This is my Sun Media column from Saturday, which runs in eight daily newspapers. What I find most interesting is that most people who have spoken to me directly about it are interested, intelligent, normal and have often had their opinions changed. Most people who leave comments on blogs and the like, however, seem completely deranged. This seems to be the case for most columns, especially when religion and the Middle East are discussed. How odd.
===================
Laurel and Hardy, Abbott and Costello, Stalin and Mao. Some of the all-time great comedy duo acts.
Now we have Hitchens and Dawkins. The critics love them. This from The Daily Atheist: “Upper class twits with all of the arrogance and pomposity that years of in-bred privilege and expensive private education can provide, these two jokers are guaranteed to give you laugh after laugh, even when they’ve done the same routine for years.”
Richard Dawkins is the straight-man of the team. Wandering around like some aged uncle searching for lost marbles, he stares out into the distance as the plebs read his books and think them so terribly clever.
Unfortunately the serious reviewers, including those who support the old fellow’s views, think them embarrassingly facile, but the money still rolls in.
Christopher Hitchens is the comic relief. “I say, I say, I say”, he says to buddy Dawkins. “My dog’s got no nose.”
Really, replies Dick, that must be the fault of organized Christianity because we know that the Pope used to cut the noses off of dogs as a sacrifice to the Virgin Mary — and on and on and on.
“No, no,” shouts Hitchens, “You’re supposed to ask me how it smells and I say it smells awful.”
But the money also rolls in for Hitchens, who seems terribly concerned when young people are abused by Catholic priests, but oddly indifferent when Palestinian or Iraqi children are blown apart by rockets.
Now the guys have promised to arrest the Pope when he visits Britain because of his crimes against humanity. They mean the abuse scandal, in which between 1.5% and 4% of priests molested mostly adolescent boys three decades ago.
Pope Benedict has been tireless, in his words, in “cleansing the filth out of the church,” but why let truth and justice get in the way of another Hitchens and Dawkins show.
Higher standard
To apply their logic, we would need to do a lot of arresting. The vast majority of sexual abuse occurs in the family, generally by step-brothers and boyfriends of mothers.
The next highest amount comes from teachers. These two institutions and people account for more than 75% of all charges, compared to less than 2% for the church.
Next are sports coaches, with some horribly infamous cases in hockey.
Other sports are equally bad, with one swimming coach in the United States being moved from team to team even after he was revealed as a pedophile.
Secular youth groups such as Scouts also experience abuse, as do synagogues, mosques and Protestant churches, foster homes, youth clubs and pretty much anywhere else.
In fact, a Catholic Church today is arguably the safest place for a young person to be. But the church is held to a higher standard and that is entirely appropriate.
The reason that evangelical atheists and fundamentalist anti-Catholics like the Hitchens-and-Dawkins act won’t be consistent in their arresting fantasies is partly because they are hypocrites, but also because, whether they like it or not, they implicitly know that the church is special.
They expect more of it because it’s righteous, right and godly.
Well said boys, well said.
Coren:
“Now the guys have promised to arrest the Pope when he visits Britain because of his crimes against humanity. They mean the abuse scandal, in which between 1.5% and 4% of priests molested mostly adolescent boys three decades ago.”
No, they mean the ongoing, international scandal where perhaps about 10% of priests abused their authority over their young victims. It’s just that it’s been going on for over 30 years in different parts of the world.
You’re not seriously implying that if some are “adolescent” it makes it any less wrong?
Or does it make it look better when you can say it was “mostly adolescents” (even though you don’t show how that’s the case) just so you can (technically) say “it wasn’t pedophilia” at all?
What, are they “almost consenting adults” now? For the most part, it’s only a few years difference between kids who haven’t hit puberty yet, and those who just have.
Moe says:
April 25, 2010 at 10:40 am
I have a question for Reynold and Paul Grimes. It’s a fairly simple one. If science could prove that human consciousness survived bodily death, would that also be proof that God exists? I don’t care for the word “God”, but it will have to do.
Moe, why just ask Reynold and I?
And no, it would not prove anything about god if human consciousness was able to survive death. The only way to prove, without a doubt that god exists (I assume you mean a biblical, all knowing, all powerful master of the universe and beyond type god), is for him or her to reveal themselves and give us evidence that they are really the god of the old testament. And any being that powerful could also claim that with no proof whatsoever.
I think that proof of human consciousness after death would lead to some very interesting questions and philosophies, but it would not provide any proof of a divine being.
Interesting question though!
cheers
Thanks for your reply Paul. I tended to think, myself, that discarnate consciousness wouldn’t necessarily prove the existence of a creator, although it might lead in that direction. Scientists seem to think that consciousness is a byproduct of certain matter. But when the matter is removed and consciousness remains, it gets more interesting.
And no, I don’t mean the God of the Bible, although I didn’t state that. My idea of God is closer to energy than an anthropomorphic old man.
I asked you and Reynold because I expected an intelligent reply from atheists. (I miss a search engine–not positive you are one.)
I would love to discuss NDEs with Reynold, but I am getting way off topic.
Careful Moe, you keep calling Reynold and I “intelligent atheists” and you will alienate yourself from all the religious folks on here.
I am not a search engine…not even sure what that means to tell the truth!
“No, they mean the ongoing, international scandal where perhaps about 10% of priests abused their authority over their young victims. It’s just that it’s been going on for over 30 years in different parts of the world.”
Now, Reynold, if you were a Catholic…you would already have the answer to the above statement. You’re not, but if you were…
Jesus said, “Scandal IS SURE to come…”
Maybe a little, maybe a lot.
But, hear that? Sure to come.
And believer’s response is? To have resolve. Not to be scandalized. And then Jesus pronounces woe on those who bring scandal. Fair enough?
Course, the Reynolds of the world, the unbelieving set…go immediately to pieces, ripping their stuffing out of their teddy bears, frothing…and all sorts of glandular mayhem.
But the issue is AGAIN addressed by Jesus, and directed specifically at pastoral overseers in, Luke 12:42, in the parable of the wise and trustworthy steward.
Note what Jesus says in contrast about the untrustworthy steward who, “sets about beating the menservants and the servant-girls…”
Jesus phraseology here is a euphemism for all the worst pastoral overseers could subject their flock to.
And God, the Son, is polite.
You don’t need your head filled with horrific sexual images to get a message of abuse, and improper pastoral conduct.
In the end, that steward will find his life taken unexpectedly (by God), without proper preparation. His end is catastrophic. All is lost. Eternal damnation (separation from God and man) becomes the steward’s reward.
Because God is not playing a game here, the consequences are quite real. And severe. And once you are born into this world, you are called to answer God with a personal, yes or no. You too will end your life in God’s fellowship, or in God’s displeasure.
Not that God wants anyone to be lost, but many choose to be. For they chose the created over the Uncreated One.
DOES GOD exist?
That’s the big, fat, 2 million dollar question for Reynold, and Paul Grimes.
It is one that has stumped these SEEKERS every day of their lives.
If SCIENCE can’t prove it…these two ain’t gonna’ believe it!
And they are horribly lost. Spent. Without hope, and without God.
Paul Grimes right away shows us he knows only half the picture by attempting to limit our discovery of God to the Old Testament.
Course, there is another way to prove God’s existence. Though, only for the intelligent and OPEN-MINDED. Sorry, Moe…your deficits are rising…
And since science can’t help us here, we are going to throw science, and all its limitations, right out the window.
And that proof—we shall leave for another day.
I said, “I miss a search engine–not positive you are one.”
Paul said, “I am not a search engine…not even sure what that means to tell the truth!”
Oops, that was well-worded, wasn’t it? I meant, I thought you were an atheist, but without a search engine to go back through posts, I’m not positive.
Never Was An Arrow II:
“But, hear that? Sure to come.
And believer’s response is? To have resolve. Not to be scandalized. And then Jesus pronounces woe on those who bring scandal. Fair enough?”
No. Why were/are those people being protected by your church, even your pope when he was a cardinal?
If Jesus were to exist and care about justice as you say he does, he’d have to take down the so-called “Greatest Man Alive” also. As well as god knows how many others in your institution.
One would also wonder why he just stands by and lets that nonsense happen in the first place? He’s intervened many times in the OT and NT without violating “free will”, why not now?
Surely he must know that people’s faith are being destroyed here, and several victims of these abuses are going to hell as a result.
Thing is, this scandal is mild compared to the things your church has done in the past: “blood libel”, inquisitions, crusades, the various scandals many of your popes have had in the past, the Vatican-Nazi concordat, etc.
How much mud is it going to take before you realize that your church needs a bath?
Never Was An Arrow II:
“Because God is not playing a game here, the consequences are quite real. And severe. And once you are born into this world, you are called to answer God with a personal, yes or no. You too will end your life in God’s fellowship, or in God’s displeasure.”
Blah, blah. How’s about having his so-called “angels” show up and prove this to us instead of a bunch of self-righteous pederasts wearing silly dresses?
Never Was An Arrow II:
“Course, there is another way to prove God’s existence. Though, only for the intelligent and OPEN-MINDED. Sorry, Moe…your deficits are rising…
And since science can’t help us here, we are going to throw science, and all its limitations, right out the window.”
What? It’s “limitation” of sticking to reality? It’s “limitation” of not being able to accept, without evidence, sorts of weird crap?
Well, since you want to “throw science out the window”, then how are you going to be able to keep posting here? Your computer is a result of “science”, you know.
Never Was An Arrow II says:
April 27, 2010 at 7:16 pm
“No, they mean the ongoing, international scandal where perhaps about 10% of priests abused their authority over their young victims. It’s just that it’s been going on for over 30 years in different parts of the world.”
Now, Reynold, if you were a Catholic…you would already have the answer to the above statement. You’re not, but if you were…
Jesus said, “Scandal IS SURE to come…”
Maybe a little, maybe a lot.
But, hear that? Sure to come.
And believer’s response is? To have resolve. Not to be scandalized. And then Jesus pronounces woe on those who bring scandal. Fair enough?
Course, the Reynolds of the world, the unbelieving set…go immediately to pieces, ripping their stuffing out of their teddy bears, frothing…and all sorts of glandular mayhem.
But the issue is AGAIN addressed by Jesus, and directed specifically at pastoral overseers in, Luke 12:42, in the parable of the wise and trustworthy steward.
Note what Jesus says in contrast about the untrustworthy steward who, “sets about beating the menservants and the servant-girls…”
Jesus phraseology here is a euphemism for all the worst pastoral overseers could subject their flock to.
And God, the Son, is polite.
You don’t need your head filled with horrific sexual images to get a message of abuse, and improper pastoral conduct.
In the end, that steward will find his life taken unexpectedly (by God), without proper preparation. His end is catastrophic. All is lost. Eternal damnation (separation from God and man) becomes the steward’s reward.
Because God is not playing a game here, the consequences are quite real. And severe. And once you are born into this world, you are called to answer God with a personal, yes or no. You too will end your life in God’s fellowship, or in God’s displeasure.
Not that God wants anyone to be lost, but many choose to be. For they chose the created over the Uncreated One.
DOES GOD exist?
That’s the big, fat, 2 million dollar question for Reynold, and Paul Grimes.
It is one that has stumped these SEEKERS every day of their lives.
If SCIENCE can’t prove it…these two ain’t gonna’ believe it!
And they are horribly lost. Spent. Without hope, and without God.
Paul Grimes right away shows us he knows only half the picture by attempting to limit our discovery of God to the Old Testament.
Course, there is another way to prove God’s existence. Though, only for the intelligent and OPEN-MINDED. Sorry, Moe…your deficits are rising…
And since science can’t help us here, we are going to throw science, and all its limitations, right out the window.
And that proof—we shall leave for another day.
____________________________________________________________
Proof? I have no need to prove god exists. However, you seem to be able to speak for him and interpret his words to make your point. Is that allowed?
You eschew science? Better get rid of that computer and all those planes you love, because I am quite certain (and for this I do have proof) that man created those things, not god. I suppose that if you are to stick to your ethics and beliefs you will not post here again, because that would be using something you want to throw out the window. I hope you are able to deal with your hypocrisy on this.
The problem you have with someone like me is that I have morals and ethics and I treat people fairly and yet I am not religious or a sheep and do not follow any doctrine. This sort of thing does not compute to someone like you, so you deal with it as best you can, by insults and the advocating of violence. Don’t worry about it too much however, it is all sanctioned by the bible.
Michael, I can’t tell you how much I enjoy your writing. Thank you for being who you are.
All the best and God bless you!
Geraldine Hyland
Ottawa