Agnostic.com

5 7

This was one of my favorite Dawkins Debates. In 2018 the good Cardinal was convicted in 2 separate courts in Australia on two separate instances of child molestation. Sadly, an appeals court squashed BOTH convictions earlier this year saying only that both juries should have had doubts and now the Vatican is examining the appeals. (don't hold your breath)

But its a fast paced world and there's no rest for the wicked. Just 4 days ago....

[theguardian.com]

Get a good look to make sure if he beats the new investigation and becomes the new monsignor in your neighborhood after the Roman Catholic Church demotes him and sends him here, you smile wryly at your catholic neighbors....But only if they have children, of course. And only if those children are boys...

Macanudo 5 Apr 19
Share

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

5 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

1

Dawkins is a great value to humanity. It would be great if more scientists went out in public and out of classrooms to share their knowledge with humanity.

1

Sorry I loved the bit by Richard and but the moment the paedophile started speaking it made me feel ill. That he can be as morally corrupt at he is and sit there spouting rubbish about how xtianity saved people and then to say they are new testament people (I am pretty sure the ones around in the Roman times he spoke of would have been old testament and isn't all of it the word of god?) I could not listen to him.

Yeah, I have that same reaction...

2

So now we live in a world where jury verdicts can be overturned because "this is what they should have done." Justice hasn't just gone out the window, it's flown out of our atmosphere and out of our galaxy. Wow! Depressing for sure.

Catholics are protecting their own plus everything today is controlled by algorithm. This idea has spread into logic and business models to the point that the only accepted answer sometimes is the expected answer by advanced AI calculations. They want a certain answer and outcome and I think it is horrible. Look at court situations where the attorney directs your answer in such a way that you are saying what he wants to hear. We are fast changing our ideas and history even to a point of destroying monuments. Could we become be a "Christian Nation" with so many guilty clerics?

1

That's an interesting story where an appeals court apparently just says the jury was wrong and overturns the concoction. Isn't that just how juries and jury trials work?

1

Terrible performance by Pell. I remember watching it back then. Why did God choose the Jews, since the Egyptions were more advanced, he asks? Duh! We evolved from Neandathols. Double Duh! We know this because they aren't around anymore. Triple Duh! The look on Dawkin's face. It was shameful to pitch a doofus like Pell against Dawkins. But that's our ABC, now. Anything for ratings, entertainment, forget serious debate. As an Australian I was appalled by this episode.

I was curious to know: In Australia, how common is it for an Appeals Court to hear the appeal of 2 separate trials in 2 separate courts?

Being Australian, maybe you k.now...

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:486415
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.