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

paul fauvet's Profile

paul fauvet's Avatar Joined over 7 years ago
Gender: Male

Latest Discussions Started by paul fauvet

More Discussions by paul fauvet

Latest Comments by paul fauvet

Go to: Richard Dawkins Has a Point, Your Eminence!

paul fauvet's Avatar Jump to comment 59 by paul fauvet

There are some real gems in Matt's paper "The Remnant". Here's what it thinks about Barack Obama:

"Even more troubling for the faithful than financial disasters should be the attacks of this President upon the moral and constitutional fabric of this Nation. In less than one full term in office he has succeeded in at least two areas where President Bill Clinton before him failed: imposing open homosexuality upon the military and imposing health care upon the nation.... A comparison between Caesar Nero and President Obama is not a stretch, even beyond that of fiddling around while the world around them burns down. Many believed that Nero himself set the fires in Rome to burn away the slums and make room for his capital expansion; many believe that Obama intends to bring down America in order to make room for some new global form of government".

I'm not making this up! "The Remnant" really does think that Obama's timid reforms are "imposing health care on the nation".

Sat, 28 Apr 2012 05:58:01 UTC | #937901

Go to: Richard Dawkins Has a Point, Your Eminence!

paul fauvet's Avatar Jump to comment 35 by paul fauvet

Matt and his paper "The Remnant" can scarcely be described as Catholic at all. They reject the authority of the Second Vatican Council, and want to undo all the timid reforms that were ushered in by Vatican II. Notably, they want to reinstate the Latin Mass.

They are a bit like the crazed anti-semites of the Pius X Society, though I don't think they have actually been excommunicated.

They whine against the whole of the modern world, and see enemies everywhere. Here, for example, are a few choice words from"The Remnant" about Harry Potter:

"Harry Potter is a wizard, i.e. a man of evil whose final destination, as clearly stated in the Word of God, is Hell. Yet through intricate plot manipulations and a clever corruption of symbols, he is made no less than a type of Christ, the Lamb without blemish. The cunning manipulators who achieved such a literary tour de force counted heavily on the public’s general ignorance of the subject of witchcraft and even more on gross ignorance of its own religion".

They are in short a crazy cult on the margins of Catholicism. Poe Ratzinger is much less nutty, and much more dangerous.

Fri, 27 Apr 2012 17:25:19 UTC | #937779

Go to: The 50 Most Brilliant Atheists of All Time

paul fauvet's Avatar Jump to comment 8 by paul fauvet

Has the author never heard of Karl Marx?

The complete absence of the marxist tradition suggests that this is a politically censored list.

You might not like their politics, but the brilliance of Marx, Friedrich Engels, Vladimir Lenin, Leon Trotsky, Nikolai Bukharin, Antonio Gramsci and Rosa Luxemburg seems beyond dispute. And they have certainly had a large impact on history than Mick Jagger or Jodie Foster.

Sun, 13 Nov 2011 17:21:23 UTC | #889838

Go to: The Magic of Reality by Richard Dawkins (illustrated by Dave McKean)

paul fauvet's Avatar Jump to comment 85 by paul fauvet

"Religions do not depend upon their myths and miracles" - from this startling statement, I can only deduce that Colin Tudge is not very familiar with the New Testament.

Last time I looked at the Gospels they were fill of miracles - turning water into wine, raising a man from the dead, feeding thousands of people with a few loaves and a couple of fishes, walking on water etc. And at the Catholic grammar school I had the misfortune to attend in London, we were solemnly told that it was all true. Every word of it. Not symbolic, not poetic, but absolutely, one hundred per cent true. I suspect that the Jesuit priests who taught us this knew rather more about their religion than Tudge does.

The greatest miracle of all is the resurrection of Christ. That's absolutely fundamental to all mainstream brands of Christianity. Does Tudge really know many Christians who say "oh, that's not really true, it's just a symbol"?

Catholics also believe that a priest's blessing turns the eucharist wafer and the communion wine into the body and blood of Christ. Again, it's not a symbol - the doctrine of transubstantiation is that the miraculous transformation really does happen, and that the unassuming bit of leavened bread really is the body of a man who died a couple of millennia ago.

Doubtless Tudge thinks that Catholics shouldn't hold such strange beliefs. But the awkward fact is that they do, and it's a cornerstone of their religion.

Tudge, in fact, shows much more disrespect towards religious believers than Dawkins does. For Dawkins takes them at their word, and looks at the belief systems in their holy texts, and what their leaders actually say. Tudge, on the other hand, says "well they don't really believe all that stuff about resurrection".

If I were still a catholic, I think I'd feel much more insulted by Tudge than by Dawkins.

Sat, 24 Sep 2011 07:53:07 UTC | #874682

Go to: The New Inquisition – the Roman Catholic Man Cult’s modern War on Women

paul fauvet's Avatar Jump to comment 19 by paul fauvet

This won't do. The author seems to think that everything was fine in the ancient world before Constantine converted to christianity.

So we have the claim that "the Greco-Roman concepts of democracy were long forgotten as pagan deceits". In reality, ancient democracy was restricted to Athens and a few of its satellites, and flourished for at most 150 years in the fifth and fourth centuries BC. It was finally destroyed, not by any Christian, but by Alexander the Great.

Nor was it a democracy that we would recognise, since the great majority of the population (women, slaves and freed slaves) had no right to vote.

"Greco-Roman" is a slight of hand - at no time could the Roman Republic, much less the Roman Empire ever have been described as democratic, even in the Athenian sense.

Then we have the reference to "the militaristic and murderous Constantine", as if the pagan emperors who preceded him were not militaristic and murderous. Those emperors included Tiberius, Caligula and Nero, who are not normally regarded as paragons of virtue. Since the Roman Empire was essentially a military dictatorship, even the relatively humane and intellectual emperors, such as Marcus Aurelius, spent much of their time waging war.

The author's main point - about the hatred of women that suffuses the catholic church - is certainly correct, but the case is weakened by idealising the Roman Empire before Constantine.

Tue, 21 Dec 2010 21:42:54 UTC | #566969

More Comments by paul fauvet