• Ongoing coronavirus / COVID-19 discussion: how is the pandemic affecting your community, workplace, and wellness? 🦠

    Working from home? So are we. Come join us! Cyburbia is a friendly big tent, where we share our experiences and thoughts about urban planning practice, planning adjacent topics, and whatever else comes to mind. No ads, no spam, no social distancing.

Bush, Pope Among Nobel Peace Nominees

Maister

Chairman of the bored
Staff member
Moderator
Messages
28,266
Points
71
Bush :-S and Blair :d: nominated for a PEACE prize :-@ ??????

Reminds me of what they said during Viet nam -
The establishment "We're fighting for peace"
The hippie response "Isn't that like f---ing for virginity?"
 

SkeLeton

Cyburbian
Messages
4,853
Points
26
The Bush & Blair nomination is really Ironic...
I wonder if they'll nominee Pinochet for "Guardian of Human Rights"... B-)
 

otterpop

Cyburbian
Messages
6,655
Points
28
It is a bizarro world where starting wars in two countries nominates you for a peace prize. Perhaps Halliburton slipped the nominating committee members envelopes full of Franklins.
 

freewaytincan

Cyburbian
Messages
125
Points
6
otterpop said:
It is a bizarro world where starting wars in two countries nominates you for a peace prize. Perhaps Halliburton slipped the nominating committee members envelopes full of Franklins.
Oh, Halliburton, Halliburton, Halliburton...is that the best you can do? As if this would be important enough. Me? I would not accept this award, because it a) means nothing, b) is handed out by leftist whackos and socialists, and c) Arafat won it in 1994. Yeah, he's really in favor of peace, just as much as I enjoy having my eyes plucked out.
 

Wulf9

Member
Messages
923
Points
22
michaelskis said:
Sometimes it takes war to bring Peace.
Going to war to bring peace requires a great amount of wisdom, restraint, and good judgement. Starting a war where none exists (as a way to bring peace) should have a much larger dose of wisdom, restraint, and judgement.

An exceedingly wise national leader who brought peace by military action might deserve a Nobel Peace Prize. But it seems to me it should be obvious that peace has been achieved before one would offer the award.
 

jordanb

Cyburbian
Messages
3,232
Points
25
michaelskis said:
Sometimes it takes war to bring Peace.

Sometimes you have to destroy the village in order to save it.

I'll admit that sometimes war is unavoidable, but I've always understood the peace prize to be for people who work to avert war.
 

Chet

Cyburbian Emeritus
Messages
10,624
Points
34
Hmmm. Violate the sovreignty of another country and get nominated for peace. Seems backhanded regardless whether or not you supported Bush or the war.

And the Pope? WTF? I honestly dont mean for this to be a troll but --- This guy is in charge of organization covering up the largest illegal gay rape / sex ring ever uncovered. His organization is responsible for many devastated families and even some suicides. Martha Stewart caused less harm as CEO that the Pope did as, well, pope. Yet I dont see him being brought up on charges. I find no peace in that.
 

freewaytincan

Cyburbian
Messages
125
Points
6
Chet said:
Hmmm. Violate the sovreignty of another country and get nominated for peace. Seems backhanded regardless whether or not you supported Bush or the war.

And the Pope? WTF? I honestly dont mean for this to be a troll but --- This guy is in charge of organization covering up the largest illegal gay rape / sex ring ever uncovered. His organization is responsible for many devastated families and even some suicides. Martha Stewart caused less harm as CEO that the Pope did as, well, pope. Yet I dont see him being brought up on charges. I find no peace in that.
Funny you should bring up sovereignty...since the U.N. doesn't even know what it means. Internationalization is for cowardly socialists.
 

Rumpy Tunanator

Cyburbian
Messages
4,473
Points
25
I'm just wondering why Dr. Kevorkian has never been nominated for his humanitarian work for the terminally ill?

Where's the support to free this guy when you have wackos wearing shirts that say "Free Winona!"?
 

DecaturHawk

Cyburbian
Messages
880
Points
22
Chet said:
And the Pope? WTF? I honestly dont mean for this to be a troll but --- This guy is in charge of organization covering up the largest illegal gay rape / sex ring ever uncovered. His organization is responsible for many devastated families and even some suicides. Martha Stewart caused less harm as CEO that the Pope did as, well, pope. Yet I dont see him being brought up on charges. I find no peace in that.
Umm, Chet? I know that you don't mean to troll, but that's a pretty sweeping condemnation. What's your source? Please check out anything by Prof. Philip Jenkins of Penn State, a non-Catholic who has written extensively on this issue. Or try this article. While the clergy abuse scandal in the Catholic Church is justifiably a source of great shame to Catholics, a Catholic priest is no more likely to be an abuser than a non-celibate Protestant minister, a public school teacher, or anyone else that works closely with children. The total number of priests that have been accused (accused, not necessarily convicted) is less than 2 percent of all priests in the US. Even this number is scandalous, but hardly the "largest illegal gay rape/sex ring ever uncovered." Pinning on the Pope what is essentially a failure by some American bishops and priests to be faithful to their vows is stretching it by quite a bit.
 

Repo Man

Cyburbian
Messages
2,550
Points
25
DecaturHawk said:
Pinning on the Pope what is essentially a failure by some American bishops and priests to be faithful to their vows is stretching it by quite a bit.
If a company has hundreds of employees that are breaking the law in their capacity as an employee and the owner of the company fails to fire them, the owner is liable for their actions. The Pope is the head of the Catholic church and he is liable for the actions of priests.

Until the Pope gets rid of any priest that has done anything sexual or innapropriate to a kid and demands that they be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, I will support Chet's comments. The fact that Catholic leadership thinks that priests should be held to a different standard than the child molester that lives down the street is disgraceful. For that reason The Pope should not be nominated for this award and neither should anyone who supported the war in Iraq.
 

DecaturHawk

Cyburbian
Messages
880
Points
22
Repo Man said:
If a company has hundreds of employees that are breaking the law in their capacity as an employee and the owner of the company fails to fire them, the owner is liable for their actions. The Pope is the head of the Catholic church and he is liable for the actions of priests.

Until the Pope gets rid of any priest that has done anything sexual or innapropriate to a kid and demands that they be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, I will support Chet's comments. The fact that Catholic leadership thinks that priests should be held to a different standard than the child molester that lives down the street is disgraceful. For that reason The Pope should not be nominated for this award and neither should anyone who supported the war in Iraq.
Two points:
1) The worldwide Catholic Church is not a corporation, and is not run like one. While the structure is hierarchical, the sheer magnitude of the worldwide Church cannot be managed in the same manner as a corporation. Saying the Pope is personally liable for the actions of the priests is akin to saying that President Bush is personally liable for the sins of Martha Stewart, since she is an "employee" (citizen) of the "corporation" (country) that the President "runs" (has been given authority to govern). Yes, a priest owes the Pope a different kind of fealty, but the layers of responsibility as well as much more intangible factors (particularly the spiritual dimension) make it much more complicated than that.
2) Perhaps you are unaware of the actions taken by the American bishops at their meeting in Dallas in 2002. The rules that were adopted with regard to how priests who are accused of these crimes make it quite clear that no priest will be getting off easy. In fact, the rules are so strict that if a private corporation attempted to apply similar rules to its employees, that firm would be sued every time they fired someone. Since the scandal broke and since adoption of the rules, several priests have been "fired" and a few bishops have stepped aside. This is not to say that there weren't terrible improprieties prior to the adoption of the rules, and the amount of time it took to right the wrongs done was entirely too long. But no one can say that the problem has not been addressed.

To blame the Pope for this mess, you would honestly have to say that 1) he knew about it all the time that it was going on, and 2) did nothing. Neither is true. You can argue all you want as to whether the Pope deserves the Nobel prize, but IMHO you would need more than a localized (read: American) scandal to make that case.

Finally, please, do not read into these posts that I am in any way minimizing or discounting the horrible harm done by the few priests that violated their vows and the trust of their parishioners, or that I am in any way excusing them or the bishops that failed to stop them. Any priest who is convicted of these crimes not only has to be defrocked, but must be punished as provided by law. As a parent, personally, anybody who molests a kid should rot in jail. Enough said.
 

Chet

Cyburbian Emeritus
Messages
10,624
Points
34
I think Repo did a good job of clarifying my thought on the matter, and yes I do condemn the pope and hold him accountable. What source you say? CNN and the church itself! . Stunnin. Over 11,000 assaults. I respectfully disagree and totally disagree with your statement that a catholic priest is no more likely to commit such assaults. The church has bred a culture of closted homosexuality in the priesthood since the rennaisance. I dont see mass allegaitons against any other religious denomination either, do you?

EDIT: Oh, you are right about the church not being run as a corporation -- the church has not been accountable to its shareholders.
 

Cardinal

Cyburbian
Messages
10,080
Points
34
What bugged me about the scandal was the fact that in many cases, senior people within the church hierarchy knew of the allegations (or actual incidents) and not only sheltered the abusers from legal prosecution, but placed them in positions where they might repeat their crimes. The actual act of abuse is not something for which the church should be blamed - it is an individual committing an assault on another. The church does become culpable when it fails to report a potential crime to civil authorities, and when it abets a predator in comitting their crime. The church has now developed better policies and appears to be serious about following them. Too bad it had to go so far before any action was taken.
 

DecaturHawk

Cyburbian
Messages
880
Points
22
Chet said:
I think Repo did a good job of clarifying my thought on the matter, and yes I do condemn the pope and hold him accountable. What source you say? CNN and the church itself! . Stunnin. Over 11,000 assaults. I respectfully disagree and totally disagree with your statement that a catholic priest is no more likely to commit such assaults. The church has bred a culture of closted homosexuality in the priesthood since the rennaisance. I dont see mass allegaitons against any other religious denomination either, do you?

EDIT: Oh, you are right about the church not being run as a corporation -- the church has not been accountable to its shareholders.
Chet, I appreciate your response and I can understand why you disagree. I think where we part is in perspective. In the John Jay report, only 6,700 of the 11,000 allegations (allegations, not assaults) have been substantiated. Since 1950, only 4 percent of active priests have been accused (again, accused, not necessarily convicted). Also, this is an American phenomenon that has not been shown to be a problem for the universal worldwide Catholic Church.

Chet, the mere fact that one becomes a priest does not make him more likely to commit sexual crimes against minors. The facts just do not support that conclusion. Please read the article that I linked in my earlier post. However, I would agree that a large part of the problem has been homosexuality in the priesthood, as well as laxness toward vows of celibacy in general (this obviously includes straight sexual activity). There are recent studies outlining homosexual activity in American seminaries, especially during the seventies and eighties, but more recent audits show that this has largely been stopped. In any case, the priesthood (or leading a scout troop, or coaching a traveling sports team, or being a teacher, or a myriad of other jobs that require close contact with children) is no place for a person, straight or gay, that cannot control such sexual impulses.

True, no mass allegations have been made against any other religious denomination, but then, no other denomination is quite like the Catholic Church. Since nearly all Protestant denominations are non-hierarchical in structure, its hard to place blame for indiscretions on the part of Baptist ministers on the "Baptist Church." However, as I have already noted, the incidence and likelihood of one such minister to be an abuser is about the same as being a Catholic priest. I would add also that there is an active bias against Catholicism in American culture, so the indiscretions of the Catholic Church are much more likely to draw fire than when such things happen in other churches (not that the Catholic Church does not deserve the negative attention in this matter--it most certainly does).

Cardinal is right, one of the worst things about this scandal was that abusers were not stopped (the John Jay report shows that about 45 percent of the priests accused were accused of multiple incidents) but were instead moved to other places to continue preying on their parishioners. However, I would note that the mere fact that the very damning report that Chet cites was commissioned by the American bishops themselves, with the intent to eliminate the problem. Every diocese has adopted strict rules for priests and anyone who has contact with kids. My wife (a person with zero likelihood for abuse) was required to attend a six-hour training session called "Protecting our Children" and she only volunteers one hour a month at my kid's parish preschool. The Church is acting aggressively to address the problem.

Anyway, enough of this off-topic debate. I will agree with other posters in this thread that the President is not a good candidate for the Nobel prize, even though I am not against him or his policies. But then, if Arafat can win it, shoot, anyone should have a shot.
 

Chet

Cyburbian Emeritus
Messages
10,624
Points
34
DH, I do appreciate your healthy insight. Thanks. But cut me some slack here - one thing I've learned in this line of work is, sometimes disapproval doesnt have to be rational. :)
 

DecaturHawk

Cyburbian
Messages
880
Points
22
Chet said:
DH, I do appreciate your healthy insight. Thanks. But cut me some slack here - one thing I've learned in this line of work is, sometimes disapproval doesnt have to be rational. :)
Fair enough. I feel the same way about certain City Council members, hip hop artists, and Iowa State University athletics. :-}
 
Top