Richard Dawkins at the "Protest The Pope".
- Thread starter Bcool
- Start date
It wasn't that good that it bore repeating.
Although I agree with much of what he said, it was too much an emotional response for the pope accusing atheists for atrocities committed by Hitler and others. It is unfortunate that the pope decided to try to deflect blame for the crimes committed by the church against humanity. I think he would have had more credibility if he asked for forgiveness from those who have been scarred for life and for the centuries of the church covering it up. Perhaps he really is trying to rectify that matter, but judging from the history of the church, it sounds like more lip service because of his refusal to allow governments to prosecute the perpetrators. Excommunication is not a just reward for the crimes committed. He may believe in eternal damnation for their souls, but it is little comfort for those who have suffered at the hands of the clergy and who have lost faith in the church because of it.
Although I agree with much of what he said, it was too much an emotional response for the pope accusing atheists for atrocities committed by Hitler and others. It is unfortunate that the pope decided to try to deflect blame for the crimes committed by the church against humanity. I think he would have had more credibility if he asked for forgiveness from those who have been scarred for life and for the centuries of the church covering it up. Perhaps he really is trying to rectify that matter, but judging from the history of the church, it sounds like more lip service because of his refusal to allow governments to prosecute the perpetrators. Excommunication is not a just reward for the crimes committed. He may believe in eternal damnation for their souls, but it is little comfort for those who have suffered at the hands of the clergy and who have lost faith in the church because of it.
I have tried using the 'edit' feature to remove the duplicate, but can't - I dunno how that happened. "Divine intervention" maybe? LOL I have also asked the Mod's to remove the duplicate for me. ITMT, apologies for the repeat posting of the video. Hopefully the Mod's will kindly fix it soon.
You obviously agree with Dawkins or you would not have posted it. What is your take on it?
I watched it a couple of times because I was trying to decide how and to whom he was intending on making the strongest points. It's a tad tricky to switch from the written to the verbal when it comes to such far reaching topics as this IMO.
The points you make about the pope's accusatory tone, inadequate responses and deflections I agree with, yes. As does Dawkins on the whole IMO.
Was it necessary to bring in Hitler's never renounced catholicism? To specifically point out the Cardinal Archbishop's of Munich in 1939 ordering a special Te Deum in Munich's cathedral "To thank Divine Providence in the name of the Archdiocese for the Fuhreris fortunate escape."? Hitler's 1922 speech stating he was a christian and speaking of his "Lord and Saviour" and his statement that "Jesus recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them . . . how terrific was his fight against the Jewish poison . . . " and also his raising the point of Hitler's "Mein Kamph" having passages specifically stating his own Roman Catholicism?
On thinking about it, I decided that yes it was for two reasons: 1. The pope had had the audacity to blame atheism for such and all evils; in effect throwing the first, below the belt, punch if you will. 2. Many generations now have been raised not knowing these facts of the weird mix of catholicism, mysticism, nazism and facism that created both Hitler and his regime. Even in anecdotal form, it's a history lesson that needs repeating far more frequently than it is IMO.
As far as Dawkins' "enemy of humanity" goes, if he's claiming Joseph Ratzinger the man as such, then I disagree with that statement - an autocratic, pompous, outrageously bedecked and pampered figurhead yes but not personally very effective at all. If he means Joseph Ratzinger as pope representing the catholic church and being g*ds interpreter of g*ds decrees to members of the catholic church, then in light of the past, present and ongoing crimes and inhumane doctrine - he is. Which makes the pope and catholic history and present day behaviours all relevant.
"There is no logical pathway from atheism to wickedness."
As usual the Catholic Church is attempting to defend itself and attack others by bringing a knife to a gunfight. Historical fact makes it overwhelmingly easy to condemn most religions and the Catholic Church in particular. When you are arguing with a man like Dawkins, you better know your stuff and the Pope is clearly out of his league in that department.
It must be rather awkward for the Pope to visit a nation where is met not just by brainwashed followers, but also by protest groups condemning the policies of the church. He better get used to it. Currently atheism and agnosticism are the fastest growing groups in the world. He would be smarter to avoid nations like Britain where more than half the population consists of unbelievers.
It must be rather awkward for the Pope to visit a nation where is met not just by brainwashed followers, but also by protest groups condemning the policies of the church. He better get used to it. Currently atheism and agnosticism are the fastest growing groups in the world. He would be smarter to avoid nations like Britain where more than half the population consists of unbelievers.
Ahhh
Nazism was pagan in every aspect of its existence.......what it claimed to be in a Catholic country has nothing whatsoever to do with reality.
The Catholic Pope at the time, despite his appeasement and his weakness, hated Hitler with a passion.
the truth is bad enough for the Catholic Church....no need to embellish it.
And BTW, I was brought up anti=Catholic Baptist, before anyone goes there....lol
I don't think pagan is the right term. Pagan means earth based spiritual beliefs of the aboriginal peoples of the planet. The Nazi hierarchy, from my understanding, were more ininvolved in Aleister Crowley-ish type sorcery, which is not pagan but a practitioner of occult black magic.
Last edited:
"Embellish"? Webster's: "Embellish: To make something sound or look better or more acceptable than it is in reality, to distort"
So, what was 'distorted'?
In terms of orthodox monotheistic religiosity, it is. The original Latin root meant just a rural dweller, with overtones of being an unlettered bumpkin. One of the current dictionary definitions of a pagan is simply somebody who's not a Christian, a Jew, or a Muslim, which would certainly extend to practitioners of occult black magic.
That is rather broad and would then include Buddhists, Shintos and Hindus.
From Religious Tolerance.org:
I also read that Hitler toyed with trying to revive worship of the old Norse gods because that was an "Aryan" religion, but that idea never flew (probably because of the sway catholicism and Lutherans hold in Germany).
I don't think either side of the catholicism vs secularism debate finds themselves in a very good light when it comes to the Nazis, with the way the Church tried to appease them and the way the philosophy itself was based (substituting a worship of party/leader/country in place of the Church) so bringing it up is of minimal benefit at best.
The Pope didn't blame atheists for the atrocities committed by the Nazis. The Pope, who is a former member of the Hitler Youth, said that the Nazis tried to wipe out Christianity and other religions just as many of Britain's militant atheists are today. In protesting against religion, these militant atheists are doing the same as the Nazis did.
If I choose to worship as a member of the Church of England or any other religion it should be my own business. I should be able to do what I like. Athesists wouldn't like it if Christians or Muslims or Jews or Sikhs or Hindus tried to force their views upon them, so I don't know why religious people should stand if it miliant atheists tried to impose their views. In Britain there should be freedom of worship and I have no time for people who protest just because a religious figure happens to visit our country.
Thankfully these militant atheists and left-wing protestors were very much outnumbered by the thousands upon thousands of people who turned out in Edinburgh, Glasgow, London and Birmingham to greet the Pope. The Pope's visit was a victory for the Catholics and other people of faith who supported it.
There are nowhere near that number of "unbelievers" in Britain.
According to the last census in 2001, 41 million people in Britain - around three-quarters of the population - thought of themselves as Christian. The number of Catholics in the UK is also increasing. In 2001 there were around 4.2 million Catholics and now there are thought to be around 6 million.
The number of people in Britain who called themselves atheists was 8.5 million, which, in 2001, was just 15% of the population.
An opinion poll conducted in 2005 showed that a whopping 78% of the British people believed in some sort of God or spiritual force (38% "believe there is a God" and 40% believe there is "some sort of spirit or life force"). Just 20% said "I don't believe there is any sort of spirit, God or life force". A survey in 2007 suggested that 42% of adults resident in the UK prayed.
The vast majority of the British people do not agree witht he views of people such as Dawkins and Fry. And, as the the hundreds of thousands who lined the streets to greet the Pope in several of our major cities showed, religion is alive and well in the UK.
If I choose to worship as a member of the Church of England or any other religion it should be my own business. I should be able to do what I like. Athesists wouldn't like it if Christians or Muslims or Jews or Sikhs or Hindus tried to force their views upon them, so I don't know why religious people should stand if it miliant atheists tried to impose their views. In Britain there should be freedom of worship and I have no time for people who protest just because a religious figure happens to visit our country.
Thankfully these militant atheists and left-wing protestors were very much outnumbered by the thousands upon thousands of people who turned out in Edinburgh, Glasgow, London and Birmingham to greet the Pope. The Pope's visit was a victory for the Catholics and other people of faith who supported it.
There are nowhere near that number of "unbelievers" in Britain.
According to the last census in 2001, 41 million people in Britain - around three-quarters of the population - thought of themselves as Christian. The number of Catholics in the UK is also increasing. In 2001 there were around 4.2 million Catholics and now there are thought to be around 6 million.
The second biggest religion in the country (in 2001) was Islam with 1.5 million worshippers, followed by 559,000 Hindus (the largest Hindu population in Europe, now thought to be around 750,000), 336,000 Sikhs, 267,000 Jews and 152,000 Buddhists.
The number of people in Britain who called themselves atheists was 8.5 million, which, in 2001, was just 15% of the population.
An opinion poll conducted in 2005 showed that a whopping 78% of the British people believed in some sort of God or spiritual force (38% "believe there is a God" and 40% believe there is "some sort of spirit or life force"). Just 20% said "I don't believe there is any sort of spirit, God or life force". A survey in 2007 suggested that 42% of adults resident in the UK prayed.
The vast majority of the British people do not agree witht he views of people such as Dawkins and Fry. And, as the the hundreds of thousands who lined the streets to greet the Pope in several of our major cities showed, religion is alive and well in the UK.
Last edited:
I guess you are right about there not being more than half, but the stats I have found show Britain at over 40% in terms of non-believers, a number which makes it the largest group in the country. I do not see that as a vast majority against Dawkins. It is actually a marginal and shrinking majority. Check the link below for a detailed article on religion in Britain.
Religion in the United Kingdom - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
If you want a Top 50 list here is one.
Adherents.com: Atheist Statistics | Agnostic
I noticed that a lot of the countries with the highest percentage of non-believers were predominantly Buddhist.