Posted by Christopher Johnson | Wednesday, October 28th, 2009 | Uncategorized | 56 Comments
If genius can be defined as the ability to drive people completely insane by the most innocuous action, then Pope Benedict XVI is a genius. For reasons known only to their Vague, Ambiguous, Non-Judgmental, Inclusive Deity Concept, Newsweek’s Jon Meacham and the Washington Post’s Sally Quinn of On Faith asked atheist Richard Dawkins what he thought about the Roman Catholic Church’s provision for disaffected Anglicans:
Q: The Vatican is making it easier for Anglicans — priests, members and parishes — to convert to Catholicism. Some say this is further recognition of the substantial overlap in faith, doctrine and spirituality between the Catholic and Anglican traditions; others see it as poaching that could further divide the Anglican Communion. What do you think?
And as might be expected, the megalomanical old loudmouth went bat crap:
What major institution most deserves the title of greatest force for evil in the world? In a field of stiff competition, the Roman Catholic Church is surely up there among the leaders.
Ooh, ooh, I know! For the 100 million or so people they butchered last century. No, wait, that’s atheism. For legally forbidding any religious views other than their own? Yeah, you’re right, that’s also atheism.
For torturing, imprisoning and sometimes murdering people who disagreed with them? Nope, atheism. For forcing people into concentration camps, often working them to death? Son of a…atheism again.
Okay, I’m stumped.
The Anglican church has at least a few shreds of decency, traces of kindness and humanity with which Jesus himself might have connected, however tenuously: a generosity of spirit, of respect for women, and of Christ-like compassion for the less fortunate.
On the other hand, the Roman Catholic Church spends all its time beating up people and stealing their stuff. Big bullies. Always beating up people and stealing their stuff.
The Anglican church does not cleave to the dotty idea that a priest, by blessing bread and wine, can transform it literally into a cannibal feast; nor to the nastier idea that possession of testicles is an essential qualification to perform the rite.
And here we go. Dawkie? You do not “cleave to the dotty idea” that there’s a God, cupcake. Why should any of us Christians care what you think about anything at all?
It does not send its missionaries out to tell deliberate lies to AIDS-weakened Africans, about the alleged ineffectiveness of condoms in protecting against HIV.
In effect, Catholic missionaries deliberately try to arrange as many African deaths as they possibly can. Tell me again that fairy tale about how people don’t need God in order to live moral and ethical lives, mein Dawkie, old chum.
Whether one agrees with him or not, there is a saintly quality in the Archbishop of Canterbury, a benignity of countenance, a well-meaning sincerity. How does Pope Ratzinger measure up? The comparison is almost embarrassing.
I have to admit that Dawk Victory got that one right. One is a forceful, dynamic and forward-looking Christian leader who is not afraid to take risks for the Gospel and is undaunted when people get mad at him. The other is the Archbishop of Canterbury.
Poaching? Of course it is poaching. What else could you call it?
Maybe it will succeed. If estimates are right that 1,000 Anglican clergymen will take the bait (no women, of course: they will swiftly be shown the door), what could be their motive?
Gee. Wonder what It Was A Dawk And Stormy Night is going to say next.
For some it will be a deep-seated misogyny (although they’ll re-label it with a mendacious euphemism of some kind, which they’ll call ‘an important point of theological principle’).
Mendacious euphemism? You mean like “an atheist explaining Christian theology” or something? Actually, that would be more like “an embarrassingly idiotic waste of time.”
One wonders how their wives can stomach a husband whose contempt for women is so visceral that he considers them incapable even of the humble and unexacting duties of a priest.
That doesn’t make even a little bit of sense. I don’t think I’ve ever been a woman but I have to believe that if a man who had visceral contempt for women asked me to marry him, I’d most likely turn him down.
For some, the motive will be homophobic bigotry, and a consequent dislike of the efforts of decent church leaders such as the Archbishop of Canterbury to accept those whose sexual orientation happens to deviate from majority taste.
How Much Is That Dawkie In The Window? There are lots and lots and LOTS of “sexual orientations” that happen to deviate from majority taste. Why don’t the Anglicans get all prog, save time and take them all on right now?
Some “sexual orientations” should be easy enough to handle while others might cause problems. Will the three women John Smith is planning to marry each get their own set of bridesmaids? If so, it could get kind of crowded up there at the altar.
Lots of churches are going to have to do away with pet-blessing Sundays for, um, obvious reasons. But maybe they could replace them with spanking paddle-blessing Sundays. Then, instead of passing the peace, people could…Johnson, for the love of God, drop it now!!
Never mind that they will be joining an institution where buggering altar boys pervades the culture.
Professional atheist logic, ladies and gentlemen. So “buggering altar boys” pervades Roman Catholic culture, does it? Yet Roman Catholic parents keep baptizing their kids Catholic and bringing them to Catholic churches every Sunday.
Do you seriously believe that every Roman Catholic parent in the world is that cruel? Because if “buggering altar boys” really did pervade Catholic culture, we wouldn’t be having this conversation.
Know why that is, dumbass? Because Eastern Orthodoxy would be the largest and most important Christian tradition in America since all those Roman Catholic parents would have shaken Catholic dust from their feet decades ago.
So either you think that every single Roman Catholic in the world is the most vile person who ever lived(every single one; if you’re a Catholic liberal or if you’re unmarried but attend a Catholic church, you’re aiding and abetting) or your sentence not only makes no sense at all but jumps into Lake Libel and swims across it.
Come up with a mendacious euphemism for that, tough guy.
Turning to the motives of the poachers, here we find cause for real encouragement. The Roman Catholic Church is fast running out of priests. In Ireland in 2007, 160 Catholic priests died, while only nine new recruits were ordained. To say the least, those figures don’t point towards sustainability.
Yeah, that billion-and-change the snackeral mappers are pulling in is a cause for real concern. But slow down, big smacker. Have you seen the latest Episcopal numbers?
At the rate they’re shedding peeps, every Episcopalian will eventually be his or her own bishop and diocese and they’ll be holding General Conventions at the Old Country Buffet.
No wonder that disgusting institution, the Roman Catholic Church, is dragging its flowing skirts in the dirt and touting for business like a common pimp: “Give me your homophobes, misogynists and pederasts. Send me your bigots yearning to be free of the shackles of humanity.”
And people actually think that professional atheists are arrogant, bigoted pissants full of scorn, contempt and white-hot hatred for views other than their own. But I have a serious question, Dawkie.
I’m a Protestant and proud of it. Lots of people who regularly comment here are Roman Catholic and equally proud of that. I don’t know how loathsome little d-bags like you handle this sort of situation but I’ve generally found that if I want people to treat my views respectfully, I need to treat their views respectfully.
Even atheist views, Dawkie.
Do you seriously think that any Catholic is going to be convinced by digusting rhetoric like that? Do you seriously believe that Catholics reading that are going to slap their foreheads and exclaim, “Dawkie’s right! We need to become Anglicans immediately!”
Because if you do, you’ve just set back British education 100 years.
Archbishop Rowan Williams is too nice for his own good. Instead of meekly sharing that ignominious platform with the poachers, he should have issued a counter-challenge: “Send us your women, yearning to be priests, who could make a strong case for being the better-qualified fifty percent of humanity; send us your decent priests, sick of trying to defend the indefensible; send them all, in exchange for our woman-haters and gay-bashers.” Sounds like a good trade to me.
I can see why you like Dr. Williams. He’s the sort of churchman who will never get in your way. He’ll appear on BBC chat shows with you and the conversation and what “debate” there is will be pleasant. And he’ll never insist that you believe anything in particular.
It’s not how we western Anglicans do stuff.
Prediction. If Richard Dawkins is anything, he’s a publicity whore. So as soon as people get bored with him, which should be any day now, Dawkie will declare that he’s a deist.
He’ll get a book and a book tour out of it which should make the old fraud happy. Only problem will be that his deity will be the weak, impotent, spineless jellyfish of the western liberal Anglicans.
On one level, I would not, if I were Roman Catholic, be terribly upset by this article. Dawkie’s just being Dawkie; crap like this is what he does. I would, however, be enraged at two people
Newsweek’s Jon Meacham and the Washington Post’s Sally Quinn.
A venture connected to what used to be two legitimate American news media sources publishes one of the most virulently anti-Catholic screeds I can ever remember reading and does it in the most dishonest way possible.
By getting somebody else to do it for them.
Meacham and Quinn wanted to say something like this directly but knew they would catch hell if they did. Solution? Ring up the most controversial figure you possibly can and ask him what he thinks(An atheist? At a site called On Faith?).
If people yell at you, use that old “we were only trying to contribute to the debate” canard. Jon? Sal? We were, as they say, born at night but not last night.