Heartland

An audience with the Pope

Philip Pullman wrote:I would like to ask the Pope to imagine that he was taken back in time to Jerusalem in the last week of Jesus’s life, with the power to save him from the crucifixion that was rapidly approaching – perhaps by magically transporting Jesus to a distant city such as Athens or Baghdad. Would he use that power, with all its consequences for the future of the Church, or not? And if he wouldn’t, if he would just stand back and let the crucifixion happen, how does that make him any different from Judas?

nice

There was a lot of opposition to His Holiness Herr Ratzinger visiting Scotland when I was there.
Not only is he giving a sermon in Glasgow - - he's also visiting Edinburgh. They're going to close half the city centre for it, and there was much dark muttering heard.

Normally I think Hari is a pansy rabble-rouser who pulls his facts out of his bottom, but he does present a pretty unanswerable argument here against Ratzinger as a person.


http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/co ... 74029.html

Anyway, does the UK recognize the Vatican as a state? If not surely we can have the old idiot dragged through the courts for his role in covering up sex scandals.

Hence Dawkins' (half-humorous) proposal to attempt to have Benny the Rat arrested as soon as he arrived in the UK.

As he's coming for a state visit (note that the previous pope's visit in the 80's was a "pastoral visit") I think it's safe to assume that Darth Ratzinger's empire is recognised as a sovereign nation by the UK.

Interesting fact: the Vatican's claim to statehood relies on the Lateran Treaty of 1929, the signatories being Cardinal Gasparri for Pope Pius XI, and (on behalf of king Victor Emmanuel III of Italy) Benito Mussolini.

markfiend wrote:An audience with the Pope

Philip Pullman wrote:I would like to ask the Pope to imagine that he was taken back in time to Jerusalem in the last week of Jesus’s life, with the power to save him from the crucifixion that was rapidly approaching – perhaps by magically transporting Jesus to a distant city such as Athens or Baghdad. Would he use that power, with all its consequences for the future of the Church, or not? And if he wouldn’t, if he would just stand back and let the crucifixion happen, how does that make him any different from Judas?

To be perfectly honest that's either one of the stupidest or most willfully ignorant things I've ever read. And I've read John Dewey.

markfiend wrote: Hence Dawkins' (half-humorous) proposal to attempt to have Benny the Rat arrested as soon as he arrived in the UK.

As he's coming for a state visit (note that the previous pope's visit in the 80's was a "pastoral visit") I think it's safe to assume that Darth Ratzinger's empire is recognised as a sovereign nation by the UK.

Interesting fact: the Vatican's claim to statehood relies on the Lateran Treaty of 1929, the signatories being Cardinal Gasparri for Pope Pius XI, and (on behalf of king Victor Emmanuel III of Italy) Benito Mussolini.

Apparently Tatchell was planning another citizens arrest attempt on him, but decided against as the UK does recognise the Vatican as a state. Which renders the tax-free holdings of the Catholic Church rather a curious anomaly. Surely no other sovereign state gets away without paying tax on it's UK investments? Besides if Tatchell thought he got a pounding from Mugabe's bodyguards, he'd probably end up dead at the hands of the Met.
I'm a little bemused as to who this visit is aimed at. Disillusioned Anglicans? The Catholic areas of Scotland and Liverpool? The older emigre Polish? I wouldn't have thought there was enough Catholics in the UK to make the trip worth the effort. No wonder Benny is having trouble filling arenas.

The legal basis of "citizen's arrest" is a bit shaky too; as I understand it, you can't do a citizen's arrest if the police are "in attendance" -- which they doubtless will be.

sultan2075 wrote:

markfiend wrote:An audience with the Pope

To be perfectly honest that's either one of the stupidest or most willfully ignorant things I've ever read. And I've read John Dewey.

In what way?

It shows a complete ignorance of what Christians actually believe--Christ's redemptive crucifixion is really the whole point. Without it, mankind is condemned to sin, and thus to damnation. As for Judas, he plays a necessary role in the drama of salvation--and in much mainstream theology, his "sin" isn't his betrayal of Christ, rather, it's his inability to forgive himself for it subsequently.

Or were you asking about my poke at Dewey?

Hmm. I thought it was the resurrection that was supposed to be the point. (Although admittedly you can't have a resurrection without a death.)

(Leaving aside the notion that a sacrifice of Himself to Himself to save us from Himself doesn't make a whole lot of sense -- especially given that if He knew He would be resurrected three days later, it's not much of a sacrifice. But this is theology after all, expecting sense in the field might be a little optimistic. And I could get on a rant about how the whole "original sin" drama plays out a lot like an "ah, gotcha!" trick from God.)

Anyhoo. I'm aware of that sort of idea about Judas from The Last Temptation of Christ but not from mainstream Christian thought. Admittedly that might be my misperception.

I'm not familiar with Dewey.

Well, it's the death and resurrection. Christ's suffering is the atoning act, and the resurrection is the proof (and Christ's death is necessary for the harrowing of Hell; He has to there after death to liberate those who don't belong there but had no place else to go). I've always liked the account in Milton's Paradise Lost, actually, where the conclusion is reached during a Heavenly debate that the only deed that would sufficiently atone for the Fall would be a sacrifice, and the only sacrifice that would be sufficient is that of the Son, so He volunteers.

Dewey's a fink, and his theories have had a pernicious influence on American education.

markfiend wrote:
I'm not familiar with Dewey.

Isn't he big in libraries?

he's the youngest one in Malcolm in the Middle. till Jamie came along, no?

Or one of Donald Duck's nephews

I've split this out cos I thought it was worth a thread in itself.

Why so guilty?

I'd ask "Can you sign my Rangers shirt..?"

On a related note: this guy in Florida who said he was going to burn a bunch of copies of the Koran:

(Actually I saw something on TV and he had a stack of English translations of the Koran. IIUC most Muslims hold that if it's not in the original Arabic, it's not the Koran, so the asshat isn't even burning the "right" book.)

Now in general terms, I don't like people burning books. (It's a short step from burning books to burning people.) And as Sean Connery's character in Indiana Jones says, "morons like yourself should try reading books instead of burning them!"

And in particular, the reaction in (for want of a better term) we could call "the Muslim world" is likely to put the lives of American and British soldiers in danger (as has been pointed out by General Petraeus, among others).

But...

Freedom of speech that is only free to speak that which causes no offence is no freedom at all. Fear of provoking a violent response isn't a good enough reason to restrict speech—not even idiotic speech. It is the violent people who are to blame for violence, not the speech which (may or may not have) provoked them.

I have in the past (particularly in the case of the Danish Mohammed cartoons) stood on this principle that free speech is absolute, and should not back down in the face of threats of violence. It would be hypocritical for me to change this view now, even though I believe that it is idiotic and assholish for this guy to burn his Korans.

So I fully support his right to do so. We have to stand up for the rights of people we are convinced are wrong on the issue, or we don't really stand for liberty at all.

as much i'm atheist and as much i'm against catholic church as institution i have to admit that this question is very stupid and it's showing deep ignorance of this guy.

btw idea of non-religion world it's pointless - it's just replacing one ideology by other, hate will stay.

markfiend wrote:On a related note: this guy in Florida who said he was going to burn a bunch of copies of the Koran:

(Actually I saw something on TV and he had a stack of English translations of the Koran. IIUC most Muslims hold that if it's not in the original Arabic, it's not the Koran, so the asshat isn't even burning the "right" book.)

Now in general terms, I don't like people burning books. (It's a short step from burning books to burning people.) And as Sean Connery's character in Indiana Jones says, "morons like yourself should try reading books instead of burning them!"

And in particular, the reaction in (for want of a better term) we could call "the Muslim world" is likely to put the lives of American and British soldiers in danger (as has been pointed out by General Petraeus, among others).

But...

Freedom of speech that is only free to speak that which causes no offence is no freedom at all. Fear of provoking a violent response isn't a good enough reason to restrict speech—not even idiotic speech. It is the violent people who are to blame for violence, not the speech which (may or may not have) provoked them.

I have in the past (particularly in the case of the Danish Mohammed cartoons) stood on this principle that free speech is absolute, and should not back down in the face of threats of violence. It would be hypocritical for me to change this view now, even though I believe that it is idiotic and assholish for this guy to burn his Korans.

So I fully support his right to do so. We have to stand up for the rights of people we are convinced are wrong on the issue, or we don't really stand for liberty at all.

There was a thread a while back about one of Hari's columns where we debated wether the Anglican/Christian community is a far easier target for derision because it's members don't show the same proclivity for violence as that of the Islamic world when "offended". Would you say this points to a very definite "yes" to that? And if so, how can we square Islam with our laws on free speech at all?

As for what to ask the Pope, I'd go for a mix of Dawkins and Quinlan's response. You're not welcome, and your entire organization is a complete perversion of Christ's teachings and message of tolerance.

Yes, I remember. Yes, I agree Anglicanism is a "softer target" than Islam; I seem to recall quoting Stewart Lee when asked why he didn't do jokes about Islam like he does about Christianity: "I might be an atheist but I'm not suicidal".

This isn't to say that there aren't appreciable numbers of wannabe Christian theocrats with what you might call "fatwa envy"; Benedict XVI seems intent on undoing a lot of the Vatican 2 reforms for instance, and (in respect of Stewart Lee) Stephen Green and his "Christian Voice" group were determined to try to stop showings of Jerry Springer the Opera.

The point being, no-one should get to make death-threats over perceived slights to their holy symbols. What is holy to some is profane to others. If (some) muslims don't understand this, tough.

Thinking about it, our troops' presence in Iraq and Afghanistan is supposed to be about "defending our freedoms". Complaining that exercising our rights endangers our troops, when they are there precisely to defend them, is a nonsense.

But anyway. Muslims who think that death threats are an appropriate response to -- well, to anything, need to be told, in no uncertain terms, that it is not. "So you're offended? Welcome to the 21st Century. On the whole I think you'll prefer it to the 7th." An appropriate response to being offended is thinking "what a dick", maybe even saying to the person who has offended you "you're a dick". But killing them? Killing people only tangentially related to the situation? Get a f*cking grip.

DeWinter wrote: Anyway, does the UK recognize the Vatican as a state? If not surely we can have the old idiot dragged through the courts for his role in covering up sex scandals.

Yes, please ...

Being645 wrote:

DeWinter wrote: Anyway, does the UK recognize the Vatican as a state? If not surely we can have the old idiot dragged through the courts for his role in covering up sex scandals.

Yes, please ...

It would be nice, but unlikely.

markfiend wrote: Thinking about it, our troops' presence in Iraq and Afghanistan is supposed to be about "defending our freedoms". Complaining that exercising our rights endangers our troops, when they are there precisely to defend them, is a nonsense.

I've always wondered why we thought we could deliver the right to refuse marriages, burqhas, and fight honour killings in Afghanistan when we can't do that here in Britain. But anyway, different topic for another day..

So Benedict is protected because the UK regards the Vatican as a state. What about an arrest warrant issued from the States, where the Vatican isn't regarded as a state (yet) under our rather one-sided extradition treaty? Or a European Arrest Warrant issued by a European police force? There's ways of getting him, easy enough. He's broken a large number of laws and is seemingly untouchable for it.
(Incidentally the justice system in the UK is going to some lengths to protect Ratzinger from the publics disapproval. They've recently decided throwing eggs is a criminal offence. )

DeWinter wrote: (Incidentally the justice system in the UK is going to some lengths to protect Ratzinger from the publics disapproval. They've recently decided throwing eggs is a criminal offence. )

... which reminds me - slightly OT - of this pretty tool ...