god you guys are stupid

1/17/2011 10:40:57 AM

Quote :

"god you guys are stupid"

Excellent repartee. I think it is rational to assume you have conceded the point.

1/17/2011 10:44:33 AM

i'm right, and there isn't really any discussion or question about that, but you all are re-goddamn-tarded.

1/17/2011 11:10:48 AM

Quote :

"i'm right, and there isn't really any discussion or question about that, but you all are re-goddamn-tarded."

Way to concede like a five year old.

[Edited on January 17, 2011 at 12:06 PM. Reason : redundant]

1/17/2011 12:06:23 PM

i'll take that as your concession

1/17/2011 12:16:56 PM

You do know that the Vatican doesn't just legitimize every rumored miracle? They do investigate them. Now I'm sure there are time when the reports are somewhat rubber stamped, and clearly this is a high profile situation.

It's strange to be bashing the 2011 Catholic Church for its stance on science, in comparison to other religions at least. For example, it doesn't a priori reject evolution. And you do know that the Vatican has an astronomical observatory in Arizona? I actually met one of the priests who worked there. He was on sabbatical in Raleigh--not exactly the irrational Luddite type.

I also agree that the reporter was simply stating the story of the supposed miracle. They probably didn't allot time to discuss all the technical details of the investigation. It sounds like an editor's/producer's decision more than anything else. They would rather devote time to some other topic that they feel would keep viewers.

1/17/2011 5:01:56 PM

Quote :

"You do know that the Vatican doesn't just legitimize every rumored miracle? They do investigate them. Now I'm sure there are time when the reports are somewhat rubber stamped, and clearly this is a high profile situation."

A similar incredible claim in the scientific field would be thoroughly investigated by people without vested interests. I am pretty certain that this wasn't investigated in a manner that would satisfy the scientific community (you do realize that miracles are not an accepted phenomenon in the scientific community?)
I even alluded to this in my previous analogy:
"The claims of being able to fly have been examined by the "we want super heros scientists"
in my analogy.

Quote :

"It's strange to be bashing the 2011 Catholic Church for its stance on science, in comparison to other religions at least"

Oh so now expecting the media to ask a couple questions to determine the veracity of some batshit claim is "bashing"...

Quote :

"They probably didn't allot time to discuss all the technical details of the "investigation"."

Fixed it for you.

The real question is would you feel the same if this was the story being reported?

Quote :

" Superhero reporter Frank: "Bladdy Blah was able to fly for five minutes using only the power of his mind because of this he is being granted super hero status. Super hero status is only awarded to people who have shown super hero powers that have been verified by the "we want superheroes board". The claims of being able to fly have been examined by the "we want super heros scientists" and consequently by the board. Obviously Bladdy Blah is going to be a superhero" "

Please remember to be open minded enough to realize that to an atheist this story sounds just as credible as the supposed miracle story.

[Edited on January 17, 2011 at 5:26 PM. Reason : asdf]

1/17/2011 5:18:07 PM

do reporters from the CSM also need a disclaimer and follow up questions now?

you guys are retarded

Quote :

" Please remember to be open minded enough to realize that to an atheist this story sounds just as credible as the supposed miracle story. "

most people get that. which is why when a news story is about church business, no one needs to point out that not everyone believes it. thats understood. also, when questioning a reporter its retarded to try to call them out on something they are simply reporting on.

you all still don't get that the story isn't the miracle, but about the possible sainthood. the reason for the sainthood is the supposed miracle, as was reported, it doesn't need to be explained. the fact that is is framed in the context of being a story about church business makes any explanation even more retarded. christ you all are retarded.

[Edited on January 17, 2011 at 5:46 PM. Reason : ,]

1/17/2011 5:43:48 PM

Quote :

"If 25% of our population thought crazy shooter dude was providing good information in his videos you could expect some refutation of obviously baseless claims presented. It is interesting that you would analogize Catholic claims to crazy shooter dude."

So the media should only tell us what to think if a certain percentage of the population disagrees with you. Care to tell me exactly where that threshold is?

The point is you don't actually expect the media to question every laughable claim. You've just got your panties in a bunch about religion.

Quote :

"The story here is about Bladdy Blah being granted superhero status not about his supposed flying no follow up questions necessary. Right? "

These bizarre analogies are not really helpful. But assuming that Bladdy Blah had played a role in leading a billion people who already thought he had magic powers anyway, who revered him and were awaiting his being declared a superhero, then yeah, that's what the story would be about.

Quote :

"Needless to say, there was no such context given in the CNN report."

I would say the context is so obvious that it has become a part of the English language: Is the Pope Catholic?

It's made clear that the people doing the "verifying" are Catholics in the employ of the Vatican. "Theologians, cardinals, and bishops" are obvious, and "doctors" only allows wiggle room for the dumbest of people. I suppose you could have spelled out the context clearly and said, "A bunch of Catholics believe in Catholicism," but I guess CNN thought that we were smarter than that.

1/17/2011 6:05:51 PM

Quote :

"It's made clear that the people doing the "verifying" are Catholics in the employ of the Vatican. "Theologians, cardinals, and bishops" are obvious, and "doctors" only allows wiggle room for the dumbest of people. I suppose you could have spelled out the context clearly and said, "A bunch of Catholics believe in Catholicism," but I guess CNN thought that we were smarter than that."

However as you have readily adimitted in other threads america is full of dumbfucks. These people likely view "doctor" verification as proof of a miracle. It is interesting that CNN didn't qualify it as Catholic or Vatican doctors isn't it?

Quote :

" These bizarre analogies are not really helpful. But assuming that Bladdy Blah had played a role in leading a billion people who already thought he had magic powers anyway, who revered him and were awaiting his being declared a superhero, then yeah, that's what the story would be about. "

You would be fine with something so obviously false not being questioned by the media because many people believe it? REALLY? So I guess it is the medias job to conform to perceptions if they are widely accepted even if they are ridiculous and obviously false?

Quote :

" So the media should only tell us what to think if a certain percentage of the population disagrees with you. Care to tell me exactly where that threshold is? The point is you don't actually expect the media to question every laughable claim. You've just got your panties in a bunch about religion."

To many people this isn't a laughable claim and CNN didn't approach it as a laughable claim (you & I both know that so don't bullshit). In the previous quote you demonstrated an understanding of the difference between a widely held belief and something only an insane minority would believe so yet again I think you are being disingenuous. Nice sounding rhetoric though.

1/17/2011 6:44:17 PM

1. CNN said "supposed"
2. They are talking about church business, the context that this is about church stuff is so in-your-face we are having trouble understanding why you are having trouble with this.

how about this real-life analogy:
recently i watched commentators on CNN discuss differences between the beliefs of sunni and shia muslims. did they ever offer a disclaimer or challenge the beliefs of those groups? no. the context is understood, "some people believe this so its worth discussing, that doesn't mean we do or that it's real." Never once was I (or any reasonable person) confused about this. One of the commentators was even muslim himself, yet we can still have a discussion with him without a disclaimer because the story wasn't about the accuracy of the beliefs but how they were leading to disputes.

by your standard, anything remotely associated to any kind of religion needs to be challenged even when it's clear that its about something not everyone believes. perhaps CSM should just have a blinking ticker offering a disclaimer anytime their reporters are interviewed?

1/17/2011 7:04:37 PM

Quote :

"only, not really "

They really can, but no one cares to listen. It's too entrenched in our society and other societies for it to really even matter at this point.

1/17/2011 10:01:36 PM

When will all the asshole atheists stop picking on the oppressed and downtrodden Christians? It's not like they're affecting legislation or the spread of AIDS or anything.

Quote :

"by your standard, anything remotely associated to any kind of religion needs to be challenged even when it's clear that its about something not everyone believes. perhaps CSM should just have a blinking ticker offering a disclaimer anytime their reporters are interviewed?"

It's not about what "not everyone believes." It's about what is true. When someone makes an absolutely impossible claim that if proven would arguably be one of the most important events of the last 1000 years, you'd expect just a little more due diligence. The problem that atheists have with this (and it goes on constantly) is that's it's a general affirmation of superstitious beliefs without even a question to their veracity. It's the cardinal sin of skepticism. And it breeds such inanities as "you can't disprove x" or "do we have to add a disclaimer because some people don't believe x."

Any claim is either true or it isn't. Skeptics demand proof for the most extraordinary claims and get the luxury of getting called dicks and assholes for their trouble.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
V, whoa there Laz. Calling unproven impossible claims "silly tales" will get you called an asshole or 'militant atheist' around here.

[Edited on January 18, 2011 at 10:02 AM. Reason : .]

1/18/2011 9:39:23 AM

Quote :

"It's made clear that the people doing the "verifying" are Catholics in the employ of the Vatican. "Theologians, cardinals, and bishops" are obvious, and "doctors" only allows wiggle room for the dumbest of people. I suppose you could have spelled out the context clearly and said, "A bunch of Catholics believe in Catholicism," but I guess CNN thought that we were smarter than that."

There are two problems I have with this sort of thing. The first is that it peddles (or allows to be peddled) quackery to people who aren't, for any number of reasons, educated enough to know better, and who rely on trusted sources for medical advice. Consider me unsold on the notion that all of the world's Catholics are already set in their ways. If they were, the Vatican wouldn't be churning out saints at such a remarkable clip. These publicity stunts have an impact - that's why they do it!

The second thing I find unfortunate is how our society, as reflected through our journalism, creates a special exemption for religious claims, be they on anthropology, astronomy, biology, morality... the list goes on. If you call yourself a priest, or speak on one's behalf, you can say just about anything without being challenged. You could, for example, tell a silly tale about a woman being cured of Parkinson's disease by writing the pope's name on a piece of paper and sleeping on it. Or you could talk about how the earth is 6,000 years old, or how evolution is a Satanic myth, or how this ethnic group or another is God's favorite, and so on. I know perfectly well why this is the case; where you and I differ is that I think it's a shame.

1/18/2011 9:43:26 AM

Quote :

"Or you could talk about how the earth is 6,000 years old, or how evolution is a Satanic myth, or how this ethnic group or another is God's favorite, and so on. I know perfectly well why this is the case; where you and I differ is that I think it's a shame. "

I don't know what universe you live in, but mainstream "journalism" does not endorse those stories, or allow them to be presented as factual. Not even Fox News.

In fact, unless there's an upcoming holiday, the vast majority of religion stories portray Christians as intolerant simpletons.

You're like those fuckwads who get offended whenever someone says "Happy Holidays". Instead of protesting the implication that Christmas is not right and true, you froth whenever the media reports on spirituality without an accompanying disclaimer: "FACT -> RELIGION IS MEGA DUMB". I think you have some kind of filter between your senses and your brain. It screens-out information that contradicts your "War on Secularity" worldview, and amplifies any implication that religion is not a horrific abomination.

I don't mean to imply that mainstream journalism is always right. There are plenty of garbage stories out there, presented with too little skepticism. Hell, "news" is really driven by whatever gets the most viewers or the most web-site hits. However, the excerpt you quoted in the OP is perfectly acceptable journalism. The story is presented with a modicum of skepticism, and the position of the Anchor and John Allen is that of two outsiders examining a curious, arcane tradition.

1/18/2011 10:42:00 AM

I'd like to join whatever universe you're in where

A)Fox News isn't overtly pro-Christian.
B)All other news sources challenge superstitious claims on a regular basis.

1/18/2011 11:06:29 AM

I'll grant that I may have missed where Fox News stated "evolution is a Satanic myth".

1/18/2011 11:30:52 AM

Quote :

"It's not about what "not everyone believes." It's about what is true. When someone makes an absolutely impossible claim that if proven would arguably be one of the most important events of the last 1000 years, you'd expect just a little more due diligence."

the story is not about an impossible claim, its about possible sainthood for john paul II

1/18/2011 11:38:04 AM

This thread is about miraculous claims (see the bolded print in the OP) not being challenged in any way when they are religious claims.

It's a special exemption religion gets but does not deserve either in the name of tolerance or lack of critical thinking.

1/18/2011 11:50:09 AM

Quote :

""CNN Anchor: "First of all, let's talk about the supposed miracle.""

This is where CNN establishes their position: "This story is not fact"

1/18/2011 12:30:37 PM

^^ it's not about miraculous claims, its about calling out a CNN anchor for not probing more deeply on something that wasn't the story when they were talking to a reporter, not even a church official. its not special exemption because its not needed, looking only at the bolded part is laughable because you ignore the entire context of the story.

I'm not someone who thinks Christians are persecuted and the media is out to get them, but I also don't think that this is an example of them getting any kind of free pass. Are examples out there, I would be pretty confident that they are, but this is not one of them. If you are really basing your cause on this exchange you just make yourself look like an unreasonable retard.

1/18/2011 12:36:24 PM

I mean granted I can't speak for lazarus and what the point of his thread is but based on the OP and succeeding conversation by him I think I did a reasonable job of summing up the point of this thread.

Quote :

"its not special exemption because its not needed, looking only at the bolded part is laughable because you ignore the entire context of the story. "

The context of the story is an unbelievable claim which if true would revolutionize modern medicine is being used as the basis of a pointless act of ritual that more than a billion people on this planet base their life decisions around. The fact that you, the reporter, and everyone else isn't freaking out about the gravity of the claim is the exception. And it's not like the religious are being ignored. We don't just gloss over their craziness and dismiss them as crazy. Reports on CNN like this act to legitimize the claims. Which again if you're following are only allowed to be there because they're religious.

I'm not basing any cause on anything, I'm discussing the topic at hand in this thread. Is this where I call you a name?

[Edited on January 18, 2011 at 12:50 PM. Reason : .]

1/18/2011 12:48:02 PM

Quote :

"when they were talking to a reporter, not even a church official"

You do understand of course that he isn't simply a reporter. He is John Allen national catholic "reporter". Do you not think that he would be versed in the details surrounding this "miracle"? I don't think it would be irrational to refer to him as a Catholic mouthpiece. His best known work: "The Word from Rome/ All things Catholic"


It's funny cause I remarked on this on the previous page and your response was:

Quote :

" god you guys are stupid"

1/18/2011 1:08:18 PM

Quote :

"It is interesting that CNN didn't qualify it as Catholic or Vatican doctors isn't it? "

Not really. If nothing else, the amount of detail you people seem to demand from what is essentially a celebrity piece is astonishing, as is the implication you seem to make here that CNN is a mouthpiece for Roman Catholicism.

They didn't qualify the theologians as being Catholic, either. Maybe some Baptists out there think it was Baptist theologians and now they believe in this miracle too.

Quote :

"So I guess it is the medias job to conform to perceptions if they are widely accepted even if they are ridiculous and obviously false?"

The line between editorials and news is blurry enough on television, the last thing I want is anchors deciding that they have argue with every goddamn thing that comes across their desk. In this case, they seem to have reported the news, keeping it to basic facts: The Vatican said that the last Pope did some magic shit after he died, so they're going to promote him. This is relevant information to some 68 million American Catholics, and to anybody who had a hard-on for the old bastard.

If there were some significant number of people opposed to the Vatican making this declaration of magic shit, it would probably be appropriate to mention them as well. But even among atheists I think it would be a small number that could get themselves worked up enough about this case to form some organized opposition.

Quote :

"To many people this isn't a laughable claim and CNN didn't approach it as a laughable claim "

They didn't approach it as a laughable claim because it's not their job to do so.

Quote :

"Skeptics demand proof for the most extraordinary claims and get the luxury of getting called dicks and assholes for their trouble."

It's your right and prerogative to demand proof, I just think it's kinda dumb to demand that CNN try to disprove things they never said were true in the first place.

If CNN says, "This miracle has occurred, proving that the Catholic Church is the one true way!" then yeah, that would be a good time to demand something substantial. When CNN says, "Catholics say Catholic shit happened!" that is not such a good time.

Quote :

"The first is that it peddles (or allows to be peddled) quackery to people who aren't, for any number of reasons, educated enough to know better, and who rely on trusted sources for medical advice. "

No medical advice was given at any point in the segment you quoted, and I'm going to assume that in no other section were prayer cards recommended as a treatment for Parkinson's disease. The segment was not about medicine, and made only the briefest and tangential references to it. Meanwhile a great deal of medical news is presented and described as such every day. Maybe all Catholics aren't set in their ways, but anybody who decides to follow the advice that is not given in this segment (even if you continue to insist that advice is given) and ignores every other piece of news about Parkinson's disease or any other is already well beyond your grasp.

Quote :

"The second thing I find unfortunate is how our society, as reflected through our journalism, creates a special exemption for religious claims, be they on anthropology, astronomy, biology, morality..."

Does it? Really? Because I see these things challenged all the fucking time. I was challenging the 6,000 year old Earth thing when I was twelve, because my public school education challenged it right the fuck out of the picture. (Seriously. I was banned from the carpool for calling a fellow rider stupid for saying evolution was fake.)

Quote :

"The context of the story is an unbelievable claim which if true would revolutionize modern medicine is being used as the basis of a pointless act of ritual that more than a billion people on this planet base their life decisions around."

Cut it with this "would revolutionize modern medicine" crap. Virtually everything any religion says would, if proven to be true, revolutionize everything. That's part of what this "exception" you keep referring to really is: mundanity. Oh, the Pope says he did some magic shit? Pfft, he claims that at every mass, every baptism, every confession...pretty much everything he does in his religious capacity. When a scientist makes a bold new claim we jump on it to find out of its viable because it's new. Roman Catholicism hasn't really had any bold new claims in a thousand years, so what point in challenging every repeat of the same old shit?

1/18/2011 3:02:06 PM

i actually already responded to it, in fact i posed a couple questions about CSM

however, i stand by the assertion that you are an idiot

1/18/2011 3:03:02 PM

Quote :

"Cut it with this "would revolutionize modern medicine" crap. Virtually everything any religion says would, if proven to be true, revolutionize everything. That's part of what this "exception" you keep referring to really is: mundanity. Oh, the Pope says he did some magic shit? Pfft, he claims that at every mass, every baptism, every confession...pretty much everything he does in his religious capacity. When a scientist makes a bold new claim we jump on it to find out of its viable because it's new. Roman Catholicism hasn't really had any bold new claims in a thousand years, so what point in challenging every repeat of the same old shit?"

And bingo you've encountered the crux of the problem: superstitious miraculous claims treated as "mundanity" and not lunacy. Claims not seriously scrutinized and tested. Millions of people nod their heads and say "yep, the Pope cured that disease after he was dead." And then I, being in some crazy bizarro world, have to explain why this is a bad thing for everyone involved.

Just because the claims aren't new doesn't mean they are true and shouldn't be investigated. That's the point of this thread. If I were to get on national cable television news and claim that I'd healed a person's Parkinson's disease with my mind, what would happen? But the religious get to claim a dead person did the same and you get to tell me how it's fine because that's the way it's always been done. Forgive me if I'm not compelled by that line of reasoning.

[Edited on January 18, 2011 at 3:38 PM. Reason : unnecessary bolding ]

1/18/2011 3:37:33 PM

So, to summarize Grumpy's argument: The miraculous healing featured in this story is irrelevant because faith healing is just a silly little thing the Vatican trots out every now and then to get some press. And the fact that journalists aren't more skeptical of the claim is not a big deal because journalists cannot possibly be expected to ask questions about the subjects they cover.

1/18/2011 3:54:08 PM

they weren't covering the miracle, they were covering the possible sainthood

i think this sums things up nicely

Quote :

"When CNN says, "Catholics say Catholic shit happened!" that is not such a good time. "

1/18/2011 4:16:05 PM

You atheists are going to be pissed on Feb 2nd. Some straight-batshit mysticism is going to be reported on, and its validity is NOT GOING TO BE CRITICALLY EXAMINED.

1/18/2011 5:05:19 PM

Yeah, when the Groundhoggians start impacting our lives as much as the Christians, I will be as pissed.

Groundhog day is fucking retarded tho.

[Edited on January 18, 2011 at 5:15 PM. Reason : will]

1/18/2011 5:12:22 PM

Well they control the length of winter

1/18/2011 5:20:23 PM

^well played

1/18/2011 5:48:40 PM

Quote :

"Millions of people nod their heads and say "yep, the Pope cured that disease after he was dead." And then I, being in some crazy bizarro world, have to explain why this is a bad thing for everyone involved. "

This, by itself, is not really a bad thing. As long as this belief doesn't preclude people from seeking real medical help, and as long as it doesn't affect funding for medical research, who gives a shit? So people put cards under their beds. It ain't gonna work, but who cares? Or maybe, like McDanger said, there's even some little placebo effect.

Quote :

"If I were to get on national cable television news and claim that I'd healed a person's Parkinson's disease with my mind, what would happen?"

You wouldn't get on national cable news because you're a nobody. The purpose of news is to cover big, important things. Regardless of whether it's good or bad, the Catholic church is big and important. You're one angry internet atheist (or, in this case, one self-proclaimed healer) with no following or national prominence.

If the issue is the press aspect then there you have it. CNN doesn't cover every crazy person's claims because no one gives a shit. But get a billion crazy people together and people give a shit about what they're saying.

Quote :

"The miraculous healing featured in this story is irrelevant because faith healing is just a silly little thing the Vatican trots out every now and then to get some press."

I suspect it gets trotted out way less often than they think it's happened. As you say, we've had a shit-ton of new saints in our lifetimes, but not nearly a commensurate number of miracles reported in the press. Once again, neither CNN nor the vast majority of people (even Catholics) give two shits about this miracle except insofar as it impacts the legacy of an old Polack they liked.

Quote :

"And the fact that journalists aren't more skeptical of the claim is not a big deal because journalists cannot possibly be expected to ask questions about the subjects they cover."

It's not a big deal because it is not the press's job to argue with various beliefs, be they religious, political, what have you. If the belief is influential for whatever reason you should probably report what it is.

It's not a big deal because the news should be giving us important information about current events, not attempting to dismantle organized religion one minor story at a time.

It's not a big deal because so far we just have some religious decree with no likely tangible consequence. If the Vatican had said we needed to kill all the Hawaiians because they were demon spawn, we ought to talk about it.

It's not a big deal because it's simply not a big deal -- it was a minor story that I'll wager few people saw. I watch CNN compulsively when I'm at home and check the website several times a day and I didn't hear anything about this until you posted it. If this was something receiving heavy coverage I'd allow that, well fuck, if you're gonna talk about it so much, you should probably present other opinions.

Quote :

"Yeah, when the Groundhoggians start impacting our lives as much as the Christians, I will be as pissed."

There are many practices that some Christians pursue that impact our lives in negative ways. You want to start complaining about intelligent design or messing with legislation or telling people not to use condoms, those are legitimate things to complain about. They should be (and are) questioned and challenged.

This thing impacts you in no way, shape, or form.

1/18/2011 5:55:42 PM

Quote :

"If the issue is the press aspect then there you have it. CNN doesn't cover every crazy person's claims because no one gives a shit. But get a billion crazy people together and people give a shit about what they're saying."

Yeah, that sums it up pretty well.

1/18/2011 6:32:26 PM

Quote :

"I have no problem with them not getting medical attention for their own ailments. Let em die it is their gods will (or whatever the hell they want to believe). What I do have a problem with is their beliefs altering my ability to get medical treatment or my hypothetical children to receive a scientific education which I pay for with my taxes. That is a whole new can of worms though. "

A hard-line Christian might say the same thing...

Quote :

"They really can, but no one cares to listen. It's too entrenched in our society and other societies for it to really even matter at this point."

no, they really can't.

1/18/2011 9:52:20 PM

Quote :

"That's their prerogative. It will almost certainly lead some devout Catholics, particularly in third world countries, where seeking out legitimate medical treatment can be something of a burden, to simply forgo it in favor the old write-the-pope's-name-on-an-index-card technique."

In terms of scale of number of people hurt by a dumb policy, I think this is on the low end of concern. Abortions being banned when the life of the mother is at stake, condom use, and the whole pedophile scandal which was in the news again today:


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110118/ap_on_re_eu/eu_ireland_catholic_abuse

Quote :

"Vatican warned Irish bishops not to report abuse By SHAWN POGATCHNIK, Associated Press Shawn Pogatchnik, Associated Press – Tue Jan 18 DUBLIN – A 1997 letter from the Vatican warned Ireland's Catholic bishops not to report all suspected child-abuse cases to police — a disclosure that victims' groups described as "the smoking gun" needed to show that the church enforced a worldwide culture of covering up crimes by pedophile priests. The newly revealed letter, obtained by Irish broadcasters RTE and provided to The Associated Press, documents the Vatican's rejection of a 1996 Irish church initiative to begin helping police identify pedophile priests following Ireland's first wave of publicly disclosed lawsuits. The letter undermines persistent Vatican claims, particularly when seeking to defend itself in U.S. lawsuits, that Rome never instructed local bishops to withhold evidence or suspicion of crimes from police. It instead emphasizes the church's right to handle all child-abuse allegations and determine punishments in house rather than give that power to civil authorities. Signed by the late Archbishop Luciano Storero, Pope John Paul II's diplomat to Ireland, the letter instructs Irish bishops that their new policy of making the reporting of suspected crimes mandatory "gives rise to serious reservations of both a moral and canonical nature." Storero wrote that canon law, which required abuse allegations and punishments to be handled within the church, "must be meticulously followed." Any bishops who tried to impose punishments outside the confines of canon law would face the "highly embarrassing" position of having their actions overturned on appeal in Rome, he wrote. Catholic officials in Ireland and the Vatican declined AP requests to comment on the letter, which RTE said it received from an Irish bishop. Child-abuse activists in Ireland said the 1997 letter demonstrates that the protection of pedophile priests from criminal investigation was not only sanctioned by Vatican leaders but ordered by them."

1/19/2011 1:50:13 AM

Quote :

"no, they really can't"

If an ancient scroll were to be dug up in Greece today that narrated a story about Apollo and Zeus, no one, be they scientists, journalists, regular people, or even smart ass agnostics, would hesitate to acknowledge that this scroll was a work of fiction authored by some ancient priest or poet. That this was the case would seem obvious to lay people, but it would also be the conclusion of every relevant field of science based on the historical evidence surrounding and contained within the scroll. And the only difference between this hypothetical scroll - and the reams of actual recorded myths of the thousands of extinct religions for which no pretense of authenticity is afforded - and the Bible, is that there still exists in this world Jews and Christians. (Which, and this is the point, is not actually a difference at all between the Bible and these other religious texts.)

[Edited on January 19, 2011 at 9:42 AM. Reason : ]

1/19/2011 9:26:38 AM

Quote :

"no, they really can't."

Yes, they really can. I learned it in my ancient world history class...

1/19/2011 9:38:14 AM

Or, that.

1/19/2011 9:42:05 AM

Quote :

"This thing impacts you in no way, shape, or form."

All of the things that do impact me are a direct result of blind faith in unproven mysticism. I'd rather treat the disease than just the symptoms.

1/19/2011 9:52:25 AM

Quote :

"As you say, we've had a shit-ton of new saints in our lifetimes, but not nearly a commensurate number of miracles reported in the press."

Virtually every story of significance reported in the press is, at some point, said to be either a miracle, an act of God, or the result of (or amenable to) prayer.

Quote :

"Once again, neither CNN nor the vast majority of people (even Catholics) give two shits about this miracle except insofar as it impacts the legacy of an old Polack they liked."

Catholics worldwide do not care about miracles. I think you've just broken the story of the decade, if not the century.

Quote :

"It's not a big deal because it is not the press's job to argue with various beliefs, be they religious, political, what have you."

It is a reporter's job to handle opinions offered up to them with skepticism, especially if those opinions are being broadcast in real time to their audience. It really is. I'm not making it up. It's a fundamental rule of journalism. As in, they teach it in journalism school.

[Edited on January 19, 2011 at 10:17 AM. Reason : ]

1/19/2011 10:16:45 AM

Quote :

"If an ancient scroll were to be dug up in Greece today that narrated a story about Apollo and Zeus, no one, be they scientists, journalists, regular people, or even smart ass agnostics, would hesitate to acknowledge that this scroll was a work of fiction authored by some ancient priest or poet. "

If such a scroll was found, and the discovery was reported on, would you feel like the reporter was "endorsing" or "giving credibility" to greek mythology?

1/19/2011 10:45:38 AM

Quote :

"If such a scroll was found, and the discovery was reported on, would you feel like the reporter was "endorsing" or "giving credibility" to greek mythology?"

Very stupid analogy. The discovery of the scroll has nothing to do with the mythology presented within the scrolls. The pope being made a saint is CONTINGENT UPON the miracle described. In other words no miracle no saint.

Maybe this is a poor attempt at the argument Grumpy offered last page with his Arizona shooter analogy. You do understand of course that there is no credibility given to greek mythology to begin with. There isn't a large contingent of the population that feels that the stories presented in Greek mythology are true therefore it is unnecessary to examine fantastical claims because NO ONE BELIEVES them to begin with.

[Edited on January 19, 2011 at 11:39 AM. Reason : Maybe I gave you too much credit.]

1/19/2011 11:36:38 AM

i just sent this to my j school friends and they all agree that you all are retarded

1/19/2011 11:59:15 AM

Quote :

"Very stupid analogy. The discovery of the scroll has nothing to do with the mythology presented within the scrolls. The pope being made a saint is CONTINGENT UPON the miracle described. In other words no miracle no saint. "

Sainthood itself is a load of mystic bull. Why are you focussing on the miracle? Are you implying that JP2 would actually be a saint if the miracle was verified to be true? The analogy is fine - the point of the report is "JP2 on the path to sainthood". CNN isn't going to investigate the reasoning Catholics use to declare saints, because CNN doesn't believe in saints

What if the next Dalai Lama was just chosen via some arcane ritual, and it was reported on CNN? Would you expect the report to include a skeptical analysis of the plausibility of the ritual? Does the mere reporting of said ritual imply that its real?

SOMETHING IN RELIGION HAPPENED. LOTS OF PEOPLE HAVE RELIGION, SO ITS A BIG DEAL.

[Edited on January 19, 2011 at 12:15 PM. Reason : .]

1/19/2011 12:13:33 PM

perhaps there should be some inter-denominational arguments about the validity as well; if we are reporting on possible sainthood maybe protestants should get mad that CNN did not point out that they think everyone is a saint.

1/19/2011 12:17:20 PM

The issue as I see it is how obviously ridiculous false claims remain unchallenged under the guise of religious tolerance. So because I am concerned by this I am "close minded"? The idea of saints/ miracles does not fair well under even rudimentary scrutiny. Similarly ridiculously unfounded statements would be challenged if not based on some religion. If it involves a religion is the media supposed to contritely look the other way no matter how ridiculous the claim?
Maybe that is why as a country our grasp of scientific concepts is so poor?
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=faith-and-foolishness

^quit trying to make this into a tolerance issue. It is a question of broadcasting false information without even attempting to challenge it.

[Edited on January 19, 2011 at 1:59 PM. Reason : adsfasdf]

[Edited on January 19, 2011 at 1:59 PM. Reason : adfs]

[Edited on January 19, 2011 at 2:00 PM. Reason : adsf]

1/19/2011 1:54:07 PM

This has nothing to do with religious tolerance, people understand that a story about Catholic goings-on is going to have catholic stuff in it.

You are not close-minded, just unreasonable. If your problem is with christianity getting an easy pass this is a terrible example to stand on your soap box about. I'm sure that examples of this exist, and I would bet even a 2 minute google expedition could find some.

[Edited on January 19, 2011 at 2:00 PM. Reason : YOU made it into a tolerance issue, I've always said it was a "you are stupid" issue]

1/19/2011 2:00:14 PM

Quote :

"Virtually every story of significance reported in the press is, at some point, said to be either a miracle, an act of God, or the result of (or amenable to) prayer."

What?

You're going to have to explain whatever it is you're trying to say here.

Quote :

"Catholics worldwide do not care about miracles. I think you've just broken the story of the decade, if not the century. "

For one thing, I said they didn't care about this miracle, except for its special significance for JP II. But I think that if you polled most Catholics, they wouldn't be able to tell you three out of the past ten "miracles" the Vatican claims to have occurred. Because the "story of the century" is that people's lives don't revolve entirely around their religion.

Quote :

"It is a reporter's job to handle opinions offered up to them with skepticism, especially if those opinions are being broadcast in real time to their audience."

What's the opinion? The report was that the Vatican said some things, which it did.

Quote :

"All of the things that do impact me are a direct result of blind faith in unproven mysticism. I'd rather treat the disease than just the symptoms."

One would think this miracle business would be a symptom, unless you think you're suddenly going to unravel organized religion by having Wolf Blitzer ask, "Is it possible the bitch didn't have Parkinson's to begin with?"

Of course, the whole disease/symptom thing is inane. As we've discussed before, ignorant assholes will want to fuck with your shit whether they've got religion or not.

Quote :

"There isn't a large contingent of the population that feels that the stories presented in Greek mythology are true therefore it is unnecessary to examine fantastical claims because NO ONE BELIEVES them to begin with. "

Well there's that gap between "large contingent" and "no one." There's seven billion people running around, and I guarantee you somewhere there's a small cult of Greek pantheon adherents. Even if there's just one, the question remains of where you draw the cut-off line between where journalists have to question everything and where they can just leave it be.

Let's notice a trend here. Every time an example is given where anchors don't question/challenge something non-religious, you don't say, "You're right! God damn it, they should challenge that shit, too." Doing so wouldn't have really hurt your argument. It would have made us think that maybe you actually gave a shit about the press aspect of this. But no, every time you say that the example doesn't count for some bullshit reason or another. Clearly you don't have a problem with a plethora of "exemptions." Because you don't really give a shit about exemptions, period. You've got a bug up your ass about religion. Which is fine. Do what you gotta do. But why paint it in bullshit?

1/19/2011 2:15:09 PM

1st repeated point by rbt:
when they were talking to a reporter, not even a church official

Unchallenged false information being presented by what for all intents and purposes is a mouthpiece for the Catholic Church (not just some reporter as you repeatedly claim). I explained this at the top of the page.
What is your response?

2nd repeated point by rbt:
the story is about popesaint not miracle.

The sainthood of the pope is contingent upon that information being reported yet somehow asking a question about how carefully the information was verified is off limits because that isn't what the story was about? Really?
Your response:

Quote :

"do they need follow up questions pointing out that the bible is a work of fiction? are you at least not sensitive enough to allow reporting on this story?"

Is the act of finding an old book CONTINGENT UPON the contents of the aforementioned book being "true".
Fucking idiotic analogy...

Quote :

"Well there's that gap between "large contingent" and "no one." There's seven billion people running around, and I guarantee you somewhere there's a small cult of Greek pantheon adherents. Even if there's just one, the question remains of where you draw the cut-off line between where journalists have to question everything and where they can just leave it be. "

You aren't stupid so you don't really need me to explain this but I will.
How about a politically relevant contingent. I would say that there are certainly enough Catholics in the US (or worldwide for that matter) to make their beliefs politically relevant. The amount that believe in greek mythology are few enough that they are for all intents and purposes irrelevant (same with your az shooter analogy).

Quote :

" Let's notice a trend here. Every time an example is given where anchors don't question/challenge something non-religious, you don't say, "You're right! God damn it, they should challenge that shit, too." Doing so wouldn't have really hurt your argument. It would have made us think that maybe you actually gave a shit about the press aspect of this. But no, every time you say that the example doesn't count for some bullshit reason or another. Clearly you don't have a problem with a plethora of "exemptions." Because you don't really give a shit about exemptions, period. You've got a bug up your ass about religion. Which is fine. Do what you gotta do. But why paint it in bullshit?"

That would be relevant if I didn't support why I dismissed those provided examples. However I do give reasons why those examples are largely irrelevant so again nice use of empty rhetoric





[Edited on January 19, 2011 at 2:27 PM. Reason : Grumpy...]

1/19/2011 2:19:29 PM