This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

← Catholics dictating terms

Catholics dictating terms - Comments

Bala's Avatar Comment 1 by Bala

The lengths the catholic church would go to!... tch tch tch! Reminds me of Jerry Falwell and how he blamed 9/11 on homosexuals. Now the RCC would blame lack of adoption and foster care on homosexuals and cite this as a reason why its evil!

Wed, 10 Mar 2010 11:27:00 UTC | #448025

ukantic's Avatar Comment 2 by ukantic

Short, sweet and to the point. 10/10

Wed, 10 Mar 2010 12:03:00 UTC | #448031

Rosbif's Avatar Comment 3 by Rosbif

Excellent as usual Paula.
But as you state, socety moved forward decades ago on the issue of same sex relationships so it is a little early to expect the RC do be in line. Wait 300 years and they will have had time to study all the scriptures - hidden and public- to work out which ones will need interpreting when their acceptance finally happens sometime in the 2300s.
Of course by then, the publicity machine will have been well and truely oiled so the RC will state with absolute authority that it has always approved this and there will even be articles claiming that infact Christians were the pioneers of same sex marriage, neatly forgetting the centuries of persecution before thier change of interpretation.
And whilst the thinkers will be appauled by such calous lies, there will be over a billion who whole heartedly thank the RC for the guidance.

Wed, 10 Mar 2010 12:11:00 UTC | #448033

Pete.K's Avatar Comment 4 by Pete.K

The Catholic church, that's the Mafia in frocks! The same methods are employed by both organisations, in fact I believe the Mafia learned their tricks from the Catholic church.
Protection racket

Fear of everlasting damnation is a drum they beat unceasingly, this is to intimidate the gullible so they can extort protection money out of them to ensure a place in heaven. Who paya this money to the Mafia, oops sorry, Catholic church, poor peasants and the weak who are easy prey for the dons, err I mean bishops!

Methods are the same, one is legal and the other isn't.......... why!

Wed, 10 Mar 2010 12:35:00 UTC | #448040

InYourFaceNewYorker's Avatar Comment 5 by InYourFaceNewYorker

Paula's writing kicks ass.

Really, why do so many people give a damn what people do in private? If they're so convinced that these people are going to hell, why is it their business? Let them! I really doubt that these people care about the "souls" of people they've never met. I think what's really going on is that people's perceptions of reality are threatened and they don't want to acknowledge that.


Wed, 10 Mar 2010 12:38:00 UTC | #448041

SaganTheCat's Avatar Comment 6 by SaganTheCat

ranked as excellent

the trouble with the church is it's so huge yet has only one voice representing it.

this is obvious of course but coming from a catholic family i can see how undemocratic it is. catholics, like all religious people, are hypocrites. I'm glad that as a young man i was lectured on being "safe" when i stay out all night dispite this being directly against the churches teachings

the current fuhrer is not as popular as the last one, he says things that many catholics find distasteful. in such a huge institution individuals are fairly free to have their own opinion because they're never called upon to to share it.

instead, like most religious people, they have their own world view, take the bits of catholicism they like (mostly gaudy pictures and statues and a belief that virgins have babies) and quietly disagree with the whole child-rapist protecting, holocaust-denying, misery-spreading views of the twisted old man at the top.

what they don't ever do though is stand up for what THEY believe in. just like the moderate muslims we want to hear more from, they shake their heads as if to say "well i don't agree with him but what can you do..£"

It angers me that religions demand protection within a democratic system. that it takes democracy for them to be free to make their case which is in itself an affront to democracy

i'm sure there are many catholics who would rather not discriminate against same sex partenrships given a choice

Wed, 10 Mar 2010 12:44:00 UTC | #448042

Cartomancer's Avatar Comment 7 by Cartomancer

I think the behaviour of catholic adoption agencies here is very instructive. It shows once and for all that their motives are self-serving first and humanitarian a poor third at best.

Never mind that there are children who need adopting, or that our employees desperately need partnership benefits (especially in the backward US where, for some reason, it is thought that the government has no responsibility to provide social security for its citizens). No, that's not nearly as important as the fact we disapprove of gays. Our position on ensuring the inequality of our fellow human beings takes precedence over any good we might incidentally do with our services. The mere thought that we might be allowing gay people the chance at parenthood, or subsidising the welfare of the partners of our gay employees (who we probably also expect to remain silent about their orientation) is so unthinkable that it automatically trumps all other concerns. Better there is no goodness or charity among all mankind than that gays are recognised as people too.

And these people have the cheek to demand a tax-free status under which to conduct such bigotry!

Just imagine if catholic charities acted like this in life-threatening, rather than merely welfare-threatening situations? Imagine if they said they would distribute food and aid to starving people, but only if they were not required to distribute it to the gay ones, and when told they couldn't discriminate like this they refused to help anyone at all? Oh, hang on, they kind of do that already with the no-condoms AIDS programmes - going against every piece of accepted scientific and social policy information that what they're doing doesn't work just because their bigotry demands it. And in that case it DOES cost millions of lives.

Wed, 10 Mar 2010 12:48:00 UTC | #448046

Carl Sai Baba's Avatar Comment 8 by Carl Sai Baba

Well, there you have it. When it comes to choosing between charitable work and ancient bigotry, they chose bigotry.

Write this in your notebooks so you can refer to it the next time some religious dipshit talks about religion as a motivation for good deeds.

Wed, 10 Mar 2010 13:49:00 UTC | #448056

crookedshoes's Avatar Comment 9 by crookedshoes

Paula has fast become among my favorite writers. I am often engaged in "discussion" with people who go to the church in my neighborhood. I have to endure lots of stupidity. However, none really measures up to the blatant acceptance of hypocrisy that believers will swallow on order to not confront contradictions in their belief systems.
Case in point,I thought these people were supposed to 'love thy brother", "judge not others", "turn the other cheek", "do unto others.." you get the point. However all that goes out the window when an actual sinner comes along. (Apologies to all my homosexual friends, I am projecting THEIR thought process, thankfully not my own). I was under the impression that the sinner is the one who should receive the most help and the most patience.
I also was under the impression that if you don't pay FUCKING TAXES you should stick to talking about make believe and allow the grown ups to handle the business of laws and government. I said that to one of the parishner/ neighbors and she said to me..."you act like all of the members of the church don't pay taxes". I asked her
"if the church were on fire how would it get put out? Who removes the churches garbage twice a week? Do the police patrol the church's parking lot? Who pays for that??? Yes, you and I. But the church doesn't offer a plugged fucking nickle and NEVER WILL. So as far as CONTROLLING these entities, your congregation has no right to even try."
She pursed her lips and walked away.

Wed, 10 Mar 2010 13:55:00 UTC | #448058

Armand K's Avatar Comment 10 by Armand K

Excellent piece, as most coming from Paula.

I can't help but see it as yet another "yes" to Tom Flynn's op-ed, "Pull the Plug on Catholic Charities", from the last issue of Free Inquiry (article which, incidentally, I just read the other day).

This last action of the RCC comes onyl to show one more time, if needed, that all their PR about "hate the sin but love the sinner" is only that: good sounding but devoid of substance advertising.

I must also say I'm not surprised. I grew up in a mildly Catholic milieu, and I didn't really need Pope B16's view on rooting out homosexuality as being "human ecology, correctly understood" (his very words in his Christmas 2008 speech, right before comparing it to the preservation of rain forests) to realize "they" don't see sexuality as a private matter.

EDIT: There's one other thing that comes to mind:

Or should government exempt such organizations from requirements that violate particular religious beliefs?

When it's about the Catholic Church and its Catholic Charities, the correct form of the question would be:

"Should government exempt such organizations from requirements that violate particular opinions of the head of a foreign country?"

It's an interesting fact that any policy of the Catholic Church is de facto the ruling of a foreign government for any other place in the world but the 0.45 sqkm enclave in the heart of Rome, Italy, that constitutes Vatican City.

Wed, 10 Mar 2010 14:01:00 UTC | #448060

mira's Avatar Comment 11 by mira

I've long found it sort of ironic that mafia members are into Catholicism (and Russian Orthodox) but now it's all clear - like seeks like.

Wed, 10 Mar 2010 14:24:00 UTC | #448065

Bonzai's Avatar Comment 12 by Bonzai

Fuck the Catholic Church.

It is a criminal syndicate, as it has demonstrated time and again in its long history. I wonder why anyone with a functioning brain cell would still think that it has moral authority on anything at all.

I really don't give a shit that the Catholic Church wants to discriminate gays. It is a given.

My only demand is that these hypocrites should give up their tax exemption status, or even better, that it be stripped from the Church by the state with a big public announcement explaining the reason.

There is no reason why gay tax payers should subsidize a private club which opening discriminate against them, not just for admission into the club, but in providing services ostensibly for the society as a whole. (Actually there is no reason why straight tax payers should subsidize religion either, but that is a broader topic.)

BTW, a full criminal investigation of the RC franchises over child abuse should be in order. Maybe it is a good thing after all that they are going to stop providing services for neglected children.

Wed, 10 Mar 2010 14:37:00 UTC | #448067

Tomahawk's Avatar Comment 13 by Tomahawk

Is Paula Catholic herself from a Catholic background? She targets the Catholic Church at every opportunity, over and above Islam and every other religion. She has gone on record saying Catholism is only slightly worse than Islam, a faith which doesn't just preach that homosexuals or wrong, but fines, arrests or kills homosexuals.

(WTF is up with the HTML?)

One thing I dislike about militant atheism is that it can so easily be put to use as a smoke screen for all kinds of hidden agendas. If Paula's own background isn't Catholic, I'm going to go ahead and call classism. I think she just doesn't like the white working class.

Wed, 10 Mar 2010 14:53:00 UTC | #448071

phatbat's Avatar Comment 14 by phatbat


Why on earth would she talk about anything other than catholics when the question asked of her was about the catholic church's behavior on this specific issue?

Wed, 10 Mar 2010 15:05:00 UTC | #448075

Tomahawk's Avatar Comment 15 by Tomahawk

You don't see her submitting articles about every question someone asks her. She singles out the Catholic Church repeatedly, and this is just another example.

Wed, 10 Mar 2010 15:09:00 UTC | #448078

Mark Jones's Avatar Comment 16 by Mark Jones

Comment #468074 by Tomahawk

If Paula's own background isn't Catholic, I'm going to go ahead and call classism. I think she just doesn't like the white working class.

So now Paula is a warrior against the working class, and the *white* working class at that? Brilliant. So would it be fair for me to call your overarching antipathy to Islam racism? I don't think so, and neither do I think your 'deduction' is fair.

Wed, 10 Mar 2010 15:20:00 UTC | #448082

Tyler Durden's Avatar Comment 18 by Tyler Durden

@Tomahawk -

Are you fully aware of the submisison terms and conditions of articles to the Washington Post? In other words, do you have a clue what you are talking about?

Wed, 10 Mar 2010 15:24:00 UTC | #448084

Jos Gibbons's Avatar Comment 17 by Jos Gibbons

Comment #468081 by Tomahawk

Kirby's opportunities to publish are in responses to questions journalists want her to write about, such as Washington on Post. Name one example of a topic connected with Islam on which she has similarly been asked to provide an article, but didn't, or admit you're wrong to hint they exist.

Wed, 10 Mar 2010 15:24:00 UTC | #448083

Colwyn Abernathy's Avatar Comment 19 by Colwyn Abernathy

Well done, again, Paula! I do so love reading your thoughts and commentary! :)

No - the church simply decrees that homosexuality is wrong, and expects our democratically elected governments to drop to their knees in blind obedience and submission.

As soon as someone can tell me the moral or ethical difference between hetero and homosexual practices I'll change my position. All the differences I've explored are based on bigotry, ignorance, or personal distaste. NONE of which are good enough to dictate law.

Wed, 10 Mar 2010 15:35:00 UTC | #448086

blayzekohime's Avatar Comment 20 by blayzekohime

Religious organizations should never receive government funding.

Wed, 10 Mar 2010 15:37:00 UTC | #448087

Bonzai's Avatar Comment 21 by Bonzai

Is Tomahawk actually Fanusi in disguise? :)

Wed, 10 Mar 2010 15:46:00 UTC | #448088

alaskansee's Avatar Comment 22 by alaskansee

Paula on the money again.

Sounds like Tomahawk has some suggestions for her next article!

I have a question for Tomahawk; What has being white and working class got to do with the piece anyway? Presumably you know/believe that she likes non-white working class plus white middle class (herself), perhaps non-white middle class too (from her specific affection of only non-white working class) couldn't deduct her stance on upper class though. Perhaps you could tell us all?

Kirby ranked as excellent
Tomahawk ranked as ignorant

Wed, 10 Mar 2010 16:00:00 UTC | #448089

LWS's Avatar Comment 23 by LWS

Dear Paula,

Thank you for another informative, intelligent commentary on the continued interference by this corporation that skirts the law to further an agenda that does not reflect contemporary attitudes or law.

Wherever the Roman Catholic corporate cult holds property it is protected. Seeing no evil is the norm while many are too afraid to point out that the culture, as dictated by the very bizarre Vatican nation is strange, anachronistic, Medieval and must go.

Riazat Butt (GU, Cif) showed another nasty side of US Catholicism in the piece “Notre Dame's tightrope walk”
“A cartoon published in the Observer, one of several college newspapers, depicted a conversation between two characters.
"What's the easiest way to turn a fruit into a vegetable?"
"No idea."
"A baseball bat."

Nasty huh!

Particularly disturbing is that the secret organization of the Vatican, a ‘men in skirts’, misogynist executive committee, continues to influence literally every Western government. Has no one else twigged that the charade is bizarre, abusive and given that the thing came into being early last century and really should be demolished that it isn’t a normal country.

On the subject of child abuse here’s the latest from the pope (yesterday):

"In order to complete these remarks, it is as well to recall once again that the Church exists as part of civil society and shoulders her own responsibilities in society, but she also has her own specific code, the 'canonical code', which reflects her spiritual and sacramental nature and in which, therefore, judicial and penal procedures are different (for example, they contain no provision for pecuniary sanctions or for the deprivation of freedom, but for impediment in the exercise of the ministry and privation of rights in the ecclesiastical field, etc.)."

It looks as if these monsters are unwilling to be held accountable in the criminal courts where all other perpetrators would be indicted and face public trials for corruption and abuse. Joe the Plumber can do time by Jose' the padre walks free.

Up until the Boston Globe went full tilt to nab the abusers in Massachusetts in the 1990s the criminal acts by priests there were above the law too. That is a really nice perk for the recruitment drive for the priesthood - commit any old crime and have no public liability -. Anyone with a penchant for deviant sex with kids would be obviously attracted to that. Now most men have to head to Thailand for child sex tourism.

Catholic clergy are still today protected from prosecution in Italy. That is shocking. WTF is wrong with Italians? IMO the mob there learned its trade in corruption from the RC-ism.

It is an uphill battle fighting the influence of religious corporations on our communities. If only everyone would realize that priests have no more insight into the after life than my old cat Kitty and they cannot cast an evil eye causing harm. Voodoo dolls are adorable artifacts however the spells are imaginary.


Wed, 10 Mar 2010 16:38:00 UTC | #448098

petermun's Avatar Comment 24 by petermun

If I didn't support free speech I'd say axe tomahawk.

Wed, 10 Mar 2010 16:48:00 UTC | #448100

Lendear's Avatar Comment 26 by Lendear

"If a church or other religious organization receives government funding, should it follow all government rules, including those against discrimination based on sexual orientation?"

Yes - If a church requests government funding, it will be obligated to the terms set forth by the funding agency.

No - If the government requests church services, it will be obligated to the agreement including terms prepared by the church. That is, if the church is wary and wishes to survive with its canon unshredded.

Wed, 10 Mar 2010 16:56:00 UTC | #448104

Tomahawk's Avatar Comment 25 by Tomahawk

She constantly singles out the Catholic faith. She has even gone on record saying that it is only slightly worse than Islam. She refused to change her mind even when presented with unassailable evidence such as that in dozens of Muslim countries, homosexuals are fined, arrested or killed.

Compared with this, opposition to gay marriage (near universally shared by Muslims anyway) is a spit in the ocean. Paula won't admit this because she is a classist bigot.

Hey, if Catholics are so backward, how is it that Ireland, a currently Catholic country, and France, a historically Catholic country, are among the most advanced countries in the world?

Wed, 10 Mar 2010 16:56:00 UTC | #448103

flibble's Avatar Comment 27 by flibble

goddamit Paula, I wish you'd write something that I didn't totally agree with once in a while, just for a bit of variety!

Wed, 10 Mar 2010 16:59:00 UTC | #448106

crookedshoes's Avatar Comment 28 by crookedshoes

We all constantly single out whatever bullshit organization we are asked about. I do not think of Paula as a bigot. You are welcome to your opinion. Your odd choice of attack, I think, offers us an opportunity to see projection at work. Poor you. Poor Catholics, always picked on, always martyred. You say, she has gone on record as saying it is "only slightly worse than Islam". So the ranking of despicability is the ax you are going to grind? Very strange. But, clearly projection.

Wed, 10 Mar 2010 17:09:00 UTC | #448110

Tyler Durden's Avatar Comment 29 by Tyler Durden

@Tomahawk -

Hey, if Catholics are so backward, how is it that Ireland, a currently Catholic country, and France, a historically Catholic country, are among the most advanced countries in the world?
Have you ever actually been to Ireland?

Wed, 10 Mar 2010 17:10:00 UTC | #448111

Left Ahead's Avatar Comment 30 by Left Ahead

Bravo, Paula!

And bravo, Cartomancer.

Maybe you two should write together.

You're both brilliantly clear, not to mention clearly brilliant.

Wed, 10 Mar 2010 17:21:00 UTC | #448117