is based on an unwarranted claim to moral authority, which needs to be challenged.

I think some skeptics are approaching arrogance in claiming that we are the only ones objecting to the churches cover ups.

Whoever does so is ignoring the evidence.
For example, it's a fact that at least one priest objects to the cover-up.

I'm curious as to what people here want - [1] all of those who have abused children and/or covered it up brought to justice in the courts? [2] Or is there a wider agenda to bring down the whole catholic church, including those who have not been involved in child abuse?

I can only speak for myself.

1. Yes, indeed.

2. The Church should be held to account no less and no more than any other social club, for that's basically what it is. It should lose all its special privileges, which are built on centuries of exploitation of people.

Matt Penfold,

I don't think it is an easy question, because I disagree with you on several points. You obviously have a skeptical mind, but in my experience many people do not. It is hard for such people to realise the hypocrisy of their religious beliefs, but this scandal is an opportunity for them to open their eyes.
Fifteen years experience in education has taught me that people are more likely to listen to what you are saying if you are neutal and informative not insulting and in their face.
And while you are answering simple questions perhaps you can tell me how to include quotes from previous posts. A bit new to this posting comments.

John Morales,

Thanks for your last post. It's given me some food for thought.
And no you didn't claim Phil was an accommodationist or apologist, the terms were used in earlier posts.
Still trying to get used to the "norms" of posting comments, thanks for your patience and clear explanations.

mikee, look at the section underneath the comment box, titled HTML commands.

I don't think it is an easy question, because I disagree with you on several points. You obviously have a skeptical mind, but in my experience many people do not. It is hard for such people to realise the hypocrisy of their religious beliefs, but this scandal is an opportunity for them to open their eyes.

Too many Catholics refuse to do so. We should not pander to them. They are part of the problem, not the solution.

The time for being nice about this has passed. If Catholics wanted to make stand against the abuse and cover-ups being carried out in their church they need to have spoken up sooner. The fact so many still refuse to condemn the Church hierarchy, despite everything that has happened around the world tells is appalling. For example, any one in Ireland who still supports the leadership of the Catholic Church there, even after Ryan, and the other reports, is not simply misguided. They would seem to be actively evil individuals. Not as evil as the Church leadership maybe, but still so lacking in morals that evil seems a fitting description.

Mikee,

I don't give a toss whether Catholics lose their faith or not. What I want them to do is to stop committing crimes and to stop covering up crimes? OK?

I don't know where you've been all this time but the idea that something was amiss within that church has been common knowledge since at least the 1970s.

For every incident reported, for every rare case which made it to court there has been the same whining response - it is very rare, it is an unfortunate exception and please, please, please don't rock the boat because we are dealing with it.

Well, they were not dealing with it. They were not preventing it. They were not even informing themselves about the how, the why and the how often.

This is a specific problem which is definitely not a philosophical discussion in the groves of academe - it is a total failure of management, imagination, empathy and with many of the characteristics of a criminal conspiracy.

If some of us feel that after nearly 40 years it is time to get right in their faces then, sorry dear, this time the acommodationsts do not have a leg to stand on.

Oh, and to blockquote you need to do this:

< blockquote > Text to be quoted < /blockquote >

Only omit the spaces with in the brackets.

To rephrase my question - are catholics more likely to lose faith in their religion if we aggressively get in their faces about the churches failings or if we patiently point out the hypocrisy of the church?

I sincerely doubt many Catholics will become atheists because of this scandal. If they do leave the church it'll probably be to some other form of goddism. Just as the Catholic hierarchy is inviting disaffected Anglicans to become Catholics, I can see a fair number of Catholics becoming Anglicans.

So it really doesn't matter if I say "perchance you might consider how His Holiness was less than forthright about the child abuse scandal" or "your pope's a fucking hypocrite blaming everyone but himself for his own sins."

There is no confinement of skepticism to certain truth claims but a self chosen confinement. The issue at hand with the Vatican is that its behaviour can be traced to a claim of absolute moral authority. That can and should perfectly be challenged by skepticism. Just because skepticism seeks to expose non-evidential claims. It is not just a belief of individuals that accidentally happen to belief this, it is church doctrine that is abound for centuries. That doctrine has been hammered down for a very long time and has culminated in the idiotic claim of papal infallibilty.

Fact is, large groups of christians have become skeptical about this moral authority. In Germany several thousand roman catholics have left the church. This also shows another thing: skepticism is not the privilige of atheists and atheism is not a precondition for skepticism . The divide between a skeptic movement and the "others" is fictitious, a delusion so to speak. Probably it is a result of evolution selecting for group identification in humans ;-)

Matt Penfold #124

To blockquote one needs to type:

<blockquote> Text to be quoted. </blockquote>

This results in:

Text to be quoted.

I leave how I managed to show the <blockquote> </blockquote> tags as an exercise for the student.

I sincerely doubt many Catholics will become atheists because of this scandal. So it really doesn't matter if I say "perchance you might consider how His Holiness was less than forthright about the child abuse scandal" or "your pope's a fucking hypocrite blaming everyone but himself for his own sins."

Totally agree. Promoting skepticism and critical thinking is a very, very, very long-term effort, and it's not like the vast majority of Catholics has only recently become aware of the fact that members of their own clergy can engage in the most reprehensible behaviour imaginable, both as active perpetrators and passive enablers. Even if they leave the church, it doesn't necessarily mean they'll suddenly question its whole belief system, especially the moral tenets derived from it. And they'll most likely continue to push these beliefs on society as a whole in the form of laws - at the very best, they'll be a bit harder to mobilize for such purposes when they're no longer members of a well-organized church.
But even if the church persists and its highest leaders escape persecution, they'll never forget the shitstorm they're in right now, and they'll hopefully stop the cover-up practices that brought it about - not because of moral considerations, but because of fear of experiencing the same thing again. If they learn something from this, then it'll be that they're not above the law, and that secular authorities and civil society at large will hold them accountable for their actions. Bringing on a lawsuit against the pope himself probably won't land the fucker in jail, but the fact that such a thing is even being contemplated now will still show them how the times have changed, and just maybe scare them enough to actually come clean about child abuse in the future.

The child abuse is indeed reprehensible, but note I was careful above to be more general: "priests who have abused those who had their trust".

The RCC claim 1 Billion catlicks. The faithful have had decades to stop their priests from raping children and their bishops from covering it up. Where was the outcry? The principled accusations? the demands for justice? The only catlicks who spoke up were the victims. The rest of the 1 Billion: *crickets* , silence, meek acquiescence, they preferred the lies of the bishops to the cries of the victims.

Clearly the flock are not up to the job. Skeptics and atheist on the other hand are freaking experts at using evidence, rational argument and speaking truth to power. It appears some skeptics are still cowed by the demands of privilege from the Vatican but most atheists don't suffer from that infirmity.

Who else will call the Vatican to account? politicians? prosecutors? the general public? The press is finally getting on the case but no news story lasts forever.

The Vatican's is one of the oldest continuously existing organizations in the world. On it's timeline, this issue will blow over in time. The job of skeptics and atheist is to make sure that doesn't happen by keeping up the cry of "j'accuse!" until other people are embarrassed out of their inaction and join the chorus for independent criminal investigations into every allegation of child abuse in the catholic church worldwide.

Cry Havoc, and let slip the dogs of war

The diplomats can tidy up later.

Great source of documentary evidence of the Catlick paedophile ring:

http://www.bishop-accountability.org/

Oh bloody hell! Now they're blaming television and porn as causing them to rape children. Don't these people ever stop digging?

With so much invasion of eroticism, sometimes it's not easy to stay celibate or to respect children," Bishop Felipe Arizmendi said

Oh bloody hell! Now they're blaming television and porn as causing them to rape children. Don't these people ever stop digging?

Now is he blaming TV and porn instead of teh gays and jews, or does he think teh gays and jews are behind the TV and porn ?

"With so much invasion of eroticism, sometimes it's not easy to stay celibate or to respect children," Bishop Felipe Arizmendi said during an annual meeting of Mexican bishops near Mexico City on Thursday.

shorter Bishop Arizmedi: Teh porn it makes us rape children

So the Catholic defence so far (ripping off a similar list from unremembered pahryngulista):

Child rape is "petty gossip."
It's the jew's fault (isn't it always?).
Devils in the Vatican.
Other people rape children more than we do.
Secularism made us do it.
Sexy post pubescent kids lured us into it.
During his 20+ years as Head of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith Ratzinger had no idea that any of this was going on.
Ratzinger is a crusader against paedophile priests even though he never turned over a single priest to the police and didn't defrock them.
It's all a conspiracy by the New York Times (notorious jews)

damnned, @ my 133

I forgot the "it's not True Catlick priest TM, it's teh gays that did it" Catlick defense.

Did I miss any others, I am admittedly loosing track?

I forgot the "it's not True Catlick priest TM, it's teh gays that did it" Catlick defense.

Did I miss any others, I am admittedly loosing track?

Not that I can think of.

At this rate we will soon have enough excuses to be able to play Benny's Buggery Bingo.

We're outnumbered? So what, the church has no power.

A-fvcking-men!!

I think this perfectly sums up the entire argument:

"But I think the best position, the strongest position, the noblest stance, is to declare that no institution, whether it is the Catholic Church or the USA or the Girl Scouts, can declare itself exempt from the common rules that regulate human conduct in our culture".

Well frigging said.

Citizen @ 136

"The church has no power"

Really? Here is a short list of this powerless organization's recent accomplishments:

Successfully funding Prop 8 to deny civil rights to gays in California

Successfully lobbying Congress to reaffirm no federal funding for abortion under the new healthcare plan in the US

Succesfully lobbying Congress to require aid to developing countries to strip spending from sexual health education and condom distribution to equally fund abstinence "education"

A raft of Concordats with various countries around the world strengthening church power and diminishing citizen's rights

http://www.concordatwatch.eu

And, obviously, continued de facto immunity from investigation and prosecution of a paedophilia criminal conspiracy

I can't keep from being a warrior in one-on-one situations. What surprises me, though, is that my CiNO friends, and even one who is a convert to catlickism, will not speak out. Why are regular members of the church eternal not speaking out against the ratman? I would be pissed off if people in my institution were condoning and covering up child abuse. (Well, actually, the only institution I would be likely to take up arms for would be the Con-stitution, but still.)

Keep in mind that they are still condoning and covering up child abuse. The speaking out should be in the harshest of terms. CHILD ABUSE! That reminds me: I happen to know adults who were abused also -- talked into consensual sex. Whether a person is legally a child depends on the age of consent in a jurisdiction. Too bad it does not go according to emotional age of consent.

BTW, PZ, you are rockin' today.

Q.E.D.

It's some months ago now, maybe a year, and I can't track down the quote but someone fairly senior in the Catholic Mafia came out with the immortal line ...

"We knew it was a sin but we didn't realise it was a crime."

Perhaps someone else can remember where and when.

It's some months ago now, maybe a year, and I can't track down the quote but someone fairly senior in the Catholic Mafia came out with the immortal line ...

"We knew it was a sin but we didn't realise it was a crime."

Perhaps someone else can remember where and when.

It was a US Archbishop, Rembert G. Weakland. A report can be found here

Thanks, Matt.

@John Morales #97

First off, I was addressing a specific post, that I quoted, not (presumably) made by you. Through that, I was addressing anyone thinking the same kneejerk way. This was not intended, and should not be taken, to mean I was addressing every last commenter on this forum. That is the purpose of blockquotes.

Indeed. Why do you think that is, if it's not the (unwarranted) deference granted to religion?

So, let me see if I get this straight: You want to use this set of incidents to completely eradicate religion? Good fucking luck convincing the protestants, the muslims, the buddhists, and all the rest that you're making a great case, and aren't a misguided and irrational loon. Are you one of those who feel that the comparisons of atheists to Stalin and Pol Pot are poorly conceived and hackneyed? Because you're not going about it any better here.

You think that's different from what PZ thinks, or for that matter most rational atheists?

Yes, that's why I said it in my previous sentence. I have no doubts that PZ is in favor of critical thought, but by far his emphasis is on religion. Want to do a post count?

The motivations of someone, and their ideas made apparent through public means like posting, are often two different things. I have nothing against PZ, and I actually like that he pulls no punches - but that also can work against you when you're trying to address something touchy. Being known as a prominent anti-religious poster now means that anything he says against the church, unless very carefully worded (and even then), will simply be seen as "that [epithet] PZ Myers," not as a call to a rational approach. And any time you include something that can not be directly connected to the issue, you run the risk of damaging your own voice in the matter because it's seen as a personal rant, not a reasonable goal for society at large.

1. No, but to not address the symptom at all is hardly the best therapy, especially when it's as pernicious as this one is.

Dude, read the remainder of the freaking sentence before going off, okay? You know, past the comma I actually provided the alternative.

2. But, as I implied above, the reason the Church is given such preferential treatment is religion, so it's a direct causal factor in this problem, even if it's also a symptom of a greater underlying pathology.

That depends on whether you actually want to see the crime punished, or concentrate only on a lofty goal. Because, in this instance, it really may be about choosing one or the other. Again, this is what Phil was saying.

Let me be blunt - this is not enough to eradicate religion. It is not even enough to close down the catholic church. There is a slim chance it may simply start the ball rolling. The only way it is going to do that is by not appearing to be a duel between two fringe elements, but by being a rational and non-lateral approach to the idea that crimes have (pending good evidence) been committed. Courts are concerned with motivation only insofar as it establishes support for the verdict.

While a guilty verdict does a lot for causing people to rethink the whole religion issue, it can't do that if it never occurs. Cases can be blown by approaching them the wrong way. They can even never make it to court because you have too few people to jump on the "condemn religion" bandwagon, rather than the "condemn child molestation" one.

And while you may certainly be rooting for the latter, your points have only addressed the former. That's what I'm talking about.

3. Well, sure. But Phil doesn't hesitate to attack quack medicine, astrology or psychics for the harm they do without eliding its enabling basis, does he?
So, what's different about religion?

Nothing is different about religion. The difference is, you're not trying religion if you arrest the pope, you're trying a criminal case.

What makes you think we aren't [focused]?

Everything in your post.

2. You've just moved from a future goal to a past event. It does matter, because the enabling factors are of relevance.

(Sigh) Just try and understand what I typed without making me spell out every last damn thing to you, okay? It does not matter whether the crime was committed by the clergy or not - the crime is still the same crime. We might find it more hypocritical coming from a source of supposed morality, but that has no bearing whatsoever in court - in fact, it is specifically excluded.

3. Was religion an enabling factor that shielded the perpetrators and their accesories, or not?

That remains to be seen. If you build a case on it, and it turns out to be confined to Ratzinger's mental state (such as megalomania), you've lost. Many accounts, including written documentation, have it as the organization protecting its image at any cost. That can and has occurred without religion as a root cause.

4. Well, you could, but again, whence did this money/power come from? Yup, the authority and credibility granted to religion.

Sure. But it is not confined to religion, and in many religions, does not hold true. Religion is just one of many power trips, and while it may be the most prevalent example, it's not the only one. You fail to establish cause with this.

5. Honest, non-faitheist rationalists and humanists care. I take you don't consider yourself one such.

Oh, how cute! An ad hom! Anyone that doesn't hold your view is an accommodationist! Let me see if I can find you a lollipop...

I could point you to some posts, including my own blog, that would make you look like a twit, but it's not worth the effort. It's bad enough even responding to this comment.

6. See 2. To punish the crime, you need to know who the perpetrator was.

To punish a crime, you first have to get it into court.

As for knowing who the perpetrator is, what does that have to do with your rant? You look at evidence for that.

7. You've stated a personal goal (see 1) ["suppressing crimes against children"], now you advocate leaving personal goals out of it?

Dealing with written laws is hardly a personal goal, dude. Stop stretching so hard, you'll pull something painful.

Coherence isn't your strong point, is it? ;)

Should I take the winky to mean this is a joke? I'm perfectly coherent to those who can take any form of criticism constructively...

I don't think this will "bring down religion" or even the Catholic church.

I don't think this will make any of the Faithful lose their faith. It may, however, awaken someone who is on the fence.

What I want is for religion to not be privileged. As others have noted more cogently than I can, if this was any other organization, higher-ups would be held accountable, and changes would be put in place to keep the abuses from happening again.

What distresses me most about all this (other than the abuses and cover-up itself) are the self-justifying excuses. It's everybody's and everything's fault but their own. A mirror really needs to be held up to that.

What's he that wishes so?
My cousin Plait? No, my fair cousin;
If we are mark'd to die, we are enow
To do our cause loss; and if to live,
The fewer men, the greater share of honour.
P Zed's will! I pray thee, wish not one man more.
By Jove, I am not covetous for gold,
Nor care I who doth feed upon my cost;
It yearns me not if men my garments wear;
Such outward things dwell not in my desires.
But if it be a sin to covet honour,
I am the most offending soul alive.
No, faith, my coz, wish not a man from England.
Darwin's peace! I would not lose so great an honour
As one man more methinks would share from me
For the best hope I have. O, do not wish one more!
Rather proclaim it, through my host,
That he which hath no stomach to this fight,
Let him depart; his passport shall be made,
And crowns for convoy put into his purse;
We would not die in that man's company
That fears his fellowship to die with us.
This day is call'd the feast of Christians.
He that outlives this day, and comes safe home,
Will stand a tip-toe when this day is nam'd,
And rouse him at the name of Myers.
He that shall live this day, and see old age,
Will yearly on the vigil feast his neighbours,
And say 'To-morrow is Cracker Day.'
Then will he strip his sleeve and show his scars,
And say 'These wounds I had on Cracker's day.'
Old men forget; yet all shall be forgot,
But he'll remember, with advantages,
What feats he did that day. Then shall our names,
Familiar in his mouth as household words-
Harris the kid, Dawkins and Dennett,
Hitchens and Stenger, Myers and his Pharyngulites-
Be in their flowing cups freshly rememb'red.
This story shall the good man teach his son;
And Crispy Crackerday shall ne'er go by,
From this day to the ending of the world,
But we in it shall be remembered-
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his bile with me
Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile,
This day shall gentle his condition;
And gentlemen in England now-a-bed
Shall think themselves accurs'd they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
That fought with us upon Cracker's day!

Roman Catholics are not rising up and demanding that "something be done" because they are Roman Catholics.

- Priests were Called&trade to the priesthood by God&trade .

- The Pope&copy is Jesus's representative on earth.

The RCC does not require the approval of it's members for anything it does. It requires obedience. To question the authority of the Church is to question God. And to endanger your ImmortalSoul&trade .

Not a trivial matter for the well-washed brain.

I don't think this will "bring down religion" or even the Catholic church.

I don't think this will make any of the Faithful lose their faith. It may, however, awaken someone who is on the fence.

Becs, I couldn't agree more. My concern is that how do we most effectively get those who are on the fence to act. If it is done if the form of moral outrage against these crimes and the cover ups I think it will have more effective than attacking religion per se. I think exposing the evidence for all to see and pushing for action in the courts is more effective than some of the name calling and direct attacks on religion that is going on.

QED, thanks for the list of "excuses" #133. That would make a great poster entitled "Why catholic priests molest children"
And what are priests doing with porn anyway.

At least we all agree that they need to be dealt to - go Richard Dawkins! I'm off to make a poster :-)

Thank you, jack.rawlinson. Thank you.

QED, your list inspired me to construct the following, I hope you don't mind.

The Catholic Churches’ “Excuses” for Child Abuse

Child rape is "petty gossip."
Nope, there is plenty of evidence to prove it.

We’re being persecuted like the Jews were by the Nazi’s.
Say what! I don’t see any death camps for priests.

The Jew's are just picking on us.
i.e. If we can’t use them as allies, let’s use them as scapegoats. It’s not like we haven’t done it before.

And so is the media.
How dare they tell people what we’ve been up to.

It's all a conspiracy by the New York Times (notorious Jews)
Those damn Jews again.

Don’t pick on us. Other people rape children too.
Say what?

Secularism made us do it.
How?

The gays made us do it.
Again, how?

Sexy post pubescent kids lured us into it.
Ewwwwwwww! Boy, does that make my skin crawl.

The Devil made us do it.
Jeez, if the devil can make priests commit immoral acts what hope is there for the rest of us?

The Pope didn’t know it was happening.
Not much of a leader then is he?. Did God forget to point it out to him?

Ratzinger is a crusader against paedophile priests.
Even though he never turned over a single priest to the police and didn't defrock them?

Most (I'm sure not all) of the people I talked to in atheist groups online were atheists because they were reacting against their treatment by religious people, and weren't really interested in science (except to support evolution).

I'm not a scientist, but I'm still an atheist. Science isn't on my brain 24/7. It's probably not on it even an hour a day. Like most people who come to atheism at some point, I did it because religion and its claims didn't make any sense.

Different things trigger that for different people. It doesn't have to be science, and that's not necessarily a bad thing. In case you hadn't noticed, not all rational, logical people are scientists, and not all scientists are rational. The only thing we have to be as atheists is to lack belief in gods.

That's it.

So just who the fuck are you to assume anything about anyone, and who the fuck are you to tell people what they should and shouldn't think about or care about, or why they should or shouldn't be anything?

I'm not surprised at all that you found atheist boards frustrating. You're just like the people who used to barge into the social networking area of a writers forum I belonged to, and would insist that everyone talk only about writing itself. Never mind what anyone else was discussing. You don't care. You want what you want, and never mind anyone else. It always has to be about "ME ME MEEEEEEEE!" with you lot.

Well, I don't play that game, disphit. Most people don't.

Here's the secret to becoming a regular on any internet forum that isn't under your tyranny, secrets that can help you, even if you're a dumb blue-collar uneducated hick like me:

1) You observe the site for a while for what tends to be the topics covered and how people talk about them.

2) When you find something you want to comment on, you comment, and you either work your way into the regular conversation, or you take your lumps if you say something stupid (like you have).

3) You don't barge into the place and tell the people hanging out what they need to talk about. You're a visitor in a home, not a customer at a restaurant.

4) You let things that matter to you get through when it's appropriate to the context of a discussion--you don't force it into the conversation.

Try it, and you might find that you have a more enjoyable experience online.

Until then, piss off.

Aquaria, I agree with your first two paragraphs #150 but I don't quite follow who you are angry at. Did the comments by one poster about atheist groups really offend you that much by criticising them? If so, you will find that criticism on here can be much stronger than that sometimes. Or are you angry at more than one person here? Your criticisms aren't exactly lightweight either.
Your 4 points about fitting in on message boards are great. You don't come across as dumb or uneducated, as you have decribed yourself.

Just Al @#143

----- Part 1 of 2 ------

[1] First off, I was addressing a specific post, that I quoted, not (presumably) made by you. Through that, I was addressing anyone thinking the same kneejerk way. This was not intended, and should not be taken, to mean I was addressing every last commenter on this forum. [2] That is the purpose of blockquotes.

1. Yes, you have a point there; I apologise for the apparent implication in my response that you were speaking generally.

2. No, the primary purpose of blockquotes is to show what it is that your following comments address; that it also indicates who it was that you quoted is a beneficial side-effect.

The hard part is going to be convincing enough people that the catholic church should be treated no differently than any other organization.

Indeed. Why do you think that is, if it's not the (unwarranted) deference granted to religion?

So, let me see if I get this straight: You want to use this set of incidents to completely eradicate religion? Good fucking luck convincing the protestants, the muslims, the buddhists, and all the rest that you're making a great case [etc]

Please.
You wrote "the catholic church", hence it was "the catholic church" to which I referred in my response, not the protestants, the muslims, the buddhists, and all the rest.

Care to answer my question, rather than attack a straw version?

From my personal standpoint, that lacks true focus - religion is just one aspect of a much bigger and more prevalent problem: lack of critical thinking.

You think that's different from what PZ thinks, or for that matter most rational atheists?

Yes, that's why I said it in my previous sentence. I have no doubts that PZ is in favor of critical thought, but by far his emphasis is on religion. Want to do a post count?

Let me get this straight; you're answering in the affirmative when I ask if you think PZ and most rational atheists don't think that "religion is just one aspect of a much bigger and more prevalent problem: lack of critical thinking"? Interesting.

[1]The motivations of someone, and their ideas made apparent through public means like posting, are often two different things. [2] I have nothing against PZ, and I actually like that he pulls no punches - but that also can work against you when you're trying to address something touchy. Being known as a prominent anti-religious poster now means that anything he says against the church, unless very carefully worded (and even then), will simply be seen as "that [epithet] PZ Myers," not as a call to a rational approach. [3] And any time you include something that can not be directly connected to the issue, you run the risk of damaging your own voice in the matter because it's seen as a personal rant, not a reasonable goal for society at large.

1. Yes. However, the motivation is something that is inferred, whilst the ideas expressed are directly evident.

2. You've just contradicted yourself: You do have something against PZ, specifically that his notoriety has resulted (in your opinion) in anything he says against the church not being "a call to a rational approach".

3. Your concern is noted; it may even be that PZ will ameliorate his shrillness because of it.
(heh.)

[1] Treating the symptom doesn't always cure the illness, [2] and attacking religion might be a lot harder than increasing critical thinking skills, [3] which could greatly reduce religion, alt med, psychics, and a whole host of other idiocies our species is prone to.

1. No, but to not address the symptom at all is hardly the best therapy, especially when it's as pernicious as this one is.
2. But, as I implied above, the reason the Church is given such preferential treatment is religion, so it's a direct causal factor in this problem, even if it's also a symptom of a greater underlying pathology.
3. Well, sure. But Phil doesn't hesitate to attack quack medicine, astrology or psychics for the harm they do without eliding its enabling basis, does he?
So, what's different about religion?

[1] Dude, read the remainder of the freaking sentence before going off, okay? You know, past the comma I actually provided the alternative.
[2] That depends on whether you actually want to see the crime punished, or concentrate only on a lofty goal. Because, in this instance, it really may be about choosing one or the other. Again, this is what Phil was saying.
[2a] Let me be blunt - this is not enough to eradicate religion. It is not even enough to close down the catholic church. There is a slim chance it may simply start the ball rolling. [2b] The only way it is going to do that is by not appearing to be a duel between two fringe elements, but by being a rational and non-lateral approach to the idea that crimes have (pending good evidence) been committed. [2c] Courts are concerned with motivation only insofar as it establishes support for the verdict.
[2d] While a guilty verdict does a lot for causing people to rethink the whole religion issue, it can't do that if it never occurs. Cases can be blown by approaching them the wrong way. [2e] They can even never make it to court because you have too few people to jump on the "condemn religion" bandwagon, rather than the "condemn child molestation" one.
[2f] And while you may certainly be rooting for the latter, your points have only addressed the former. That's what I'm talking about.
[3] Nothing is different about religion. The difference is, you're not trying religion if you arrest the pope, you're trying a criminal case.

1. I did read it; you did not provide an alternative, it was an additional clause to your contention. I separated them because I addressed each clause separately, for readability.
Dude.

2. "it really may be about choosing one or the other"?
Maybe, but you've made no case for such a dichotomy.
2a. Your bluntness is unnecessary, for you state the bleeding obvious.
2b. First, there is no "appearance" of "a duel between two fringe elements", except to those who have a jaundiced view.
Second, what evidence can you adduce for your contention that a "rational and non-lateral approach" is not being pursued?
2c. Perhaps, I'm no legal expert. I will grant this, arguendo.
2d. What "wrong way" is being used in the approach here?
2e. I think you've written the opposite of what you meant to write, here, but I shall be charitable.
That said, can you adduce any evidence that any of the principals are "jump[ing] on the "condemn religion" bandwagon", or are likely to do so?
2f. You are mistaken; please revisit what I've earlier written.

Just Al @#143

----- Part 2 of 2 ------

What makes you think we aren't [focused]?

Everything in your post.

Really. Everything, eh? :)
Even the fact that I've taken the trouble to separate out specific contentions and individually respond to each shows a lack of focus?

2. You've just moved from a future goal to a past event. It does matter, because the enabling factors are of relevance.

(Sigh) Just try and understand what I typed without making me spell out every last damn thing to you, okay? It does not matter whether the crime was committed by the clergy or not - the crime is still the same crime. We might find it more hypocritical coming from a source of supposed morality, but that has no bearing whatsoever in court - in fact, it is specifically excluded.

I fear it's more that you failed to understand my response than that I failed to understand your contention. You were speaking (your elided [1]) about "The issue here is suppressing crimes against children", and then immediately added that "It does not matter who did it".

I explained why it matters ("because the enabling factors are of relevance") — you have not responded to my substance. Do you not think addressing enabling factors is of relevance to preventing that which they enable?

3. Was religion an enabling factor that shielded the perpetrators and their accesories, or not?

That remains to be seen. If you build a case on it, and it turns out to be confined to Ratzinger's mental state (such as megalomania), you've lost.

I wasn't asking whether a case could be built on it, I was asking if you think it's an enabling factor.
You haven't answered the question I asked, only the question you (mistakenly) thought I'd asked.

[4] you can also argue that the privilege of money/power is [the root cause] instead, like many secular corporations have been guilty of.

4. Well, you could, but again, whence did this money/power come from? Yup, the authority and credibility granted to religion.

Sure. But it is not confined to religion, and in many religions, does not hold true. Religion is just one of many power trips, and while it may be the most prevalent example, it's not the only one. You fail to establish cause with this.

I was responding to your contention that it's arguable that money/power, rather than religion, is the root cause, by pointing out that religion is how the Church acquired its money/power and hence your attempted dichotomous distinction of the root cause is otiose.

[5] Who cares?

5. Honest, non-faitheist rationalists and humanists care. I take you don't consider yourself one such.

[1] Oh, how cute! An ad hom! Anyone that doesn't hold your view is an accommodationist! Let me see if I can find you a lollipop...
[2] I could point you to some posts, including my own blog, that would make you look like a twit, but it's not worth the effort. It's bad enough even responding to this comment.

1. Your attempt at ridicule is risible, especially when my response is nothing like an ad hominem fallacy.
You asked a question (who cares who did it and why they did it), I answered it.

2. You'd make me look like a twit by pointing to exant blog posts on your blog?
Interesting conceit.

6. See 2. To punish the crime, you need to know who the perpetrator was.

[1] To punish a crime, you first have to get it into court.
[2] As for knowing who the perpetrator is, what does that have to do with your rant? [3] You look at evidence for that.

1. That is an evasion via non sequitur.

2. What it has to do with my rant [sic] is that it's a direct response to one of your contentions.

3. Well, yes. Which is why I wrote what I did ("See 2"), in which you say it doesn't matter who did a crime.

7. You've stated a personal goal (see 1) ["suppressing crimes against children"], now you advocate leaving personal goals out of it?

[1] Dealing with written laws is hardly a personal goal, dude. [2] Stop stretching so hard, you'll pull something painful.

1. Really. So suppressing crimes against children is not a personal goal of yours?

Dude.

2. What you see as stretching, I see as not curling up into a little ball with my upper region in the vicinity of my nether. Each to his own, I suppose. :)

Coherence isn't your strong point, is it? ;)

Should I take the winky to mean this is a joke? I'm perfectly coherent to those who can take any form of criticism constructively...

:)

One thing about Phil Plait's 'concerns' is that they are written as crisp as with a sock filled with soup (to use Emma from Corner Gas's term).

And the quip about Dickens' (that Pommy bloke, long dead) writing comes to mind: "Why use one word when ten will suffice?"

Sounding like a petit-maître doesn't help much either.

And the final blow from the master of 'if and but's really suggests that what we should apply in this instance is weaselling:

All of us need to be standing up to the horrors the Church has perpetrated, just as we would if any organization did such a thing. And where skepticism applies, we should apply it, but we should have a care when doing so. If the ultimate goal is to change the hearts and minds of people, then we need to be human and humane.

I would say that’s critical.

So the paedophilia perpetrated by the RCC is, according to Waffly Phil, not necessarily factual?
Tell that to the victims, wimp!

As long as we're talking about the pope, check this out:

http://www.tshirthell.com/funny-shirts/arrest-the-pope/

I'm getting one!!!!

@John Morales #153

Even the fact that I've taken the trouble to separate out specific contentions and individually respond to each shows a lack of focus?

You think that going into great detail while never taking the time to get the point shows focus?

I explained why it matters ("because the enabling factors are of relevance") — you have not responded to my substance. Do you not think addressing enabling factors is of relevance to preventing that which they enable?

You spend a tremendous amount of time trying to make overblown cases out of brief statements. What I pointed out was that your substance had nothing whatsoever to do with my comment. Which is a point that still has not struck home.

Now, let me make this clear, and slow down and read this carefully: I'm addressing, solely, the immediate case at hand, which is a) whether the pope and/or other specific members of the catholic church should be brought to trial, and b) whether "skeptics" should be the ones to clamor for it, with a side note of c) let's try and understand what, exactly, was being asked by Phil Plait. There was nothing in my post to indicate what I thought overall goals of skeptics, atheists, and what-have-you should be. And the reason is, this is a personal decision that I wouldn't attempt to dictate to anyone. I will, however, point out where flaws in certain approaches would lie. And before you go off on that, YES, this is just my opinion. That should be obvious.

Nevertheless, since you're off on your own little crusade and aren't about to let it go in favor of finding a useful thing to do, I suppose I'll feed your OCD. Enabling, or causative, factors are not something you're likely to ever establish usefully. The causative factors in anybody's actions are typically rooted far back into their childhood. You would like to make a case that it lies with religion. I, several times now, pointed out that you could never adequately make that case, and in all honesty, I don't think it's anywhere near that simple. First off, you don't see this behavior throughout all religions - that's a deal-breaker right there. You know, falsifiability? Test fail number one.

Second, evidence that we have right now indicates that the issue that would be brought to court was/is caused by policy, not any scripture or supernatural influence, which is how "religion" would be defined. A freaking law student would make hash out of that argument. Test fail number two.

You will probably want to go on and say, "Yeah, but it's religion that leads to the policy, or the privileged attitude, blah blah blah," whatever. Again, impossible to establish. The same attitude comes from all walks of life, and is rife throughout politics, corporations, etc. - I even worked for a tiny little business whose owner suffered from it. Test fail number three.

And as I said, no court would bother with it. So, with all that, what do you hope to accomplish by chasing it?

I wasn't asking whether a case could be built on it, I was asking if you think it's an enabling factor.
You haven't answered the question I asked, only the question you (mistakenly) thought I'd asked.

Well, let me put it this way. I don't approach things like this from the standpoint of my personal opinion. When I'm arguing a point, I argue from the standpoint of what I think is going to be most effective, and from what can be a common goal of as many people as possible. And when we're talking about bringing the most prominent religious figure to court, I'm going to take an approach that will garner the most support.

In many cases, that is my opinion - I make the effort to look at things as objectively as possible, and not get clouded by emotional biases. In this one, I'm more than happy to see religion go away. BUT:

1) I don't think this is even going to come close, and is a goddamned stupid approach to take;

2) As I said, I'm more into critical thinking, because it addresses a lot more and isn't fighting against people's emotions as much.

Funny, I think I already said all that.

I was responding to your contention that it's arguable that money/power, rather than religion, is the root cause, by pointing out that religion is how the Church acquired its money/power and hence your attempted dichotomous distinction of the root cause is otiose.

I could very simply argue that religion is an abstract and is merely used as a tool by most of those who seek power through it. The driving factor is the power itself, not religious feelings (which aren't even adequately defined.) Which is why it is not confined to religion. No dichotomy there, dude - it's evidence of the failure of your argument.

Now, to forestall even more exchanges: it is frequently seen in religions, true enough. But you're off on the "correlation" aspect, which is a red herring. People are motivated by some pretty basic "needs," and religion is a convenient path to those - this does not make it the cause.

1. Your attempt at ridicule is risible, especially when my response is nothing like an ad hominem fallacy.

I think name-calling, especially when there is no evidence that I fit into the names you used, fits the bill exactly. You were being petty and childish, as you have been in your attacks throughout both posts now. Deal with it.

You asked a question (who cares who did it and why they did it), I answered it.

You never bothered to see it from the approach I was pretty plainly taking, which is the "take it to court" issue. Again, it makes no difference who it is to the law. There are no special laws for the religious. If you hadn't been blinded by your pet rant (twice now,) you might actually have seen that.

2. You'd make me look like a twit by pointing to exant blog posts on your blog?
Interesting conceit.

I find your talk about conceit to be rather amusing, considering how ridiculous this thread has gotten over your failure to understand what I was talking about and refusal to accept the responsibility for it. But yes, your attempts to paint me as a faitheist (your word, Johnny, not mine) do make you look like a twit, as do your accusations of my motivations. I've written about this in no small detail. What you really don't want to find out is how badly you mischaracterized me on the basis of a single post that you didn't even read carefully. But, yeah, whatever excuse you want to use is fine...

1. That is an evasion via non sequitur.

You offered a nonsense question, which I still answered. Perhaps you might want to try rewording it? We have a very good clue who the perpetrators of the crime are - that's exactly what we're discussing. To see if there are more people involved, you gather evidence (recognize that word?).

Let me guess: you actually mean something like establishing it's someone religious, which means religion is the culprit! But what are you going to do if they're black? Or hispanic? Or democrats?

Yeah, that was another of those subtle ones...

1. Really. So suppressing crimes against children is not a personal goal of yours?

Lame. Grow the fuck up.

3. Well, yes. Which is why I wrote what I did ("See 2"), in which you say it doesn't matter who did a crime.

Addressed three times now. Let's not go for four.

Now, let me attempt to get this back on a decent footing. You attacked me in two different posts now without adequately understanding what I was saying, or why. From my standpoint, I find that offensive, and treat it in kind.

From this end, you're making a lot of effort to argue against a case I never made. It seems clear to me that you're making no effort to even see what is written, only what fits into your preconceived goals/rants/whatever. You've even descended into childish tactics. You're not going to gain any respect from me with that shit, or win over anybody, here or anywhere else.

Now, if you think I'm saying something risible, ask. It's that simple. Maybe, just maybe, it wasn't what it looked like. This could be because I wasn't as clear as I should have been. Or it could be because you already had clouded vision. Either way, you'll get a better answer, and establish if you really do have reason to get angry.

If I get your approach correctly, I'm not going to agree with you about religion. I wrote about that extensively (part one of three.) This doesn't fall into the false dichotomy thing of thinking that these crimes should not be pursued rabidly. But there are effective ways of doing it, and ineffective ones. It's very easy to act ineffectively and blow whatever advantage is to be had. And a lot of that will be public opinion. Sometimes, you let the overall goals stay hidden away in order to take a step or three closer to them.

Just Al, I've read your response (if not your blog post).