3rd July 2012

“When it comes to apologies from the Vatican one must always ask: From which pope, which papacy, what year and how long after they hid behind their full knowledge of the devastating consequences of every single illogical stance they've taken on a number of atrocities for the last two thousand years. Strategically delayed apologies aren't apologies, they are crimes against humanity.”

Occupy the Vatican

12 Responses to “3rd July 2012”

  1. Capt'Z Says:

    Well put and I agree completely. Cynical, criminal monsters.

  2. Sinjin Smythe Says:

    False front concealing pedophilia…again!

  3. reetBob Says:

    I replied, Sinjin, but my comment is being moderated.

    This website has some strange attitudes to debate.

  4. Wayne Says:

    It is time for the Vatican to apologize for its entire history of corruption and lies. The current pope needs to be held accountable for his criminal part in aiding and abetting the actions of its pedophile priests.

  5. TIGERLILY Says:

    Unfortunately it is almost impossible to reason with the unreasonable.
    Never try to reason the yhe prejudice out of a man. It was not REASONED into him , and cannot be reasoned out.

  6. Admin Says:

    Apologies reetBob – WordPress has a built-in spam filter that holds comments for moderation if they have include than 3 hyperlinks. Your comment should now be visible.

  7. Sinjin Smythe Says:

    You are a regular reetBob, I’m sure your comment will be approved shortly.

  8. Sinjin Smythe Says:

    reetBob:

    “First came the straw man, then came the ad hominem attacks, as i suspected they would. I’m being a rationalist. What you claim is not obvious or self evident. I’m still not convinced that the Catholic church, for all its ills, is a false front for paedopilia”

    You should avoid the “straw man/ad hominem” defense as it has become a bit campy and overused these days. Like anytime someone discounts the church the apologist yanks out the old “straw man/ad hominem” thing to both sound pithy and to refute something other than the central theme of an argument.

    Sure I’m speaking to a preponderance of the evidence and not an actual eye witness account, or revealed secret document when I make the claim.

    Doing this is akin to what scientists do when they define a law of nature. Gravity for example: We know gravity exists as a force in nature because every time we drop an apple the thing falls to the ground. That every time anyone we know drops an apple it falls to the ground. Even people we don’t know, doctors, lawyers, scientists, clergy persons, all when they drop an apple it falls to the ground. No of us knows why or can explain how it is that gravity causes the apple to fall, we all just know that dropping an apple resluts in apple on the floor.

    When we can’t explain something we know to be true in science we call that a Scientific Law. My example being The Law of Gravity.

    For our purposes here it is hardly out of place to take advantage of this definition by applying it to the endless stream of criminal complaints, convictions, and cover-ups within the religious world. I mean if the shoe fits? Right?

    I realize that what I’m suggesting here isn’t going to stand up in a court of law today, but the Catholic Church is presently being investigated by the International Criminal Court http://www.newjerseynewsroom.com/international/the-mystery-of-child-abuse

    Also under investigation for other charges are a whole variety of senior vatican officials and their bankers.

    It basically goes like this, if you are in a room of 10 people and 1 person says Chuck is a bad guy you can take that with a grain of salt, but if everyone is saying Chuck is a bad guy that is a bit overwhelming. It isn’t proof beyond a shadow of a doubt, but it isn’t normal, it wouldn’t be expected.

    History, particularly of the Catholic Church and its proximity to pedophilia over the many centuries, isn’t normal. I hope it isn’t anything that a person would expect, but it does speak for itself. What it says is like what our falling apple said about gravity, we can explain it, but we know it is there.

    It is both self-evident and obvious.

  9. reetBob Says:

    Ad hominem and straw man arguments are known as logical fallacies, that’s because they are fallacious. It’s perfectly reasonable for me to point them out (that includes ‘campy’).

    I honestly don’t think your evidence amounts to more than hearsay and wishful thinking.

    Some extremely immoral and perhaps criminal behaviour – yes; an unusual excess of paedophiles and sexual predators – yes; more than ‘a few bad eggs’ and some nasty cover-ups – I doubt it.

  10. Sinjin Smythe Says:

    Point was that drawing the logical fallacies, straw man and ad hominem, is common practice among religious apologists. You failed to refute the central point and that to is common to religious apologists.

    Your logical fallacy is “appeal to ignorance” where you have assumed my claim is false because it has not been proven false ~ argumentum ad ignorantium.

    Then you committed a red herring by tossing in straw man and ad hominem. Misleading and Irrelevant.

  11. reetBob Says:

    You continually claim that the Catholic church is a false front for paedophilia. I honestly don’t think you’ve provided anywhere near enough evidence for such a bold assertion.

    It’s really not worth either of our time to go through every point you’ve made, nor is it worth anyone else’s time to go through this subject on qotd. If you really want to thrash this out you can email me privately, I think RJ has my email address.

  12. Marcellus Hearne Says:

    Hey I love your style I will subscribe for your feed please keeps posting!