Who thinks the Pope should be Jailed?

[GanjaGarden]

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

[Darth Wong]

He can't be jailed because he's a head of state, but it's pretty absurd that the Vatican is considered a state. If any other organization systematically hushed up child abuse for decades and facilitated the continued behaviour of these monsters, the people responsible would be charged with criminal conspiracy and aiding/abetting. Instead, no one is even considering it, and they're lucky to get charges filed against the individual abusing priests, never mind the people who helped them hush up their crimes.

[GanjaGarden]

He can't be jailed because he's a head of state

I don't know how I didn't even think about that. And yeah the fact that the Vatican is a state unto itself is entirely insane.

[Highway of Life]

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

I’m curious, do you expect really intelligent answers to these questions on a bulletin board about software?

continued behaviour of these monsters

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

It’s true that 33% of the Catholic Priests are self-proclaimed gays, and these crimes are unfortunately not uncommon in the Church. The Church has created it’s own demise by letting these “monsters” in.

[GanjaGarden]

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

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

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

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

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

Cheers,
-GG

[nuckfan15]

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

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

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

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

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

Cheers,
-GG

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

“The Moral Law, or Law of Human Nature, is not simply a fact about human behaviour in the same way as the Law of Gravitation is, or may be, simply a fact about how heavy objects behave. On the other hand, it is not a mere fancy, for we cannot get rid of the idea, and most of the things we say and think about men would be reduced to nonsense if we did. And it is not simply a statement about how we should like men to behave for our own convenience; for the behaviour we call bad or unfair is not necessarily the same as the behaviour we find inconvenient, and may even be the opposite. Consequently, this Rule of Right and Wrong, or Law of Human Nature, or whatever you call it, must somehow or other be a real thing – a thing that is really there, not made up by ourselves”

[nuckfan15]

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

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

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

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

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

Cheers,
-GG

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

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

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

I found this on the internet.

[god0fgod]

He can't be jailed because he's a head of state

So he's allowed to go around on a killing spree if he wanted to?

[noth]

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

the simple answers are

yes he should be jailed for his crimes

no he should not be immune to punishment

AND REALLY, WE ALL KNOW IT

well done GanjaGarden for being brave enough to come out and ask the question

[soxie]

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

Citation needed.

The Church has created it’s own demise by letting these “monsters” in.

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

[Highway of Life]

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

Citation needed.

1990, Rev. Crangle, a Franciscan priest in New Jersey, mailed a survey to 500 randomly selected priests. Of the 398 responses, 45% said that they were gay.
According to Amanda Ripley of Time Magazine, there is an estimated 15% to 50% of Catholic priests who claim to be homosexual.
There have been several other studies that show ranges between 15% to 50%, so 33% is a conservative estimate.
A homosexual is any person who engages in same-sex behavior, such as the majority of the cases were with the Catholic Church.

I hope you read what I quoted and replied to and didn’t take it out of context.

[nuckfan15]

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

Citation needed.

The Church has created it’s own demise by letting these “monsters” in.

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

I don't think he was trying to insult anyone. If you read his post it's somewhat obvious he is referring to the child predators that happen to be gay.

[soxie]

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

Citation needed.

1990, Rev. Crangle, a Franciscan priest in New Jersey, mailed a survey to 500 randomly selected priests. Of the 398 responses, 45% said that they were gay.
According to Amanda Ripley of Time Magazine, there is an estimated 15% to 50% of Catholic priests who claim to be homosexual.
There have been several other studies that show ranges between 15% to 50%, so 33% is a conservative estimate.

You'll have to excuse me if I question the validity of a mail survey with 400 replies claiming to be an accurate representation of tens of thousands of priests

A homosexual is any person who engages in same-sex behavior, such as the majority of the cases were with the Catholic Church.

That couldn't be because they have unfiltered access to mostly boys, now could it?

I hope you read what I quoted and replied to and didn’t take it out of context.

I didn't take anything out of context. Rather, I asked for further clarification since I've been around enough pig headed creationists who believe that homosexuals are in fact "monsters." If I wanted to take you out of context I would have just called you a pig headed creationist, but I didn't

I don't think he was trying to insult anyone. If you read his post it's somewhat obvious he is referring to the child predators that happen to be gay.

Thanks, but I'm sure he's capable of stating his own intentions.

[nuckfan15]

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

Citation needed.

1990, Rev. Crangle, a Franciscan priest in New Jersey, mailed a survey to 500 randomly selected priests. Of the 398 responses, 45% said that they were gay.
According to Amanda Ripley of Time Magazine, there is an estimated 15% to 50% of Catholic priests who claim to be homosexual.
There have been several other studies that show ranges between 15% to 50%, so 33% is a conservative estimate.

You'll have to excuse me if I question the validity of a mail survey with 400 replies claiming to be an accurate representation of tens of thousands of priests

A homosexual is any person who engages in same-sex behavior, such as the majority of the cases were with the Catholic Church.

That couldn't be because they have unfiltered access to mostly boys, now could it?

I hope you read what I quoted and replied to and didn’t take it out of context.

I didn't take anything out of context. Rather, I asked for further clarification since I've been around enough pig headed creationists who believe that homosexuals are in fact "monsters." If I wanted to take you out of context I would have just called you a pig headed creationist, but I didn't

I don't think he was trying to insult anyone. If you read his post it's somewhat obvious he is referring to the child predators that happen to be gay.

Thanks, but I'm sure he's capable of stating his own intentions.

I am a creationist, and I have nothing against homosexuals. I don't agree with the practice of homosexuality. Niether does the Christian God.

Oh, and wouldn't it be fair to give someone the benefit of the doubt? In my opinion, assuming most creationists hate gay people is just as bad as calling a gay person a monster. There are a few, but were not all pig-headed.

[soxie]

Oh, and wouldn't it be fair to give someone the benefit of the doubt? In my opinion, assuming most creationists hate gay people is just as bad as calling a gay person a monster. There are a few, but were not all pig-headed.

I DID give him the benefit of the doubt. That's why I asked rather than assumed. Also, I never stated most creationists hate gay people. Quit putting words in my mouth.