However, they do use statistical data from if people call themselves Catholic. Dawkins point is still valid – Hitler called himself a Catholic after all.

http://furtherthoughtsfortheday.blogspot.com/2010/09/on-measuring-catholics.html

There is no evidence that the pope has any kind of paraphilia that would be the cause of his protection of child-molesting priests. There is ample evidence that he puts the needs of the church, as he sees them, ahead of the needs of any other person or group of people. Statements like yours will simply give those who want to stand up for the pope ammunition in their assault on your, otherwise reasonable, position.

However, you’re doomed now, because that comment is what it is, and everything you say from here on out will be irrelevant to the fact that you made an offhand comment in the first place.

The papal pedophile protector started it, and as Dawkins pointed out, he must be rattled to sink so low so fast.

They ARE losing traction, and Benny the Pervophile knows it.

It is happening faster in Europe; the memeplex which is organised religion is weakening.

The acting editor of the “Comment is free” section is
Ms Ros Taylor. I have also emailed her about this defamatory stupidity.

To: Editor of the “Comment is Free” department of the Guardian UK

From: Bo Gardiner, (city, state) USA

Subj: Retraction needed for Andrew Brown’s fabricated, defamatory statement

Your blogger Andrew Brown, in his Sept. 20 post, More than 10,000 people take to the streets to protest against pope made the following claim: “Richard Dawkins later published on his web site the speech he meant to deliver, comparing every Catholic in Britain to Adolf Hitler”.

This is a simple fabrication. It is defamation, clear and simple, of Richard Dawkins. Brown has no evidence to support this claim, it is a clear lie. His commenters are asking for proof of his statement, which he has not supplied. They are asking for a retraction, in which I join them.

The Guardian, or its legal department, should require that Brown publish a retraction of this defamatory lie. Fabricating an immensely provocative statement and falsely attributing it to a public figure is neither acceptable personal expression nor free speech.

I appreciate your consideration of this request being made by hundreds of persons responding to this published piece by the Guardian.

pls be gentle!

🙂

sadly, comments are closed on that piece

It’s still possible to rate comments. And the ones getting hundreds of ratings are those saying, very simply, that Brown is outright lying, that Dawkins didn’t compare Catholics to Nazis, and Brown should issue a retraction with apology.

We can email complaints about Andrew Brown’s defamatory lie to the “Comment is free” editor at commentisfree@guardian.co.uk. I don’t know about the UK’s defamation laws, but this should be brought to the attention of the Guardian’s lawyers.

I believe we should raise the priority on fighting back against defamation of nontheists. We need to build that meme, as gays have done so effectively, that anti-atheist bigotry is as evil as religious or racial bigotry. It’s within our grasp, and it’s needed to to enable us to speak powerfully and effectively on our issues. It’s impossible to discuss the merits of our arguments when our opponents are given social license to bypass them and go in for ad hominem, prejudiced attack. As long as even most liberal pockets of Western society deems it acceptable to attack atheists in a way it finds intolerable with any other group, we’re effectively shut down. We need to make this a moral issue.

Anyway, your Godwin comment has inspired an entire blog post, so that should make you feel good. Maybe.

Good catch baldywilson… You’re correct in that I hadn’t read any of the links – just Greg’s post – as I’m settling into my work this morning.

With that bit of (rather important) context in mind, I understand how Greg’s response was basically WTF??? to my Godwin comment.

Oops! …….mea culpa…..