Pope Advocates Violence Against Non-Violent Conduct- Claims Religion Should be Exempted from Any Acts it Deems Offensive
In the tradition of the Catholic Church this Pope has no qualms about advocating violence when one is just offended by another person. The fact that he used it to legitimize the Charlie Hedo massacre is indicative of the “Church” it’s conduct. His take seemed to be that when you offend someone, anyone violence is a reasonable reaction. Why does he get away with that ? Why do they get away with institutional, industrial raping of children and subsequent organizational decades-long cover-up and facilitation of that ongoing rape at the highest levels? They have a former pedophile, responsible for the rape of hundreds of American Children given sanctuary at the Vatican? What other organization, anywhere can get away with such rape, cover-up and facilitation, only religion can produce that kind of evil. Yet, there is only a ripple of concern at best. In the land of no accountability it is likely the industrial rape and subsequent cover-ups and facilitation are still continuing.
Have you read the Bible- beat your slave if he lives and can get up after a couple days it is a good — if your a slave accept it and do good for your master- if they are a different religion kill them– stone adulterers ect ect ect aren’t you worried about what may be waiting for you in heaven, even if it is paved with gold? As I just can not understand why he/she/it(god)would give a 3 year old excruciatingly painful cancer as some form of grace, maybe a little of that is waiting for you in heaven, you just don’t know his will so youwill have an eternity of ” excruciatingly painful cancer” in heaven in which your streets are paved with gold. If he could do it to a 3 year old but not to you, yeah that’s moral
If I wanted to rule a country and do what I wanted irrespective of the well-being or desires of the people I would try to implement a religion. I would create a religion where the rewards for adherence to the demands of the religion were not awarded till after death. So people would not know I had made it up. I would also indicate that it was not important to obtain wealth and that the poor would be likely to receive the benefits of following the rules of the religion I had made up. Then I would incorporate at strict doctrine declaring that the religions that others had/have/will make up are bad and belief in such will preclude you from your rewards. Then I would make it bad to use facts and logic to challenge my made up religion. I would demand that the doctrine in my religion not be challenged, those who do will not receive the rewards. If they accepted it I would try to get my followers to give my icon money and as often as they could profess their devotion to the chosen icon. I would make up rules about sex and other things that my followers for no reason other than I say would be required to view as bad and evil , things like looking at bikini and finding yourself attracted to her and to know how awful those feelings are-representing the bad in you. And finally if I could get you to go to church on a chosen day and profess that you are literally or figuratively drinking the blood of a 5000 year old dead man- well that’s the part that I would define as the proverbial cherry on top of the cake.
Look around, the less religion the better the society. as example heavily religious Southern Europe as compared to Northern Europe- not many austerity/immigrant/police stae/prison industrial complex, pro-war, advocating war………..no no no that takes the religious, prepare the sheep through disregarding fact for faith manipulation.
I could find no part of this quote from Richard Dawkins tha is not profoundly true, which part is false?
“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”
? Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion
We labor, everyday, under the religious morality that is not moral at all-jbade
Excellent Dawkins debate
To lectured by the Pope on morality, peace would be the same as being challenged by Don Rumsfeld on not being a worthy peace activist.The Pope’s comfort with advocating for violence and that religion should be free from unflattering criticism being are the only road to maintaining a Bronze age myth that is increasingly being rejected by more and more people despite the universally religious nature of politicians around the world-it’s about control.
You have to be willfully ignorant to accept any part of the Abrahamic religions( Jews, Christians, Muslims), thay have found one stone to support the fantasy that there was the Kingdom of David-they should not be called Jews, Muslims and Christians they should be called bronze age, war-monger I want to control your life jack-offs.