Posted on 04/10/2010 11:49:41 PM PDT by Steelfish
April 11, 2010 Richard Dawkins: I Will Arrest Pope Benedict XVI Marc Horne
Atheist campaigner Richard Dawkins RICHARD DAWKINS, the atheist campaigner, is planning a legal ambush to have the Pope arrested during his state visit to Britain for crimes against humanity.
Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, the atheist author, have asked human rights lawyers to produce a case for charging Pope Benedict XVI over his alleged cover-up of sexual abuse in the Catholic church.
The pair believe they can exploit the same legal principle used to arrest Augusto Pinochet, the late Chilean dictator, when he visited Britain in 1998.
The Pope was embroiled in new controversy this weekend over a letter he signed arguing that the good of the universal church should be considered against the defrocking of an American priest who committed sex offences against two boys. It was dated 1985, when he was in charge of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which deals with sex abuse cases.
(Excerpt) Read more at timesonline.co.uk ...
The most likely out (for someone coming from the position it looks like you are coming from) is to go all mealy-mouthed about how "this is why we need separation of church and state" and how it's great we live in such enlightened times where total war is not practiced.
When you're done, let me know what your take is on partial-birth abortion, and children being macheted to death by Muslims.
Cheers!
Situational ethics never applies when the left is assigning guilt.
Incidentally, try Psalm 137:8-9 on for size.
Or, for that matter, you might note that God punished Israel with some pretty nasty stuff too -- see Deuteronomy 28:54-57 and compare to 2 Kings 6:25-30.
So it isn't just "territorialism masking itself under the rubric of religion."
Cheers!
I thought this was answered. Text alone can mislead. Old Testament scholarship is immersed in text, context, subtext, allegory, dreams, translations, issues of authorship, and interpretation over a period of several centuries spanning interconnected as well as disparate events.
Why is it then surprising if a conclusion disputes a pure literal and textual statement as reflecting the “true intent” of a “divine command” of any real import? When not accept the conclusion of most Old Testament scholars that this was no more than a subjective human projection to deify a course of action for events that took place four centuries earlier.
“I already did.”
Perhaps, but I need you to elaborate.
“The most likely out (for someone coming from the position it looks like you are coming from) is to go all mealy-mouthed about how “this is why we need separation of church and state” and how it’s great we live in such enlightened times where total war is not practised.”
The problem is, the children and infants were not killed as collateral damage- they were specifically and deliberately targeted.
“When you’re done, let me know what your take is on partial-birth abortion, and children being macheted to death by Muslims.”
I’ve already let my views on those issues known before, umpteen number of times, but I don’t mind repeating the gist of them, for you: Vile and disgusting.
Sure. That's God's prerogative.
Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch." -- Matthew 15:13-14"Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up.
FAIL.
Oh, by the way -- show me the verses in the Old and New Testament which show that killing and enslaving all non-believers, wheresoever they are found, is enjoined as standard practice for all believers for all time?
Nice try, troll-boy.
“I thought this was answered. Text alone can mislead. Old Testament scholarship is immersed in text, context, subtext, allegory, dreams, translations, issues of authorship, and interpretation over a period of several centuries spanning interconnected as well as disparate events.”
No, which is why that discussion the other day was rather fruitless. You are selectively choosing verses for validity based on arbitrary application of your current ethics. When the verses were penned, did the authors think that they might have sounded vile for suggesting ritual child-slaughter? Besides, such contortion of verses which are simple in structure, and unambiguous in message, to virtually mean the opposite of what they really convey, makes a mockery of Scripture, since they can all be interpreted as one pleases.
1 Samuel 15: 3.
A personal choice? What are you trying to do, coax words out of my mouth? Utter fail.
Still waiting for the elaboration of your reconciliation with the aforementioned verse...
You don’t have an explanation?
Psalm 137:8 is nothing like 1 Samuel 15:3
Refer to the context, and the speaker.
Proof that you are a troll.
For the audience, a recap:
grey_whiskers post 561:
When you're done, let me know what your take is on partial-birth abortion, and children being macheted to death by Muslims."
Troll in post 564 (Quotes grey_whiskers from 561, and replies):
"Ive already let my views on those issues known before, umpteen number of times, but I dont mind repeating the gist of them, for you: Vile and disgusting."
grey_whiskers post 566:
"Vile and disgusting? As though it were merely a matter of personal taste?
FAIL."
NOTE: this clearly establishes that "vile and disgusting" referred to partial birth abortion and Muslim murders of children in the present day.
Back to the thread.
Troll replies in post 568:
"1 Samual 15:3.
A personal choice? What are you trying to do, coax words out of my mouth?"
Notice the troll has deliberately lied through his teeth, changed the subject, and accused ME of changing the subject.
Likewise, we are still waiting for an explanation of this thread......
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2478926/posts
Pak Priest Sacrifices 3 Daughters
A Hindu priest committed suicide after killing his three minor daughters, all under 6-year-old, to please Hindu goddess Kali Mata in Bhemomal area of Sind province on Tuesday.
According to police and eyewitnesses, religious rituals were regularly performed at the Kali Mata Temple established on the first floor of a house owned by Tekam Das Meghwar in Bhemomal. Reports say that Tekam Das Meghwar first slaughtered his three daughters, Parwati, 6-year-old, Reena, 4, and Aarti, 1, with a sharp knife and then slit his own throat to make Kali Mata happy.
***********************************************************
What kind of religion is Hinduism that its followers sacrifice their own children to idols?
How come you’re not pointing fingers at this religion and condemning it and them for the ritualistic slaughter of three little girls, this *priests* own daughters, no less. What a great example of a loving Hindu father he is.
Why aren’t you? Are you only going to condemn Judaism based on one verse in the OT and cast dispersion on the entire religion based on one incident but totally ignore and excuse similar behavior when it happens in a non-Christian religion?
Just like you condemn all of Judaism based on one verse, you need to condemn all of Hinduism based on this priest.
Or own the label of hypocrite.
Amusing.
I asked you for an explanation of the said verse, and you return asking out of the blue, my take on partial-birth abortion and Muslim infanticide.
I called both the latter practices as vile and disgusting, and you’re accusing me for holding those views? Where do you come from, Idiotsville?
Yes, I’m still waiting for a detailed reply you owe me regarding the aforementioned explanation, which you sought to divert from, by giving me an online morality test.
Like I said, amusing. How old are you?
The troll part has been noticed long ago.
What about other religions like the Hindu one, where the priests still today sacrifice children to their gods to please them?
Sheesh, at least the reason given in Samuel was for punishment of crime committed earlier.
This Pak priest just sacrificed his own daughters simply to *please* his god.
And I’s sure Satan was very happy with the gift.
As much condemnable child-slaughter is, the act by the priest is not in keeping with Hinduism, or the teachings of its scripture, the Gita, in any way or form. The reason why I raised the issue about 1 Samuel 15: 3 in that thread was that Steelfish was trying to paint Hindus as vile child-killers, based on that single, statistically insignificant incident. On top of that, he deviously cut out the part in that very same article, which mentioned the local Hindus declaring the “priest”’s act as immoral and counter to Hindu values.
The Admin Moderator re-edited Steelfish’s post, to undo that deception. Go look at that thread again.
Please refer to the context, and don’t paste labels blindly.
Coming back to the topic at hand, neither of you have yet provided a rational explanation for how you reconciled with 1 Samuel 15:3, yet.
What crime did children and infants commit, to deserve ritual slaughter? Explain away, I’m all ears.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.