Caution: The pope is coming

But there’s more!

Hugh Dallas, head of referee development for the Scottish Football Association has been sacked because he passed on, by eMail, a joke about the pope. His dismissal was called for by a spokesman for the Roman Catholic Church in Scotland. This nasty little weasel is called Peter Kearney, Director of the Scottish Catholic Media Office. His details, in case you feel like sending him a message, are as follows:

Peter Kearney, Director, Scottish Catholic Media Office, St George’s Buildings, 5 St Vincent Place, Glasgow G1 2DH
eMail: mail@scmo.org

Similarly, the Chief Executive of the Scottish Football Association, responsible for this craven giving-in to Catholic censorship is Stewart Regan. The address of this coward is Scottish Football Association, Hampden Park, Glasgow G42 9AY
eMail info@scottishfa.co.uk

It would seem, from the YouTube video posted here, that the joke concerned is the one that heads this page, warning children of the approach of the pope. The caption was censored, but it isn’t difficult to find the original. It is at http://www.hollow-hill.com/sabina/images/caution-pope.jpg

My suggestion is that we should do our best to make this joke go viral, beginning by sending hundreds of copies of it to these two addresses:
mail@scmo.org
info@scottishfa.co.uk

But there are probably funnier jokes along the same lines, and I would encourage you to send as many as you can find.

Richard

Thought of the day

People who argue for ‘a higher purpose’, or intelligent design, or a ‘necessary creator’, or any other intentionally vague idea are being fundamentally dishonest when they don’t admit that they are merely talking about their specific, cultural god.

Double undue respect

We give undue respect to religion every single time we give a stand to a religious figure who prattles on about something when the reality is that that figure has no qualifications in the given matter. For example, virtually every time the pope opens his mouth there is no reason we ought to be consulting him, yet millions of people still listen to him as if he has something to add to any conversation. This latest incident is no different.

Pope Benedict XVI called Saturday for politicians, the media and world leaders to show more respect for human life at its earliest stages, saying embryos aren’t just biological material but dynamic, autonomous individuals.

Now on top of the undue respect we already give him, the pope is encouraging everyone to respect a bunch of nothing cells. There is no scientific basis for offering respect to embryos. There is no reason we ought to be listening to the pope on this. For instance, he says embryos constitute autonomous individuals (it’s unclear how they might exercise any autonomy), but does anyone for a moment believe he is aware that twinning can occur several days after an embryo initially forms? Does he still want to say that embryo was one individual? Or was it two? Or was it one and then it became two? If that is the case, then did it always have two souls or did a second soul find its way into the process post-twinning? And most importantly, how does the pope know any of this? How does he know he might be wrong? What method is he using to know? Can anyone else consult this method? Are there ways to verify this method?

Cellular potential is not a definition of being a human, the pope has no basis -nor any qualification – for saying otherwise, and we ought not give him any sort of respect on this or any other important issue.