I wager that the British can unleash more gleefully scathing insults than anyone else in the world. No one else gives as much robust verbal flavor and intellectual ass-whackery to those they wish to take down a notch or two. Take the delightful and brilliant author, scientist, and loud-and-proud atheist Richard Dawkins and his recent commendation of Pope Benedict XVI in the wake of many critiques and criticisms concerning child abuse in the Roman Catholic Church:

“Should the pope resign?”
No. As the College of Cardinals must have recognized when they elected him, he is perfectly – ideally – qualified to lead the Roman Catholic Church. A leering old villain in a frock, who spent decades conspiring behind closed doors for the position he now holds; a man who believes he is infallible and acts the part; a man whose preaching of scientific falsehood is responsible for the deaths of countless AIDS victims in Africa; a man whose first instinct when his priests are caught with their pants down is to cover up the scandal and damn the young victims to silence: in short, exactly the right man for the job. He should not resign, moreover, because he is perfectly positioned to accelerate the downfall of the evil, corrupt organization whose character he fits like a glove, and of which he is the absolute and historically appropriate monarch.

No, Pope Ratzinger should not resign. He should remain in charge of the whole rotten edifice – the whole profiteering, woman-fearing, guilt-gorging, truth-hating, child-raping institution – while it tumbles, amid a stench of incense and a rain of tourist-kitsch sacred hearts and preposterously crowned virgins, about his ears.

In the words of some college student somewhere… “Oh snap!”


Related Posts with Thumbnails

27 thoughts on “Dawkins: ‘Ratzinger is the Perfect Pope’”

Roof Woofer · March 30, 2010 at 10:03 am

Dawkins is a hater who, though he claims to embrace rational examination, is not much concerned about evidence or justice when it comes to religious issues. What a repellant diatribe. It’s disappointing that you chose to highlight this.

    Godless Girl · March 30, 2010 at 11:08 am

    Well, I highlighted it because it was a stinging slap to an institution I see as corrupt, outdated, and well deserving of it.

    Regarding the broader issues mentioned in his ‘diatribe’: I’d ask you who has lacked concern about justice more:
    A) Richard Dawkins who is calling a spade a spade, or
    B) The RCC which has continually covered up and whitewashed the criminal rape and abuses of children for years upon years; actively smeared healthy sexuality and safe sex and thus propagated the spread of AIDS in Africa; and committed many atrocities in its past including torture, wars, and so forth.

    I vote B!

      Roof Woofer · March 30, 2010 at 4:34 pm

      On the off chance that a straightforward response is in order:

      1) The incidents of child and adolescent abuse are absolutely inexcusable, those who enabled it were at best misguided and at worst horribly culpable, and serious problems in the organizational culture facilitated it all. You are absolutely right. Was the current Pope to blame? Well, you may want to read the actual documents that accompany the NYTimes story to see if they actually support what was written. (Hint: they don’t.) In fact, it was Archbishop Weakland, not the Pope, who only began to take steps to pass the buck to Rome (not the church courts who normally would have handled it) when he learned a lawsuit was imminent, years after the events. Weakland, by the way, was the one who retired after it was learned he paid his homosexual lover hush money out of church funds. His motivations for slow-walking a sex abuse case may need some exploring.

      2) Is teaching that sex is integrally part of marriage and that marriage is between a man and a woman the same as “smearing healthy sexuality?” If you believe it is, does disagreeing with that warrant the contemptuous and contemptible language Dawkins used?

      3) Have you seen the statistics on AIDS in Africa and the correlation (or lack thereof) of the incidence of HIV in a country with “safe-sex” education and the availability of condoms? Do you really believe that the reason the African people are being decimated by AIDS is that the Catholic Church disagrees that the distribution of condoms is a good thing?

      4) Do you really believe that the main historical contributions of the Catholic Church have been atrocities, wars and torture? Do you honestly believe that if the RCC never existed, the incidence of those things would be lower?

      I respect vigorous disagreement based on facts. This stuff isn’t it.

        Dougie · April 7, 2010 at 11:30 am

        I came across this article on Reddit and felt compelled to address your points, Roof Woofer:

        1. In 2001 then-Cardinal Ratzinger reinforced the church’s cover-up policy by updating the Crimen Sollicitationis. In it he introduced a new principle: the Vatican must have “exclusive competence” – all child abuse allegations must be dealt with direct by Rome. Full letter from him is here http://www.bishop-accountability.org/resources/resource-files/churchdocs/EpistulaEnglish.htm
        This is on top of the oath of secrecy required of all those investigating such abuse as outlined in the original 1962 document.

        2. Yes, condemning healthy sex outside marriage, and condemning homosexuality without reason and purely on ideological grounds is deplorable and worthy of nothing short of contempt. The Pope is, presumably, capable of making reason-based decisions, so his continued faith-based bigotry has no excuse.

        3. The Pope has actually accused condoms of “aggravating” the problems of HIV/Aids in Africa (March 2009). This is an overt distortion of scientific evidence as to their effectiveness (a commonly practiced Catholic deceit) and an incredibly negligent one to make for a man with influence over hundreds of millions of individuals under amplified risk of catching the virus. As for evidence to their effectiveness, the best success story of prevention in Uganda came with comprehensive sex education that covered abstinence and birth control both as viable options. When Bush’s global gag rule came into effect and abstinence only programs were taught, it damaged the progress inordinately.

        4. the RCC’s main contribution to society has been the promotion of ignorance and the retardation of mankind’s progress. It has also stoked the fires of numerous wars with its ideology and dogma, with its millennia-long charge of “deicide” placed around the necks of the routinely persectued and periodically massacred Jewish people being perhaps its most vulgar contribution.

doctor(logic) · March 30, 2010 at 11:31 am

I initially thought the Pope should resign, but, upon reflection, I think Dawkins has it just about right.

    Godless Girl · March 30, 2010 at 1:02 pm

    Oh I never once considered he would actually do it. That would mean that he wasn’t God’s appointed voice on earth; that he wasn’t a holy man; that the Church is nothing more than an organization with a shitty CEO.

    Trust me, that won’t happen. They can’t let the godless heathens win 😉

Passerby · April 7, 2010 at 3:43 pm

Roof Woofer,

Dawkins is a hater?

Tell me, what’s not to hate?

Jimmy Cracked Corn · April 7, 2010 at 6:34 pm

Fuck the Pope – Fuck the Rabbi – Fuck the Imam all three religions are guilty of confounded ignorance, perpetual delusion and fantasy about the world, and relegating the Western World into nothing short of madness over an outdated MYTH.

Hypersapien · April 7, 2010 at 6:56 pm

All you need to do to understand Dawkins’ point of view is actually look at the Catholic Church with your eyes open.

Wielki Bezboznik · April 7, 2010 at 9:15 pm

The longer this pope stays in office, and the longer the child abuse scandal rages in headlines around the world, the worse xtianity, and all religions in general, look.

fascist christ has a nazi pope

Stefan · April 8, 2010 at 2:49 am

I love Dawkins ! 🙂
.-= Stefan’s last blog ..На панти в Рила =-.

ReallyEvilCanine · April 8, 2010 at 2:54 am

RoofWoofer: WHAT “evidence” or “justice” are you referring to? There is NO evidence and outside Iran and Saudi Arabia, few people are willing to tolerate biblical “justice” (have you read Leviticus recently?). You also don’t really demonstrate your knowledge or credibility by referring to an esteemed biologist and professor with a high school epithet such as “a hater”.
.-= ReallyEvilCanine’s last blog ..Suit yourself =-.

J.O. · April 8, 2010 at 9:37 am

Anybody *really* interested in the *facts* has to inform oneself from both the accusing part, and the defending part.

This is the main principle of justice.

If you only believe the accuses, and shy away from informing yourself well, you will end up hating quite everybody: all of us have some enemy, and enemies are not interested in facts: they are only interested in accusations.

BTW, atheist is a very negative definition. I never actually heard of some positively formulated term. Why?

    Godless Girl · April 8, 2010 at 3:10 pm

    If you only believe the accuses, and shy away from informing yourself well, you will end up hating quite everybody

    Who do you see as being uninformed? If you are informed, why not share the missing insights or facts with us?

    “Atheist” is only negative if you feel negatively towards atheists 😉 It only means you do not believe in deities. How is that negative or positive? Is the word “Theist” more positive to you?

      J.O. · April 9, 2010 at 2:32 am

      OK, let’s state just 1 fact:
      99% of child abuse happens outside of the Church.

      The Church is currently doing very much to avoid the problem in future. Most states around the world do quite to nothing about this very severe problem…

      “Atheist” is not a real definition by itself: it takes theists, and *denies* it. It’s like defining yourself to be “not a monkey”. If I were an atheist, I would not be happy with this definition, and would try to find a better one.

        Mary M. Smith D.O. · April 9, 2010 at 8:40 am

        How about “realist” ?

          J.O. · April 9, 2010 at 12:52 pm

          “Realist” could in fact be quite accurate.

          Because realists lack optimism. Many of non religious folks are even worse: they are simply plain pessimists…

          Most of optimist people I know are religious (in my case: catholic).

          It’s even a fact that religious people are less prone to all kind of illness, because they are not closed to hope!

          Even if Religion would only be an invention of humans (but it isn’t, as everyone with real Faith knows), even in that case, it would be convenient to be religious, because otherwise you will not be able to have a really optimistic view for your life, for your children, for the future of youth, for the future of humans, for the future of everything…

Anthony · April 8, 2010 at 12:10 pm

“BTW, atheist is a very negative definition. I never actually heard of some positively formulated term. Why?”

Ummm… maybe because all it entails is a lack of assent to theism? You say this as if it were a bad thing. If it entailed the absolute affirmation of the non-existence of God, then the position would be just as dogmatic and unjustified as the theists that we are trying to distance ourselves from.

But anyway, the “negative” definition of atheism is a recent phenomenon, arguably started by a few “renegade” philosophers. They began to distinguish between negative and positive atheism. Negative atheism is the lack of belief in God, while positive atheism is the outright denial of the existence of God. (Positive atheism is the historical meaning that the term “atheism” has usually had, until recently.) Positive atheism makes a claim, while negative atheism does not. And seeing as how making a claim shifts the burden of proof to you to prove that claim, being a positive atheist would entail that one must prove that God does not exist in order to justify one’s claim. That’s not something that many people are prepared to do, and many agree that proving or disproving the existence of God is simply impossible anyway.

Philjz · April 8, 2010 at 4:05 pm

So what are we to do with all the agnostics? Sound like negative atheists to me.

Bruce · April 8, 2010 at 7:02 pm

Im an atheist, my wife is an agnostic. We couldnt agree what religion not to bring the children up with…Woody Allen

Irish · April 8, 2010 at 9:57 pm

Anybody who spends great lengths of time slamming other people’s beliefs (or lack thereof) really needs to get a life. Everybody has the right to believe (or not) what they want. This whole website (and posts) is pretty pathetic.

    Godless Girl · April 8, 2010 at 10:50 pm

    I can’t recall anywhere on my pathetic site where I’ve said people do not have the right to believe any and every superstition, fairy tale, preposterous lie that they please. Yes, we all have that right.

    But we also have the right to critique, disprove, and even mock those beliefs (or lack thereof).

Don · April 8, 2010 at 10:33 pm

Dawkins addressed the “negativity” of the word, atheist in his book The God Dellusion. It’s not to say that it is viewed negatively, rather that it is not the greatest use of the english language. One would not say a-santa-ist or a-toothfairy-ist because in general, disbelief in fairy tales is the natural state. So if deities are nothing more than fantasy or fiction, the natural default state is simply to reject the idea–which there is no term for.
The same principal does, in fact, apply to agnosticism. (a-without; gnosis-knowledge) It also applies to politics, since I can be apolitical.
However, I don’t have an issue with the word. It has negative conotations, but I don’t believe anything about the structure of the word is inherently discriminatory. Because of the pervasiveness of religion, there must be a way to differentiate those who don’t subscribe. I’m sure if enough people began to believe in Santa, we would come up with a word for those of us who don’t.

Mary M. Smith D.O. · April 9, 2010 at 8:43 am

Read this:

“Jesus Didn’t Go to Church” by Charlton S. Smith.

Creola Vallery · June 22, 2012 at 3:05 pm

I needed to post you that bit of note to be able to thank you very much over again for the superb suggestions you’ve provided in this case. This has been simply open-handed with you to present publicly all many people might have offered for sale for an electronic book to generate some cash for themselves, especially now that you could have tried it in the event you decided. These thoughts also served like a easy way to be aware that many people have a similar zeal just as mine to see a lot more with reference to this matter. I am certain there are numerous more enjoyable opportunities up front for individuals that discover your site.

Tweets that mention Richard Dawkins on Pope Benedict XVI and child abuse in the Catholic Church | Godless Girl -- Topsy.com · March 29, 2010 at 3:50 pm

[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by _7654_, Mike Child . Mike Child said: RT @godlessgirl: New blog! Dawkins: 'Ratzinger is the Perfect Pope' http://is.gd/b5Ayo […]

Richard Dawkins on Whether or Not the Pope Should Resign | danielmiessler.com · April 7, 2010 at 11:49 pm

[…] No, Pope Ratzinger should not resign. He should remain in charge of the whole rotten edifice – the whole profiteering, woman-fearing, guilt-gorging, truth-hating, child-raping institution – while it tumbles, amid a stench of incense and a rain of tourist-kitsch sacred hearts and preposterously crowned virgins, about his ears. via godlessgirl.com […]

Comments are closed.

Related Posts

my past

Be the One to Turn On the Light

I remember reluctantly stepping out of faith into atheism feeling as if everything I cared about had been erased against my will. My community support structure was gone; my family now felt like strangers; and I had Read more…


A Little “Thank You” to Atheism

Thank you, Atheism, for: Causing me to realize my ethics need to come from my own truth, and not from someone’s interpretation of a book or prophetic message. Challenging me when I was comfortable and Read more…


Let’s Give It Up for the WTF

I love that somewhere out there in the world lives a person who uses precious minutes of their day to comment on reviews of Snow White and the Huntsman like this: THANK YOU TO THE USA. Read more…