Tag Archives: pope

Clueless

Posted on by

They simply don’t get it. Barely four weeks after Islamist gunmen stormed the offices of French satirical ‘Charlie Hebdo’ and murdered twelve unarmed artists in the name of Mohammed, Muslims in London have nothing better to do than to take to the streets and protest against Hebdo’s depictions of their religious idol. I find this deeply disturbing for a number of reasons

  • No matter how much they profess to distance themselves from the murders, their protest lends some legitimacy to the terrible, murderous deed of Islamists. They complain about what the artists got killed for: freedom of expression – and at the same time insist they feel offended?
  • Somehow these Muslims seem to have completely overlooked the fact that the mass publication of Hebdo’s drawings are a direct reaction to the barbaric deed done in the name of Islam. They are not doing their religion a favor by openly showing a complete lack of appreciation for how societies respond to evil.
  • Some of these people held up signs saying we love Prophet Muhammad more than our lives. Don’t these Muslims understand that statements like these merely serve to underline just how ethically underdeveloped they are? Valuing human life beneath that of an ideology is always a sign that something is wrong with that ideology.
  • These people feel offended by drawings – that’s OK. But somehow, they also feel that being offended entitles them to something. Their protest shows a remarkable lack of understanding what constitutes freedom. If something written offends you, don’t read it! That is the extend of your freedom. If you want someone else to do something based on your religion: get stuffed. You have no right to impose your beliefs on others. Deal with it.
  • Bonus: the child holding up a sign Insult my mum and I will punch you – Pope Francis. Bravo, Francis! You really did the world a favor when Islamist hardliners quote you to justify their actions.

Most disturbing of all: these people complain that their religion is not getting the respect it allegedly deserves – shortly after followers of that religion just demonstrated their disrespect for life, and after the protesters themselves expressed a remarkable lack of respect for the sanctity of life by telling us that they ‘love Prophet Muhammad more than their lives’. Respect isn’t owed, people – it has to be earned. Otherwise, Nazis would demand the same respect for their disgusting ideology.

Islam must earn respect. So far, however, all these protesters have shown is a complete lack of understanding what ethics are, and that their ideology definitely does not deserve respect.

Titans of Theology

Posted on by

Pope Francis recently got his knickers in a twist over the fact that Tycoon Richard “Virgin” Branson (the “virgin” part refers to his company, definitely not a biblical character, nor his procreational status) pays very little taxes.

The Telegraph rightly deconstructed Francis’ outburst. Strangely enough, though, the Telegraph’s Allister Heath needlessly employs some subtle sophistry himself:

There can be no doubt that Pope Francis is a devoted and selfless man […]. A phenomenal theologian, he abhors war and poverty and is an inspiration to hundreds of millions of believers.

There are two items remarkable with above quote:

  • I’m sure it’s meant as a compliment, but complimenting someone on being a phenomenal theologian is very much like calling someone a phenomenal astrologer or alchemist. Theology is no science. When each and every argument can be ended with ‘because God wants it so’ and every contradiction can be resolved ‘because god is mysterious’, there simply is no space for rational, scientific discourse. Plus, someone like Francis pretty much presupposes the conclusion that the Christian God exists, making even that discussion a moot point. If your discussions only revolve around magical beings someone has written about, you might as well discuss who will win: Starship Enterprise or a Star Destroyer. And even I found that somewhat silly back when I went to school.
     
  • Heath makes it sound as if Francis’ dislike for poverty and war is a result of his being a theologian. Unlike the Pope’s grasp of finance, his dislike of war and poverty is in spite of being a theologian. 

Francis’ attack on capitalism was not only stupid, it was entirely misguided. Unlike Heath, who ignores the elephant in the room, I’d like to point out that rather salient fact: Francis is outraged that Branson doesn’t pay taxes. Yet the Pope ignores the fact that his church is not only exempt from paying taxes in most countries – it receives significant amounts of tax payer’s money in those countries.

Only titans of theology can expect to get away with so much hypocrisy.

Because it is expected of them.

Sainthood by linear acceleration

Posted on by

Former Pope John Paul II will be promoted to full sainthood in early 2014, setting a new record. Although the church admits that they (almost literally) ran though this process – faster than any time in the millennia before – they claim it still holds up to rigorous standards and close scrutiny.

And then they come up with this brilliant bit of reasoning:

“In fact, canonization by the Catholic Church simply formalizes on earth what is already in place in heaven. […] It’s not like Karol Wojtyla, John Paul II, will suddenly become a saint when the canonization ceremony occurs. The belief would be he is already in heaven with God, living the life of a saint. All that’s going to happen when the ceremony occurs is that the church will officially recognize that.”

OK. But then why have a process at all?

Holy Alka Seltzer!

Posted on by

True ‘Miracles’ have become indistinguishable from the Placebo Effect, as the Catholic Church officially proved today.

In a couple of months, the catholic church will make saints out of two former priests. That’s nice. We’ll just note as an aside that they are made saints, and therefore, by definition up until now did not have had to be saints.

But just what is required of someone to become a saint? First, you have to be dead. That’s sensible – this precludes that future unsaintly actions of yours could embarrass the church. But the church allegedly sets ‘high standards’ before they elevate someone into sainthood. In the case of the late Pope John Paul II, the church requires no less than two miracles.

Now, that is a high standard. The problem is: the church has a lamentably low standard when it comes to miracles. This pretty much mirrors the way people nowadays believe that random occurrences are miracles. In NGNG is snidely commented:

Gods in the past created the universe, parted seas, smote unbelievers, regularly performed miracles on the grandest of scale, raised the dead, drowned whole populations and caused plagues. Today it is already considered a miracle when His/Her face appears on an ice cream stain. How pathetic is that? Gods of Today are sissies, while their believers talk up the good old times when their god still had some machismo.

The same pathetic standard is now applied to miracles performed by priests. The alleged ‘miracles’ are just two counts of a spontaneous remission of an illness. A real miracle would be if someone spontaneously regrows an arm or leg. If that happens, I’d be the first to acknowledge it. But – come on! – something that can’t be distinguished from the Placebo Effect? Something that is bound to happen given the sheer number of ill people? The only miracle here is that they only found two cases.

Now, if I was to be sainted for that, those ‘miracles’ would have been an embarrassment to me. After all, my fellow saints did some really miraculous stuff, not just a couple of lousy remissions.

The question here is when the Church will make Alka Seltzer a holy substance. After all, I can attest to it’s miraculous power to cure headache. More than just once.