Slashdot Mirror


Knights Templar Sue the Pope

pdragon04 writes "According to The Register, "the Knights Templar are demanding that the Vatican give them back their good name and, possibly, billions in assets into the bargain, 700 years after the order was brutally suppressed by a joint venture between the Pope and the King of France..."." I wonder what a holy grail goes for with 700 years of compound interest.

675 comments

  1. No legal standing to sue by elrous0 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The real Templars were disbanded in the early 14th century. These claimants are nothing more than another bunch of modern wannabes (founded in 1804). They have no legal standing to sue. And since the only immortal survivor of the templar persecution died in "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade," I somehow doubt they're going to be able to find anyone who was an actual victim to join their lawsuit.

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    1. Re:No legal standing to sue by FST777 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      They may have a case regarding their good name. I don't know how much the Vatican has said about the "new" Templars, but that might just hold up in court.

      If that succeeds, maybe the Freemasons have a case to fight too.

      --
      Free beer is never free as in speech. Free speech is always free as in beer.
    2. Re:No legal standing to sue by sesshomaru · · Score: 1
      What about these guys?

      .

      The Blind Dead

      While it is true that the Pope had their eyes burned out so they couldn't find their way back from Hell after they were burned at the stake, they still seem to do alright now and then.

      --
      "MIT betrayed all of its basic principles."
    3. Re:No legal standing to sue by neokushan · · Score: 5, Funny

      If that succeeds, I'm going to rename myself "satan" and then sue the Vatican to get them to give me back my good name.

      --
      +1 IDisagreeSoHeMustBeATrollOrAnAstroturferOrAShill
    4. Re:No legal standing to sue by tinkertim · · Score: 5, Funny

      Hello! My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father, prepare to settle.

    5. Re:No legal standing to sue by Wister285 · · Score: 1

      I don't know about that. The Knight may still be trapped in the fallen rocks!

    6. Re:No legal standing to sue by Smidge207 · · Score: 1, Funny

      You chose...poorly.

      =Smidge=

      --
      Is it just my observation, or is eldavojohn an idiot?
    7. Re:No legal standing to sue by JustKidding · · Score: 4, Funny

      Indeed, this seems like a rather desperate call for attention. Besides, everybody knows that the Dark Templar are far more powerful.

    8. Re:No legal standing to sue by otacon · · Score: 1

      I agree, the film in no way potrayed the knight as having been killed.

      --
      In a world of acronyms, the words are the real victims.
    9. Re:No legal standing to sue by smittyoneeach · · Score: 4, Funny

      Come back here and I'll bite your leg off!

      --
      Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
    10. Re:No legal standing to sue by Yvan256 · · Score: 1

      You're a looney.

    11. Re:No legal standing to sue by lbmouse · · Score: 4, Funny

      "Hello! My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father, prepare to settle."

      ...for a shrubbery.

    12. Re:No legal standing to sue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

      Well, the jews got their country back after almost two thousand years.

    13. Re:No legal standing to sue by alan_dershowitz · · Score: 1

      There were at least two Templar survivors that were discovered several years after the executions (they were not punished in any way,) but it's important to note that one of their vows was a vow of Chastity and leadership succession was absolutely not familial. There is no one to collect on this thing, and even if there were, most of those holdings were land which is now privately-or-state-owned. At any rate, the Templars were not truly an independent organization and existed at the pleasure of the Catholic Church. The Church disbanded it, it doesn't exist anymore, the end.

    14. Re:No legal standing to sue by dascritch · · Score: 2

      Grand Dieu ! Mais c'est "Les Rois Maudits" !!!

      (Heavens ! It's like in "The Accursed Kings")

      --
      (Sorry my bad French) Je fais parler les Guignols de l'Info. Le pied, quoi.
    15. Re:No legal standing to sue by A+nonymous+Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      How amateurish! The descendants of those who left came back and took the land from the descendants of those who remained.

      I can troll better than you.

    16. Re:No legal standing to sue by GXTi · · Score: 3, Funny

      Pfft, the Orthodox Church already has Archons.

    17. Re:No legal standing to sue by fluch · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      I like the original better which ends in "...prepar to die!"

    18. Re:No legal standing to sue by Enderandrew · · Score: 3, Informative

      There is an order within the Free Masons who call themselves Knights Templar, but it is symbolic. It is a Christian-only order within the York Rite.

      --
      http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
    19. Re:No legal standing to sue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even if they were "real" templars, the last thing we need to do is prove that one can be sued for something your ancestors did.

    20. Re:No legal standing to sue by Selivanow · · Score: 1

      Ah, but it was the grail that made him immortal, and the grail was lost. So where as he may not have died immediately, it is highly unlikely that he would survive with out food/water. Even if he managed that feat, he was already old and it has been about 70 years or so.

      --
      -- ...trying to make digital files uncopyable is like trying to make water not wet. -Bruce Schneier
    21. Re:No legal standing to sue by shlompo · · Score: 1

      Not if you've read the De-Vinchi code! Robert Longdon to the rescue! Lets dig out the pyramid in the Louvre!

    22. Re:No legal standing to sue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Go away or I'll call the Knights Templar

      I'm on the Knights Templar.

      You are the Knights Templar!

    23. Re:No legal standing to sue by nitehawk214 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Satan plays for the Penguins.

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    24. Re:No legal standing to sue by summerfun · · Score: 1

      I suddenly remembered my Charlemagne. Let my armies be the rocks and the trees and the birds in the sky.

    25. Re:No legal standing to sue by otacon · · Score: 1

      While you make a valid point. I believe it was drinking from the cup that made you immortal provided that you don't cross that certain point in the temple.

      --
      In a world of acronyms, the words are the real victims.
    26. Re:No legal standing to sue by Talderas · · Score: 1

      Ah, but we don't know that the rubble collapsed ON him, only for sure in front of him. Additionally, since the grail is a holy divine relic, it is possible the when the grail fell into the chasm, that it would up back in the room with all the cups that kill you. Then the knight could continue to live eternally as he returned to his chamber.

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
    27. Re:No legal standing to sue by kalirion · · Score: 4, Funny

      You'll just be censored as "Hercule" then.

    28. Re:No legal standing to sue by Theoboley · · Score: 1, Funny

      Satan is a fabric! And I don't know how to spell

      --
      Stupidity only gets you so far, then you've gotta try
    29. Re:No legal standing to sue by swilde23 · · Score: 4, Funny

      There should be a "-1 Monty Python and/or Princess Bride" moderation reason...

      --
      There are 10 types of people in the world. Those that understand this sig, and those that beat up people who do.
    30. Re:No legal standing to sue by An+ominous+Cow+art · · Score: 1

      That's correct information. I'm one (though not very active).

      I don't know who the "Ordo Supremus Militaris Templi Hierosolymitani" mentioned in TFA is, and their website http://www.osmth.org/ seems down. Google cache doesn't seem to have anything useful. Not sure whether these people are associated with the organization I belong to or not.

    31. Re:No legal standing to sue by tinkertim · · Score: 1

      All your shrubbery are belong to us!

    32. Re:No legal standing to sue by Enderandrew · · Score: 1

      I'm a Mason, but not yet a member of the York Rite. It is something I've been looking into.

      --
      http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
    33. Re:No legal standing to sue by metanoia3 · · Score: 1

      They chose... POORLY.

    34. Re:No legal standing to sue by Joe+the+Lesser · · Score: 1

      and a path!!

      --
      "I only speak the truth"
      Karma: null(Mostly affected by an unassigned variable)
    35. Re:No legal standing to sue by severoon · · Score: 1

      This is an idle threat. The good name they are interested in defending is inextricably tied up with secrets they're supposed to be guarding about Jesus brother, wife, and kids. They'll never survive discovery.

      --
      but have you considered the following argument: shut up.
    36. Re:No legal standing to sue by VAXcat · · Score: 1

      You're forgetting the vast treasure that the Templar naval fleet escaped with.

      --
      There is no God, and Dirac is his prophet.
    37. Re:No legal standing to sue by An+ominous+Cow+art · · Score: 1

      The Degree work is very interesting. My local Chapter is down to only a handful of members, unfortunately.

    38. Re:No legal standing to sue by djMouton · · Score: 1

      You're forgetting about Aglié.

    39. Re:No legal standing to sue by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      Ah, but even then it was not perfect. If you recall, the knight was so weak when Indy showed up that he could barely manage more than a single swing of his sword.

      "My strength has left me..." I believe the quote was.

    40. Re:No legal standing to sue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is another...

    41. Re:No legal standing to sue by Number6.2 · · Score: 2, Funny

      I hope you're not expecting sympathy...

      --
      "If god did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him" --Voltaire
    42. Re:No legal standing to sue by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      So am I, and if you really were you'd know that the first rule about being a Mason is that you don't talk about being a Mason.

      Oops.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    43. Re:No legal standing to sue by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      The real Templars were disbanded in the early 14th century.

      [Deploy tinfoil hat] Yeah, that's what they want you to think [/]

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    44. Re:No legal standing to sue by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

      But do they have *Dark* Archons? 'Cause mind-control rocks. Of course, a simple EMP will make either kind of Archon go running home to Mommy.

    45. Re:No legal standing to sue by Dekker3D · · Score: 1

      noooo! dey be taking mah shrubbery! .. forgive me, oh spaghetti monster, for i have sinned..

    46. Re:No legal standing to sue by Dekker3D · · Score: 1

      those are supposed to be separate... and maybe a bit less vague. oh well, there goes my karma.

    47. Re:No legal standing to sue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, at least the claimants could get the Vatican to acknowledge that the Templars where not such a rampant sodomites and evil doers after all.

    48. Re:No legal standing to sue by hostyle · · Score: 0

      Splitters!

      --
      Caesar si viveret, ad remum dareris.
    49. Re:No legal standing to sue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I somehow doubt that anyone benefiting from affirmative action or receiving reparations actually went through slavery either

    50. Re:No legal standing to sue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indigo, not Inigo

    51. Re:No legal standing to sue by DECS · · Score: 1

      No, seitan is a wheat-based meat replacement for vegetarians, it's just they THEY don't know how to spell.

      Warning: Google Maps Walking directions are in Beta

    52. Re:No legal standing to sue by fifedrum · · Score: 1

      well played number6.2, well played.

    53. Re:No legal standing to sue by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

      Nuevo-Templar?

      Neo-Temp?

      Templar Krystal?

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    54. Re:No legal standing to sue by Fieryphoenix · · Score: 1

      Nope, it's Inigo.

    55. Re:No legal standing to sue by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1

      Looks like I picked a good time to think about joining, huh? I'd never heard about it being Christian-only, though (although that makes historical sense). Is that true?

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    56. Re:No legal standing to sue by toblak · · Score: 1

      1, 2, 5..... 3 sire

    57. Re:No legal standing to sue by rudlavibizon · · Score: 2, Funny

      It's pronounced SHATTAN.

    58. Re:No legal standing to sue by Tubal-Cain · · Score: 5, Funny
    59. Re:No legal standing to sue by Paracelcus · · Score: 1

      OK, that means that every living ethnic Jew on the planet "may" have a case against the government of Egypt for reparations due to the Hebrew peoples enslavement.

      Oh wait! maybe Egypt can counter sue for the deaths of the first born?

      Statute of limitations, anybody?

      --
      I killed da wabbit -Elmer Fudd
    60. Re:No legal standing to sue by An+ominous+Cow+art · · Score: 1

      The Commandery (which culminates in the Order of the Temple, i.e., Knights Templar) are Christian-only. Neither the Free & Accepted Masons (which one must belong to in order to join any of these organizations) nor rest of the York Rite (until you reach the Commandery degrees) have that restriction. I'm not familiar enough with the Scottish Rite branch to know whether they have any particular requirements other than being a Master Mason.

    61. Re:No legal standing to sue by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1

      I'm a Mason (and in fact the master of my Lodge), but I don't know a whole lot about the appendant bodies. York Rite is the locally active group and I've been interested in it. Unfortunately, with four kids from 11 months to 8 years old, I'm not sure my wife would tolerate many more time commitments. :-)

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    62. Re:No legal standing to sue by An+ominous+Cow+art · · Score: 1

      Q: Do you want to give up being a Mason? Think carefully. Think... Think...

      A: No.

      (smashed repeatedly by giant hammer)

      Wrong, wrong, wrong! Bad, bad, bad! ... or something like that. It's been a long time since I saw that Monty Python.

      But seriously, there's no prohibition against talking about being a Mason, at least not where I'm from. In my state we can't invite new members; they have to come to us. And of course we don't talk about the content of ritual work. That's it, though.

    63. Re:No legal standing to sue by An+ominous+Cow+art · · Score: 1

      Ah, ok, I wasn't sure which body you had been referring to previously. In my town, the Lodge is most active; the Chapter used to be pretty active but the half-dozen or so very active people moved/went oversees/passed away.

      I hope you enjoy your term as W.M. - mine was stark terror for me (though when I've sat in since then it has been ok) :-). I can't even imagine what it must be like with a family/children...

    64. Re:No legal standing to sue by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1

      Sorry, I should have clarified: the Lodge is most active, but York Rite is the most active of the Mason-only appendant bodies. I think - since I haven't exactly been going to their meetings.

      Oh, it's plenty terrifying ("The Grand Custodian is coming to test proficiency when?!?"), but I've been enjoying it. Should I be offered the chance, I'd like to do it again some day when I have more time to really get into it.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    65. Re:No legal standing to sue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've always hoped he'd be traded to New Jersey and made captain...oh well. I guess when Sid wins his cup, we'll know who he sold his soul to.

    66. Re:No legal standing to sue by inode_buddha · · Score: 1

      Sure that wasn't "testicle"?

      --
      C|N>K
    67. Re:No legal standing to sue by nasor · · Score: 2

      Funny, but also a fairly apt analogy. They decided to call themselves "Templars" centuries after the Pope & co. bad-mouthed them.

    68. Re:No legal standing to sue by Quetzo · · Score: 1

      His strength left him because of a prophesy I think... Something about the next guardian. I am reasonably certain this was not a case of failed dorsiflexors.

    69. Re:No legal standing to sue by dudacgf · · Score: 1

      mod parent up! brillant reference.

    70. Re:No legal standing to sue by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      there's no prohibition against talking about being a Mason, at least not where I'm from. In my state

      Well there you have it. We need go no further.

      The "Masons" of which the accused purports to be a member are in truth a pale maockery, nay a second rate colonial sham, of the genuine article.

      Prosecution rests, m'lud.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    71. Re:No legal standing to sue by master5o1 · · Score: 1

      better: name your child satan. Hope that you aren't forced to rename your child, then get your child to sue the vatican in about 30 years time.

      --
      signature is pants
    72. Re:No legal standing to sue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a Master Mason, I can't see the good brothers doing such a thing. BTW, I am pleased that the Pope does not like us.

    73. Re:No legal standing to sue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There should be a "-1 Monty Python and/or Princess Bride" moderation reason...

      You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

    74. Re:No legal standing to sue by thatnerdguy · · Score: 1

      You mean vegetarians don't know how to spell? I could have told you that!

      --
      I saw the Sign, and it opened up my eyes
    75. Re:No legal standing to sue by initialE · · Score: 1

      I don't remember that guy dying. But then maybe he was just pining for the fjords.

      --
      Starbucks, Harbuckle of Breath.
    76. Re:No legal standing to sue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is "real" in quotes? There were real Templars.

      Why are you talking about ancestors? The Catholic Church is an organization. The Pope is involved because he is the head of the Catholic Church, not because his great-great-great-etc-uncle kicked sand in the Templars faces. If they were the real Templars, it would be one organization suing another organization.

      Of course, if they were real Templars, they would hardly have waited until now, would have some proof of their claim to be the Templars, and would hardly need the Pope's money in the first place.

    77. Re:No legal standing to sue by MrResistor · · Score: 1

      Clearly the lack of protein affects their neural functions.

      On a more serious note, though, isn't there a statute of limitations of defamation lawsuits?

      --
      Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
    78. Re:No legal standing to sue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why stop there? Rename yourself Microsoft and sue Slashdot and Apple.

    79. Re:No legal standing to sue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Satan plays for the Penguins.

      Another newbie that thinks that FreeBSD is another Linux Distribution.

    80. Re:No legal standing to sue by tinkertim · · Score: 1

      But I always allude to both in moderation!

    81. Re:No legal standing to sue by ultranova · · Score: 1

      Ah, but even then it was not perfect. If you recall, the knight was so weak when Indy showed up that he could barely manage more than a single swing of his sword.

      Of course, this is the same knight who's apparently not the least bit bothered to wear a chain mail constantly, so it's quite possible that he pretended.

      And of course, he must have also been the one to keep all the traps in a working order. There's no way the blade thing wouldn't have gotten rusted and jammed otherwise...

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    82. Re:No legal standing to sue by lavalamp70 · · Score: 1

      Now go away or I shall taunt you a second time!

    83. Re:No legal standing to sue by dsheeks · · Score: 1

      Who the "hell" has Slashdot ID 666? He/she could sue the Vatican and who knows how many others for sure.

    84. Re:No legal standing to sue by neokushan · · Score: 1

      Anonymous Coward is 666.

      --
      +1 IDisagreeSoHeMustBeATrollOrAnAstroturferOrAShill
    85. Re:No legal standing to sue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Modern Templars are Freemasons, but not all Freemasons are Templars.

  2. How many Knights Templar? by meringuoid · · Score: 1

    I mean, presumably there's more than one Knight Templar. Shouldn't it be 'Knights Templar sue the Pope'? Unless there's only one of them left...

    --
    Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    1. Re:How many Knights Templar? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Ever since Indy has found the holy grail, the guy has nothing better to do.

    2. Re:How many Knights Templar? by SBacks · · Score: 3, Informative

      I believe the name of the organization is "Knights Templar". And, if the organization as a whole is suing (rather than each member suing in a class-action), then the correct sentance is "Knights Templar sues the Pope"

    3. Re:How many Knights Templar? by paeanblack · · Score: 1

      the correct sentance is "Knights Templar sues the Pope"

      Fun with plural collective nouns...which sentence would you use? :

      "The Yankees is a baseball team from New York"

      "The Yankees are a baseball team from New York"

      In US English, the second sentence is standard. "Knights Templar sue the Pope" is still correct, even if you are talking about the organization as a whole instead of the individual members, because the name "Knights Templar" is already plural.

  3. statute of limitations? by cptnapalm · · Score: 5, Funny

    I'm thinking that 700 years might be a bit past the statute of limitations...

    1. Re:statute of limitations? by pitchpipe · · Score: 5, Funny

      I'm thinking that 700 years might be a bit past the statute of limitations...

      NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition!

      --
      Look where all this talking got us, baby.
    2. Re:statute of limitations? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Murder has no statute of limitations.

    3. Re:statute of limitations? by dkleinsc · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Except that the Templars ran into trouble with the French, not the Spanish. Their real problem was that King Philip IV owed them a huge pile of cash that he didn't have.

      Of course, that would have made Jacques de Molay even more surprised and fearful if the Spanish Inquisition showed up on his doorstep.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    4. Re:statute of limitations? by shawb · · Score: 1

      Well, if they could frame it as a racketeering charge and allege that the Knights Templar were prevented from bringing suit under duress of physical harm or if the Catholic Church was hiding evidence the statute of limitations goes *POOF*

      --
      I'll never make that mistake again, reading the experts' opinions. - Feynman
    5. Re:statute of limitations? by doug · · Score: 4, Informative

      True, but the murder charges would be against individuals in France (not Spain) who are dead. Anyhow, that is criminal, and I was thinking this was a civil suit.

    6. Re:statute of limitations? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      In France it does. It is 30 years.

    7. Re:statute of limitations? by KillerBob · · Score: 4, Informative

      As informative as your post is, I think it qualifies for a "Whoosh".

      http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=gldlyTjXk9A

      --
      If you believe everything you read, you'd better not read. - Japanese proverb
    8. Re:statute of limitations? by KillerBob · · Score: 1

      Wonder if there's a way to bring charges to bear using organized crime laws? Most countries have laws allowing the leaders of organized crime organizations to be held responsible for the actions of their subordinates, regardless of whether the subordinates are pining for the fjords....

      (and for those that missed it, that last line should indicate that this is intended to be tongue-in-cheek....)

      --
      If you believe everything you read, you'd better not read. - Japanese proverb
    9. Re:statute of limitations? by alan_dershowitz · · Score: 1

      They are suing for the land and the clearing of their good name, both of which was taken by the Church against the Templars. The actual trials and executions of the individual Templars for Heresy were done by the government of France, not the Church. If you want to know why that was, I guess you'd have to ask Philip.

    10. Re:statute of limitations? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Well, the Pope does. Running the inquisition was his previous job.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    11. Re:statute of limitations? by Lowen_SoDium · · Score: 1

      >Their real problem was that King Philip IV owed them a huge pile of cash that he didn't have. Too bad he couldn't pay them. Maybe then they could have afforded another horse.

    12. Re:statute of limitations? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even less people expect the French Inquisition!

    13. Re:statute of limitations? by Knara · · Score: 1

      Being dead has not, historically, prevented people from being tried in court. Pretty sure that either the English or French have, at least once, dug up a dude and tried him, and then "executed" him again by tossing him into a river.

    14. Re:statute of limitations? by RealGrouchy · · Score: 2, Funny

      In France it does. It is 30 years.

      Or the death of the victim, whichever comes first.

      Makes for a much less bloated legal system.

      - RG>

      --
      Hey pal, this isn't a pleasantforest, so don't waste my time with pleasantries!
    15. Re:statute of limitations? by Martin+Blank · · Score: 1

      Doesn't ex post facto apply in most European countries? And since it was done by the government, there may also be questions about sovereign immunity.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    16. Re:statute of limitations? by pilgrim23 · · Score: 2, Informative

      There is a legend that, as the Guillotine blade descended on the neck of Louis XVI the last Borbon King, and a direct descendent of Philip IV, an old man in the crowd yelled out: " Jacques de Molay THOU ART AVENGED!" THUNK!

      --
      - Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum.
    17. Re:statute of limitations? by Insanity+Defense · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That was one of the real problems. Another was the vast estates of the Templars paid no taxes. That helped to mess up the Monarchies budgets and left them running huge debts. As such it was necessary for the King to either confiscate their lands or make them taxable. It was a much better precedent from the churches viewpoint to allow the confiscation for trumped up reasons than allow church property to be taxed. Also the Pope was effectively a prisoner of France at the time and had little choice but to give in.

    18. Re:statute of limitations? by doug · · Score: 1

      The death sentence came from a Parisian court (dunno if it was royal or clerical), not the Vatican. Anyhow, you'd have to prosecute an officer of the court for performing his duties. If that is now OK, I'll enjoy watching the Salem Witch Trial suits work through the Massachusetts court system.

      The Vatican may have been involved in slander/defamation of the Templar's name, but that surely has expired.

      As for digging people up, since Galileo was vindicated, he has been dug up and is now in Basilica of Santa Croce in Florence. I guess these retrials can go either way.

    19. Re:statute of limitations? by Jeff+Hornby · · Score: 1

      Actually, that was the Catholic Church. In 897 A.D. Pope Stephen VI exhumed his predecessor Pope Formosus and put him on trial. After that his body was thrown in the Tiber.

      So are the closest relatives (or possibly descendants as priests weren't known for obeying their vows of chastity in those days) of Formosus going to sue the Church for defamation too?

      --
      Why doesn't Slashdot ever get slashdotted?
    20. Re:statute of limitations? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As informative as your post is, I think it qualifies for a "Whoosh".

    21. Re:statute of limitations? by Surt · · Score: 1

      Was that a joke or a typo? victim -> assailant?

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    22. Re:statute of limitations? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think their statute also included a "Holy Obedience" clause.(hint: the Jesuits were disbanded too)

    23. Re:statute of limitations? by drooling-dog · · Score: 1

      I'm thinking that 700 years might be a bit past the statute of limitations...

      A good thing, too, because the interest compounded over 700 years doesn't even pass the sanity test. For every "dollar" of principal at 6% per year (compounded annually), that's about $5.177 x 10^17. I could live rather comfortably on that...

    24. Re:statute of limitations? by Phantom+of+the+Opera · · Score: 1

      Statute of Limitations?
      In Europe? What are you kidding? Just look at the mess with Gibraltar. "We used to own it, hundreds of years ago" cry the Spanish, who ad "that sunken treasure you found? Well, it belongs to us, buckos".

    25. Re:statute of limitations? by sarge+apone · · Score: 1

      Of course, that would have made Jacques de Molay even more surprised and fearful if the Spanish Inquisition showed up on his doorstep.

      Is he in anyway related to Count de Monet?

    26. Re:statute of limitations? by Dogtanian · · Score: 1

      Except that the Templars ran into trouble with the French, not the Spanish.

      That'd be why they weren't expecting the Spanish Inquisition then, wouldn't it? Silly boy.

      --
      "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
    27. Re:statute of limitations? by BrentH · · Score: 1

      I can think of at least five reasons why it's interesting/funny/smart to post that as an Anonymous Coward, but I can't choose which one to pick to write a witty comment about. While it actually is crazy, because 30 years is way too short. Should be possible as long as the killer lives.

    28. Re:statute of limitations? by dkleinsc · · Score: 2, Informative

      My second paragraph should make it clear that I understood the reference precisely.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
  4. Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy by eldavojohn · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I wonder what a holy grail goes for with 700 years of compound interest.

    I'm much more interested in how you make up for the lives & civilizations your organization destroyed.

    I'm not saying this is true but Newsweek/MSNBC ran a story on pagan relics stored beneath the Vatican. I've also read and heard that many Native American (both North & South) relics and documents were shipped back to the Vatican to be stored under it so they could study heathenism and combat it. This was after their owners were either converted or burned/shot.

    I would think that the Catholic church could at least (as a sign of good faith) return these to their descendants or at the very least release them to a museum with all the information they have on it so that the rest of us can gain insight to their culture & religion. Of course, if this were true, I don't think the museum donations would be worth the black eye.

    "the Knights Templar are demanding that the Vatican give them back their good name and, possibly, billions in assets into the bargain, 700 years after the order was brutally suppressed by a joint venture between the Pope and the King of France..."

    The funny thing is that the Vatican probably has billions in capital at its disposal. I always got a kick out of the pope ruling a small nation-state in Europe (with its own currency, mind you) telling me to be more like Jesus. The same Jesus who said in Matthew 19:21

    Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."

    Or what Luke said (12:23)

    Sell your possessions and give to the poor. Provide purses for yourselves that will not wear out, a treasure in heaven that will not be exhausted, where no thief comes near and no moth destroys.

    Or John 3:17

    If anyone has material possessions and sees his brother in need but has no pity on him, how can the love of God be in him?

    The funny thing is I could go on all day finding quotes from most major religions ... Like Buddha or Gandhi, I'm a huge fan of this Jesus guy. It's 99% of the people who purport to follow him that manage to genuinely fuck up the world.

    --
    My work here is dung.
    1. Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy by kahei · · Score: 5, Funny

      ...and that was rabid Catholic-bashing in post 4, still standing by for Christianity-bashing and something about open source.

      --
      Whence? Hence. Whither? Thither.
    2. Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy by eldavojohn · · Score: 4, Funny

      ...and that was rabid Catholic-bashing in post 4, still standing by for Christianity-bashing and something about open source.

      (see sig)

      --
      My work here is dung.
    3. Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy by MyLongNickName · · Score: 3, Informative

      I believe your last two citations are incorrect. The last should be 1 John, and was not uttered by Jesus. The middle one is Luke 12:33.

      --
      See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    4. Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy by 192939495969798999 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      As long as we're quoting from the Bible, why not disband the whole church system using Matthew 6?

      "Be careful not to do your 'acts of righteousness' before men, to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven.

        2"So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. 3But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, 4so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.
      Prayer
        5"And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. 6But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you."

      --
      stuff |
    5. Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Buddy Christ mods you up

    6. Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy by Hatta · · Score: 3, Insightful

      As long as we're applying reason to the Bible, why not acknowledge it as nothing more than a book of bronze age mythology and treat it as such?

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    7. Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy by R2.0 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Congratulations! You have discovered the secret of Instant +5 Insightful here in our happy community:

      "[Catholic Church|US Government] sucks and [Catholics|US Citizens] are [ignorant|corrupt]." Followed by "I'm sure [Jesus|the Constitution] is great, but no one really does what they want."

      Instant gratification and celebrity! I'd patent it, but there's WAY too much prior art.

      --
      "As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
    8. Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy by 91degrees · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The funny thing is, the whole debate has been going on for centuries, and causing fractures in the church between those factions who believed that Jesus was poor, and so the church should be, and those who believed that having lots of money is really great.

      Umberto Eco's Novel "The Name of the Rose" has this as a major subplot (I think it's less significant in the movie).

    9. Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Vatican doesn't have its own currency: it uses the euro.

      Maybe it had its own currency before the euro? I think it used the Italian lira, but I could be mistaken.

    10. Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy by chill · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'd patent it, but there's WAY too much prior art.

      This hasn't stopped anyone before, why let it get in your way now?

      --
      Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
    11. Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy by nfgaida · · Score: 1

      Sounds good to me.

      --
      *elevator music plays*
    12. Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy by sm62704 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm much more interested in how you make up for the lives & civilizations your organization destroyed.

      I'm more interestded in how the list you pointed to is in any way relevant.

      1492: Christopher Columbus discovers the New World.
      1493: With the Inter caetera, Pope Alexander VI awards sole colonial rights over most of the New World to Spain.
      January 22, 1506: Kaspar von Silenen and first contingent of Swiss mercenaries enter the Vatican during the reign of Pope Julius II. Traditional date of founding of the Swiss Guards.
      April 18, 1506: Pope Julius II lays cornerstone of New Basilica of St. Peter.
      1508: Michaelangelo starts painting the Sistine Chapel ceiling.
      October 31, 1517: Martin Luther posts his 95 Theses, protesting the sale of indulgences.
      1516: Saint Sir Thomas More publishes "Utopia" in Latin.
      1519: Spanish conquest of Mexico by Hernando Cortes.
      January 3, 1521: Martin Luther finally excommunicated by Pope Leo X in the bull Decet Romanum Pontificem.
      1521: Baptism of the first Catholics in the Philippines, the first Christian nation in Southeast Asia. This event is commemorated with the feast of the Sto. Niño.

      etc. What do any of these have to do with destroying people's lives?

      I would think that the Catholic church could at least (as a sign of good faith) return these to their descendants or at the very least release them to a museum with all the information they have on it so that the rest of us can gain insight to their culture & religion.

      I don't see how anyone could disagree with that. "Thou shalt not steal," not even if you are the Catholic Chruch.

      The funny thing is that the Vatican probably has billions in capital at its disposal.

      More pathetic than funny IMO, especially considering Matthew 19:23 - "Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. 24 And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God"

      Never trust a preacher who wears a five thousand dollar suit preaching in a million dollar church.

      It's 99% of the people who purport to follow him that manage to genuinely fuck up the world.

      Amen to that. Pat Robertson has converted more Christians to athiesm than all the athiests at slashdot combined. Most of the people you find in any church worship money, not God.

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    13. Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy by CRCulver · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Commandments against the accumulation of personal valuables apply to individual Christians, not the Church as an organization. Christianity, as an offshot of Jewish Temple worship, had elaborate furnishings and ornate decoration from the very beginning. The collection called the Apostolic Fathers, written by the generation following the Apostles, described worship in ways little different from the rites of the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches today. The idea that the Church itself should be poor and bereft of splendour is very much a Protestant innovation that only popped up a few hundred years ago.

    14. Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy by Hal_Porter · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No one would remember the Good Samaritan if he'd only had good intentions; he had money as well.
      Margaret Thatcher

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    15. Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy by rarel · · Score: 1

      As a state, they do have their own Euro coins. Before the Euro they had a Vatican lira. I don't know if the value was the same as the Italian one though.

    16. Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy by pitchpipe · · Score: 4, Funny

      [...]still standing by for Christianity-bashing and something about open source.

      YEAH, how come Jesus didn't post the sermon on the mount for all of us to modify and improve upon instead of dictating it like Microsoft would do?

      --
      Look where all this talking got us, baby.
    17. Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy by FireStormZ · · Score: 1

      IUm not Catholic so I don't have a dog in this fight but I hate it when people cut and paste scripture to try to make a point rather than taking scripture as a whole.

      --
      Matthew 19:21

      Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."
      --

      Nice that you quoted from the gospel of Matthew, the man who managed the money that was used towards the ministry of Christ. Yes the Catholic church will have to stand before God and answer for how they have used their wealth but a church having money in and of itself is *not* bad.

      ----

      "It's 99% of the people who purport to follow him that manage to genuinely fuck up the world."

      Oh yea 99% of the worlds problems are caused by Christians...

      --
      "Ahh! Arrogance and stupidity in the same package, how efficient of you!" --Londo Molari
    18. Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy by FireStormZ · · Score: 0, Troll

      I fail to see how any of these are justification for banning the 'church system', these are restrictions on an individuals behavior

      --
      "Ahh! Arrogance and stupidity in the same package, how efficient of you!" --Londo Molari
    19. Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy by D+Ninja · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The funny thing is I could go on all day finding quotes from most major religions ... Like Buddha or Gandhi, I'm a huge fan of this Jesus guy. It's 99% of the people who purport to follow him that manage to genuinely fuck up the world.

      I'd love to see where you got your statistics.

      I don't disagree with you. Christians have done quite a good job of messing up the world. Heck...Christians are people too - we mess up. But, then again, we are all part of this earth, so we all hold responsibility for its state...it's not just Christians (and people of other faiths) who are at fault. The problem as I see it is, and as you very nicely pointed out, religions tend to be caught in their hypocrisy which makes them look that much worse. (What's worse - someone who does something bad, or someone who says to do good and still does the bad thing?)

      I am also not disagreeing with you that all of that capital could not be used to help millions (billions?) of people in this world, and it's not. I am with you 100% on that.

      With all that said, what I find interesting is that you quote passage after passage in the Bible, condemning Christians (and religions) about not being perfect, yet you forget one passage...

      Matthew 7:5 - You hypocrite! First remove the beam from your own eye, and then you will see clearly enough to remove the speck from your brother's eye.

      I challenge you that, instead of complaining about how others are not doing the right thing, go out and do the right thing yourself. How much better would that make the world?

    20. Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What do any of these have to do with destroying people's lives?

      Remember the native people who lived in America? They might have not been quite so happy with Columbus arriving and starting the slow process to nearly wipe them all out, or the successful destruction of their culture.

      Of course, as you point out, the Protestants were even better at it. The Catholic Church succeeded in converting quite a few native people to their church, while the Protestants (namely, English colonies and the Puritans) just mercilessly killed the natives without bothering with the whole "conversion" thing.

      The first Puritan settlement was built literally on top of a native village after the settlers had killed the entire village. (And this was after they stole provisions from another native tribe. Why Thanksgiving then? Yet another native tribe, "the enemy of my enemy" and all that. And that tribe didn't do so well either, did it?)

      So while the Catholic church has some answering to do, the Puritans have some as well. And, yes, there are still Puritan churches around. The Unitarians in the US and the United Church of Christ (yes, the same church as Rev. Wright) both derive from the Puritan church.

    21. Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy by Lumpy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      ahem,

      The followers of Muhammed are also fucking up the place pretty darn good.

      and dont get me started on those wackjobs that worship the great space race taht will come down to save us... or do they worship L ron Hubbard? I forget.

      dont blame just the christians, they simply have a head start on everyone else.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    22. Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy by Sabz5150 · · Score: 1

      Congratulations! You have discovered the secret of Instant +5 Insightful here in our happy community

      No, that particular person's sig only says +5's are given for those who say that the US Gov't sucks. Go somewhere else for your Church karma boost.

      --
      "Who modded this informative? Whoever it is must've been smokin' some of that martian pot!"
    23. Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy by Mesa+MIke · · Score: 1

      The Catholic church isn't storing their treasure on earth where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal.
      They've got an extra-large one of these babies!

    24. Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy by Lurker2288 · · Score: 4, Informative

      If the Bible (or at least, the Gospels) are the word of Jesus, and it's his word that good Christians are supposed to be following, then the fact that he says "pray in private" would seem to suggest that Jesus doesn't want you to get together in a big building once a week to say your prayers in front of everybody else. Seems pretty straightforward to me...

    25. Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy by MoonBuggy · · Score: 1

      ...and that was rabid Catholic-bashing in post 4, still standing by for Christianity-bashing and something about open source.

      It seemed like a logical post with reasonable citations for its assertions - would you care to explain how that constitutes "rabid Catholic-bashing" rather than reasonable criticism? Even a sensible counter-argument would be interesting.

    26. Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because it was written during the Iron Age?

      Xaltatun of Acheron

    27. Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy by MoonBuggy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Because we're trapping people inside their own logic.

      You say "bronze age mythology", they say "word of God". You then ask them why they feel qualified to pick and choose which bits of their God's word they obey and which bits they contradict.

      You're unlikely to get strong followers of a religion to buy into a mindset that runs contrary to the basic concept of faith in their book, however good an argument you present. The thing is, a reasonable amount of what their book tells them is actually rather pleasant (yes, there's plenty that isn't, too) so asking them why they aren't obeying those bits is much more likely to change their behaviour than asking them to abandon it all, good and bad.

    28. Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      Columbus' discovery of America had nothing to do with any religion except mammon worship - he was trying to find a new trade route to India.

      Yes, much evil has been done in the name of religion, but that evil is done by men who, as I pointed out, aren't precticing what their own bible tells them. In most cases they probably don't even believe in God, but know that they can use his name to take advantage of his fellow men.

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    29. Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy by metlin · · Score: 1

      The church is made up of people, yes? Of course, one may debate if Christians are people, but I digress.

      Either way, that only makes it all the more hypocritical.

    30. Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy by ChromeAeonium · · Score: 1

      Yes, giving to the poor is such an outdated notion, let's dismiss the entire thing. /sarcasm

    31. Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy by Mesa+MIke · · Score: 1

      > The first Puritan settlement was built literally on
      > top of a native village after the settlers had
      > killed the entire village.

      Really. Is that what is being taught in public schools these days?
      Could you please cite some references to support this?

    32. Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy by FireStormZ · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Well if you want to snip a few words here or there you can make something clear as you want, but the Bible clearly not only says there should be churches but gives some loose guidelines as to how they should function. In context Jesus is admonishing those who would go out into the streets and puff out their chest at how holy and good they were which was a common practice at the time. He was not telling people to hide their faith. If you want scriptural evidence that churches are indeed a critical component of Christianity:

      In Mt 16:18:

      "on this rock I will build my church"

      Luke 8:16-17

      "No one, when he has lit a lamp, covers it with a container"

      Protestants and Catholics differ on what 'rock' he was talking about with Catholics believing its Peter and Protestants believing its the truth that Christ is the Messiah. but its pretty clear Christ is saying he will build a church

      We can also look at the letters of the apostles (and the book of acts) to see that clearly church formation was a very important component of Christianity and is a very important support mechanism for Christians who, themselves, are as flawed and sinful as anyone else.

      One might disagree in such a large central and controlling a church as the catholic church but to try and scripture twist your way into Christ saying their should not be common places of worship for Christians and that those places are not to be a beacon to the world is agenda driven drivel of the highest caliber..

      --
      "Ahh! Arrogance and stupidity in the same package, how efficient of you!" --Londo Molari
    33. Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy by inasity_rules · · Score: 1

      IANACatholic, but I agree with sibling poster. You're just bashing. For example,

      The funny thing is that the Vatican probably has billions in capital at its disposal.[reliable citation needed and citation that this money isn't well used for charity/otherworthwile causes].

      And like most people, you miss the point about christians in general - if we were perfect, we would not need God. See Mathew 9:12 and Luke 18:25-27 regarding money. See I can quote the bible too! But I actually know what I'm talking about.

      have fun...

      --
      I have determined that my sig is indeterminate.
    34. Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nothing more? Wow, #1 seller since Guttenberg and it gets a 'nothing more'? Anticlimactic aren't we, keep your anti-religion views to yourself.

    35. Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy by Lurker2288 · · Score: 1

      Maybe you need to work on your math rather than your theology. Claiming that 99% of Christians fuck up the world does not mean that 99% of the world's problems are caused by Christians.

      Furthermore, what is 'the Catholic church' but the earthly union of Catholics? I don't see how even an almighty sky daddy could ask an abstract concept such as 'the Church' to answer for itself; ultimately it's the decisions of the people that matter. And while I can understand that the Church might need to maintain some capital to achieve it's mission of advancing Jesus's work, it's a little harder for me to understand how one justifies the riches of the Church when there are so many needy in the world.

    36. Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy by mforbes · · Score: 1

      It's 99% of the people who purport to follow him that manage to genuinely fuck up the world."

      Oh yea 99% of the worlds problems are caused by Christians...

      Read the first statement again. He didn't say 99% of the world's problems are caused by the followers of some bronze age nutcase. He said 99% of that nutcase's followers cause problems for the world. It's a bit of a difference.

      (To the tune of the Pink Panther theme...) Pedant... Pedant... (etc)

      --

      Allegedly real newspaper headline from 1998:
      Man Struck by Lightning Faces Battery Charge

    37. Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy by mforbes · · Score: 3, Funny

      dont blame just the christians, they simply have a head start on everyone else.

      Oh no you don't! We Jews were here long before those Christians! Err wait, we've already had enough blame laid on us over the years, forget I said that.

      --

      Allegedly real newspaper headline from 1998:
      Man Struck by Lightning Faces Battery Charge

    38. Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy by Lurker2288 · · Score: 1

      Wow, what a handy rejoinder for ducking essentially undeniable challenges to your moral behavior. Still, in terms of religious horseshit, it's nowhere near as good as the insistence that everything be taken on faith. If there's a better way to justify all kinds of batshit insanity without a shred of evidence or logic, it hasn't been found yet!

    39. Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      How about some actual rebuttal of his post instead of just calling it "Catholic-bashing", you Xtian retard?

      How about you refrain from out-retarding your parent poster by using the teenybopper word "Xtian"?

    40. Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy by BlackSnake112 · · Score: 1

      I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. 6But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you."

      Crap he/she can see what is done in secret!? I don't think reward is what I will be receiving.

      To quote that song from the '80s:

      "..When I die I expect to find him laughing"

    41. Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy by FireStormZ · · Score: 1

      By church I was talking about the leadership of the church (the ones who decide what to do with the money)...

      FWIW I don't like 'rich' churches in the catholic tradition or the modern mega churches with latte bars but the initial uptake was 'church with money=bad' which is only true if the money is used unwisely or selfishly. Note in the parable of the talents the men who wisly use and increase that which they are given are rewarded but not until they give it back to the master.

      --
      "Ahh! Arrogance and stupidity in the same package, how efficient of you!" --Londo Molari
    42. Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy by HeronBlademaster · · Score: 4, Informative

      You seem to have missed the part in the Bible where Jesus prayed, in front of everybody, as an example of how to pray. He also prayed in the garden of Gethsemane in front of his apostles.

      Prayer in front of others is only wrong if you're doing it so other people see you praying - similarly, Christ said that those who fast and act like they're fasting so others know they're fasting already have their reward. Praying in front of others is fine if your only intention is to pray, that is, if you do not do it for the praise of man.

    43. Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy by Lurker2288 · · Score: 1

      I have no agenda here; if the flocks of sheep want to congregate for mutual support of their delusional belief systems, it certainly doesn't offend me at all. I was merely explaining, for someone who appeared not to understand, how the original quote could be interpreted as unfavorable to group worship. I'd certainly agree with you however that a single quote, taken out of context, can be misleading.

    44. Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy by rcamans · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      The Vatican may only have billions in cash, but they have trillions in real estate. Not just what they seized from the Knights Templar, but also all the Inquisition seizures, and many similar land grabs down through the ages. I think they should be forced, in the international courts, to give up all their lands for which they cannot show provenance. Like most old churches, monasteries, abbies, etc in Great Britain, for example, were built on the razed remains of pre-Christian temples, etc. I do not care that they got much of their lands with the connivance of the government. According to Church law, they stole the land, and so should have to give it back. Their own laws convict them.
      And all they seized during the Crusades.
      Any properties they have that are not Christian should be released, and any Christian objects (books, scrolls, artifacts, etc) should be on display, with open, free electronic access.

      --
      wake up and hold your nose
    45. Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy by Fujisawa+Sensei · · Score: 1

      Commandments against the accumulation of personal valuables apply to individual Christians, not the Church as an organization. Christianity, as an offshot of Jewish Temple worship, had elaborate furnishings and ornate decoration from the very beginning. The collection called the Apostolic Fathers, written by the generation following the Apostles, described worship in ways little different from the rites of the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches today. The idea that the Church itself should be poor and bereft of splendour is very much a Protestant innovation that only popped up a few hundred years ago.

      I don't remember seeing any endorsement of this so called Church in The Bible. Could it be that its noting more than a creation of the self-styled clergy in order to establish and maintain a power base?

      --
      If someone is passing you on the right, you are an asshole for driving in the wrong lane.
    46. Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy by notamisfit · · Score: 1

      Play the game by their rules, and they will win. After all, their sky-god loves them and will forgive them no matter how inconsistent they are. It's why all the moderate Christians in the world can't stop the anti-abortion or anti-gay marriage statues, and all the moderate Muslims in the world can't stop the suicide bombings; they've accepted the same moral points.

      --
      Jesus is coming -- look busy!
    47. Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1519: Spanish conquest of Mexico by Hernando Cortes.

      That one line there is kinda important with the whole destroying of entire civilizations & cultures.

    48. Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy by notamisfit · · Score: 1

      Outdated? No. Evil? Yes.

      --
      Jesus is coming -- look busy!
    49. Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy by Bearpaw · · Score: 5, Funny

      YEAH, how come Jesus didn't post the sermon on the mount for all of us to modify and improve upon instead of dictating it like Microsoft would do?

      It's pretty obvious that the original source code has been lost, and the current source is a combination of ignorant reverse engineering, clumsy hacks, and viruses.

    50. Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy by CRCulver · · Score: 1

      I don't remember seeing any endorsement of this so called Church in The Bible.

      Then you should look harder. The word "church" (Greek ekklesia) occurs at the start of nearly every epistle and in highly elaborate form in Revelation. If you object that you meant the word isn't in the Gospels, there is Christ telling Peter after his confession of faith that "on this rock I will build my Church."

    51. Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy by notamisfit · · Score: 1

      It's a contradiction, between those who try to live under the Church's teachings, and those who know that such an existence is impossible.

      --
      Jesus is coming -- look busy!
    52. Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy by alexgieg · · Score: 4, Informative

      Well, if Jesus is God, then he owns the whole Universe and beyond. Can't be richer than that, can he?

      Anyway, if you go beyond the Gospels into Acts, you'll see the apostles made such a money-less community. The problem is, it didn't last. At the end, they had to ask Paul to go around get donations from the churches abroad, what he did. Morals: being poor is good and all, provided you have someone from whom to ask money once poorness' ugly side shows up.

      Oh, and by the way: the land the Church owned in Europe up to the 18th century were usually reserved for usage by the landless or anyone under persecution of angry Feudal lords. When those Church lands were appropriated by the many greed governments around, they got distributed among nobles, bourgeois and other close friends of said governments. That's when being a poor European landless peasant really became a problem (for the peasant).

      In short: actual History is more complicated than our cherished oversimplifications would prefer it to be.

      --
      Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
    53. Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy by mcvos · · Score: 3, Informative

      If the Bible (or at least, the Gospels) are the word of Jesus, and it's his word that good Christians are supposed to be following, then the fact that he says "pray in private" would seem to suggest that Jesus doesn't want you to get together in a big building once a week to say your prayers in front of everybody else. Seems pretty straightforward to me...

      He said not to pray out loud on the street corners to show everybody how devout you are. He never seemed to have any serious problems with group prayer.

    54. Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy by TubeSteak · · Score: 1

      Commandments against the accumulation of personal valuables apply to individual Christians, not the Church as an organization.

      That's a nice bit of rationalization.
      I hope you see the hypocrisy of an organization, made up of people Commanded by God not to accumulate "personal valuables", accumulating "personal valuables".

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    55. Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy by memoryhole · · Score: 3, Informative

      The funny thing is that the Vatican probably has billions in capital at its disposal.

      The Vatican's finances are a matter of public record, so you don't have to guess about its financial resources. You can look it up. The short answer is: no, they don't have billions in capital at their disposal. Their annual budget is less than that of Harvard University.

    56. Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy by Shivetya · · Score: 1

      because if it can be thrown back in their faces it then has soapbox value.

      I never understood how some of the most vocal of the anti-religious thought nothing of using a book they themselves completely discount against the people they disagreed with. First it seemed like a lot of silliness to expend such energy and ego driven just to make it known you didn't agree with someone... then to top it off an cite from the very same material ...

      oh well, I keep forgetting the depths people will go to justify their position

      --
      * Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
    57. Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy by mcvos · · Score: 2, Funny

      The funny thing is, the whole debate has been going on for centuries, and causing fractures in the church between those factions who believed that Jesus was poor, and so the church should be, and those who believed that having lots of money is really great.

      You don't understand. Money is evil, therefore the catholic church tries to make sure they have all of it, so regular people won't have to suffer from it.

    58. Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's a LOT more to the Good Samaritan story than meets the eye. Remember, Samaritans were reviled by the Jews. There's about as much chance as a Jewish person considering a Samaritan "good" as there is a modern person calling a pedophile "good."

    59. Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy by Bob+The+Magic+Camel · · Score: 1

      ...as an offshot of Jewish Temple worship, had elaborate furnishings and ornate decoration from the very beginning.

      Actually, the Roman Catholic Church has more in common with Roman Paganism than it does with the Jewish church. While it has a lot of roots in Old Testament theology, including where it was overwritten in the new covenant; a lot of new ideas and theologies were introduced when it was incorporated into the Roman empire.

      --
      This signature is esoteric
    60. Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy by Fred_A · · Score: 4, Funny

      The middle one is Luke 12:33.

      Would that be AM or PM ?

      --

      May contain traces of nut.
      Made from the freshest electrons.
    61. Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy by HeronBlademaster · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yeah, excommunicating a guy who protested an immoral church-supported activity (selling indulgences) doesn't interfere with a guy's life at all. How dare people accuse the Catholic Church of doing something wrong!

      I suggest you read the book "The Great Apostasy" by James E. Talmage (available for free here: http://books.google.com/books?id=yJn69K_Q0y0C). It details not just the fall of the Church headed by Peter in Christ's time, but how various doctrines were corrupted and shows how corrupt the Catholic Church was. Talmage provides many, many sources for his material.

      See especially footnote three of chapter nine (page 144).

    62. Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy by memoryhole · · Score: 3, Informative

      As long as we're quoting from the Bible, why not disband the whole church system using Matthew 6?

      For one thing, because Christ himself established the church system. (Matthew 16:18)

      In Matthew 5, he says this:

      You are the light of the world. A city set on a mountain cannot be hidden. Nor do they light a lamp and then put it under a bushel basket; it is set on a lampstand, where it gives light to all in the house. Just so, your light must shine before others, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your heavenly Father.

      The obvious reconciliation of these two passages is that of INTENT. You are ignoring the second half of the sentence. "Be careful not to do your acts of righteousness before men, to be seen by them." He's not telling people to avoid doing acts of righteousness, he's telling them to avoid doing them solely for the sake of being seen (i.e. for the purpose of glorifying themselves).

    63. Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy by mario_grgic · · Score: 3, Informative

      The often quoted (out of context mind you) Jesus' words:

      Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. 24 And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God"

      do NOT mean that it is wrong to be rich nor that rich people can not go to heaven. If you read a few passages before the quote you will see that a rich man rejected the offer to follow Jesus because he could not part with the money (that was the condition Jesus requested of him: sell all you have and follow me).

      The question any "rich" man or anybody who holds something really dear to their heart is always "is this more important to me than God. Am I serving that something and not God and people around me, failing to see them as my brothers".

      If the honest answer is no, then you are in the exact same danger as the rich man in the Bible.

      Note that money is just a tool, so is knowledge, reason or any talent. People often forget that.

      --
      As the island of our knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance.
    64. Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy by HeronBlademaster · · Score: 1

      Actually Judas was the treasurer until he betrayed Christ.

    65. Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy by Fred_A · · Score: 1

      As long as we're applying reason to the Bible, why not acknowledge it as nothing more than a book of bronze age mythology and treat it as such?

      If it was "bronze age mythology" then it wouldn't be written in English !

      *ducks*

      --

      May contain traces of nut.
      Made from the freshest electrons.
    66. Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As long as we're applying reason to the Bible, why not acknowledge it as nothing more than a book of bronze age mythology and treat it as such?

      There needs to be an equivalent to Godwin's Law, that states:

      As a slashdot discussion grows larger, the probability of a post involving anti-religion or anti-Christianity approaches one.

    67. Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy by Knara · · Score: 1

      I, likewise, have never heard about this. Perhaps someone saw the second Addam's Family movie and took it a bit too literally.

    68. Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you're suggesting that the instruction to pray in private is discouraging organized religion, that would contradict what was written later in Hebrews 10:25: Let us not give up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing, but let us encourage one anotherâ"and all the more as you see the Day approaching. (New International Version)

      Jesus' words in Matthew were spoken in light of the habits of the religious leaders of the first-century whose practice it was to literally pray out in front of others ostensibly to demonstrate their own piety and devotion. Jesus wasn't discouraging his followers from worshiping together. He was simply pointing out the inherent hypocrisy in trying to impress others with your form of worship.

      I'll leave it to you to determine who has followed his counsel and who has ignored it.

    69. Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy by 192939495969798999 · · Score: 1

      The fact that organized religion appears to have in its most fundamental of tenets the equivalent of a direct commandment against "organized religion" is good enough for me to want to avoid it.

      P.S. Matthew is "canon gospel", meaning it belongs to the four "least corruptible" and "most accurate, most widely accepted" books in the Bible. St. Irenaeus called it "an indispensable and recognized collection against all deviations of heretics". (http://www.orthodox.net/faq/canon.htm)

      So if you're going to argue there's anything in the book that is to be taken as the cornerstone of the Christian faith, it would seem that not praying with others around (i.e. in a church) is way up that list.

      --
      stuff |
    70. Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy by mgrivich · · Score: 1

      The funny thing is that the Vatican probably has billions in capital at its disposal. I always got a kick out of the pope ruling a small nation-state in Europe (with its own currency, mind you) telling me to be more like Jesus. The same Jesus who said in Matthew 19:21

      You might think this, but you would be wrong. The Vatican has an annual operating budget of $260 million. This puts it on order a mid-sized U.S. college. http://www.marquette.edu/umi/events/documents/AllenJohn.pdf

    71. Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy by ColdWetDog · · Score: 4, Funny

      I believe your last two citations are incorrect. The last should be 1 John, and was not uttered by Jesus. The middle one is Luke 12:33.

      Great. Before we had spelling Nazis and Grammar Nazis, now it's Bible Nazis.

      Is nothing sacred?

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    72. Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy by kalirion · · Score: 5, Funny

      Great. Before we had spelling Nazis and Grammar Nazis, now it's Bible Nazis.

      Is nothing sacred?

      Off hand, I'd say spelling, grammar, and The Bible.

    73. Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy by muellerr1 · · Score: 1

      Matthew 7:5 - You hypocrite! First remove the beam from your own eye, and then you will see clearly enough to remove the speck from your brother's eye.

      I challenge you that, instead of complaining about how others are not doing the right thing, go out and do the right thing yourself. How much better would that make the world?

      Matthew 7:5 applies to you too, there, beam-eye.

    74. Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy by Philip+Shaw · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think they should be forced, in the international courts, to give up all their lands for which they cannot show provenance.

      That may be problematical, as the only surviving records for most of Europe are likely to have been kept by the Church, either on their own behalf or for the local king. The records are thus likely to be forged in cases where the land was acquired illegally, and in other cases, the acquisition would have been in accordance with the law and thus there would be no way for the courts to do anything either.

      --
      "A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject."- Winston Churchill
    75. Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy by kalirion · · Score: 1

      So then Catholics are really Yen Buddhists?

    76. Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy by dgatwood · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes, but in response to the comments here about giving everything to the poor, I would note that there was a study on that subject while back. It concluded that even if the Church sold all of its possessions including real estate and gave everything to the poor, it would feed the people of Africa for, IIRC, about a year.

      So they have a choice: continue an organization of people who regularly spend their time and talents on an ongoing basis to help the poor of their communities or disband it and lose all of that just to gain a very temporary improvement in one part of the world. I think anyone with a solid grasp of reality would agree that sometimes there are better ways to help the poor than selling everything you have and giving the money to them.

      As for whether it is theirs or not, the good book also says that children should not be punished for the sins of their fathers. We should leave the past in ashes. It is the past. There is nothing to be gained from dredging it up again. Just my $0.02.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    77. Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy by SwordsmanLuke · · Score: 1

      How do you think that line about the meek got in there?

      --
      Any plan which depends on a fundamental change in human behavior is doomed from the start.
    78. Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "For wherever two or more are gathered together in my name, there I am in the midst of them"

      Matthew 18:20

      The passage in Matthew 6 that is previously quoted speaks not against public religious gathering, but rather cautions against ostentatious signs of self righteousness. Together the passages seem to indicate that prayer is a private moment between the individual and God while faith is sustained by sharing it with others.

    79. Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy by D+Ninja · · Score: 1

      I absolutely agree. What Jesus knew (and everybody realizes) is that no person is perfect. We like to think we are. In fact, we compare ourselves to others all the time and say how great and good we are compared to that person, but the standard (at least for Christians) is not other people. It's Christ. One heckuva standard.

      Jesus knew how people worked, hence Matthew 7:5. Hypocrisy is a huge turn-off to a lot of people. Jesus was addressing that.

      Now, you threw Matthew 7:5 back at me and you are absolutely right. I do mess up...I freely admit it. I'm not a perfect person by any stretch of the imagination. (In fact, I can be quick to judge, so it's good to get reminders that I shouldn't be.) It is hard to demonstrate voice across the Internet medium, but, in this case, my intention was not to judge eldavojohn. I was instead trying to challenge him. So many people on Slashdot are quick to trash religions (many times for very good reasons), but how many of those people volunteer at a soup kitchen, or give money to a good cause or do so many other things to help?

      It's easy to talk smack and doing so accomplishes absolutely nothing. It's so much harder to actually do something about a problem.

    80. Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy by tist · · Score: 1

      Then there was this guy named Martin Luther. You should check him out.

    81. Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      But again, Cortez didn't conquer Mexico for religion, he did it for the gold.

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    82. Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy by Dragoness+Eclectic · · Score: 2, Informative

      Er, that's a Mormon tract. I'd read it with a big grain of salt, seeing as one of the fundamentals of Mormonism is "All other, older churches are corrupt and failed and we're the only ones who have it right, so you should listen to us". The author might have been a tad biased in his arguments.

      I have read Martin Luther's essays, however, and he had a lot to say about the corruption of the medieval Roman church of his day. Some of those abuses were corrected by the mid-20th century as fallout from the Reformation and the Counter-Reformation, but some of the doctrine is still screwy to this day.

      --
      ---dragoness
    83. Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy by MoonBuggy · · Score: 1

      I never understood how some of the most vocal of the anti-religious thought nothing of using a book they themselves completely discount against the people they disagreed with.

      It makes perfect sense, actually. Just because I don't let the bible influence my life, doesn't mean I can't use it as a tool to influence people who do live by it, or at least claim to.

      In the most basic terms, it's useful to remind a Christian who is trying to tell me what to do that they aren't following their book properly themselves, so they have no right to try to apply bits of it to my life.

    84. Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you actually read the whole passage, you'd realize that the point of the story is the rich young man trusted in wealth instead of Christ, which kept him from the kingdom of heaven.

    85. Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy by jcgf · · Score: 1
      Jews invented nuclear power, made my CPU and generally don't try to make me follow their silly rules. The best part is that despite being the one of the three desert religions to have actually experienced real persecution, you really don't whine about it as much as the other 2 (ever listen to the Christians claim that atheists are persecuting them by teaching evolution? - the worst are the ones who will reply to this with some B.S. about the Romans feeding them to the lions).

      Personally, I say why stop at Gaza? Time to take Egypt and give those fuckers some payback! 5000 years of interest!

    86. Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy by MickLinux · · Score: 2, Insightful
      You say that the Vatican probably has billions at its disposal. The best answer I could find to that (no, not going to Chick publications, or to other conspiracy theorists), was located in Google Answers:

      http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=54617

      But stop and consider that "billions" is still less than the personal wealth of many individual many around the world.

      Now stop and consider that that, according to Wikipedia, "In 2000, worldwide Catholic institutions totalled 408,637...". Or, there were half a million Roman Catholic churches around the world, so for every billion in assets, that represents $2000 per church, or about $1 per person.

      So now you'd have to stop and ask, "if the church needed it, would its people be able to give $1? $10?" You'd have to answer yes. So yes, the Roman Catholic Church does have billions, even tens (maybe hundreds) of billions at its disposal, should it need it.

      But then you need to ask, "Does that justify holding up the Roman Catholic Church for billions, because they can get it, and I want it?" (You have to include the "I want it" part, because that's really what's driving your statement -- either "I want it", or "I want it by proxy."

      Now consider whether the Roman Catholic Church sees a brother in need and has no pity. My experience, is that the liquid assets of the church are so low (see the original google answers link above) *because* they have pity.

      Just as a corallary... the organizations to which you belong: what assets are at their disposal, and do *they* show pity?

      --
      Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
    87. Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy by sm62704 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You are quite right. Money is not the root of all evil, as is often quoted. The LOVE OF money is the root of all evil.

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    88. Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You completely miss the point - Jesus was saying to do righteousness out of a pure desire, not to look good. Remember that he said he came to fulfill the law, not destroy it.

    89. Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fucking brilliant! Funniest thing I read on slashdot today.

    90. Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy by HeronBlademaster · · Score: 1

      Right, because a Mormon author is incapable of using non-Mormon sources to prove his point. I forgot about that.

      Many of his sources are secular, and many are Catholic. He does occasionally use LDS scriptures in his arguments, but he also uses Old and New Testament scriptures and other Catholic sources.

    91. Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      "on this rock I will build my church"

      Protestants and Catholics differ on what 'rock' he was talking about with Catholics believing its Peter and Protestants believing its the truth that Christ is the Messiah. but its pretty clear Christ is saying he will build a church

      It's pretty clear he's using metaphor, since he can hardly build a physical church on a belief or a person, miracles aside. I am completely unfamiliar with the specifics of the Bible, but that particular example pretty much supports the idea of private religion, since Jesus' church here is quite blatantly philosophical.

      "No one, when he has lit a lamp, covers it with a container"

      ...Nothing to do with churches, as far as I can tell. Isn't the lamp man, and the light faith, making the container concealing or lying about one's beliefs?

      I'm only arguing against the interpretation of biblical evidence as framed by this short discussion; I have no idea about the Christian bible in full, but I hear it might contradict itself in a few places, so I suppose this style of argument is doomed to failure. I only reply because I am intrigued as to how you and I can interpret the same lines in opposing ways; I am interested why you chose them and what led to our difference of interpretation.

    92. Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy by FireStormZ · · Score: 2, Insightful

      why the addition of (i.e in a church) and why the curious lack of context around the quote youre using to say a church is not biblical?

      Matthew 6:

      " 2"So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. 3But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, 4so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you."

      On can, and should keep their offerings private, nobody in my Church save the one person who does the church finances has a clue what I give. This provision can clearly be followed within the environment of a church.

      " 5"And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. 6But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. 7And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. 8Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him."

      In the Time of Christ the Judaism was a temple based faith and the synagog was the center of daily life in their communities, some would stand in the center and show how holy and great they were by loud prayers in what was effectively the town center, they would then go home and do nothing of the sort. Christian need to find time alone to pray but prayer within a group setting is not prohibited. Christ several times mentions 'the church' and his apostles who knew him better than you or I founded many, many churches throughout Asia and Greece in their lifetimes.

        16"When you fast, do not look somber as the hypocrites do, for they disfigure their faces to show men they are fasting. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. 17But when you fast, put oil on your head and wash your face, 18so that it will not be obvious to men that you are fasting, but only to your Father, who is unseen; and your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.

      This is not a prohibition on fasting, this is a provision on fasting to glorify yourself, just like the above versus are not a prohibition on public prayer, merely public prayer meant to set yourself apart.

      --
      "Ahh! Arrogance and stupidity in the same package, how efficient of you!" --Londo Molari
    93. Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy by PC+and+Sony+Fanboy · · Score: 1
      Truth is truth, as we mormons say - no matter where it comes from, the original source is God.

      I'm not sure where you get the idea that mormons think

      All other, older churches are corrupt and failed and we're the only ones who have it right, so you should listen to us

      Maybe someone from another church told you it was true?

    94. Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because if you want to get technical its been 'the mythology' of every age since the bronze age as well for many civilizations.

      There is nothing wrong with religion. There is an issue with religious organizations because no matter how humble, they have power.

      As they say, power corrupts. Or at the very least, attracts those that would use it for their own needs. Which is exactly what you have with the majority of modern day religions.

      Go read the Bible. The real Bible. There are a lot of good things in there that would lead to a better life for all.

      Be humble. Be tolerant. Be nice to one another. Share with the needy. Are these things evil?

      Because an invisible man with magic powers says to do them you won't? I thought the religious were supposed to be the childish ones.

      I find atheists are very much like their religious counterparts for the most part. They cling to their belief desperately, and anyone who questions it is a fool who should be burned at the stake.

      People are people. Most of them are willfully ignorant. Real true believers in Christ are some of the nicest people you'll ever meet. Likewise for true atheists.

      Ironically, true atheists have more faith than anyone I've ever met usually.

      -Cowmonaut

    95. Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy by FireStormZ · · Score: 1

      "It's pretty clear he's using metaphor, since he can hardly build a physical church on a belief or a person, miracles aside."

      I would agree, but the catholic point of view is not that Peter would literally be the foundation of his church but merely the founder of his church on this earth.

      "I am completely unfamiliar with the specifics of the Bible, but that particular example pretty much supports the idea of private religion, since Jesus' church here is quite blatantly philosophical."

      reading one verse and saying, well is obvious that A is pretty irresponsible, especially when ones own bias is against that particular faith, suffice it to say I don't believe in a 'private faith' as Christ said to let your lamp shine but that lamp is his Glory and not your own 'goodness' And I have never seen any scripture which in full context means you should hide your faith from the world, merely to know that *you* are not the author of your faith nor can you be the author of anyone elses.

      --
      "Ahh! Arrogance and stupidity in the same package, how efficient of you!" --Londo Molari
    96. Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy by pluther · · Score: 1

      But again, Cortez didn't conquer Mexico for religion, he did it for the gold.

      Check out Bishop Diego de Landa some time.

      Same time period, and he's the reason why, out of possibly tens of thousands of Mayan books, there are only four in existence today.

      Slaughtering the people and gathering the gold may not have been a purely religious act (though Cortez certainly invoked religion frequently enough), but it's pretty hard to cast an auto de fe as anything but.

      --
      If the masses can keep you down, you're not the Ubermensch.
    97. Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      Nothing more? Wow, #1 seller since Guttenberg and it gets a 'nothing more'?

      Ok, ok. you win.

      As long as we're applying reason to the Bible, why not acknowledge it as nothing more than a book of popular bronze [sic] age mythology and treat it as such?

      Now unbunch your panties.

    98. Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy by analog_line · · Score: 1

      Most of the people you find in any church worship money, not God.

      I wouldn't say most, necessarily, but it is a very real problem in Christianity, and many Christians are well aware of it, and not at all pleased with it. In Christian circles this phenomenon is called, variously, the prosperity gospel, prosperity theology, or the "Health & Wealth gospel". Material success and physical health is seen as a sign of God's favor, poverty and ill health a sign of spiritual failure. It's not at all limited to Christianity, but the Christian version of it is the most flagrant, as it's obviously heretical with even a cursory reading of the Bible. It's also not in the least bit a new concept. It was being dealt with from the moment the first followers of Jesus met after he died. In just about every letter Paul wrote that made it into the Bible, he gives similar advice to the various Christian churches he's corresponding with. Multi-million dollar megachurches and the televangelist are just the modern incarnation of the prosperity cult in Christianity. I'd give more direct examples, but my Bible studies are quite rusty (since I'm, like, not a Christian anymore, however my family is, my fiancee is Catholic, and when I was bored during the sermons in Church I read the Bibles that were in the pews).

    99. Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy by tmosley · · Score: 1

      Yes, he built a figurative church upon the whole world. People don't light the lamp of faith and then hide it, but that doesn't mean that they gather with a bunch of other people with lamps, instead, those with the light should show the way to those in darkness.

      Of course, I'm an atheist, but I can still read the subtleties of a text, even if I don't agree with it.

    100. Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny how you leave out Matthew 19:26 ..."With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible", that is, a rich man can't save himself, he has to trust in Christ to save him

    101. Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 1

      Criticizing someone else's actions or views based on their own admitted beliefs is an effective and perfectly legitimate argumentative technique, regardless of whether you happen to share those beliefs yourself.

      --
      "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
    102. Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Without wanting this to drag on, I'd like to briefly address the fact you can quite easily read a couple of isolated verses and, in that context, instantly realise whether they are metaphor; quoting Jesus' "on this rock I will build my church" and then stating that the rock is a metaphor for things which physical churches cannot be built on means that the use of 'church' is metaphor and cannot be literal.

      I still don't get why you picked a couple of verses which don't actually support the point you wanted to make.

      Also, there seems to be a lack of clarity regarding private/public religion or worship, that is, building churches or not, and private/public belief, that is, concealing or being open about one's personal beliefs. Lamps are not beacons to the masses, they are personal tools of illumination.

    103. Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy by genner · · Score: 1

      Matthew 7:5 applies to you too, there, beam-eye.

      I want this on a t-shirt.

    104. Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy by Khashishi · · Score: 1

      I'm much more interested in how you make up for the lives & civilizations your organization destroyed [wikipedia.org].

      What's done is done. It doesn't make it OK that it was done, but there is nothing you can do to undo it or even redress it. Everyone involved is already dead.

    105. Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      The really screwed up part is that Islam, Judaism, Christianity, all share the same God, And the only difference is how they regard Jesus and Mohamed. They practice their faiths differently, but are all just offshoots of the same base religion.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    106. Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy by PlatyPaul · · Score: 2, Informative

      That's "offhand".

      You are either incorrect,

      --
      Misery loves company. Online misery loves unsuspecting random strangers.
    107. Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Are there any books in the Bible that have a thirteenth chapter with thirty seven or more verses?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    108. Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy by Hognoxious · · Score: 4, Funny

      Three things: Spelling, grammar, The Bible, and Monty Python quotes.

      I'll come in again.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    109. Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy by FireStormZ · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Talk about stretching it..

      The concept of an individual lighting to the world and sharing time of worship with those of the same faith are not in anyway mutually exclusive ideas. Both can be true, this verse is an admonishing against Sunday Christians. Christ himself teaching in front of vast crowds and his apostles forming churches in the ancient world are both pretty strong evidence that churches are, in fact, biblical.

      --
      "Ahh! Arrogance and stupidity in the same package, how efficient of you!" --Londo Molari
    110. Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      Go read the Bible. The real Bible. There are a lot of good things in there that would lead to a better life for all.

      That's if you selectively read the Bible. There are divine-sanctioned murders and genocides, barbaric punishments for minor crimes, xenophobia, anti-female rhetoric, and so forth.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    111. Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy by maestroX · · Score: 1

      . Like Buddha or Gandhi, I'm a huge fan of this Jesus guy. It's 99% of the people who purport to follow him that manage to genuinely fuck up the world.

      Of course, nothing else can be expected without a rubber.

    112. Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy by ghmh · · Score: 1

      With all that said, what I find interesting is that you quote passage after passage in the Bible, condemning Christians (and religions) about not being perfect, yet you forget one passage... Matthew 7:5 - You hypocrite! First remove the beam from your own eye, and then you will see clearly enough to remove the speck from your brother's eye. I challenge you that, instead of complaining about how others are not doing the right thing, go out and do the right thing yourself. How much better would that make the world?

      Just because he quotes from a religious text doesn't mean he either a) believes in it, or b) has to follow suggestions from it.

      I only responded to this because I remembered the story from 25'ish years ago in a religous class from when I was around 8 or 9 I think. Except in my version it was to do with planks and splinters, not beams and specks... I did a bit of research and found the following:

      The above links further led me to wonder about this mythical book called "The Bible". There's been so many variations and translations of it within, and across languages that they all have to have some serious problems somewhere, and there is no official/correct version. Even within a single version there's a large amount of inconsistency. (E.g. The four gospels don't agree on which Mary was where/when during the death and resurrection of J.C.).

      BTW, not trying to be a hypocrite... I'm just a 'tooth fairy agnostic' trying to get people to critically think about what they're reading...

    113. Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy by muellerr1 · · Score: 1

      I don't believe that the passage addresses hypocrisy; it's about not schooling other people in morality--an attempt to eradicate self-righteousness or promote humility with a recursive function.

    114. Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy by steveo777 · · Score: 1

      They're teachings on the intent of anyone's behavior, individual or organizational. The verses were pertaining to the pharasies and other people who did 'good deeds' and prayed in public places for their personal, or organizational glory. Jesus taught that they should do things for God's glory, and to live in humility. You can still pray in public, as long as the motive is correct. Nothing will stop me from praying for my meal at a public restaurant, and I'm certainly not doing it to gather attention. I just want to thank God for the food and the times.

      If I walk out into the street and trumpet myself for having donated some cash to the Salvation Army, or inviting some homeless guy into my house for a warm bed on a cold night, that isn't what God wanted. There are a lot of verses where God says he doesn't want us to give or do things if we're going to be jackasses about it. God wants your heart, not your actions. The actions are because of your heart.

      --
      This sig isn't original enough, it's time to come up with something witty...
    115. Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      atheists are good at pointing the finger at anyone but themselves. All nations that were prosperous through history were religious. The modern nations that embraces atheism were by far the worst, Communism in practice in countries like china, north korea and the former soviet russia are/were responsible for millions and millions of death, torture, rape, etc. and communists are what? oh that's right atheists

      also, atheists make up the largest majority of homosexuals. Enjoy being a homo statistic. haha.

    116. Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      also,

      1 Timothy 6:10
      For the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil.

      People often leave out the 'love of' part.

    117. Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy by Ghost+Hedgehog · · Score: 1

      with its own currency, mind you

      They had their own currency, before they switched to the euro. And now they are allowed to issue their own euros, which are mainly sold to collectors, because of the rarity.

    118. Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy by MyLongNickName · · Score: 1

      Yes. Leviticus.

      --
      See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    119. Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy by Mistshadow2k4 · · Score: 1

      Outdated? No. Evil? Yes.

      How in the hell can giving to the needy be evil? Why, so because that might deprive some rich fat cat of the high-class hooker he wanted tonight or his third yacht? There is actually plenty of food and everything to go around, but very little makes it to the poor exactly because the rich are literally hoarding more than a hundred times what they need.

      Wow, I've never seen so many god-awful people on /. post in one thread. So far, a handful of racists and now utter crap like this. Id there some program you've all got installed on your computers that subliminally sends out messages to make you turn hateful and greedy? Or am I just out of style since I'm neither greedy nor racist?

      --
      I dream of a better world... one in which chickens can cross roads without their motives being questioned.
    120. Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 1

      Outdated? No. Evil? Yes.

      What is your basis for saying something is evil?

      --
      Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
    121. Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 1

      Most atheists quote the Bible out of context, and unfortunately, most Christians are Biblically illiterate, so they get the wool pulled over their eyes.

      --
      Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
    122. Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy by AK+Marc · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Right, because a Mormon author is incapable of using non-Mormon sources to prove his point. I forgot about that.

      A Mormon is perfectly capable of using non-Mormon sources. However, many researchers will find things that directly contradict their points and ignore them. So, having a bias going in will definately bias the sources. Researchers don't just assemble everything they can find on the subject. They come up with a theme and look for that which supports it. Thus, the bias of the author is going to alter the results, whether he be Mormon, Catholic, Wiccan, athiest or FSM.

      Many of his sources are secular, and many are Catholic. He does occasionally use LDS scriptures in his arguments, but he also uses Old and New Testament scriptures and other Catholic sources.

      And how many sources does he quote that directly contradict his point? None? Then he has a bias. That is all that was stated, with "Mormon" being an indication of the direction of the bias, not proof there is a bias. The proof there is a bias is that he's human.

    123. Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This can only be viewed as "insightful" is you are as ignorant of Christian faith and the Bible as eldavojohn is.

    124. Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy by HeronBlademaster · · Score: 1

      Point taken.

    125. Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy by apoc.famine · · Score: 1

      And the combination of those teachings and a fanatical religious teacher who told me I was not allowed to compare the current state of the Catholic church to them caused me to say "Fuck You" to religion as a whole. Now that was a brilliant way to do things, wasn't it?

      Every now and then when I'm feeling snarky, I ask someone religious what Jesus had to say about taxes, and about giving to the poor. Then I ask what book contains the commandment "An thou shalt tax thy parishioners millions of dollars and use that money to build and maintain massively unpractical, gaudy, and expensive buildings, instead of worshiping modestly and giving that money to the poor." The resulting explanation is always entertaining.

      I would hate religion less if it wasn't so god damn blind to its faults. But it seems that one must be truly unreligious to truly appreciate the heresy of most religions. Catholicism is my favorite heresy. The multi-trillion dollar, country owning empire dedicated to the worship of a man in dusty sandals, who had no possessions and spent all his time ministering to the poor and sick is truly a delicious mockery. If the Catholic Church isn't run by Satan, I really can't explain it.

      --
      Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
    126. Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy by Dogtanian · · Score: 1

      You are quite right. Money is not the root of all evil, as is often quoted. The LOVE OF money is the root of all evil.

      Which makes more sense, but it's still transparently wrong to say that it's the root of *all* evil. Sexual desire isn't necessarily connected with money at all (particularly in men), but I'm damn sure it's caused more than a couple of minor problems in the history of the human race. That's just one example, but it's enough.

      --
      "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
    127. Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Would you go for this? How about we leave aside our religions or lack thereof, our organizations, fellowships, communes, corporations, tribes... Fuck the Vatican. Let's just try this. Agnostic, atheist, theist... Let's see what would happen if we adopted these simple sentiments as policy. How about it? Pretty cool, huh?

    128. Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forgot to mention the moderate atheists that couldn't stop Stalin.

    129. Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy by dgbrownnt · · Score: 1

      Never trust a preacher who wears a five thousand dollar suit preaching in a million dollar church.

      Five thousand dollar suit... that part I agree with. But a million dollars for a church, I think you need to check real estate prices again. In Seattle, for instance, a million dollars isn't that much.

      The church I used to go to (before moving to Seattle) built a multi-million dollar facility. This isn't a building made of gold or anything, either. It's just big (it houses a congregation of thousands and acts as a hub for local, regional, and world-wide ministries).

      I'm not a fan of the blingy churches. I just wanted to point out that your numbers a bit out of scale.

    130. Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I could be wrong but I see it like this. If a person shows up who is a catholic and starts to hurt people then that person is bad and a catholic. 200 years later he must've been representing the Catholic Church and the Catholic Church is bad. Well maybe not exactly but certainly along those lines. Those who showed up to the new world and hurt natives and burned villages or whatever, were not necessarily acting as a representative of any group. Maybe they just wanted the land and resources and didn't want to bargain/share, and were also Protestant or Catholic. That doesn't mean they were sent by the Protestants/Catholics to rape, pillage and plunder.

    131. Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or John 3:17

      If anyone has material possessions and sees his brother in need but has no pity on him, how can the love of God be in him?

      Erm...that is I John 3:17. Interesting dichotomy you point out though.

    132. Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy by 2short · · Score: 1

      His sig is an Ayn Rand reference. She argued that altruism is actually immoral, so I'm guessing that's where he got the idea. If you want all the details, you could read her work.
          However, the argument is couched in incredibly long, tedious, badly written fiction. So if you want to save yourself some time you could just note that the idea is obviously idiotic. Ergo anyone who's lifes work is dedicated to advancing it must be an idiot; along with anyone convinced of it by incredibly long, tedious, badly written fiction.

    133. Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy by GoodNicksAreTaken · · Score: 1

      the Bible clearly not only says there should be churches but gives some loose guidelines as to how they should function.

      And also commands that your churches should not have stairs, as someone below could look up your robe and see your scrotum. It's in there somewhere but I don't have my copy of Ken's Guide to the Bible on me to check where.

    134. Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      Matthew 19:23 - "Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. 24 And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God"
      I always marvel at how people always quotes these two verses without the context of the next two.
      Matthew 19:25-26 "When the disciples heard this, they were completely astonished and said, "Who, then, can be saved? Jesus looked at them intently and said, "For humans this is impossible, but for God all things are possible.""
      After all, plenty of rich people in the Bible seemed like they were in pretty good standing with God. What if God made you rich because you served him so well? Does that mean you can't go to heaven? Hardly!

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    135. Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      And the "kinds of".

      But people remember the Andrew Sisters Lyrics better than the Biblical verse.

    136. Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy by GoodNicksAreTaken · · Score: 1

      pagan relics stored beneath the Vatican... I would think that the Catholic church could at least (as a sign of good faith) return these to their descendants

      The most important 'relic' the Vatican had has been moved to a hot dog stand in Washington

    137. Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy by notamisfit · · Score: 1

      Precisely. Scratch out the word "God" in the Bible, substitute the word "society", and therein is the average atheist's moral viewpoint.

      --
      Jesus is coming -- look busy!
    138. Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy by superyooser · · Score: 1

      > > The middle one is Luke 12:33.

      > Would that be AM or PM ?

      A.D.

    139. Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 1

      His sig is an Ayn Rand reference.

      Yeah, I know where it came from, and I've read Atlas Shrugged & Anthem. The problem with Randroids is that they have no basis for truth other than "because Ayn Rand said so." In that context, good and evil are relative, which essentially means that those words are actually meaningless. The concept of evil assumes that there is a concept of good, which can't be derived from Ayn Rand's opinion. You'd need an ultimate source of good (God) in order to define evil, and all Randroids I know reject the existence of God.

      --
      Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
    140. Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy by owlstead · · Score: 1

      Yeah, well, where is the capital S on spelling?

    141. Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe the Church he wanted to build was not one of bricks and mortar, but of the soul.

    142. Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy by 2short · · Score: 1

      Well, for the record, I think it's possible to be an atheist and still speak meaningfully of things being good and evil. I'd probably agree good and evil are relative, but many things are relative without being meaningless.
        But in any case, I know it's possible to be an atheist and think Ayn Rand is an idiot, because I am and do :)

    143. Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's an interesting train of thought. I've seen lot's of television preachers preach that ``God will give wealth'' but as you've thoroughly demonstrated that is contrary to the Bible. For the past couple of years I've been skeptical of any Christian book/magazine that doesn't provide free copies (not necessarily in print but at least over the Internet). If they were really inspired by God they wouldn't be trying to make money from their books. Consider: did Paul refuse to send letters to churches until they payed him? Did John the Baptist require money for his ministries? Notice that when describing his rights as a preacher Paul says that he is entitled to have food and shelter... Not a mansion or a million dollars.

    144. Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Vatican doesn't have its own currency. They use whatever Italy uses - the lira, and now the euro.

    145. Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy by moortak · · Score: 1

      A pretty solid number of us. I would wager that happens at similar rates in both groups. Some people see an intrinsic value in helping others with or without religion.

      --
      Xavier Rabourdin for president 2012
    146. Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Matthew 7:5 - You hypocrite! First remove the beam from your own eye, and then you will see clearly enough to remove the speck from your brother's eye.

      I challenge you that, instead of complaining about how others are not doing the right thing, go out and do the right thing yourself. How much better would that make the world?

      the GP didn't say anything about himself. he didn't put himself up as some perfect person. he merely compared what jesus said to the actions of a group that claims to follow jesus. that seems eminently fair to me.

      why do you not think he doesn't see his own faults with the same clarity he sees the fault of the catholic church? i didn't have that reaction.

      also, how much better of a world would we have if folks didn't enable the powerful who set bad examples, whether it be committing genocide, hoarding wealth while others starve, or showing a bad example of what it is to follow jesus?

      i thought of that. you didn't. it would be interesting to know why.

    147. Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy by JackieBrown · · Score: 1

      So I'm guessing your not a supporter of Obama then?

    148. Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy by JackieBrown · · Score: 1

      Country does not equal religion

      Should Stalin's sins reflect on atheism?

    149. Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 1

      I have to correct you here, CastrTroy.

      Christianity (at least the one that the apostles preached, not today's cheap imitations) is a derivation of Judaism. Christians simply believe that Jesus is the Messiah that the prophets told about.

      Islam, on the other hand denies that. For them, Jesus was just a prophet, St. Paul was a heretic and the jews are not God's favored people. Muslims are a breed of their own.

    150. Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 1

      When those Church lands were appropriated by the many greed governments around, they got distributed among nobles, bourgeois and other close friends of said governments. That's when being a poor European landless peasant really became a problem (for the peasant).

      In short: actual History is more complicated than our cherished oversimplifications would prefer it to be.

      I have to confirm your story. Here in Mexico, Plutarco Elias Calles' government banned Catholicism. They seized all temples and declared them property of the State, turning them into libraries and museums. They banned religious education, so they began preaching atheism in schools. Of course, if anyone disagreed he was jailed and executed for treason to the State.
      The punchline? Freemasonry.

    151. Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 1

      Then there was this guy named Martin Luther. You should check him out.

      And thanks to him, we have creationists instead of catholics. Think about it.

    152. Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy by mjwx · · Score: 1

      Most of the people you find in any church worship money, not God.

      That's why the words "In God we trust" are printed onto every piece of US currency, it is to remind them of whom they are meant to be paying lip service to.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    153. Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy by garompeta · · Score: 1
      Tell me how many Catholic foundations and charitable organizations, churches, convents, monasteries, hospitals, soup kitchens, leprosariums, universities, research centers, technical schools, primary and secondary schools have the Church to maintain.

      Yeah, what the hell... lets sell the Vatican City with everything in it everything and give the money to the poor. Why not? Yeah, melt all the "treasures" and make gold bars, burn the library and the archives for the people who are dying of hypothermia. Lets sell Michelangelo's works and recycle the Sistine Chapel into a modern geriatric, that will probably satisfy Jesus more than the frivolous Church He founded by Himself.

      Come on people we are forgetting the Chinese proverb: Don't feed them fish, teach them how to fish. And that is what the Catholic Church and any respectable and serious religion is doing, Christian or not.
      Do you even know how much money all the most popular protestant pastors (I mean the honest ones) are managing? Considering that protestant churchmen are professionals and usually donate 10% (tithe) of their incomes, they manage a humongous amount altogether. And they are not even a Nation.
      Makes me wonder why people are fixated with the Catholic Church. Why people are not asking Protestant churches to sell the "Christian" Churches with all their Bose speakers, mixers samplers, microfones and the last generation robotized lightning systems they installed with the HD camera circuit in their theaters/temples, giving all money that to the poors?

      Now please don't bring the paedophilia/homofilia in the Catholic Church since it is offtopic and that is not the point of my post.

    154. Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First of all, there's no contradiction between Matthew 6 and the practice of establishing and running churches. Second, there's no contradiction to be found anywhere in the Bible unless you do not have 'eyes to see, and ears to hear.' If you approach the 'book' with the plan to disprove or discount it, then sure, there is plenty of ammunition for you. But, what you are failing to see is that it was designed that way. If you, however, approach it with a humble heart and truly want to understand it, then it will be opened for you and you will see that there is no contradiction at all. 'Ask and you shall receive, knock and the door shall be opened.'

    155. Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy by !coward · · Score: 1

      [...] believing its the truth that Christ is the Messiah. [...]

      Sorry if I sound pedantic but you do realize that what you wrote there is a perfect redundancy, right? I'm pretty sure you equate "Christ" with "Messiah", but I'm not entirely sure you realize they actually ARE the same thing (linguistically speaking). The fact that most people, cloth members included, seem to treat "Christ" as somehow part of Jesus' own name, only serves to make it worse (as far as we know, he was "Jesus of Nazareth, son of Joseph").

      So, to clear it up: both the words "Christ" and "Messiah" mean "anointed (one)". "Messiah" is that expression in hebrew, and "Christ" is a product of "westernization". The word "Messiah" was first translated to Greek as "Khristos" (soft 'K', I believe) and then subsequently translated to the Latin word, "Christum" (after that, it pretty much all goes south, with each nation/language modifying it slightly to suit it).

      Also, "messiah" was a word in common usage in Judaism, usually refering to priests, with the nowadays common take (anointed by God) also ocurring several times (to refer to Kings, for example). It became so central to Christianity because the small prophecy in Aramaic which spoke of the "one to come" who would once again lead the "people of God", used it.

      So, in much the same way people don't say "Jesus Messiah", but rather "Jesus the Messiah", or even "the Messiah Jesus", we shouldn't say "Jesus Christ" but "Jesus the Christ" or "the Christ Jesus".

    156. Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy by Pfhorrest · · Score: 1

      ...Protestants believing its the truth that Christ is the Messiah...

      I don't see how anyone could doubt that, seeing as how "Christ" is just the Greek translation of the Hebrew term "Messiah" (both of which mean "anointed" or "chosen").

      Now, whether or not Jesus of Nazareth was the Christ/Messiah, that's something people might debate...

      --
      -Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
      "I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
    157. Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy by codeButcher · · Score: 1

      Just to continue the pedanticism: the original Greek that is translated with "church" is "ekklesia", which means as much as "the congregation of the elect". Various dictionaries point out that the word "church" actually derives from the Greek "kuriakon", meaning "the Lord's house" (which incidentally is never used in the Greek manuscripts).

      One could argue that "ekklesia" does not include buildings or organisational hierarchies, for instance. When I read the Epistles and the Acts, it would seem to me that congregations gathered in private houses, and that all where considered equal in status.

      I've had the privilege of experiencing firsthand, for a number of years now, that a congregation can function very well without owning real estate or paying salaries or even fixing dogma on every little thing. Well, I suppose that the RCC will continue selling their franchises as long as there is demand for it, not that it bothers me.

      --
      Free, as in your money being freed from the confines of your account.
    158. Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy by CmdrGravy · · Score: 1

      Whats also pretty clear is that there is an enormous gulf between the idea of Jesus addressing a couple of hundred interested parties in a field somewhere being a church and the enourmous individual money harvesting 'mega churches' or indeed the entire money harvesting and city owning catholic church.

    159. Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy by SimonGhent · · Score: 1

      However, the argument is couched in incredibly long, tedious, badly written fiction

      Ooh, what does that remind me of..?

      --
      simon
    160. Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy by CmdrGravy · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Prayer in front of others is only wrong if you're doing it so other people see you praying

      And yet having said that Jesus himself then goes on to pray in front of others to make a point of the fact he was praying ( on numerous occasions ) and to back up his claims that, being the son of god, he was the most devout person who had ever lived !

      More crazy religious contradictions ! It amazes me anyone takes this rubbish seriously.

    161. Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy by CountBrass · · Score: 1

      Where oh where are my mod points when I need them! First post in a long time that's had me shedding tears of laughter.

      --
      Bad analogies are like waxing a monkey with a rainbow.
    162. Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy by Ironlenny · · Score: 1

      Most of the people you find in any church worship money, not God.

      I don't think that is a fair comment. Churches are varied and diverse in temperaments, beliefs and practices. Some are intellectual (Holy Shit! Thinking Christians!), while others are more simplistic about beliefs and practices. Churches can be warm and welcoming or cold and aloof, rich or poor, large or small.

      People have different reasons for attending as well. Some go because that's what you do on Sunday. Others go just to commiserate with friends. Then there are those that attend to grow closer to God with like minded individuals. In short, Churches are like any other community. A range of characteristics, personal beliefs, and motivations all reside with in. This my point of view as a life long believer.

      --
      There is a system for subverting the system and you should use that system!
    163. Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy by MPolo · · Score: 1

      Most of the pagan artifacts that I know of are on display in the Vatican Museums. You can even go for free on the last Saturday of every month. The entry fee at other times is apparently controlled by the company that paid for the renovations a few years ago.

      On the other hand, the linked article is referring to an ancient Roman burial ground that happened to be under Vatican property. As the article says, the burial ground has been opened to tourists and archeologists. I quote: "The graveyard will be open to the public only on Friday and Saturday mornings, by appointment, for â5 ($6.25). It will also remain an active archaeological dig until the sacred archaeologists feel they have cataloged and uncovered as much as they can, or need to."

      The Vatican ran at a loss until very recently (Since some time under John Paul II, the yearly reports have been made public). All "profit" is given by Papal charities to causes that the Pope deems worthy. (These are typically symbolic sums.) The "billions in capital" that are being referred to here are presumably churches and art treasures. Firstly, it is highly unlikely that they could find buyers for these items. so this is not really liquid capital, and secondly, this hurts all of culture, as they most likely would land in private collections and presumably be lost to the rest of the world.

      By the way, the Vatican has the Euro same as the rest of Europe. They have a right to mint a very small number of coins with the Pope's image, but these are all sold in collector sets, so you can hardly talk of a real currency.

    164. Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who says Catholics are Christian? They are a cult. Have you ever read what they have as core doctrine?

    165. Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the best laugh is that they actually have a money changers inside the Vatican.

    166. Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Or am I just out of style since I'm neither greedy nor racist?

      Yes and no.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    167. Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      I'm in the midwest where real estate prices aren't so insane; I paid $50k for my house. As always YMMV.

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    168. Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      Indeed. I'm in danger of hellfire because of my carnal desires. How can one NOT covet? The parable of the seeds coes into play; the seeds that are choked by weeds are the Christians who are overtaken by the cares of the world.

      Compared to many, even some people I know, I am rich. But I have no love for money; I loathe its necessity. When you love a thing more than you love God, that is where the problem lies. The snare of riches is that you wind up loving this life, which for most of us is pretty much a miserable existance.

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    169. Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy by SpiderClan · · Score: 1

      Matthew 19:21

      My interpretation of the context, and I may be wrong, was that Jesus was speaking to a specific guy when he said this. It was a rich man who loved his money (bible says property) who was asking what he should do, and this is what Jesus said. This wasn't what he said to everybody who asked him for advice, but in this case, I thought he was telling the man to abandon his greed, as that was more important to him than God.

      Luke 12:33

      Interesting and something I'll think about.

      1 John 3:17

      It was John that said this, not Jesus (not that it matters, really).

      Either way, my bible reads:

      But whoever has the world's goods, and sees his brother in need and closes his heart against him, how does the love of God abide in him?

      Whether you say "has no pity" or "closes his heart", I don't think you can make any reasonable argument for accusing the pope of it. The Catholic Church heads many charitable organizations and gives boatloads of money to the poor - defined as those who do not possess and cannot acquire the means of supporting life, admittedly a strict metric, but also reasonable, IMO. I say boatloads based only on my own experience with the church, I have no stats, but if you don't believe me, look it up yourself.

      ...I'm a huge fan of this Jesus guy. It's 99% of the people who purport to follow him that manage to genuinely fuck up the world.

      I disagree with the 99% (maybe in the U.S., but protestants generally don't like the pope any more than you do) but understand the feeling. I would argue that recent popes are not among those who are managing to genuinely fuck up the world.

    170. Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy by SpiderClan · · Score: 1

      Evil entirely? I mentioned above that by Catholic (and my) reasoning, the poor are those who do not possess and cannot acquire the means of supporting life. Voluntarily giving food to someone who is hungry, or shelter to someone who has none is far from evil.

      On the other hand, forcefully taking people's money in order to squander 70% of it in a bureaucracy and give the rest to people who don't want to work but feel the need to own a plasma TV and the latest Jordan's (are those still popular?)
      could be described as evil.

    171. Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy by FireStormZ · · Score: 1

      Ive got no beef with you bashing money harvesting mega churches, pastors in thousand dollar suits spending as much time lobbying politicians as they do preaching the gospel. These things are not good for Christianity but these do *not* embody all churches.. But people who were trying to play twister so they could pull 'no churches' out of the bible did not limit the scope of their thoughts..

      --
      "Ahh! Arrogance and stupidity in the same package, how efficient of you!" --Londo Molari
    172. Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy by FireStormZ · · Score: 1

      Funny you would site the epistles to say there should be no churches as many were written specifically for groups of worshipers ( a.k.a *CHURCHES* ) in the Roman provinces. These churches were in structure most similar to the presbyterian churches which sprang up after the schism but they were most certainly churches.

      My church, though bot a presbyterian one, is run by elected Elders who have the final say in just about everything.

      --
      "Ahh! Arrogance and stupidity in the same package, how efficient of you!" --Londo Molari
    173. Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy by HeronBlademaster · · Score: 1

      Do you have examples of where his intention in praying was to show others he was praying, other than as an example to them of how to pray (meaning the prayer during the Sermon on the Mount)?

    174. Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the source was Joe Jr. himself.

      http://scriptures.lds.org/js_h/1

      But I have to admit, I left long ago and don't have the current redacted version.

    175. Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy by tmosley · · Score: 1

      I wasn't saying that churches are outlawed by the Bible, simply that Jesus didn't particularly want them, especially the abomination the the Catholic Church (among other money hungry "churches") have become.

      I'm also tired of old people telling me that I'm going to Hell because I don't go to church. I'm going to Hell because I eat meat on Fridays, damnit!

    176. Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy by FireStormZ · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      "simply that Jesus didn't particularly want them"

      For which you have provided no scriptural evidence, Jesus never admonished group worship. Public, self congratulatory worship sure, but not group worship.

      "I'm also tired of old people telling me that I'm going to Hell because I don't go to church. I'm going to Hell because I eat meat on Fridays, damnit!"

      You going to hell has nothing to do with Church it has to do with unrepentant sin, and the meat on Friday thing is a sham, Ill join you for wings ;)

      --
      "Ahh! Arrogance and stupidity in the same package, how efficient of you!" --Londo Molari
    177. Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy by deadlock911 · · Score: 1

      I believe the stone was referring to the line in the gospel of Thomas "Split a log and i am there, lift a stone and you shall find me."
      Jesus was AGAINST hierarchal leadership in religion. In the modern bible he is called "Jesus of Nazareth" but it says he is from Jerusalem and/or Bethlehem. Why? Because Nazareth didn't even EXIST till 400-500 AD. Nazareth is a bad translation. He was "Jesus the Nazarete". The Nazaretes being a religious/political movement against the power structure of the Jewish church at the time.

    178. Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, the Bible is sacred so I don't understand your point.

      [And, to save you the trouble-- whoosh!]

    179. Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      P.S. grammar should not be capitalized in your sentence.

    180. Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy by codeButcher · · Score: 1
      Depends on your understanding of the word "church". Problem is that the word "church" can mean different things to different people, as the meaning has drifted from the original denoting "a church building" and has acquired more meanings.

      I know many English translations write "church", but the translation I use (not English) translates it with the equivalent of "congregation", which IMO is closer to the original Greek and avoids much of the confusion.

      So, if by "church" you mean a large overbearing organisation having the final say over every little detail from dogma to costume, I don't think the epistles support that. If by "church" you mean practically independent congregations, as you seem to be saying, then I would agree with you, although many mainstream denominations probably wouldn't.

      What I see is that many denominations (even new ones that try to get out of (some of) the traps that mainstream denominations seem to have fallen in) still think that they need to put an authoritarian organisation in place as a first priority. Soon they realise that this requires money, employees, organisational structures, movable assets and real estate, investments, etc. etc. It doesn't take long before most of the organisation's time, energy and other resources are taken up again by just the upkeep of the organisation, to keep it running - as opposed to living and preaching the gospel.

      --
      Free, as in your money being freed from the confines of your account.
    181. Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy by Fujisawa+Sensei · · Score: 1

      I don't remember seeing any endorsement of this so called Church in The Bible.

      Then you should look harder. The word "church" (Greek ekklesia) occurs at the start of nearly every epistle and in highly elaborate form in Revelation. If you object that you meant the word isn't in the Gospels, there is Christ telling Peter after his confession of faith that "on this rock I will build my Church."

      Thanks,

      I feel much better about my rejection of the Bible.

      --
      If someone is passing you on the right, you are an asshole for driving in the wrong lane.
    182. Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy by 2short · · Score: 1


      Certainly reminds me of a few things...

      As bad as Rand is though, it seems like to really get off the ground she needed to make the writing even worse, throw in some obviously fantastical elements, let some other people document how she made parts of it up, and then claim it's not fiction at all, but impossibly perfect documentary, even the parts that directly contradict each other.

  5. Uh... by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 1

    Uh...wow? Maybe they can join forces with the RIAA?

    Sorry, it's the best I can do. This story is...I'm just...wow...

    --
    Palm trees and 8
    1. Re:Uh... by fireheadca · · Score: 1

      You mean it's usually the Riaa using this level of stupidity?

    2. Re:Uh... by philspear · · Score: 1

      I declare a new godwin's law: eventually every slashdot comment section will compare someone to the RIAA, because they are like the nazis.

      Uh... and also the old godwin's law is now obsolete and invalid, so it's okay that I just did that.

  6. Good luck with that... by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They'll have enough trouble trying to prove that they are the rightful heirs of the Knights Templar...Trying to get money from the church on top of that? And why not sue France? They got a huge chunk of change as well.

    Not even close to being the first time someone has tried this, and it never goes anywhere. The dream of the Templars wealth keeps it going, but in reality there is no wealth to claim, no one with the right to claim it, and no one to claim it from.

    --
    ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    1. Re:Good luck with that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah, if they sue France, France will just turn around and sue Microsoft. They should just cut the middle man and sue Microsoft themselves.

    2. Re:Good luck with that... by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      "And why not sue France?"

      You mean go dig up some pretender to the throne and see if he has any actual money?

    3. Re:Good luck with that... by JasterBobaMereel · · Score: 3, Informative

      The Knights Templar were merged with the Knights Hospitaller who still exist as The Sovereign Military Hospitaller Order of Saint John of Jerusalem - they are recognised as a sovereign state (with no territory) and are based in Rome

      They are trying to claim they are an organisation which still exists and is recognised in international law .... !

      --
      Puteulanus fenestra mortis
    4. Re:Good luck with that... by Mathus · · Score: 0, Troll

      Oh if they sue France, France will just surrender and then they will be ruled by these Knights Templar.

    5. Re:Good luck with that... by fyoder · · Score: 1

      They'll have enough trouble trying to prove that they are the rightful heirs of the Knights Templar

      Even if they could, they seem to be operating with the assumption that the Templars enjoyed the same rights as a modern multinational corporation. They might have operated that way, but as I understand it (and please correct me if I'm wrong), they owed direct allegiance to the Pope who would have been within his legal rights to disband them.

      --
      Loose lips lose spit.
    6. Re:Good luck with that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "And why not sue France?" Bad news, France is broke : balance is 40+ billion euros in the wrong direction.

  7. Jacques deMolay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Thou art not merely avenged, but thou art goin' to Disneyland!

    Or EuroDisney, as the case may be.

  8. DNS hack! by hansraj · · Score: 5, Funny

    I think the traffic to the register is being redirected to the onion!

  9. WTF? by rugatero · · Score: 2, Funny

    I think this may be the most surreal headline I've seen all year.

    --
    This comment is for entertainment purposes only. Any similarity to real insight or information is purely coincidental.
  10. Interesting by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    If that works, then the middle east Muslims will also be able to sue for wrongful invasion by the Catholics and the knights templar. This could be fun.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    1. Re:Interesting by mark72005 · · Score: 1

      Who could then countersue for an older wrongful invasion I guess. Heh.

    2. Re:Interesting by faloi · · Score: 1

      It'll be more interesting when the Persians sue Muslims for wrongful invasion.

      --
      "It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education." -Albert Einstein
    3. Re:Interesting by dedazo · · Score: 1

      Perhaps the Spanish can do the same to them.

      --
      Web2.0: I love when people Flickr my cuil and digg my boingboing until my google is reddit and I start to yahoo
    4. Re:Interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      seeings as where the muslims invaded catholic held lands first i don't think they have much ground to stand on.

    5. Re:Interesting by mcvos · · Score: 1

      How about Kelts suing the various Germanic peoples (Anglo-Saxons, Franks, etc) for wrongful invasion and reparations? They need to sue the Romans too, ofcourse.

      And what about Ghengiz Khan? There's no way Mongolia has the money to pay for the damage he did.

  11. What about the native americans? by PC+and+Sony+Fanboy · · Score: 5, Funny

    So, assuming this suceeds ... can the native americans sue europe for defiling their land, and ruining their culture? I mean, if europe hadn't sent over all those rejects, the native americans would rule the (un)known world...

    Or, maybe they could just sue the USA for making them look silly - I mean, those native headdresses don't look silly to people who are native - just everyone else.

    1. Re:What about the native americans? by negRo_slim · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I mean, if europe hadn't sent over all those rejects, the native americans would rule the (un)known world...

      Might be time to go down to the local community college and take a history class bud.

      --
      On the Oregon Cost born and raised, On the beach is where I spent most of my days
    2. Re:What about the native americans? by Ziest · · Score: 5, Funny

      The English deported their religious fanatics to America and their criminals to Australia. I think we, the Americans, got the short end of the stick on that one. I want to sue the English government for dumping their religious nut jobs here. I'm going to admit videos of the 700 club as evidence of this maleficence.

      --
      Another day closer to redwood heaven
    3. Re:What about the native americans? by KillerBob · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Not too sure how things are going in the US, but that's been happening in Canada. Land claims, treaty disputes, and other wrongdoings over the years. One of the more interesting ones can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_residential_school_system ... Among other atrocities committed at the residential schools was a program of sterilization at some of them... the residential school system has been described as a genocide program. And there's been some enormous lawsuits stemming from how shittily we've treated Canada's First Nations peoples.

      --
      If you believe everything you read, you'd better not read. - Japanese proverb
    4. Re:What about the native americans? by wattrlz · · Score: 1

      If this lawsuit succeeds the native americans could only sue the catholic church for slander and defamation eg: saying they had no souls and could be slaughtered like animals or however manifest destiny is justified. The Knights Templar, as parent and GP mentioned, are very unlikely to be making any material claims.

    5. Re:What about the native americans? by negRo_slim · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Okay I got modded troll I can live with that, but still the Europeans didn't send anyone. By most accounts it looks like a voluntary processes regardless of whether the group was well liked back home.

      Their leadership came from a religious congregation who had fled a volatile political environment in the East Midlands of England for the relative calm of the Netherlands to preserve their religion. Concerned with losing their cultural identity, the group later arranged with English investors to establish a new colony in North America.

      From Wikipedia, Or perhaps even more insightful...

      In 1617, discouraged by economic difficulties, the pervasive Dutch influence on their children, and their inability to secure civil autonomy, the congregation voted to emigrate to America. Through the Brewster family's friendship with Sir Edwin Sandys, treasurer of the London Company, the congregation secured two patents authorizing them to settle in the northern part of the company's jurisdiction. Unable to finance the costs of the emigration with their own meager resources, they negotiated a financial agreement with Thomas Weston, a prominent London iron merchant. Fewer than half of the group's members elected to leave Leiden. A small ship, the Speedwell, carried them to Southampton, England, where they were to join another group of Separatists and pick up a second ship. After some delays and disputes, the voyagers regrouped at Plymouth aboard the 180-ton Mayflower. It began its historic voyage on Sept. 16, 1620, with about 102 passengers--fewer than half of them from Leiden.

      From mayflowerfamilies.com

      I still stand by my statement, go take a history class.

      --
      On the Oregon Cost born and raised, On the beach is where I spent most of my days
    6. Re:What about the native americans? by Lumpy · · Score: 3, Funny

      If you cant prove you are 50% or greater american indian I think you have no case. Only american indians would be able to sue for the illegal dumping.

      Holy shit, if the remaining american indians get wind of this we are all screwed.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    7. Re:What about the native americans? by indifferent+children · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Not so fast; Georgia (USA) was a British penal colony. The Australians didn't get all of the criminals.

      --
      Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it. --Mark Twain
    8. Re:What about the native americans? by indifferent+children · · Score: 4, Insightful
      The Knights Templar, as parent and GP mentioned, are very unlikely to be making any material claims.

      Ouch! It almost sounds like there are no consequences for perpetrating a successful genocide.

      --
      Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it. --Mark Twain
    9. Re:What about the native americans? by baldass_newbie · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Not so fast; Georgia (USA) was a British penal colony. The Australians didn't get all of the criminals.

      In fact, they only started using Australia when they lost Georgia. Australian settlement did not begin in earnest until @1800 if I recall correctly.

      --
      The opposite of progress is congress
    10. Re:What about the native americans? by nsayer · · Score: 4, Funny

      I think we, the Americans, got the short end of the stick on that one.

      I'm not so sure about that. I suspect religion was merely a cover for those secretly desiring improved dental hygiene.

      I want to sue the English government for dumping their religious nut jobs here. I'm going to admit videos of the 700 club as evidence of this maleficence.

      Quakers != Baptists. Different breed of nut job.

    11. Re:What about the native americans? by Grant_Watson · · Score: 5, Informative

      If this lawsuit succeeds the native americans could only sue the catholic church for slander and defamation eg: saying they had no souls and could be slaughtered like animals or however manifest destiny is justified.

      As a Protesant, I can't recall ever having read anything about Rome doing *any* of that. From the papal bull Sublimus Dei of 1537:

      We, who, though unworthy, exercise on earth the power of our Lord and seek with all our might to bring those sheep of His flock who are outside into the fold committed to our charge, consider, however, that the Indians are truly men and that they are not only capable of understanding the Catholic Faith but, according to our information, they desire exceedingly to receive it. Desiring to provide ample remedy for these evils, We define and declare by these Our letters, or by any translation thereof signed by any notary public and sealed with the seal of any ecclesiastical dignitary, to which the same credit shall be given as to the originals, that, notwithstanding whatever may have been or may be said to the contrary, the said Indians and all other people who may later be discovered by Christians, are by no means to be deprived of their liberty or the possession of their property, even though they be outside the faith of Jesus Christ; and that they may and should, freely and legitimately, enjoy their liberty and the possession of their property; nor should they be in any way enslaved; should the contrary happen, it shall be null and have no effect.

    12. Re:What about the native americans? by Bob+The+Magic+Camel · · Score: 1

      Actually, seeing as it was the forefathers of the current citizens of the USA who did the invading, it's more likely to be them who gets sued. Of course it's not precedent if it's under another legal system, so it won't matter at all.

      --
      This signature is esoteric
    13. Re:What about the native americans? by sckeener · · Score: 1

      No, don't sue. Instead fund space research.

      As soon as it is affordable for the mega-churches, America won't have a problem any more.

      People with that sort of mindset are only satisfied when they are running their own community...America isn't that community any more...(they want it to be...but there are too many of them competing for the same America)

      --
      "Only one thing, is impossible for god: to find any sense in any copyright law on the planet." Mark Twain
    14. Re:What about the native americans? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They didn't "officially" win any "lawsuit", because there was never any official suit. But the constant stream of revenue from the casinos they're allowed to build (in states where gambling is illegal) is more of a win than if they'd just been paid a lump sum a long time ago.

    15. Re:What about the native americans? by alexgieg · · Score: 4, Informative

      If this lawsuit succeeds the native americans could only sue the catholic church for slander and defamation eg: saying they had no souls and could be slaughtered like animals or however manifest destiny is justified.

      Except the Catholic Church never did either of those things. They're urban legends.

      About your first allegation, it suffices to say that there's no point in converting something that has no soul. Besides, the Catholic Catechism teaches that everything that self-moves possesses a soul, and among those, everything that moves by virtue of reason to be human, body shape or color not being requirements. (Yes, Catholicism is "aliens ready" since the Middle Ages.) Case in point: the most important Catholic theologian for the first 1200 years of Western Church history, Saint Augustine, was black.

      As for your second point, back in the beginning of the discoveries, you already had important Catholic theologians, such as Francisco de Vitoria, one of the creators of modern international law, writing extensively against the European subjugation of the New World. European crowned princes, of course, did it anyway. Politicians are the same, no matter whether they're in a monarchy or in a democracy.

      Good reasons to criticize the Church do exists, but these two surely aren't listed among them.

      --
      Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
    16. Re:What about the native americans? by pnewhook · · Score: 1

      Native North Americans did not have a concept of land ownership (just like we dont have the concept of 'owning' the sunshine or rain). How could you own something you are just using and was never given to you? So no, they couldn't suee for defiling 'their' land.

      However the natice south americans may have a good case against the Spanish for stripping the land of every valuable resource including tonnes of gold religious artifacts.

      --
      Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
    17. Re:What about the native americans? by mcvos · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If you cant prove you are 50% or greater american indian I think you have no case. Only american indians would be able to sue for the illegal dumping.

      Any remote descendant of a native American still has a far better case than any Knights Templar descendant.

    18. Re:What about the native americans? by ArtemaOne · · Score: 1

      I really think India needs to sue Native Americans for stealing the term "Indians".

    19. Re:What about the native americans? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've taken a few history classes, and I'm fond of noting it repeats itself. Take a modern example: If Mexico does not have a secure border and people "willingly leave" to come to this country, where do we send them and who is responsible for the bill?

    20. Re:What about the native americans? by wattrlz · · Score: 3, Informative

      My memory's not that great either. From papal bull Romanus Pontifax, 1455 :

      ...We, weighing all and singular the premises with due meditation, and noting that since we had formerly by other letters of ours granted among other things free and ample faculty to the aforesaid [King] -- to invade, search out, capture, vanquish, and subdue all Saracens and pagans whatsoever, and other enemies of Christ wheresoever placed, and the kingdoms, dukedoms, principalities, dominions, possessions, and all movable and immovable goods whatsoever held and possessed by them and to reduce their persons to perpetual slavery, and to apply and appropriate to himself and his successors the kingdoms, dukedoms, counties, principalities, dominions, possessions, and goods, and to convert them to his and their use and profit...

    21. Re:What about the native americans? by philspear · · Score: 5, Funny

      Okay I got modded troll I can live with that, but still the Europeans didn't send anyone. By most accounts it looks like a voluntary processes regardless of whether the group was well liked back home.

      This is slashdot. No one was upset with the historical inaccuracy, nor the insulting of americans. The troll moderation was for the insinuation that community colleges were for idiots who don't know history.

    22. Re:What about the native americans? by daveatneowindotnet · · Score: 3, Informative

      Case in point: the most important Catholic theologian for the first 1200 years of Western Church history, Saint Augustine, was black. Doubtful, Saint Augustine was a Berber and the likelihood he would have been the only black Berber seems remote.

    23. Re:What about the native americans? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Common misconception. Convicts were first sent to Virginia then later on Australia. Not sure why the change of venue.

    24. Re:What about the native americans? by bryce4president · · Score: 1

      Well, if there does appear to be consequences the Pope better jump on the Statute of Limitations bandwagon if it exists in Spain.

    25. Re:What about the native americans? by phoenixwade · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The Knights Templar, as parent and GP mentioned, are very unlikely to be making any material claims.

      Ouch! It almost sounds like there are no consequences for perpetrating a successful genocide.

      Well Duh!

      I'm reminded of a quote from the mini-series " Shogun":

        Toronaga asked Pilot to name any excuse that justified making war on your Lord, the Pilot responded "Winning"

      --
      A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort.
    26. Re:What about the native americans? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is slashdot. No one was upset with the historical inaccuracy, nor the insulting of americans. The troll moderation is reserved for those who insult the Republican party.

      There, fixed that for ya

    27. Re:What about the native americans? by Doctor+Faustus · · Score: 4, Informative

      Quakers != Baptists. Different breed of nut job.
      I think that was more about the Puritans than the Quakers. And while the Quakers I know tend to be on the flakey side (much like the Wiccans), they're perfectly pleasant and don't proselytize; I think that would disqualify them from the "nutjob" label.

    28. Re:What about the native americans? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If he were here, I would like you to tell that to General George Washington's face.

    29. Re:What about the native americans? by alexgieg · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Doubtful, Saint Augustine was a Berber and the likelihood he would have been the only black Berber seems remote.

      There are indeed black Berbers. But okay, I must concede that since the only thing we know about Augustine was that he was a Berber, we cannot be sure of which group he came. In any case, non-black ethnic Berbers still have darker skin than ethnic Italians, so the point remains.

      --
      Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
    30. Re:What about the native americans? by dwye · · Score: 1

      > Or, maybe they could just sue the USA for making them
      > look silly - I mean, those native headdresses don't
      > look silly to people who are native - just everyone else.

      As opposed to the wigs that English lawyers wear, which grant them such immense dignity?

      And, speaking as a one-time small boy, I always thought they looked cool. Especially with the scalps of Europeans who were caught while touring the West, looking at the quaint natives, hanging from their lodge poles.

    31. Re:What about the native americans? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      That explains a lot about Atlanta.

      Especially why when I go through the airport there, I feel like I'm being punished.

    32. Re:What about the native americans? by kalirion · · Score: 0, Troll

      Sure you weren't modded "troll" because of your username? Also, I am unable to find the referenced post.

    33. Re:What about the native americans? by pmonks · · Score: 4, Informative

      Try 1788 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_fleet/). What year did Georgia gain independence?

    34. Re:What about the native americans? by jeebusroxors · · Score: 1

      Ah yes, I can see it now.

      The court rules in favour of all Native Americans. The US is ordered to pay restitution of 100 million...blankets. *Drama Chord*

    35. Re:What about the native americans? by scotsghost · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's not 'theft', it's 'posession of stolen property'. Columbus was the one who stole it and saddled them with it. I'm fairly sure they'd even give it back if they could figure out how.

    36. Re:What about the native americans? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      can the native americans sue europe for defiling their land, and ruining their culture?

      I thought that was how they got their immunity from US gambling laws, which has allowed them to build thousands of casinos which bring in hundreds of billions of dollars every year.

      I mean, the beads and feathers were nice and all, but they don't spend like hundreds of billions of dollars of the palefaces' money.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    37. Re:What about the native americans? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am a dumbass Georgia not Virginia (see below). My apologies.

    38. Re:What about the native americans? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, people given the choice of hanging or moving to the new world as an indentured servant had a choice.

    39. Re:What about the native americans? by bwhaley · · Score: 5, Informative

      Hmm, I beg to differ. While certainly the initial population of the American colonies was voluntary, convicts were indeed sent in later years. From NPR:

      "In 1718, the British Parliament passed the Transportation Act, under which England began sending its imprisoned convicts to be sold as indentured servants in the American colonies. While the law provoked outrage among many colonists -- Benjamin Franklin equated it to packing up North American rattlesnakes and sending them all to England -- the influx of ex-convicts provided cheap and immediate labor for many planters and merchants. After 1718, approximately 60,000 convicts, dubbed "the King's passengers," were sent from England to America. Ninety percent of them stayed in Maryland and Virginia. Although some returned to England once their servitude was over, many remained and began their new lives in the colonies."

      This data also appears in the excellent, "Benjamin Franklin: An American Life" by Walter Isaacson.

      --
      "I either want less corruption, or more chance
      to participate in it." -- Ashleigh Brilliant
    40. Re:What about the native americans? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Slim, you've got to learn to be patient with moderators. When you're making insightful comments, like you often do, it's not uncommon to get a few "troll" and "flamebait" moderations at the beginning, which are usually wiped out when the more reasonable moderators start catching up.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    41. Re:What about the native americans? by Red+Flayer · · Score: 4, Informative

      The Crown financed a lot of expeditions to the Americas. We're not sure of the motivations of all settlers, but it is known that many settlers chose to come to the Americas instead of a deadly prison sentence.

      Whether you want to consider press-ganged individuals and criminals fleeing certain death in floating prisons on the Thames "volunteers", that's your choice. Religious pilgrims were a minority of American settlers -- they get a lot of attention in history classes due to the "justness" of their cause.

      Perhaps instead of taking a high-school or community-college level history class, you should take some real history classes, or read some real history books. What you were taught in public school (especially regarding history) is often a lot of propaganda... and is almost always incomplete.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    42. Re:What about the native americans? by Kozar_The_Malignant · · Score: 4, Funny

      >The troll moderation was for the insinuation that community colleges were for idiots who don't know history.

      Right. Everyone knows that the idiots aren't going to learn any history in a community college. :-)

      --
      Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
    43. Re:What about the native americans? by Joe+the+Lesser · · Score: 1

      You mean the genocide of the knights? Or when the knights were committing genocide against the Turks?

      --
      "I only speak the truth"
      Karma: null(Mostly affected by an unassigned variable)
    44. Re:What about the native americans? by MBGMorden · · Score: 4, Informative

      What year did Georgia gain independence?

      Is that rhetorical?

      If you were serious, their declared independence (along with the rest of the rebelling American colonies) was 1776 and recognized was 1783.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    45. Re:What about the native americans? by History's+Coming+To · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well the big problem there is that they would have to sue the Knights Templar themselves, who discovered America well before Columbus whilst on the run from the Vatican. They enlisted the support of the Scottish clan Gunn, and there is a grave in Newfoundland dating to the late 1300's. He's an ancestor of mine. So that means the Templars sue the Vatican, the Native Americans sue the Templars, and everybody sues me. This could be fun....

      --
      Please consider this account deleted, I just can't be bothered with the spam anymore.
    46. Re:What about the native americans? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oooo wikipedia. Sooo Smart ;)

    47. Re:What about the native americans? by Skjellifetti · · Score: 1

      Why 50%? Most AmerIndian tribes have a much lower threshold for determining the right to claim membership.

      Joke found in a book of Native American Jokes sold at a school on a South Dakota Sioux reservation:

      Q: What would you get if you were to line up 64 Cherokees?

      A: A full blooded Indian.

    48. Re:What about the native americans? by brainproxy · · Score: 2, Informative
      Europe had been trying to set up colonies there since the 1500s, i.e. sending people there:

      From Wikipedia, Or perhaps even more insightful...

      In 1578 Sir Humphrey Gilbert was granted a patent by Queen Elizabeth I for discovery and overseas exploration, and set sail for the West Indies with the intention of first engaging in piracy and on the return voyage, establishing a colony in North America.

      Eventually, you get Jamestown.

    49. Re:What about the native americans? by Pharmboy · · Score: 5, Funny

      Georgia also declared independence on January 19, 1861, but that one didn't work out quite so well.

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
    50. Re:What about the native americans? by Hognoxious · · Score: 4, Funny

      Right. Everyone knows that the idiots aren't going to learn any history in a community college. :-)

      Well said - they'd be teaching it!

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    51. Re:What about the native americans? by x_MeRLiN_x · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Either you or Wikipedia is completely wrong. In fact, Wikipedia is definitely wrong since it contradicts itself.

    52. Re:What about the native americans? by TheoMurpse · · Score: 1

      No civil consequences, perhaps (as you must have standing to sue). There are still international criminal consequences. You don't need standing to sue when you're prosecuting someone for crimes against humanity.

    53. Re:What about the native americans? by IrquiM · · Score: 4, Funny

      Psj... Europe was present more than 500 years before Jamestown!

      Best Regards,
      The Norsemen!

      --
      This is blinging
    54. Re:What about the native americans? by spun · · Score: 2, Informative

      Where do you get the idea that Native Americans had no concept of land ownership? You do know they fought amongst themselves over territory before we ever got here, right? If they had no concept of land ownership, why did they kill each other and take each other's land? They may not have completely understood the European concept of land ownership, but you can be damn sure that they, as well as every other indigenous population throughout history, has understood the concept that 'This is our land, to use as we see fit, and we can exclude you from it if we feel like it.'

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    55. Re:What about the native americans? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Australia didn't get any of the criminals until the US declared independence. The first settlement was in 1788. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia#History

    56. Re:What about the native americans? by spun · · Score: 1

      Are you saying it all evens out? That the folks who have ended up with the short end of the stick in modern times deserve it because they were provably blood thirsty bastards previously?

      Taking this line of reasoning to its conclusion, you must think it is okay to steal from thieves or their descendants, and everyone is a thief or descended from one, therefore, theft should not be a crime.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    57. Re:What about the native americans? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hee hee. Patronizing racism. Well-played, sir.

    58. Re:What about the native americans? by STrinity · · Score: 1

      Only a portion of New England was settled by religious fanatics -- the bulk of England's American colonies were settled by volunteers and debtors, and westward expansion was powered in large part by the Irish and Scandawoogians.

      --
      Les Miserables Volume 1 now up with my reading of
    59. Re:What about the native americans? by bugs2squash · · Score: 1

      The particular individuals don't sound like the types to mix in happily with their neighbors, perhaps not even with the other separatists. Sounds like the Dutch did not want to give them a chunk of their country - who'd have thought...

      I wonder how well this attitude played when others got to the early colonies. I know there was plenty of space, but were there plenty of "perfect" spots for a new colony?

      Life in the early colonies must have been hard enough without having to fight other colonists or the indigenous people, or having to move far inland to clear great swaths of forest before you could plant anything.

      Even with all those millions of square miles to share, I bet there were some squabbles, especially among this lot.

      --
      Nullius in verba
    60. Re:What about the native americans? by bladesjester · · Score: 1, Funny

      Ninety percent of them stayed in Maryland and Virginia.

      That explains a lot...

      --
      Everything I need to know I learned by killing smart people and eating their brains.
    61. Re:What about the native americans? by STrinity · · Score: 4, Informative

      A) The Templars were a military-religious organization, not an ethnic or racial group, and as such destroying them wasn't genocide any more than destroying the Ku Klux Klan or Skull and Bones society would be.

      B) The pogrom was localized in France, and the Pope only went along with it reluctantly, mostly because King Philip threatened war if he didn't. Templars in other parts of Europe escaped alive, and were even allowed to join rival organizations.

      --
      Les Miserables Volume 1 now up with my reading of
    62. Re:What about the native americans? by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 1

      So, assuming this suceeds ... can the native americans sue europe for defiling their land, and ruining their culture?

      Who is "Europe"? A tribe could sue the EU, but since it did not exist at the time they don't have much chance of winning. In fact, there aren't really many governments from that time still functioning, most have been replaced in violent or nonviolent revolutions. Now the Roman catholic church, on the other hand, has been the same organization since that time. The trick here is proving those claiming to be the knights templar, really are the same organization.

    63. Re:What about the native americans? by mccabem · · Score: 1

      Well said. I have to point out indentured servants at this point though. 1) Because nobody has that I've seen so far and they're both well documented and significant (>50% of all the white folk in the colonies!) and 2) it so happens I learned about them in grade school. WTF? :)

      -Matt

    64. Re:What about the native americans? by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      The term Indian referring to American Indians was a homonym of "In Deo" meaning "with God" as Columbus found the natives to be a very spiritual people. India as a country did not yet exist.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    65. Re:What about the native americans? by JeanPaulBob · · Score: 1, Insightful

      If I'm perfectly pleasant and do proselytize--that is, discuss questions of religion with people who disagree seeking to persuade them--can I still avoid the nutjob label?

      If not, do I get to call atheists who argue for atheism "nutjobs"?

      Hmm... For that matter, either way, do I get to call an unpleasant atheist a nutjob?

    66. Re:What about the native americans? by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      He meant CIVILIZED settlers.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    67. Re:What about the native americans? by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1

      Case in point: the most important Catholic theologian for the first 1200 years of Western Church history, Saint Augustine, was black.

      Oh, please. Wikipedia shows that he was white. And also a hippo.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    68. Re:What about the native americans? by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      January 19, 1861. Didn't keep it for long, though.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    69. Re:What about the native americans? by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      Australia was considered a harsher punishment.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    70. Re:What about the native americans? by mooingyak · · Score: 1

      If I'm perfectly pleasant and do proselytize--that is, discuss questions of religion with people who disagree seeking to persuade them--can I still avoid the nutjob label?

      If not, do I get to call atheists who argue for atheism "nutjobs"?

      Hmm... For that matter, either way, do I get to call an unpleasant atheist a nutjob?

      Nutjob might be a bit harsh, but unsolicited evangelism of any kind is irritating at best, and generally obnoxious. That does include atheistic evangelism, or whatever it might more properly be called since that sounds somewhat self contradictory.

      Unpleasant people of all stripes generally fall under the 'jerk' label.

      --
      William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.
    71. Re:What about the native americans? by Doctor+Faustus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If I'm perfectly pleasant and do proselytize--that is, discuss questions of religion with people who disagree seeking to persuade them--can I still avoid the nutjob label?
      I think that would depend on whether you're bothering them about it. If you're friends who are talking about it because it interests both of you, or they came up and tried to sell you on their views, I don't think many people have a problem with that (if it's private -- I've gotten into trouble with that myself on message boards). If you approach strangers and ask if they've heard the good news about Ceiling Cat, that another matter.

      If not, do I get to call atheists who argue for atheism "nutjobs"?... do I get to call an unpleasant atheist a nutjob?
      If they're approaching people in church parking lots on Sunday morning telling them the good news about being able to sleep in, sure. And I assume you mean they're unpleasant about being an atheist (the guy in the next cubicle is unpleasant and a conservative Christian, but those have nothing to do with each other, so I wouldn't call him a religious nutjob) -- if so, I'd call that fair. We do tend to grow out of it after a couple years of not convincing anyone, though.

    72. Re:What about the native americans? by Red+Flayer · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Indentured servitude is a good example, but there were two types of indentured servants. First were those who voluntarily entered into indenture in order to finance their emigration from their home country. In the context of this thread, those would fall under the "voluntary" emigrants -- they were not "sent" by their governments.

      The second group, however, are among the ones I referenced -- they came to the Americas to avoid being put in debtors' prison, where they would likely die from contagion. What often happened is that a colony venture would buy out the debt from the person's creditors (usually at a fraction of the amount owed), and then indenture the person to work off the debt.

      Violent criminals, etc, were also sent... but more often to penal colonies (Georgia, etc) than to other colonies.

      Another thing I'd note is that there was plenty of Crown manipulation to ensure that certain populations suffered economically in England. Desperation drove some of these people to the Americas, and while it would be false to say that most of them were "sent" by the Crown, many of them had few other options due directly to actions of the Crown.

      It is absolutely justifiable to argue that the Crown deliberately worked to ensure that many "undesirables" were shipped to the colonies, and whether they did so directly or indirectly does not change the fact that it happened.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    73. Re:What about the native americans? by Mistshadow2k4 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      But the constant stream of revenue from the casinos they're allowed to build (in states where gambling is illegal) is more of a win than if they'd just been paid a lump sum a long time ago.

      Yeah! And all those incredibly poor injuns you see around are just faking it.

      Newsflash: The only people making money out of those are the casino owners. What did you think, they make money hand over fist and then give it all to their people? Idiot. In point of fact, they pay their fellow native employees a lot less than casino employees in Vegas make. You're on the damn internet, look it up.

      --
      I dream of a better world... one in which chickens can cross roads without their motives being questioned.
    74. Re:What about the native americans? by eggnoglatte · · Score: 4, Insightful

      On my book, (unsolicited) proselytizing would disqualify you from being perfectly pleasant. You can hold any religious belief you want, but I sure don't want to hear about them.

    75. Re:What about the native americans? by TheMidnight · · Score: 2, Informative

      Wasn't Columbus looking for the East Indies though? He was looking to find the East Indies for a shorter trading route but ended up in the Carribean instead. He thought he had found it, so he named the natives "Indians."

    76. Re:What about the native americans? by Mistshadow2k4 · · Score: 0

      Nobody has hundreds of billions of dollars, you racist twit, let alone any of the native peoples. Answer me this: if they're all so frigging rich from the gambling casinos, how come you never hear about any of these rich Indian men like you do rich white men? Look up who are the richest people in the US and count how many Indians among them. Here's a hint: even a racist moron like you can count that high. Jesus, we've persecuted women and minorities, burned witches and invaded foreign lands, when can we start oppressing the racists? They're far more abhorrent than any of the others.

      --
      I dream of a better world... one in which chickens can cross roads without their motives being questioned.
    77. Re:What about the native americans? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The overall concept of defamation claims from centuries ago is simple to deny because of absurdity, but the treatment of the Church towards natives in the Columbian era is complicated only because official Church policy took time to include the work of de Vitoria and others--delayed the declaration of natives as soulful. But, yes, after that short delay the Church--notably Jesuits--acted to change the treatment of natives. Unfortunately the world wasn't perfect and the Church still viewed the natives as people needing religious education and canon law--a world away from a view of natives as killable slave animals, but not yet in the same world as current cultural preservationists. And, as you mention, manifest destiny had nothing to do with the Columbian era because the Jesuits simply believed that the natives needed education as they were found during European resource-hunting trips; manifest destiny was a naturalistic US American idea that all of the land from coast to coast belonged only to the European Americans.

    78. Re:What about the native americans? by catmistake · · Score: 1

      Your knowledge is impressive, but St. Augustine was not Black, not in the sense that usually means today, of African descent. Augustine was a Roman... most likely making him Italian. Perhaps you were thinking of St. Francis?

    79. Re:What about the native americans? by Grandiloquence · · Score: 5, Funny

      After 1718, approximately 60,000 convicts, dubbed "the King's passengers," were sent from England to America. Ninety percent of them stayed in Maryland and Virginia.

      Of course, descendants of those people still live in Maryland and Virginia, but instead of being called "The King's Passengers", they're now known as "The US Government".

    80. Re:What about the native americans? by belmolis · · Score: 1

      No, it wasn't. Although India was not at the time a unified country, the term "India" was known to Europeans. Columbus was looking for the "Indies".

    81. Re:What about the native americans? by turbidostato · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "If you cant prove you are 50% or greater american indian I think you have no case."

      Quite on the contrary. Since we are talking here about some nuts that declare themselves to be "The Templars" (as if there could be any other templars than those so accepted by the Pope), the proper analogy would be somebody calling himself indian american being say, 100% Danish and then ask for relatiation because of the damages suffered by "we" the real indian nation (not those newcomers that just because their ancestors has been in North America for the last 10.000 years think they can claim themselves being this or that).

    82. Re:What about the native americans? by dirkbaztard · · Score: 1

      From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penal_colony The British used North America as a penal colony both in the usual sense and through the system of indentured servitude. Most notably, the Province of Georgia was originally designed as a penal colony. Convicts would be transported by private sector merchants and auctioned off to plantation owners upon arrival in the colonies. It is generously estimated that some 50,000 British convicts were sent to colonial America, representing perhaps one-quarter of all British emigrants during the eighteenth century. When that avenue closed in the 1780s after the American Revolution, Britain began using parts of modern day Australia as penal colonies. Some of these early colonies were Norfolk Island, Van Diemen's Land and New South Wales. Advocates of Irish Home Rule or of Trade Unionism (the Tolpuddle Martyrs) often received sentences of deportation to these Australian colonies.

    83. Re:What about the native americans? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, he was born in Algeria, but was neither of African descent nor Black. Are Egyptians Black?

    84. Re:What about the native americans? by turbidostato · · Score: 1

      "do I get to call atheists who argue for atheism "nutjobs"?"

      The day an atheist claims in all seriousness that he know of a guy that walks over water and resurrects people death so long ago that already stinks, I'd say yes, you are completely in your right to call him nutjob.

    85. Re:What about the native americans? by turbidostato · · Score: 1

      "Templars in other parts of Europe escaped alive, and were even allowed to join rival organizations."

      Even more: I know nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition, but in this one Templars were not only allowed to escape alive but with the aid of the Spanish King (well, the Aragonian King, those days) they didn't need to join a rival organization because they were allowed to create their own one, the Orden de Montesa, which "misteriously" managed to inherit almost all the goods (specially castles) the "old" templars owned all along the East side of Spain.

    86. Re:What about the native americans? by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 1

      Criminals were sent to the Americas as well as Australia. There was a lot of voluntary migration later but to say that the europeans didn't send *anyone* is just incorrect.

      I suggest some reading is in order.

    87. Re:What about the native americans? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A couple years ago while researching family history for a college report, my younger sister found almost conclusive proof that we were directly descended from royalty (contrary to family lore which said we were related to royalty but not directly royalty); our ancestor came over as punishment from stealing from Lord Baltimore (usually he would have been killed, but as he was royalty and 14 he was sentenced to come to America)

    88. Re:What about the native americans? by WeirdJohn · · Score: 1

      Western Australia had convicts arriving until 1868. But we had far more people arrive during the Gold Rush era than we ever got convicts. We also had an enormous influx after WWII, and during the construction of the Snowy Mountain Scheme.

    89. Re:What about the native americans? by Lord+Ender · · Score: 1

      The difference between atheists arguing for their beliefs and religious nutjobs arguing for theirs is that the atheists have empirical evidence to back up their claims.

      --
      A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    90. Re:What about the native americans? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what makes you think the government would even accept their applications for land deeds?

      also you are dumb, don't post on the internet

    91. Re:What about the native americans? by ericspinder · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Well said - they'd be teaching it!

      Well, my father who, just passed away, spent the final twenty years of his career teaching at a community college, and loved it. Thank you for insulting his intelligence.

      --
      The grass is only greener, if you don't take care of your own lawn.
    92. Re:What about the native americans? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Georgia also filed for independence on January 17, 2000 (see the last paragraph.)

    93. Re:What about the native americans? by randyest · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      No offense, but having just died and being an idiot are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

      (If he was teaching English I sure, hope, his, comma, usage was better than your commarhea.)

      --
      everything in moderation
    94. Re:What about the native americans? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Big deal. Most humans are probably descended from assholes that put a crown of shit on their heads and declared themselves kings. Do you want a cookie, 900,000th in line for the royal crown of Inbredia?

    95. Re:What about the native americans? by 2short · · Score: 1

      There aren't any Knights Templar descendants. As an order of monks, having children would violate their vow of celibacy and invalidate their membership.

    96. Re:What about the native americans? by Ardipithecus · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Skipping the details, the Templars were celibate, and any descendants might not be legit.

    97. Re:What about the native americans? by skuzzlebutt · · Score: 4, Funny

      most of the posters in this are chimps with no education and no spine

      ...as opposed to ad hominem anonymous coward, who is both wise and courageous?

      --
      My debut novel AMITY now available: http://jeremydbrooks.c
    98. Re:What about the native americans? by cHiphead · · Score: 3, Funny

      I'm just gonna go ahead and end this thread by calling you a nazi.

      Cheers.

      --

      This is my sig. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    99. Re:What about the native americans? by ericspinder · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      No offense,...

      For the record, he used the GI bill to graduate with a Master degree from American University, while working full time and raising a family. Many of his students faced similar challenges and he admired them for their efforts to improve their lives. Ironically, his opinions on that were often expressed when defending his work against the attack from elitist fools such as yourself.

      BTW, I didn't edit the post well, but hey two trolls for the price of one, what a bargain.

      --
      The grass is only greener, if you don't take care of your own lawn.
    100. Re:What about the native americans? by dargaud · · Score: 1

      How did that old joke go ? "Why did Australia got all the convicts while America got all the religious nutcases ?" Because Australia got first pick... or something like that.

      --
      Non-Linux Penguins ?
    101. Re:What about the native americans? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is slashdot. No one was upset with the historical inaccuracy, nor the insulting of americans. The troll moderation is reserved for those who insult the Republican party.

      There, fixed that for ya

      This is slashdot. No one was upset with the historical inaccuracy, nor the insulting of americans. The troll moderation is reserved for those who insult the Democrat party.

      There, fixed that for ya

    102. Re:What about the native americans? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forgot the "Insensitive clod!" line

    103. Re:What about the native americans? by randyest · · Score: 2

      I'm an "elitist fool" for pointing out the obvious fact that being dead and idiocy aren't conflicting states? Do you think that idiots never die, or what?

      And did you expect to post a saccharine, sanctimonious offen-sensitive response to an obvious joke and not get a prod or two? Even without the three unnecessary commas your post deserved a little mocking -- those were just icing on the cake. (And "Master degree"? I'm hoping English isn't your first language...)

      In short: lighten up, Francis.



      (Fake edit: Oh noes you made me ur foe what will I do; LOL)

      --
      everything in moderation
    104. Re:What about the native americans? by Puffy+Director+Pants · · Score: 1

      Ooh, Norway does have a lot of Oil Money. Assuming Russia doesn't sue them first.

    105. Re:What about the native americans? by socz · · Score: 1

      I learned this the hard way! I grew up with the "America (The United States of North America) is Great!" mentality and was put in my place when I visited Mexico for the summer during Jr. High.

      Apparently what I had learned about the U.S. - Mexican war was incorrect/incomplete. Since then I started reading many things I wondered about and found out that "history is written by those who win the war." Very interesting to me at least.

      Although I wouldn't go as far as calling it propaganda, it certainly isn't "history" all the time.

      --
      My abilities are only limited by my imagination
    106. Re:What about the native americans? by socz · · Score: 1

      ... Australians only got the GOOD criminals!

      --
      My abilities are only limited by my imagination
    107. Re:What about the native americans? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      saccharine, sanctimonious offen-sensitive

      Big words for such a little man

    108. Re:What about the native americans? by socz · · Score: 1

      I just learned 2 things:

      1) The word proselytize and it's meaning.
      2) I am directly a "nutjob" for indirectly 'trying' to convert people to my beliefs.

      hahaha

      --
      My abilities are only limited by my imagination
    109. Re:What about the native americans? by Hognoxious · · Score: 3, Funny

      I, insensitive clod that I am, humbly stand corrected.

      May I respectfully add that your complete inabilty to recognise an obvious (though I confess, throwaway and rather cheap) joke could be likened to the finest, first pressing (cold, for mercy's sake) olive oil; and that it harmonises with the purest wine vinegar of your interesting (it would be unique if not for William Shatner) punctuation style to form the salad dressing that is the perfect tribute to the dear departed.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    110. Re:What about the native americans? by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      He was looking to find the East Indies for a shorter trading route but ended up in the Carribean instead. He thought he had found it, so he named the natives "Indians."
      If he really thought he had found the East Indies, why would he go around naming all the islands? Shouldn't they already be named?
      Also, why would he name the natives "Indians", shouldn't they already have the name Indians?
      That being said, my research today shows that all of the theories which as little as one year ago were being espoused as the new truth on Columbus are now being debunked, and people are saying that he really WAS looking for an overwater route (though probably to Japan and China). However, it still perplexes me that he would believe that after travelling less than 1/3 of what scientists of the day thought it should take, that he would believe himself in India.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    111. Re:What about the native americans? by Larryish · · Score: 1

      Ninety percent of them stayed in Maryland and Virginia.

      Before moving to New Jersey.

    112. Re:What about the native americans? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Holy shit, if the remaining american indians get wind of this we are all screwed.

      Don't panic.

    113. Re:What about the native americans? by Larryish · · Score: 1

      If I'm perfectly pleasant and do proselytize--that is, discuss questions of religion with people who disagree seeking to persuade them--can I still avoid the nutjob label?

      If not, do I get to call atheists who argue for atheism "nutjobs"?

      Both are equally annoying.

      There is a relevant truism that I believe wholeheartedly:

      If you hear anything about religion from a person the first time you meet them, watch your back; they are greasing you up to be screwed.

    114. Re:What about the native americans? by SmashedSqwurl · · Score: 1

      According to wikipedia, it was initially supposed to be a debtors' colony. However, no debtors ever ended up actually going there. They probably couldn't afford it...

    115. Re:What about the native americans? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm an "elitist fool" for pointing out the obvious fact that being dead and idiocy aren't conflicting states?

      You're an elitist fool for insulting someone's grammar, and you're just a regular old fool for being mildly insulting to someone about their deceased father. "...having just died and being an idiot are not necessarily mutually exclusive" didn't need to be said in this situation and clearly was meant to be insulting. Oh, but you wrote "no offense," so I guess it's okay.

    116. Re:What about the native americans? by tarogue · · Score: 1

      Um ... Virginia was peopled by Englishmen and their Irish slaves (sorry: "servants") long before the Mayflower was built. In fact: the Mayflower was on its way to Virginia, but ran out of food and beer so landed in Rhode Island. They didn't like it there, so moved up to the cape.

      There's your history lesson.

      --
      Life sucks, but death doesn't put out at all. -- Thomas J. Kopp
    117. Re:What about the native americans? by ericspinder · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      and that it harmonises with the purest wine vinegar of your interesting (it would be unique if not for William Shatner) punctuation style to form the salad dressing that is the perfect tribute to the dear departed.

      I really am sorry that my comment didn't meet your high editorial standards, but I'm still in mourning with his loss and I didn't take a lot of time to edit. It was a long illness (cancer), and I had the misfortune to watch his six foot three frame wither in home hospice. I actually do hope that you don't have the same experience, but then again, I have a soul. I generally appreciate your atonement, but poking at me about my grammar was unnecessary. Oh, yea, I do know that I'm sometimes dealing with child-like men on this site, many times with egos far exceeding their humanity.

      --
      The grass is only greener, if you don't take care of your own lawn.
    118. Re:What about the native americans? by Dan541 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Any non-native White American would also be sued because most of you came from europe at some point.

      If your a white American, are you sure those rejects arn't related to you?

      --
      An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
    119. Re:What about the native americans? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and now we are watching "return of the king"

    120. Re:What about the native americans? by MrHanky · · Score: 1

      You just read the wrong Wikipedia articles, and you're fairly clueless about history yourself. Here's a better link for you:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penal_transportation#British_transportation_to_North_America

      The British transportation of criminals to America only stopped after the revolution. Your turn to take a history class.

    121. Re:What about the native americans? by MrHanky · · Score: 2, Informative

      He's not "insightful" just because he conforms to your prejudices. He's also wrong, as a number of other people have stated. More than 50,000 convicts were sent from Britain to America; far, far, more than went over on the Mayflower.

    122. Re:What about the native americans? by miskate · · Score: 1

      Well the first "colony" (convict) ships arrived in Sydney in January 1788, as someone else has pointed out.

      There were two reasons for starting up Sydney. The first was the usual strategic land grab, but the second and far more pressing was that America had stopped taking British convicts at that point and there was nowhere else for them to be sent.

    123. Re:What about the native americans? by couchslug · · Score: 1

      "Ouch! It almost sounds like there are no consequences for perpetrating a successful genocide."

      The consequence is known as "victory".

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    124. Re:What about the native americans? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The natives should have worn something much more practical and low-maintenance on their heads, like um, tricorne hats or white-powdered wigs.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tricorn_hat

    125. Re:What about the native americans? by Lodragandraoidh · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I'm sometimes dealing with child-like men on this site, many times with egos far exceeding their humanity.

      That is the most cogent statement I have seen on or about this site in a long time.

      --

      Lodragan Draoidh
      The more you explain it, the more I don't understand it. - Mark Twain
    126. Re:What about the native americans? by beav007 · · Score: 1

      "He who fails history is bound to repeat it"

    127. Re:What about the native americans? by Khyber · · Score: 0

      Correct - celibacy does not mean a vow of no sex, it is a vow of not marrying. Chastity is a vow of no sex.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    128. Re:What about the native americans? by thedrx · · Score: 1

      You must not interact with people much. Most people use ad personam arguments and such on a daily basis, or basic the power of their arguments on the loudness of their voice or, like here, their personal tragedy and its perceived importance.

    129. Re:What about the native americans? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I assume some teachers have died in Darfur. I assume some fathers have died there as well. In fact some may have been both. Therefore we can no longer make jokes about fathers or teachers.

      After several millenia of recorded human civilization, with its many disasters and atrocities plus your sensibilities, no one could laugh about anything. Ever.

      Give me a break. It is not like he was making cancer jokes.

    130. Re:What about the native americans? by SimonInOz · · Score: 1

      Hah, you think that was bad, look what we got in Australia!

      Actually, I think we did better. USA still seems to be the home of religious nut jobs (I mean, just look at Bush), whereas Australia seems no more beset by criminals than anywhere else.

      Actually maybe we do a little better ... must be the nice weather. Or the cold beer?

      Incarceration rates per 100,000
      Australia 114
      USA 715 (!)
      UK 135
      World average ??
      (Iceland manages the lowest of any seemingly civilised country at an impressive 40)

      Texas manages the world record of 1014. Incredible. Maybe they missed one.

      --
      "Cats like plain crisps"
    131. Re:What about the native americans? by JackieBrown · · Score: 1

      Well, africanamericans.com seems to think so

      http://www.africanamericans.com/BlackSaints.htm

    132. Re:What about the native americans? by JeanPaulBob · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If we're talking about unsolicited, persistent proselytizing, I agree entirely. If you don't want to hear about it, you don't want to hear about it. People should respect that.

      Other than that, I can understand how you might feel irritated by an unsolicited invitation to talk about religion--or anything else, from political messages to invitations to sign petitions--but I don't think it would be reasonable to call people unpleasant for asking. Not if they're respectful about it.

    133. Re:What about the native americans? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You must not interact with people much. Most people use ad personam arguments and such...

      Others, on the other hand, have such great wisdom that they no need for human decency, and easily launch personal attacks without any provocation. Just a little psychotic, but luckily they have pills for that.

    134. Re:What about the native americans? by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Okay I got modded troll I can live with that, but still the Europeans didn't send anyone

      They sent large numbers of criminals to America and then needed somewhere else to send them after the revolution - hence sending them to Australia afterwards. It amazes me how many people in the USA don't know the basics of their own history. Even your President thinks Australia is just somewhere you send criminals - which explains your Ambassitor.

    135. Re:What about the native americans? by dbIII · · Score: 1

      What year did Georgia gain independence?

      April 9, 1991, shortly before the collapse of the USSR.

    136. Re:What about the native americans? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you have any idea how big the Roman Empire got? Hint: It was bigger than Italy.

    137. Re:What about the native americans? by garompeta · · Score: 1

      Exactly! under that criteria even Jesus is Black, oh Lord... ahaha

    138. Re:What about the native americans? by Meski · · Score: 1

      I'm an "elitist fool" for pointing out the obvious fact that being dead and idiocy aren't conflicting states? Do you think that idiots never die, or what?

      There's so many of them, it seems a reasonable conclusion to me. :)

      And did you expect to post a saccharine, sanctimonious offen-sensitive response to an obvious joke and not get a prod or two? Even without the three unnecessary commas your post deserved a little mocking -- those were just icing on the cake. (And "Master degree"? I'm hoping English isn't your first language...)

      Some master baiting there. :^)

    139. Re:What about the native americans? by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      "atheists have empirical evidence to back up their claims"

      Can you enlighten us as to what that "emprical evidence" is, or am I missing a joke?

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    140. Re:What about the native americans? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you get a lot of atheists ringing your doorbell, bearing literature and offering postcards of (say) Richard Dawkins?

      If so, please tell me where you live so I can daydream about moving there.

    141. Re:What about the native americans? by Juzzie79 · · Score: 1

      Except you've missed the fact that the athiests are the ones who's belief system calls for "empirical evidence" in order to acertain truth, as opposed to science which requires empirical evidence in order to demonstrate that a particular model works. Let me ramble off a few examples: You could be a brain in a vat. The world may have come into existance last Tuesday with the appearence of age. This universe could be a computer simulation. Etc, etc, etc. All of these are impossible to produce any empirical evidence for, as they hypothosise about things outside our ability to observe, but each could still be the truth.

      Actually, the simulation one is the most probable truth of our existance, based on mathematical probability and an optomistic appliction of Moore's Law - I saw this great doco on quantum mechanics where this quantum physisist explained it. Very compelling, but a story for another time.

      Anyway, the point is that suggesting you need empirical evidence for God is stupid, as by definition things that are supernatural don't fit within a purely natural dicipline like science. A lack of empirical evidence for something doesn't make it false - It just says nothing one way or the other. And as is the case with the idea of things supernatural, there's been enough non-empirical (subjective, implied, non-repeatable, etc) evidence around the place that I'm convinced there's more to our reality then you think there is. Make up your own mind, sure. But don't belittle me for having a different POV.

      Crazy atheist evengelists and their "empirical supremecy", I don't know... :P

    142. Re:What about the native americans? by Xaositecte · · Score: 1

      Nah, insulting the Republican Party is almost always insightful, or at the very least funny.

      Now if you talk shit about Ron Paul on the other hand...

    143. Re:What about the native americans? by IrquiM · · Score: 1

      So did I!

      Read your history books to find out which one of us were the most civilized when we came to America!

      --
      This is blinging
    144. Re:What about the native americans? by OeLeWaPpErKe · · Score: 1

      Why doesn't the lava under America sue slashdot ? It used to see the sun, and now only their offices do. Clearly this must be rectified !

    145. Re:What about the native americans? by OeLeWaPpErKe · · Score: 1

      I see you've met slashdot's PC police. Just ignore them.

    146. Re:What about the native americans? by mcvos · · Score: 1

      Correct - celibacy does not mean a vow of no sex, it is a vow of not marrying. Chastity is a vow of no sex.

      This is a very interesting distinction (especially for the church to make) that I wasn't aware of.

    147. Re:What about the native americans? by oliderid · · Score: 1

      Well if you consider middle age inhabitants of cities like Antioch as Turkish...Well yes partly. The seljuq ('turkic' origin) used to rule Antioch and the like before the second crusade (ie usually considered as the first crusade but there was a first wave of christian fanatics that was crushed by muslims...and wikipedia prefer to forget it.).

      But most atrocities have been committed in Lebanon, Israel and it was under the rule of the fatamid (Egypt), IMHO.

      Knights templar didn't exist prior to the crusade. The order was created after the invasion. They weren't the fanatics painted by Ridley Scott in his movie. They were responsible for most inter-cultural dialogue between Europeans and Arabs. They were good traders, they were amongst the first in Europe to use cheque (a kind of western union for pilgrims...They wouldn't have to carry large sum on their way and be targets for thieves).

      Hospitallers on the other had a very bellicose fraction.

      What knights templar learnt from arabs (old hellenistic books, astrology/astronomy, alchemy) etc. was as much as important for Europe than the mythical muslim Al Andalus in Spain. Wealth + knowledge, it was a grave threat for the vatican of that time.

    148. Re:What about the native americans? by Ardipithecus · · Score: 2, Informative
      Corrections Dept:

      Celibacy refers to being unmarried or abstaining from sexual intercourse (i.e., chastity). A vow of celibacy is a promise not to enter into marriage or engage in sexual intercourse. The term involuntary celibacy has recently appeared to describe a chronic, unwilling state of celibacy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celibate

      Britannica Concise Encyclopedia: celibacy The deliberate abstinence from sexual activity, usually in connection with a religious role or practice. It has existed in some form in most world religions

      Dictionary: (fr Answers.com) chaste

      1. Morally pure in thought or conduct; decent and modest.

      2.

      a. Not having experienced sexual intercourse; virginal.

      b. Abstaining from unlawful sexual intercourse.

      c. Abstaining from all sexual intercourse; celibate.

      3. Pure or simple in design or style; austere.

      Summary: (for /. purposes)

      Celibacy refers to being unmarried or abstaining from sexual intercourse

      chastity Abstaining from unlawful sexual intercourse.

      A chaste person can marry and enjoy "lawful" sex, a celibate "can't" do either.

    149. Re:What about the native americans? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i hate slashdot. what has she become?

      are they all 12-yr olds with big brains?

    150. Re:What about the native americans? by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      "atheists have empirical evidence to back up their claims"

      Can you enlighten us as to what that "emprical evidence" is, or am I missing a joke?

      The evidence of millions of people that they do not feel any need to believe in an imaginary sky father, and the accumulation of hundreds of years of absence of evidence that said being exists other than in the pages of religious texts and the unprovable declarations of believers.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    151. Re:What about the native americans? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      I didn't say anybody "has" billions of dollars. I said they "brought in" billions of dollars, which is in fact true. Where it goes is not the issue here

      I didn't say they were rich. They have to spend a big chunk of that money paying Republican lobbyists and congresspeople to keep the gambling laws and to work against online gaming.

      Native Americans have been abused in countless ways. The casinos don't begin to atone. The billions that the casinos take in doesn't put a dent in the social problems in the NA community. I don't know if "Mistshadow" is your native american name or your WoW handle, but either way, you need to take a deep breath, son.

      But to blame "Europeans" is pretty stupid, and racist. Would you say Native Americans are "Asian" if they crossed over the Bering Strait? I know this might offend your religious sensibilities, but I don't think genetics lie. Science Daily has an article about how the first humans on North America came from Europe rather than Asia anyway.

      All of this is just so much rationalization for the fact that I wanted to counter a stupid comment about "Europe defiling their land, ruining their culture" with an equally stupid comment about "beads and feathers" and "palefaces".

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    152. Re:What about the native americans? by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      The mandatory quote in this kind of thread is "absense of evidence is not evidence of absense" since the only thing that can be said about the (non)existance of God is "dunno".

      You can learn more about the scientific method from Sagan's book including the concept that science does not "prove" anything. I admire Dawkin's for his writings and his efforts to fight the pious who take pity on people who don't share their beliefs. However his lack of belief can only be differentiated from a theist using Occam's razor, ie: "The universe just is" is a simpler model than "God did it". Regardless of what model you use there are at least 10 things that Atheists and Theists can agree on

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    153. Re:What about the native americans? by Bastard+of+Subhumani · · Score: 1

      This is slashdot, the distinction is completely irrelevant to most of us here.

      --
      Only three things are certain; death, taxes, and apocryphal quotations - Ben Franklin.
    154. Re:What about the native americans? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Dude , it's in a book.

      It could be full of lies and there is no way for it to be fixed.
      What next, quotes from stone tablets?

      Where's the wiki link?

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    155. Re:What about the native americans? by dave420 · · Score: 1

      Apart from the Australian Aboriginies. They (apparently, according to Crocodile Dundee) belonged to the land, not the other way round. I guess you'd have that outlook on the world if you lived in Australia, what with everything being poisonous and pissed off.

    156. Re:What about the native americans? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Hey now.
      I went to public school and I learned this stuff in high school.
      Stop deriding the educational qualities of public institutions because that guys an idiot.

      ". and is almost always incomplete."
      That can be said about any history class.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    157. Re:What about the native americans? by dave420 · · Score: 1

      How about suing the British government? That's still the exact same one. Or the US government? They're still around, I hear. Both did some pretty fucked up things.

    158. Re:What about the native americans? by Lord+Ender · · Score: 1

      Ha... what you say is both true and cognitively meaningless. If you don't require empirical basis for your view, an infinite number of mutually exclusive absurdities become equally likely. Since all monotheistic religions are mutually exclusive, the probability of any one of them being true is 1/infinity.

      --
      A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    159. Re:What about the native americans? by Lord+Ender · · Score: 1

      Empirical observations about the universe directly contradict most of the supernatural claims made in most religions. People can't live in whales, for example.

      --
      A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    160. Re:What about the native americans? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can you point out some sources that state that he was black? Thanks!

    161. Re:What about the native americans? by djdavetrouble · · Score: 1

      I'm sometimes dealing with child-like men on this site, many times with egos far exceeding their humanity.

      That is the most cogent statement I have seen on or about this site in a long time.

      Hah, you guys think slashdot is full of them, you should try the rest of the world / internet!

      Don't even make me mention that shovely site, which doesn't even have the men, just children.

      --
      music lover since 1969
    162. Re:What about the native americans? by ultranova · · Score: 1

      Empirical observations about the universe directly contradict most of the supernatural claims made in most religions. People can't live in whales, for example.

      Sure they can, given suitable protection; for example, an omnipotent being intent on seeing them through :). So your statement "People can't live in whales" is only true if one assumes the non-existence of supernatural a priori; as such, it can't be used as a proof of said non-existence, since that would be circular reasoning.

      No observation about the universe - the natural world - can ever contradict a claim about supernatural. How could it ? You have only observed that nature works in a certain way when left alone; your observations do absolutely nothing to prove that there isn't anything that can interfere with said functioning.

      This is, IMHO, the atheist equivalent of a religious nutcase: someone who makes nonsensical claims to back up their belief, such as "Science has prove that there is no God" - it hasn't, and it never will, because it is logically impossible to prove it - or "I have empirical evidence that contradict the existence of supernatural" - no you don't, you simply have evidence that nothing supernatural was observed at a certain place at a certain time.

      Oh well. Likely I get in return stories about teapots orbiting Venus, Flying Spaghetti Monster, Pink Unicorn or some other sign that the point has once again been missed; and the point, of course, is that you can't prove the non-existence of any of those, with the possible exception of teapot (assuming that a teapot you can't interact with wouldn't count as a teapot any more, since you couldn't use it to prepare tea). You don't have evidence that any of those things don't exist; you can believe they don't for whatever reason, but that belief is not based on "empirical observations" but to lack of them.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    163. Re:What about the native americans? by Lord+Ender · · Score: 1

      I believe the point of teapot examples is that there are an infinite number of improvable supernatural claims, so the the probability that any one is the "right" one is 1/infinity. Therefore, the natural, empirical world view is meaningful, while the supernatural view is impossible.

      --
      A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    164. Re:What about the native americans? by nsayer · · Score: 1

      That does include atheistic evangelism, or whatever it might more properly be called since that sounds somewhat self contradictory.

      Not at all. Webster's online dictionary says that meaning 2 of "evangelism" is "militant or crusading zeal." I'd say that if you were to look up "athiestic evangelism," in a book somewhere, there'd probably be a picture of Madalyn Murray O'Hair.

    165. Re:What about the native americans? by Juzzie79 · · Score: 1

      Not entirely, as the empirical requirement discounts personal experience. For example, the only way I know that I am a conscious entity is because I experience it. There's no empirical test for consciousness, and as a result the only way I "know" that people around me experience it like I do is implication. They seem to behave and respond in the same way I do, therefore I assume they are experiencing the same thing.

      Say I observe something unexpected, like I meet an alien. The alien tells me he's the only one here, and they won't be back because earth sucks and they hate it. The he leaves. Now I *know* this happened because I experienced it, but if I told you about it you'd think I was crazy. (Just as an aside - I've never really met any aliens) So while my personal experiences can't be used to prove something to you, they are how I acertain the truthfulness of most things I know. The same is true of everyone. Things that don't correlate with our personal experience, we tend to disregard. Science is a useful way of applying some rules that allow us to show that something we think is true works most/all of the time, but it doesn't apply to the full spectrum of human experience (eg: consciousness example above) and it ultimately can't identify something to be the truth - just the best model based on our current ability to observe. The Ptolemaic System is a classic example of that.

      So what am I saying? I'm saying that religion (or more appropriately, faith) is a personal thing, is not untrue simply because it doesn't fit within natural science, and while you're free to select your own belief system you shouldn't belittle others for having their own. There's an infinate number of absurdities out there, which includes the one you believe, and at least one of them will be true.

    166. Re:What about the native americans? by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      Contradict yes, invalidate no. See my reply to the OP above.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    167. Re:What about the native americans? by wavedeform · · Score: 1

      The English deported their religious fanatics to America and their criminals to Australia. I think we, the Americans, got the short end of the stick on that one.

      Amen.

    168. Re:What about the native americans? by ultranova · · Score: 1

      I believe the point of teapot examples is that there are an infinite number of improvable supernatural claims, so the the probability that any one is the "right" one is 1/infinity.

      Nitpick: improvable conflicting supernatural claims. Furthermore, this claim assumes that all are equally probable/improbable, which is likely unprovable in itself - how do you calculate the odds when you're talking about something which, by definition, is not subject to the laws of nature ?

      In fact, to split hairs, something truly supernatural wouldn't be subject to any laws, since a proper view of nature should explain all phenomena, so the existence of, say, ghosts would merely mean that the current set of natural laws are incomplete, prompting the addition of equations describing the interactions of poltergeists with matter to the set ;). Taking that view, the only an omnipotent entity would be truly supernatural, because anything that falls short of that has limits by definition, and thus it is possible to derive laws describing it.

      I can just see a thesis work for the future: "Poltergeist field effects in accelerating relational frames - by Johnny b. Good and his great-great-grandmother" ;).

      Therefore, the natural, empirical world view is meaningful, while the supernatural view is impossible.

      This is incorrect. It is the equivalent of saying that because there are infinite possible choices, of which at most one can be true, it is impossible for any of them to be correct. That's clearly nonsensical; in fact, if nature is fundamentally analogical, then the universe itself is a counterexample, since it has an infinite number of possible states. And of course all this is ignoring the question whether there really is an infinite number of possible different conflicting supernatural beliefs.

      I don't know what you mean by "meaningful"; you seem to be implying that supernatural beliefs don't have this quality, while nature does, however most religious systems certainly qualify for the literal interpretation of "meaningful". Did you perhaps mean something in the line of "useful" or "verifiable" ?

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    169. Re:What about the native americans? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, Jesus was Jewish, not... uh, Bluish.

  12. Umm... hello, respect to the Holy Clergy? by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 1

    If the Knights Templars are so holy, shouldn't they swear obedience to the Pope or something just as jesuits do?

    IMO this is nothing more than a greedy grand-grandchild wanting his inheritance money. Next!

    1. Re:Umm... hello, respect to the Holy Clergy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      nope. Because the Knights Templar were Freemasons not Catholics.

    2. Re:Umm... hello, respect to the Holy Clergy? by Ukab+the+Great · · Score: 1

      No, because they are no longer a military organization and "Fanatical Devotion To The Pope" is technically classified as a "Chief Weapon."

    3. Re:Umm... hello, respect to the Holy Clergy? by tinkerghost · · Score: 4, Informative

      If the Knights Templars are so holy, shouldn't they swear obedience to the Pope or something just as jesuits do?

      They did, and the Pope & the king of France conspired to kill them all & seize their lands on the charges of heresy, satanism, and a few other rather unpleasant things. Betrayals don't foster respect. If the record is to be believed, it was a raw money/power grab.

    4. Re:Umm... hello, respect to the Holy Clergy? by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 1

      nope. Because the Knights Templar were Freemasons not Catholics.

      If they're freemasons why the heck are they suing the Vatican? Freemasonry Lodges and The Vatican are sworn enemies and have many times declared the other as a menace to mankind and such. I can't see how a lawsuit regarding name-staining could possibly fit in here. Hello kettle, this is pot.

    5. Re:Umm... hello, respect to the Holy Clergy? by HeronBlademaster · · Score: 1

      Freemasonry is not a religion, it's more of a social club with rites. It is possible to be both a Freemason and a Catholic (or Presbyterian, or whatever).

    6. Re:Umm... hello, respect to the Holy Clergy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, it was mostly King Philip's work. He mass-murdered them because he owed them money.

      Captcha: "interest". What a coincidence.

    7. Re:Umm... hello, respect to the Holy Clergy? by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1

      Freemasonry Lodges and The Vatican are sworn enemies and have many times declared the other as a menace to mankind and such.

      That's incorrect in theory and in practice. Officially, Freemasons have no position on any church. Unofficially, my own lodge has Catholic members. While it's my understanding that the church disapproves of us, that's entirely one-sided.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    8. Re:Umm... hello, respect to the Holy Clergy? by RetiredMidn · · Score: 1

      Freemasonry Lodges and The Vatican are sworn enemies and have many times declared the other as a menace to mankind and such.

      That's incorrect in theory and in practice. Officially, Freemasons have no position on any church. Unofficially, my own lodge has Catholic members. While it's my understanding that the church disapproves of us, that's entirely one-sided.

      Validating that: our lodge's chaplain happens to be Catholic (and at least one other senior officer is Jewish, AFAIK). Our chaplain says he gets an occasional comment about it from some priest or other, but it's mostly not an issue.

  13. I propose a deal. by kahei · · Score: 5, Funny

    They go back and *actually* liberate the Holy Land, and *then* the Pope has to pay them all the golden doubloons in Christendom.

    10% bonus doubloons for finding the True Cross. On second thoughts, 10% bonus for each True Cross found.

    Heck, I'll even chip in a squadron of Turcopoles and some Genoese arbalesters.

    --
    Whence? Hence. Whither? Thither.
    1. Re:I propose a deal. by dwye · · Score: 1
      I believe that General Allenby, who DID liberate the Holy Land and Jerusalem from the Turk, after crossing the Jordan River after it parted as it had for Joshua, had many members of the Masons among his army. Since the Masons claim to be descended from Templar survivors, I believe that meets your criteria. So, where are those Genoese arbalesters that you promised?

      BTW, the Jordan stops fairly frequently, when an earthquake and dislodged rubble blocks the flow for a few hours. God's Will or Random Chance and Coincidence is your interpretation.

  14. I had to look it up by sm62704 · · Score: 4, Informative

    So now you don't have to.

    The Poor Fellow-Soldiers of Christ and of the Temple of Solomon (Latin: Pauperes commilitones Christi Templique Solomonici), commonly known as the Knights Templar or the Order of the Temple (French: Ordre du Temple or Templiers), were among the most famous of the Western Christian military orders.[3] The organization existed for approximately two centuries in the Middle Ages. It was founded in the aftermath of the First Crusade of 1096, its original purpose to ensure the safety of the many Christians who made the pilgrimage to Jerusalem after its conquest.

    Officially endorsed by the Roman Catholic Church around 1129, the Order became a favored charity throughout Christendom and grew rapidly in membership and power. Templar knights, in their distinctive white mantles quartered by a red cross, were among the most skilled fighting units of the Crusades.[4] Non-combatant members of the Order managed a large economic infrastructure throughout Christendom, innovating financial techniques that were an early form of banking,[5][6] and building many fortifications throughout the Mediterranean and the Holy Land.

    The Templars' success was tied closely to the Crusades; when the Holy Land was lost, support for the Order faded. Rumors about the Templars' secret initiation ceremony created mistrust, and King Philip IV of France, deeply in debt to the Order, began pressuring Pope Clement V to take action against the Order. In 1307, many of the Order's members in France were arrested, tortured into giving false confessions, and then burned at the stake.[7] In 1312, Pope Clement, under continuing pressure from King Philip, disbanded the Order. The abrupt disappearance of a major part of the societal infrastructure gave rise to speculation and legends, which have kept the "Templar" name alive into the modern day.

    I fail to see how this is nerdy, but I do appreciate the humor of someone suing the pope.

    --
    mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    1. Re:I had to look it up by sesshomaru · · Score: 1
      You're saying that this isn't nerdy?

      .

      Robin Hood versus Templars

      --
      "MIT betrayed all of its basic principles."
    2. Re:I had to look it up by pcolaman · · Score: 1

      looks like something Uwe Boll would put his name on. Seriously that whole scene was so poorly put together that I don't even think Boll would've rubber stamped it.

    3. Re:I had to look it up by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      I'm not saying, I'm asking.

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    4. Re:I had to look it up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      bloody hell, wikipedia as a source?

    5. Re:I had to look it up by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      This isn't a Master's Thesis. Wikipedia is good for several things, one of which is curing an idle curiosity about something that doesn't matter (like in this case), or as a starting point for serious research. Its sources are cited, and they are good sources.

      If you have a better link by all means please post it.

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
  15. Its all a coverup! by PC+and+Sony+Fanboy · · Score: 4, Funny

    Liar!! I've seen national treasure 1 AND 2. C'mon, you're just part of the order, trying to keep all of the other rightful heirs from becoming really rich and buying nice cars.

    1. Re:Its all a coverup! by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 1

      Liar!! I've seen national treasure 1 AND 2.

      So the Knights Templar fortune is in... Hollywood? My God. The MPAA... and by extension, the RIAA. It all makes sense now.

    2. Re:Its all a coverup! by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      Liar!! I've seen national treasure 1 AND 2. C'mon, you're just part of the order, trying to keep all of the other rightful heirs from becoming really rich and buying nice cars.

      Yeah, but remember the part of the 1st one, where Nicolas Cage tells the bad guy that the next clue involves Paul Revere or some BS, so that he runs off and lets Cage & crew go after the real treasure?

      The National Treasure movies are basically the same trick, played on the public.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
  16. No wait, seriously? by Holammer · · Score: 1

    Well, It *IS* The Register but lets play along. What's the Statute of limitations on this kind of stuff? Surely it must be shorter than 700 years. ... and it's not like the common man today believes they were a bunch of hedonistic Baphomet worshippers anyway.

  17. They have chosen...wisely. by IllGetYouAToe · · Score: 2, Funny

    But, beware: this lawsuit cannot pass beyond the courts of Spain, for it is effing ridiculous.

  18. knights by mark72005 · · Score: 1

    From what I have read, the current organization bears little if any connection to any historical one.

    But with the way that the RCC deals out settlements, why not pull the lever?

    1. Re:knights by Insanity+Defense · · Score: 1

      From what I have read, the current organization bears little if any connection to any historical one.

      Are you talking about the Catholic Church or the Templars? Either could apply based on my reading.

  19. Marionette by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Rumba > Bure

  20. We demand the Pantheon back! by Animats · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The Pantheon, in Rome, was built as a temple to the Roman gods, but was taken over by the Catholic church in 609 AD. It's time to return it to its original purpose, and restore the statutes of Mars, Venus, Apollo, Jupiter, and Diana.

    1. Re:We demand the Pantheon back! by dargaud · · Score: 1

      The Pantheon, in Rome [wikipedia.org], was built as a temple to the Roman gods, but was taken over by the Catholic church in 609 AD. It's time to return it to its original purpose, and restore the statutes of Mars, Venus, Apollo, Jupiter, and Diana.

      Except that it was later taken by the republic as a burial ground for its great men. It is an amazing building (one of the 2 or 3 oldest building still standing with its original roof). Kudos to the original architect, he can be proud of his work. And right in front of it is one of Rome's best ice-cream shop, which certainly makes the visit worthwhile.

      --
      Non-Linux Penguins ?
    2. Re:We demand the Pantheon back! by liquidsin · · Score: 1

      from the article you link:

      "In 609 the Byzantine emperor Phocas gave the building to Pope Boniface IV, who converted it into a Christian church..."

      not "taken over", but given. doesn't really seem like there's a case here...

      --
      do not read this line twice.
    3. Re:We demand the Pantheon back! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      statutes or statues?

    4. Re:We demand the Pantheon back! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You see, the ground on which the Pantheon is standing is was actually used by cows in the 4000 B.C. In the name of the cows, I demand our green plains back!

  21. Onion?... by whisper_jeff · · Score: 2, Funny

    Was The Register hijacked by The Onion or something?... Surreal...

  22. If the Holy See doesn't comply. by MRe_nl · · Score: 2, Funny

    If the Holy See doesn't comply, the warrior knights, renowned for liberating the Holy Land, will deploy that most fearsome of weapons: the Holy Hand Grenade offe Antioch.

    May the best Godwin!

    --
    "Kill 'em all and let Root sort 'em out"
    1. Re:If the Holy See doesn't comply. by muellerr1 · · Score: 1

      May the best Godwin!

      What do Nazis have to do with it?

    2. Re:If the Holy See doesn't comply. by MRe_nl · · Score: 1

      What do Nazis have to do with it?

      You've not seen any of the Indiana Jones movies apparently.

      --
      "Kill 'em all and let Root sort 'em out"
  23. and don't forget the psyhcological damage by rarel · · Score: 1

    In a related formal complain, The Templars also called the Church on its trolling and demanded compensation for all the flames.

  24. Re:The Vatican has no cash! by benwiggy · · Score: 4, Informative

    The funny thing is that the Vatican probably has billions in capital at its disposal. I always got a kick out of the pope ruling a small nation-state in Europe (with its own currency, mind you) telling me to be more like Jesus.

    Actually, the Vatican made a loss last tax year.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7501486.stm

    And this would be the same Jesus who said:
    For ye have the poor always with you; but me ye have not always. Sounds like a charitable guy.

  25. Wrong icon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This deserves the Monty Python Foot.

  26. All I can say, is ... by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 3, Funny

    Ni!

    1. Re:All I can say, is ... by dkleinsc · · Score: 1

      Oh yeah? Well, I can say "icky icky ptang ptang zoom boing!"

      Now, let me see you top it.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
  27. Their next target by tb()ne · · Score: 1

    I'm predicting their next suit will probably be a wrongful death suit against a certain Altaïr ibn La-Ahad.

    1. Re:Their next target by Kohath · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but all the arguments in the court trial would have to be repeated at least 9 times with different voice actors reading the same transcript lines for some reason.

  28. Silly by tjstork · · Score: 1

    I'm much more interested in how you make up for the lives & civilizations your organization destroyed

    Hey, I'm all down with the Catholic church coughing up the New World assets as soon as the Islamic world reverts the middle east to the Roman Christian states they were before hand Islamic expansion.

    --
    This is my sig.
    1. Re:Silly by Sabz5150 · · Score: 1

      I'm much more interested in how you make up for the lives & civilizations your organization destroyed

      Hey, I'm all down with the Catholic church coughing up the New World assets as soon as the Islamic world reverts the middle east to the Roman Christian states they were before hand Islamic expansion.

      No sweat. Give Rome back.

      --
      "Who modded this informative? Whoever it is must've been smokin' some of that martian pot!"
    2. Re:Silly by tjstork · · Score: 1

      No sweat. Give Rome back.

      Rome is ours. Thank you Constantine!

      --
      This is my sig.
    3. Re:Silly by Captain+Sarcastic · · Score: 4, Funny

      Hey, I'm all down with the Catholic church coughing up the New World assets as soon as the Islamic world reverts the middle east to the Roman Christian states they were before hand Islamic expansion.

      Let's go further than that! Join the Gondwanaland Reunification Movement!

      --
      Strike while the irony is hot! -- The Freethinker
  29. "WTF" is "their good name?" by hellfire · · Score: 4, Insightful

    As standing with The Register's excellent reputation these days, the article is short on details and what exactly "restoring their good name" means. Here's something that might make more sense:

    http://www.cathnews.com/article.aspx?aeid=8360

    What the Templars want is the lifting of the ban on the order itself by the catholic church. Follow the money on this one. The templars appear to be a charitable organization now, but even 700 years later, c'mon, if you said you were a templar, the first two stupid questions you'd expect from an ignorant person are "weren't they all burned at the stake for crimes a long time ago", and "so where's the grail?"

    Obviously the Templars want some legitimacy, and this is the first step. If the church basically lifts the ban, they can also probably get financial and political support from the Vatican, which is huge. By getting legitimacy, they stop having to answer the same stupid questions and can go back to doing good works "in the name of God and with the pope's blessing," if that's the type of thing that floats your boat, and people will start taking them more seriously. Right now I bet no one in the world takes them seriously, but if they win this, since this will be a pretty visible thing if the Pope does what he asks, it will catapult the group into the world spotlight.

    --

    "All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"

    1. Re:"WTF" is "their good name?" by ekimminau · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Considering that York Rite Masonic body with the "Order of the Knights Templar" might be seen as having a bit of legitimacy and every York Rite member being required membership in good standing in a lodge of Freemasonry as a requirement for entry, I think your logic may be at least slightly flawed. I just think that Freemasonry wants the Catholic church to stop hassling its parishoners when they want to join the Freemasons. This was specifically allowed within Opus Dei in 1968 yet the Catholic church in some respects still sees Fremasonry as evil.

      --
      Armaments, 2-9-21 And Saint Attila raised the hand grenade up on high, saying, 'O Lord, bless this Thy hand grenade' N
    2. Re:"WTF" is "their good name?" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since when, exactly, has doing good works in the name of God required vetting by the Vatican? The Church is really into this power thing, isn't it.

    3. Re:"WTF" is "their good name?" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or they can just join up with the masons, it is honestly not that much to memorize

    4. Re:"WTF" is "their good name?" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I just think that Freemasonry wants the Catholic church to stop hassling its parishoners when they want to join the Freemasons. This was specifically allowed within Opus Dei in 1968 yet the Catholic church in some respects still sees Fremasonry as evil.

      I'm not entirely sure what you are trying to say here. Members of Opus Dei, in common with all members of the Catholic church, are not permitted to join any secret societies. This includes the Freemasons.

    5. Re:"WTF" is "their good name?" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are these those goofballs that wear armor and do juggling on the weekends?

    6. Re:"WTF" is "their good name?" by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 1

      why are you equating opus dei with freemasonry? They hold rather different beliefs, and it stands to reason that the Roman catholics would treat them differently.

    7. Re:"WTF" is "their good name?" by 19Buck · · Score: 1

      If all that were true, wouldn't it be alot easier for them to just pick a new name?

    8. Re:"WTF" is "their good name?" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So the idea is that an unrelated group of people 700 years later want to purchase a known brand, as in a religious organisation brand, rather than start up their own organisation with the same unrelated people. Saves a lot of startup costs to get instant recognition. Clever marketing move.

      Religious people. It's always about marketing with them...

  30. Disappointed in /. 'ters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Good grief. TFA has references to the Holy Grail, "most fearsome of weapons", a French King, Spain, homosexual Knights, heresy, etc., and I only count 1 Monty Python joke so far...

    1. Re:Disappointed in /. 'ters by TheSHAD0W · · Score: 1

      *sigh* Fine.

      [gets out the comfy chair]

  31. I'm a living Neanderthal by Joce640k · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...and I want to sue the whole of Europe for damages.

    --
    No sig today...
  32. Sure... by FlyingSquidStudios · · Score: 2, Insightful

    But who's going to represent The Cathars?

    1. Re:Sure... by QuantumHobbit · · Score: 1

      There are people claiming to be descended from the Cathars, but I thought the Cathars preached abstinence from procreation, as in no possible reproduction.

  33. Rightful heir of the Knights Templar by rossdee · · Score: 4, Funny

    How about Sir Roger Moore? He's a Knight, and is famous for playing Simon Templar.

    1. Re:Rightful heir of the Knights Templar by jasonq · · Score: 1

      and Ivanhoe

  34. A lawsuit in Spain . . . by MarkvW · · Score: 0, Redundant

    The Templars had better watch out! No one expects THE SPANISH INQUISITION!

  35. In other news. . . by uberjoe · · Score: 1

    Jesus sues Romans. "Imagine the what would have happened if I wasn't the Son of God? I could have died for real!"

    --

    The days of the digital watch are numbered.

  36. Congratulations! by Reality+Master+201 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Congratulations! You have discovered the secret of Instant +5 Insightful here in our happy community:

    "Blah blah [vapid knee-jerk complaining about vapid knee-jerk complaining and slashdot groupthink] blah blah," followed by a suggestion of patenting it.

    1. Re:Congratulations! by Curtman · · Score: 1
      • ...
      • Profit!!!

      There fixed that.

    2. Re:Congratulations! by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Blah blah [vapid knee-jerk complaining about vapid knee-jerk about snide comments about pretty much anything] blah blah, followed by another snide comment.

      And it's overused memes all the way down.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    3. Re:Congratulations! by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      And it's overused memes all the way down.

      Can't be true. Where would the turtles fit?

    4. Re:Congratulations! by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Can't be true. Where would the turtles fit?

      I believe that would be Soviet Russia.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  37. You must construct additional pylons. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    True story.

  38. There's a quote about camels and needles... by wattrlz · · Score: 1

    Y'know that one where a wealthy man has about as much trouble getting into heaven as a camel through the eye of a needle..?

    1. Re:There's a quote about camels and needles... by WhiplashII · · Score: 1

      Really? I read that one as a challenge of sorts...

      --
      while (sig==sig) sig=!sig;
  39. Not so fast. by pragma_x · · Score: 4, Informative

    http://zzpat.tripod.com/cvb/oct_2006/pagan_graves_in_vatican_basement.html

    To be fair, you completely misrepresent this article that you linked. The aforementioned "pagan relics stored beneath the Vatican" is nothing more than a new archeological site. It's not some cache of pagan artifacts gathered from past crusades/missions or some such.

    If you read the article you'll see that it is a ancient Roman necropolis that was discovered recently, quite by accident*, during the construction of a new parking garage for the Vatican. It even has the rather tongue-in-cheek name "Necropolis of the Parking Garage" ("Necropoli dell'Autoparco").

    The fact the burial customs used were clearly non-christian/Catholic, is the only reason why the site is labeled as a Pagan site. Also, it is dated to around 23 B.C.-14 A.D, which dates it just before Christianity as a whole.

    The Vatican even plans to open the site to the public. This quote best sums up how the Vatican feels on the matter:

    "Everyone always thinks that if it's not about pure Christianity, the Vatican isn't interested," says Cristina Gennaccari, an archaeologist with the Vatican Museums. "But there are many pagan aspects of all things modern, and when it comes to archeology, especially religious archeology, there is really no room for distinction."

    (* This kind of stuff happens all the time in Rome. It just so happens that the Vatican isn't in the habit of digging so deep.)

  40. If they can liberate Jerusalem by sheldon · · Score: 2, Informative

    Then they have a legitimate claim to calling themselves Templars.

    1. Re:If they can liberate Jerusalem by mcvos · · Score: 2, Funny

      And if they can actually bring peace to that region, they deserve all the billions they can get.

  41. Pretty Slick by PMuse · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Most suits for medieval atrocities would face a number of hurdles, e.g.:

    1. There is often no present-day successor of the ancient defendant due to intervening time, revolutions, wars, sales of assets, etc.
    2. Most sovereign states grant themselves immunity from suits by their citizens.
    3. Statutes or precedent often forbid bringing claims older than a certain limited age.
    4. There often is no present-day successor of the ancient plaintiff due to intervening time, revolutions, wars, sales of assets, etc.

    These 'Templars' seem to be able to overcome 1 because, according to Catholic doctrine, the current Pope is the direct successor of an unbroken line going back to St. Peter. They seem able to overcome 2 because the Pope is not sovereign in Spain. Overcoming 3 and 4, though, seems unlikely.

    --
    "We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." --The American President (20.1.2009)
  42. Re:The Vatican has no cash! by KillerBob · · Score: 4, Informative

    And this would be the same Jesus who said:
    For ye have the poor always with you; but me ye have not always. Sounds like a charitable guy.

    Y'know... I've never really liked it when people use the word "ye" to mean "you"... it means "the". And it's actually supposed to be pronounced that way, too... The letter 'y' in that place replaces a thorn, and started doing so with the introduction of moving type. It does so because the French-made printing presses didn't have that letter in their character set, because it's of Anglo-Saxon origin, not Latin, and so the letter Y was used in its place. Over time, the letter simply fell out of use in the English alphabet, and was replaced with the combonation "th", which had started appearing about 100 years earlier.

    Off topic, I know. But *shrugs*

    --
    If you believe everything you read, you'd better not read. - Japanese proverb
  43. Monday blues by piper5ul · · Score: 1

    For a second I thought this was on "The Onion" - The Register is giving "The onion" a run for their money :)

  44. 700 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Talk about reparations!

  45. To my knowledge there is only 1 way... by SupremoMan · · Score: 1

    to get money out of the Church. And it involves the M word. *queue funny posts guessing what the M word is*

    1. Re:To my knowledge there is only 1 way... by Rick+Genter · · Score: 1

      M as in Molest? As in be molested by a priest and get paid off to keep quiet?

      --
      Don't underestimate the power of The Source
    2. Re:To my knowledge there is only 1 way... by Thuktun · · Score: 1

      To my knowledge there is only 1 way to get money out of the Church. And it involves the M word.

      Misappropriation? Mooching?

  46. They can do better than that by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    They can send in the lawyers! All of them. Heck, America will contribute to that effort.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  47. These people seem to have about as much right by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 2, Interesting

    to claim to be Knights Templar as, say, the Knights of Columbus. Big deal.

    On the other hand, their having been "disbanded" (in the words of an early poster) by the Church and Crown way back when is pretty questionable. After all, DeMolay was given the opportunity to avoid burning if only he would give away brothers of the order. He refused. The logical conclusion is that there were still people to give away.

    The most likely (and historically supported) outcome is that they were driven underground. What happened to them after that? I doubt very much that they became a church in Spain.

    1. Re:These people seem to have about as much right by CountBrass · · Score: 1
      The Templars were under the direct authority of the Pope: if when he said they're disbanded then disbanded they are. The Templars also took a vow of obedience to the Pope so if the Pope told them to disband themselves, then disband themselves they must.

      It is of course all a complete nonsense: it would be interesting to know what they are really after.

      --
      Bad analogies are like waxing a monkey with a rainbow.
  48. You forgot something... by tjstork · · Score: 1

    Well, if you throw in, Microsoft is evil, that works pretty good too. I wonder if you could ever get a +10 for working Bush/Cheney/Microsoft/USA/Catholics/US Government" all into a single coherent sentence.

    Of course, to be fair, on the flipside, if slashdot were conservative, we could just as easily get the same mod points for Obama/MoveOn/Barbara Streisand/etc....

    In the defense of liberals, I was actually permanently banned from freerepublic because I dared to suggest that we should lower the guards on the borders because its bad for business to have so many cops around.

    --
    This is my sig.
    1. Re:You forgot something... by leomekenkamp · · Score: 1

      Actually, I have seen a decent number of references to Streisand here on Slashdot that are in effect not very flattering for the woman.

      --
      Wenn ist das Nunstueck git und Slotermeyer? Ja! Beiherhund das Oder die Flipperwaldt gersput.
  49. The Two Forms of Ye by Pantero+Blanco · · Score: 3, Informative

    Y'know... I've never really liked it when people use the word "ye" to mean "you"... it means "the". And it's actually supposed to be pronounced that way, too...

    No, it could be either, depending on context. Use as a pronoun was far more common. Don't let the overuse in fantasy novels and faux-archaic bar signs fool you.

    http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=ye
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ye_(pronoun)

  50. Body Snatchers by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    As long as we're applying reason to the Bible, why not acknowledge it as nothing more than a book of bronze age mythology and treat it as such?

    Because a bronze age book of mythology can be happily ignored (unless you're a history buff), whereas this book is more than just a collection of crusty stories. It's the seed of a global manipulation which has resulted in more dead/dying/suffering people than any other con I can think of off the top of my head. As much as I frown at myself for doing so, I tend to conclude, "If you decide to stop thinking, then you get to live and die miserably." It's painful to watch, but people get what they deserve. You just need to give them lots of self-destruct room so they don't drag you down with them.

    I live in a city with more churches per capita than anywhere else I've seen. You literally cannot walk a hundred meters without passing a cult-house. The creepy singing can be heard on Sundays rising all across the city, and when I acknowledge it, it scares me to the core because you just know how little it would take for these so-called peace-loving people to turn on a dime and become torch-wielding killers at the whim of their controllers. I love Slashdot for keeping me sane on days like that, when I am struck cold by the realization that most of the people around me I consider friendly neighbors might as well be from that Body Snatchers movie.

    -FL

    1. Re:Body Snatchers by Dragoness+Eclectic · · Score: 1

      But the tinfoil hat is protecting you just fine, right?

      --
      ---dragoness
    2. Re:Body Snatchers by maestroX · · Score: 1

      (..), when I am struck cold by the realization that most of the people around me I consider friendly neighbors might as well be from that Body Snatchers movie.

      That story is possible for anyone who defers his responsibility to someone else.

    3. Re:Body Snatchers by thepotoo · · Score: 2, Funny

      Will you people stop with the misconceptions? Tinfoil hats protect you from CIA/Alien mind control.

      The thing that protects [me, anyway] from physical harm at the hands of violent fanatics is the four solid walls, concrete floor, and hardwood ceiling of my mother's basement.

      --
      Obligatory Soundbite Catchphrase
    4. Re:Body Snatchers by Skybyte · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's the seed of a global manipulation which has resulted in more dead/dying/suffering people than any other con I can think of off the top of my head.
      Communism? I guess you could say it's not a con but it's killed more people in the last 100 years than christianity in 2000.

    5. Re:Body Snatchers by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 1

      Communism? I guess you could say it's not a con but it's killed more people in the last 100 years than christianity in 2000.

      Hm. Political systems. --And if we're going to point at Communism, we mustn't forget to note that Westernism is also a huge killer, (though I would argue that Westernism derives much of its blood-lust through Christianity; I would say that a lot of what is going on in the Middle East right now, for instance, would not have come about without the bible first being in existence.). But yeah, believing in the lies of one's leadership is very much succumbing to con artists, though I would say that there is one big difference between political ideologies and religion. Religion today is far more optional than whether or not you pay tax. At least in the West. In the Middle East, it seems to be rather more pushy. And if the hard-core religious right gets their way, then a similar brand of pushiness would be replicated here.

      -FL

  51. Re:The Vatican has no cash! by HeronBlademaster · · Score: 1

    Jesus said that to defend Mary's nice gesture to him; Judas said "we should sell that ointment and give to the poor" but Jesus was basically saying "it's ok to spend money to do something nice for someone. You can take care of the poor later."

    This was shortly before his death, and he was about to go to the garden of Gethsemane to suffer for the sins of the world. Kind of more important than taking care of the poor.

    So there's no need to insult Jesus by taking his comment out of context.

  52. Who weren't the first ones there either by Moraelin · · Score: 1

    Well, the Medes and then Persians were Indo-European people, somewhat related to the Scythians (and occasionally allied with them), who overran the by-then semitic Neo-Assyrian empire and generally Messopotamia.

    So, you know, the semitic arabs were there first. In a way, the Muslim conquest was just taking back a place that was theirs in the first place.

    Or was it? Wait, even those weren't the first ones there. The original Sumerian people and language of Messopotamia weren't semitic at all, but something quite different, and were there some thousands of years before Aramaic took over. Yep, that's right. Fast-forward a millennium or two, and suddenly the whole damned place speaks Aramaic, a semitic language, although they keep Sumerian as a church and literary language. (The same as the Catholic Church would do with Latin much later.) But otherwise, by now Sumerian was a dead language. Pining for the fjords, and all that. The oldest civilization on Earth had been displaced by something else.

    So I guess someone should call themselves the descendants of Sumerians and sue for a couple of millenia worth of compound interest, for their lost lands and whatnot ;)

    --
    A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
    1. Re:Who weren't the first ones there either by pluther · · Score: 1

      On behalf of the Neanderthal
      I'm suing all y'all!

      --
      If the masses can keep you down, you're not the Ubermensch.
  53. Old News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Psst. This is old news. 1300 AD called; they want their story back.

  54. Well, they COULD by misterhypno · · Score: 1

    use Trial By Combat... Two Priests Enter (the Knights Templar had all taken Holy Orders, after all), One Priest Leaves! It would settle the matter in a manner appropriate to the standing of the suit - which would be plate armor and greatswords...

    1. Re:Well, they COULD by Fluffeh · · Score: 1

      Would make for better TV than "Think you can dance?" in my opinion.

      --
      Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
  55. Re:The Vatican has no cash! by Novus · · Score: 2, Informative

    I've never really liked it when people use the word "ye" to mean "you"... it means "the".

    Yes and no. "Ye" was a second person pronoun for quite a long time in English besides being sloppy typography for "the". The King James Bible seems to use "ye" in both ways.

  56. Everybody knows Freemasons by Phoenix666 · · Score: 4, Funny

    are the true Knights Templar, and that we have hidden the treasures of the world beneath a highly recognizable public building (no, not that one).

    Claims about us secretly directing the destiny of nations and peoples are greatly exaggerated, though. I've been in fifteen years and still only get to oversee Botswana.

    --
    Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
    1. Re:Everybody knows Freemasons by ginbot462 · · Score: 1

      > I've been in fifteen years and still only get to oversee Botswana.
      > --
      > Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.

      I guess that explains your sig then.

      (p.s. this is the best I could find)
      http://www.istockanalyst.com/article/viewiStockNews+articleid_2470527&title=Bank_of_Botswana_Says.html

      --
      Atlas Shrugged : Thematic Story :: Battlefield Earth : Organized Religion
    2. Re:Everybody knows Freemasons by steveo777 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Who controls the British Crown?
      Who keeps the Metric System down?
      We do! We do!
      Who leaves Altantis off the maps?
      Who keeps the Martians under wraps?
      We do! We do!
      Who holds back the electric car?
      Who makes Steve Guttenberg a star?
      We do! We do!
      Who robs cave fish of their sight?
      Who rigs every Oscar night?
      We do! We do!

      --
      This sig isn't original enough, it's time to come up with something witty...
  57. "so where's the grail?" by Joce640k · · Score: 1

    It's here in Valencia, has been for quite some time now.

    Free viewing mornings/afternoons (they charge to go up the tower but not to see the grail).

    --
    No sig today...
  58. Location of the Grail? by Rolgar · · Score: 1

    It appears that the Grail is in Valencia, Spain. I thought I'd previously read that it had been in France until the French Revolution, but that was a wooden cup, and the one in Valencia is agate.

    1. Re:Location of the Grail? by Coldfinger · · Score: 1

      The Grail can be found in unexpected places. This is the ad Google served me at the top of this article:
      http://m1.2mdn.net/1251065/palmsizecopter_336x280.jpg

    2. Re:Location of the Grail? by Thuktun · · Score: 1

      Wow. Perhaps Dan Brown should have checked Wikipedia for the Grail's location and saved himself a bit of time.

  59. Comments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    so far in this thread I've read that "native american headdresses look silly to everyone" and that "everyone who attends church worships money"...-1 point for /.'s

  60. So the sermon on the mount by blueZ3 · · Score: 1

    is Windows?

    --
    Interested in a Flash-based MAME front end? Visit mame.danzbb.com
    1. Re:So the sermon on the mount by meringuoid · · Score: 1

      Well, the Sermon on the Mount was written down by some guys who were stood a bit too far back and who couldn't quite hear. What Jesus actually said was 'Blessed are the cheesemakers' - although that's obviously not to be taken literally; it refers to all manufacturers of dairy products.

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
  61. The Dark Knights Templar by Azralon · · Score: 1

    "Let me get this straight. You think that your church, one of the richest, most powerful citystates in the world, has unfairly slandered you knights who were running around the continent beating heathens to a pulp with bared steel? And your plan is to sue them? .... Good luck with that."

  62. Infallibility? by pixelslinger · · Score: 1

    If the Vatican folds on this, does this mean they are deeming a Pope fallable? Then what happens? Does the Vatican implode?

    1. Re:Infallibility? by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      The same thing that happens if Matt Damon and Ben Affleck are ever allowed into heaven. We all cease to exist.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    2. Re:Infallibility? by fifedrum · · Score: 1

      not everything the pope does and says is infallable. The church doesn't teach that, never has. It wasn't even a concept on paper until 1870 and even then used to define basic Catholic dogma. i.e. not used to declare Monday roman pizza day throughout the Roman Catholic Society.

      That's papal decree, and those are used pretty freely. For pizza.

  63. My great great great ... grandmother by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My great great great ... grandmother was burned on a stake because she was considered a witch for making fire with ice and leaves. I bet I could sue the Vatican for that, too!

  64. living witnesses and hearsay by peter303 · · Score: 1

    The British-US legal tradition relies strongly on living witnesses. Even material evidence has to have a directly witnessed chain-of-control to believable (remember doubt created in the Simpson trial). Crimes committed during World War II are just about to pass out of the realm of US legality as the last living witnesses are dying. Once in rare while a court may recognize one level of hearsay, but no deeper.

    Ditto for much civil laws: Dead people cant own property and will it to a future-reanimated frozen-corpse. The dead can create trusts to hold and control property for a limited amount of limited time period, usually not much longer than any currently living person.

    So you can view living society as kind of a time-ship. Legalities extend backwards and forwards in time in the minds of those currently alive, but not much further beyond that. Then they become the realm of history or science fiction.

  65. Genocide? by haeger · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Can someone sue them for genocide in the African continent too? Seeing how they must know that AIDS is common there and that it's deadly they still keep insisting that condoms are forbidden. The only thing that can save lives is forbidden.

    Yeah, they keep preaching abstinence but that's like trying to forbid good food. It's possible to get by without it but most people wont.

    Not that I think that it will ever happen. And now I'm probably on the vaticans "going to hell"-list too.

    .haeger

    --
    You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. -- Harlan Ellison
    1. Re:Genocide? by CountBrass · · Score: 1

      The only thing? What bollocks. It's not even the best thing. Not having sex when you are HIV positive is even more proof than a condom. Getting rid of most of the current rulers in Africa who seem to believe there is no link between HIV and AIDS, especially Tabo Umbeki, would also help a lot.

      --
      Bad analogies are like waxing a monkey with a rainbow.
    2. Re:Genocide? by haeger · · Score: 1

      It's not even the best thing. Not having sex when you are HIV positive is even more proof than a condom.
      Did you even read my previous statement? "..they keep preaching abstinence but that's like trying to forbid good food. It's possible to get by without it but most people wont."
      People WILL have sex. There's no denying that. So, knowing this, how will you stop the infection from spreading. Please let me know if you know of another way other than condoms that will stop the disease but still allow sex.

      Getting rid of most of the current rulers in Africa who seem to believe there is no link between HIV and AIDS, especially Tabo Umbeki, would also help a lot.
      I agree that that would probably also help a lot, but that doesn't exonerate the catholic church.

      .haeger

      --
      You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. -- Harlan Ellison
    3. Re:Genocide? by SpiderClan · · Score: 1

      The Church forbids condoms and fornication. People choose to ignore the ban on fornication, and blame the ban on condoms for spreading AIDS. I have a tough time feeling that's the Church's fault. Unless they come out with sin consultants who make sure that you mix your sins appropriately.

      If you follow all the rules and it gives you AIDS, then turn to the Church. If you disregard some or all of them, you are basically taking responsibility for yourself, so it's up to you to protect yourself from any consequences.

      NB: I used the word rules because I couldn't think of anything better. They aren't really rules, more like strong suggestions or guidelines. You know what I mean.

  66. He was not black by scipiodog · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Case in point: the most important Catholic theologian for the first 1200 years of Western Church history, Saint Augustine, was black.

    St Augustine was not black, at least certainly not in the sense one thinks of today. He was a Berber.

    He was African, yes, but African != Black, especially North African.

    --
    http://clightnirish.wordpress.com/
  67. The Knights Templar were already absolved by Aggrajag · · Score: 1

    According to the Chinon Parchment, officially released 2007 by the Vatican, Pope Clement V secretly absolved the order in 1308 so these claims should have been made against the descendants of Philip IV. More info: http://www.inrebus.com/chinon.php

  68. Proof liberals are really patriotic... by tjstork · · Score: 1

    The great proof that liberals are patriotic is that they don't really like Babs either.

    --
    This is my sig.
  69. Have at them! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Once the number three, being the third number, be reached, then lobbest thou thy Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch towards thy foe, who being naughty in my sight, shall snuff it. Amen."

  70. If they win all that cash... by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 2, Funny

    The the pope just might have to shit in the woods.

  71. No upper limit? by AliasMarlowe · · Score: 1

    On second thoughts, 10% bonus for each True Cross found.

    Now there's a bottomless pit of percentages, considering the number of Holy Foreskins that have been found. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Foreskin

    --
    Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
  72. Veni, vidi, vici by CaptSaltyJack · · Score: 1

    Yeah yeah, Assassin's Creed.. played it, beat it.

  73. Re:Sig by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 1

    echo -e 'global _start \n _start: \n mov eax, 2 \n int 80h \n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a; a

    You know, if you really wanted to crash the system via an excess of processes it would be a lot simpler to just write:

    perl -e 'while(1){fork;}'

    It'd be a lot more likely to work, too, since most people don't have NASM installed.

    --
    "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
  74. Be careful where this leads... by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ...can the native americans sue europe for defiling their land, and ruining their culture?

    If they can then the next step will be Britain suing the US for return of the land that was "stolen" by that well known "terrorist" gang lead by George Washington. This may lead to the US government declaring itself a terrorist organization by its own laws and promptly disappearing in a puff of logic.

    1. Re:Be careful where this leads... by Pfhorrest · · Score: 1

      If they can then the next step will be Britain suing the US for return of the land that was "stolen" by that well known "terrorist" gang lead by George Washington. This may lead to the US government declaring itself a terrorist organization by its own laws and promptly disappearing in a puff of logic.

      On the contrary, by contemporary US logic, anyone who "hates America" is a terrorist, so if anyone from the Revolutionary War period were to be retroactively declared terrorists by the US government, it would be George III and his redcoats. And they were probably commies too, pinko terrorist bastards; I mean, just look at the name! Redcoats!

      --
      -Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
      "I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
  75. Then the Pope can sue Lions by QuantumHobbit · · Score: 1

    The pope should purposefully lose this case establishing precedent then sue Rome and all lions on the planet. Of this would lead to Israel suing Egypt, Iraq(Babylon), and the whole of Europe. The Aztec descendants would sue Spain. I don't know who the Mayans would sue.

    1. Re:Then the Pope can sue Lions by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 1

      None of the items you cite regard a government or organization that still exists. The Roman empire fell and was conquered repeatedly before the Italian democracy rose to power there. It is a different government entirely. The Catholic church, on the other hand, has been the same organization with the same resources and wealth ever since.

    2. Re:Then the Pope can sue Lions by garompeta · · Score: 1
      The Catholic Church has the same resources and wealth ever since? Spain, England, Portugal, France, Germany, Japan don't exist anymore? Study your history books please.

      By the way you don't get his point. If we start suing for past conquers it would have no end. Latin America was invaded by Spaniards and Portuguese people which was divided by a Papal Bull, dividing equal surfaces for both countries. The north was conquered by England. South American countries should sue Spain for slavery and exploitation, one of the richest silver mines in the world were in Bolivia, Potosà were depleted and everything was taken to Spain. One of the richest mines in history were absolutely depleted by 1600, leaving Bolivia only with tin. Who is going to claim that? Who is going to claim the exploitation of the colonies the British, Spanish and Portuguese imperialism? Lets see Japan, they were the England of Asia, invading pirates of the far east.

      Lets go to Asia. They annexed Korea raping and assassinating the Queen of Korea.
      They abused Korean girls kidnapping them and making them sex slaves for the japanese army, , taking control of the culture, its economy and attempting to destroy its language (All Koreans were renamed with Japanese names and speaking in Korean was forbidden). Japanese massacred Chinese people, especially famous the cities of Nanjing and Nanking for the atrocities that the Japanese army did to them. The Japanese had their own concentration camp in Nanking, they experimented with biological weapons and performed medical experiments to live subjects to captured Chinese and American POWS, even with Chinese civilians, dissecting live people, even pregnant women just like it is done nowadays with rat labs. (Google Unit731, also known as the Auschwitz of Asia)
      Now, who is going to repair all the damage they did? (And the Japanese government is neither apologizing nor acknowledging that it happened)

      And as far as I know these countries still exist.

      By the way the Catholic Church lost a lot of influence throughout history, especially since the separation of State and Religion.
      During the French Revolution, Catholic Church lands were confiscated in 1790, which was the largest landowner at that time in France, also lost lands in Germany and Spain.
      The Papal States were annexed to the Kingdom of Italy 1860 to 1870, which comprised the center and northeast of Italy, reducing to what it is today the Vatican City.
      So, it is not precisely "the same" resources and wealth.

      Etcetera, etcetera, in secular seculorum...

      As you see claiming for what happened in the past is simply stupid, childish and useless. What we can do is to look forward and stop making stupid claims.

    3. Re:Then the Pope can sue Lions by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 1

      Spain, England, Portugal, France, Germany, Japan don't exist anymore? Study your history books please.

      They exist, but dot he governments that existed at the time exist. In France, the monarchy had their heads chopped off in a violent revolution. In England the monarchy was peacefully displaced (although they could still be sued presumably). Similar situations exist in most all of the other countries. Just because the country is referred to by the same name does not mean it is the same legal entity after a revolution.

      The rest of your post is a mixed appeal to consequences and listing of past crimes. In my mind, if you can prove past crimes and have legal standing, I'm all for justice. There's no reason inheritors of wealth should not have that wealth returned to the ancestors of those from which it was stolen (ethically speaking).

      The Papal States were annexed to the Kingdom of Italy 1860 to 1870, which comprised the center and northeast of Italy, reducing to what it is today the Vatican City. So, it is not precisely "the same" resources and wealth.

      Yeah, and Union Carbide had assets seized, does that mean they should no longer be sued by people they wronged? The Catholic church is the same organization based upon those same profits. They may have gained and lost assets since, but every organization does and that does not stand in the way of modern lawsuits.

  76. Correct Real History Written Here by FromTheAir · · Score: 1

    This is true you can see the privately published, not publicy published history here. http://www.divineknights.org/

    --
    "an infinite player that has lost his finite mind" ~Infinite Play the Movie (it blends with reality)
  77. I'm a knight by Profane+MuthaFucka · · Score: 1

    I'm a Knight, a member of the Knights Pimplar. Blackhead regiment.

    --
    Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
  78. True Privately Published History from the Masons by FromTheAir · · Score: 1
    True Privately Published History from the Masons republished publicly at the link below there is no legitimate Knights Templar lineage that is public, what remains is much hidden and retains the real treasure.

    They have no need for the Churches Hoarded Wealth

    Read the actual history here http://www.divineknights.org/

    --
    "an infinite player that has lost his finite mind" ~Infinite Play the Movie (it blends with reality)
  79. Some sources to prove you wrong by orzetto · · Score: 4, Insightful

    no, [the Vatican] don't have billions in capital at their disposal. Their annual budget is less than that of Harvard University.

    I call bullshit. The Vatican gets at least 0.5% of Italy's tax revenue through the Otto per mille, a way to publicly finance religion in Italy. Through that channel alone, the Vatican got one billion euros (not dollars) last year. That's one tax, for each year, in one country, and that's even a legitimate channel; illegal channels include tax breaks on commercial activities operated by the church, which are granted by my country's government, headed by a "legitimate businessman", in spite of European rules, and financing of religious private schools, forbidden as explicitly as possible by the Constitution of Italy, article 33, which however politicians use as toilet paper; In case you did not know how schools work in Italy, private schools are basically diploma mills for stupid or lazy sons of rich people who can't handle public school, where your professor can flunk you without fear of making the school lose its money.

    Read on about cardinal Marcinkus and the IOR to know more about the greed of the Vatican.

    ... and, by the way, Harvard university's budget is in the range of billions of dollars [pdf], 2.6 in 2005 to be precise.

    --
    Victims of 9/11: <3000. Traffic in the US: >30,000/y
    1. Re:Some sources to prove you wrong by memoryhole · · Score: 1

      The Vatican gets at least 0.5% of Italy's tax revenue through the Otto per mille, a way to publicly finance religion in Italy. Through that channel alone, the Vatican got one billion euros (not dollars) last year.

      Where you are mistaken is in the idea that the Catholic Church is the same thing as the Vatican. It is not. Every Catholic parish is a separate financial entity from every other Catholic parish, and each parish is a separate financial entity from the diocese to which it belongs, which is in turn a separate financial entity from the ecclesiastical province to which it belongs, and on up the chain. (Many Catholic Churches have borrowed money from their Diocese for various building projects and are required to pay it back with interest.) Those who view the Catholic Church in an uncharitable light often see this as a way to protect the Church from large legal settlements against priests or bishops who protected pedophiles. Others who view the Church more charitably see it as a way for each parish to guarantee that donations will work at improving the local community rather than go to some far away group. Money that is sent to the Vatican itself is referred to as "Peter's Pence", and there is typically a once-a-year fundraising drive for it.

      In any case, just because the Italian government gave money to various Catholic Churches does not mean that it gave the money to the Vatican. The same goes for whatever illegal tax-breaks that you feel qualify as revenue. Institutionalized greed notwithstanding, you haven't demonstrated that the Vatican itself received billions of dollars in revenue.

      ... and, by the way, Harvard university's budget is in the range of billions of dollars [pdf], 2.6 in 2005 to be precise.

      Fair enough.

  80. It does in practice... by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

    In practice it does: you cannot convict someone who is dead!

  81. Here is what you are not considering by gigamonkey · · Score: 1

    A new book, Processus contra Templarios, was published by the Vatican's Secret Archive on Oct 25 (07), and promises to restore the reputation of the Templars, whose leaders were burned as heretics when the order was dissolved in 1314. The book ... http://www.scrinium.org/scrinium/Opere.php?idProgetto=3&idOpera=20&idLingua=2 I am not saying that they are gunna get paid nor do I think that they are looking to get paid "We are not trying to cause the economic collapse of the Roman Catholic Church, but to illustrate to the court the magnitude of the plot against our Order." I find the whole thing very interesting. I am a big fan of real history being brought to the forfront in our apathetic, distracted TV culture.

  82. I'd like to sue Norway.. by CustomDesigned · · Score: 1

    for what their Viking ancestors did to my Scottish ancestors.[/satire]

  83. Except cannibals? by mangu · · Score: 1

    the Catholic Catechism teaches that everything that self-moves possesses a soul

    IIRC, it was Thomas Aquinas who wrote that cannibals cannot have a soul, because they cannot resurrect in the Final Judgement. The argument goes that one resurrects when the decomposed parts of the body come together again, but since the cannibal's body is composed of parts of bodies of other people, a cannibal cannot resurrect in the Final Judgement, therefore he cannot have a soul.

    1. Re:Except cannibals? by alexgieg · · Score: 1

      This is probably from some other thinker, not Aquinas. He adopts Aristotle's concept of soul, in which matter is indistinct. Matter has a purpose in causing individuation to be determined for any non-specific form, but once there's an individual (form+matter), there's an absolute individual essence which constitutes him. Losing its matter afterwards doesn't changes that essence, as in fact nothing could.

      Now, Aquinas books are complex to read. For the most part, he writes like this: a question, followed by as many authoritative answers from as many sources as he managed to find (sometimes ten or more), followed by his own answer, then by his rebuttal of each and every of the answers by other authors cited before. Thus, it's perfectly possible that you could find such a statement about cannibals in one of his works, but in the list of answers he'll later rebutte.

      --
      Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
  84. Blashphemy! by fm6 · · Score: 1

    How can you say such thing?! Next you'll be telling me that Prince Michael of Sealand is just another scam artist!

  85. Nonsense by Orig_Club_Soda · · Score: 0

    I am a Catholic and I admire the the Knights Templar. But this is retarded. There is no way to assess the value of damages and what an organization does within its own walls is its business. As for any rights issues, we can't apply principles and laws we have today to events that took place hundreds of years ago.

    Otherwise I'd sue the Democcrat party for the policies of FDR!

  86. I Hope This Works by Rand+Race · · Score: 1

    Because if it does I'm converting to Catharism and suing the all living shit out of the Vatican and the French state for the Albigensian Crusade. I should be able to claim most of southern France!

    --
    Insanity is the last line of defence for the master diplomat. But you have to lay the groundwork early.
  87. Besides by Orig_Club_Soda · · Score: 0

    The the KT are not suing the pope. And if they decide to sue, it would be the Vatican. The current pope has no responsibility in this. Legally or ethically. The person who wrote this entry is spinning Catholic hate and doesnt seem to understand the issue or the Catholic church.

  88. commodity speculation by Lord+Ender · · Score: 1

    Owning fixed items, like gold, oil, or holy grails is speculation, not investing. As such, it does not pay any interest.

    Only debts (bonds) and businesses (stocks) pay interest.

    It is absolutely meaningless to refer to the compound interest from an non-interest-bearing item like the grail.

    /end finance lesson.

    --
    A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    1. Re:commodity speculation by drooling-dog · · Score: 1

      It is absolutely meaningless to refer to the compound interest from an non-interest-bearing item like the grail.

      No, but the value of such an item is fair game. If I wrongfully deprived you of your ownership of the grail, say, 10 years ago, you'd be suing me today for some appreciated amount and not what it was worth at the time of my dastardly deed.

      And of course, inflationary adjustments are always calculated according to the rules of compound interest; i.e. P * (1+r)^t.

  89. 93, 93/93 by gilbertopb · · Score: 1

    Well, I a M.Mason and a G.'.D.'. and I know personaly people in Knights Templars. For sure there's a modern organization, nothing related with some comic movies. I guess the notice is more related to pope just to remove some old words "not currently in use", like many vatican rules. For example, they don't tell anymore in public to burn women, gipsyes, homossexuals (priests not included LOL), etc, despiste what they do. It's a political act despiste anything else. Next time pope will recognize Ozzy Osbourne as a fictional character only, devoted to the the church and family.

    --
    Information technology means all information.
  90. Heresy is the church's decision by Sloppy · · Score: 1

    If the church says you're a heretic, then you're a heretic. The very idea is dogmatic so the same problem that makes it unjust (that there's really no defense against a heresy charge) also makes it "correct." If the church had the lawful authority to seize assets in ancient times, then how can it be wrong?

    That's just life in medieval times. It was what it was, and you can't go back and fix it unless you have a time machine.

    --
    As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    1. Re:Heresy is the church's decision by mysidia · · Score: 1
      If the church had the lawful authority to seize assets in ancient times, then how can it be wrong?

      They didn't have lawful authority to seize squat.

      They had power because there was no rule of law.

      When a church's followers are forced to do whatever the church tells them to (or be executed as heretic), the church can have whatever they want done, "legal" or not, local governments have no power, the church was above the law.

      E.g. Church had the physical power to seize things, and it was good enough. And the government at the time dare not do anything other than cooperate as that church had the manpower and political clout to take down governments by force (or more likely: to take down monarchs, by having them perish under mysterious circumstances).

    2. Re:Heresy is the church's decision by CountBrass · · Score: 1

      Your argument is idiotic. Exactly the same could be said about any modern government. "You have no lawful authority and you can only enforce it because you have the power to do so." Well duh.

      --
      Bad analogies are like waxing a monkey with a rainbow.
    3. Re:Heresy is the church's decision by mysidia · · Score: 1

      Modern governments behave rather differently. They base their sovereignty on the will of the people.

      They follow their own rules.

      The church was not a government of all the countries; they were essentially like the mob. They were more powerful than the local monarch supported by the people, due to their extraordinary coercive power.

      An outside army capable of doing whatever they wanted, despite whatever local laws may have existed.

      If the templars want to sue the church... good for them

      Suppose they win? How the h**** do they intend to enforce their judgement?

      The Vatican still being recognized by the world as their own soverign nation, with their diplomats (priests) having immunity to most laws

      A judgement against the church won't be enforcable, because the church will refuse to accept the foreign judgement as admissable in their own country.

  91. Legal standing to sue by computechnica · · Score: 1

    Deconverted Catholics should be able to sue for all the bad advice they were given( birth control, afterlife promises, god in general).

    It could work since its Mental abuse as much as being touched is Sexual abuse 8^)

    RationalWiki FAQ for the Newly Deconverted

  92. this is about legitimacy of the order by cremat · · Score: 1

    Well, as I live in Spain and I watched Spain's TV news today, it looks like these "templars" just want recognition from the Pope. They haven't sued The Vatican or the Catholic Church. They have sued Benedict XVI as legal succesor of Clemente V, as he was the one who suspended them. They told reporters that getting monetary compensation from The Vatican is quite utopic and they were not finally looking for that. They just want the Catholic Church to realize how unfair they were to them.

    Having said that, I believe they're going nowhere... If we suddenly started whining about all historic injustices we find in history books, judges wouldn't have time to take care of present ones.

    So, George W. Bush, I, as citizen of the Spanish Empire and direct successor of Christopher Columbus I demand you give me back Florida, Louisiana (Sarcossy already agreed), Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, California, and crush one and for all Cuba's communist regime (they'd never be there if you Americans had not supported Batista) so I can conquer them again in the name of the Holy Church of Tourism Money and Capitalism. You Southern Americans better move out 'cause I'm coming!!!!

    Thank you for nothing :)

  93. Even worse than modern-day holocaust lawsuits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seriously, I once thought that dragging up some dubious ownership link after a world war and 50-60 years was ridiculous, now this puts that to shame by an order of magnitude.

  94. Can you say "Winge winge winge"? by Fluffeh · · Score: 1

    I mean seriously. The church kicked their great great ... great grandfathers ass, and he was a kickass Knight Templar, and now this lot wants to have a big sook and cry about it? I mean really, what would a Knight Templar have to say about that? I dare say this new lot would get driven through by the original members just for the principle of it.

    Stop crying Emo Templar.

    --
    Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
  95. Quoting by Lost+Engineer · · Score: 1

    Partially true. Some of the quoting I've seen from atheists is disingenuous -- sort of a hit job on the Bible. This is usually pretty obvious. Other choices of text simply reflect the varying relative importance of particular passages to different readers. When other readers disagree about what is key, they tend to argue about context. Alas, in a book that size, nearly any quote is going to be out of context.

  96. Who killed more? by ZosX · · Score: 0, Troll

    Hitler --> 20-30 Million
    Stalin --> 13 Million
    Xtians --> 3-9 Million
    3rd place is not a really great spot to be in for the "love thy neighbor" religion is it?

  97. Friday the 13th by Danny+Rathjens · · Score: 1

    I found the "goodluckwiththat" tag on this story quite amusing considering that the day the slaughter of the Knights Templar occurred was Friday the 13th and many attribute this fact as the source of the superstition that it is an unlucky day.

  98. Read it, but can only state it's AN early grail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To say with any certainty that it's THE Grail would be very very hard.

    For starters, it was dated as coming frome the time period because the relevant part of the object resembled other objects from that time period. So why would this particular object be the Grail? We cannot tell.

    The provenance of the relic, as with almost all relics, is suitably misty and the earliest records we have of the thing date well after the death of Jesus.

    And of course, Jesus himself is not proven to be a historical person. All records about Jesus are from decades after his death and there is some doubt as to wether the earlier records are actual records, instead of tales talking about a mythical person. Worse there are a lot of records not there which we could reasonably expect to have, had Jesus been a historical person. What does it mean that an object is the Grail if Jesus may not have existed in the first place?

    By which I'm not saying that the object isn't interesting, but there is no actual proof that it is the Grail. Even if it's clearly the best matching candidate, it could still be a fake. If there are four candidates, that doesn't mean that three of them are fake, it means that at least three of them are fake. So it could still be a fake, a very good one, probably an actual object from the correct time period, but fake in that it never had any relation to Jesus.

  99. Hymns by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 1

    But the tinfoil hat is protecting you just fine, right?

    No. Thinking protects me. A nice side benefit is that it also means I get to come up with my own jokes and far more useful insights than, well. . .

    The other brand of snatched bodies aren't the ones who sing the same hymns over and over in the hopes that the scary ideas will go away. No. The other brand of snatched body is the sort which repeats the same daft joke over and over in the hopes that the scary ideas will go away. It's the same general affliction.

    -FL

  100. The Vatican Reply by aynoknman · · Score: 1

    The Vatican Reply is reported to be "Take back Jerusalem and we'll talk"

    --
    We need a "+1 -- nice sig" moderation.
  101. Let's see how far back can we go... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In order of appearance:

    I live in Spain... I want to sue Rome for invading us.

    I live in Spain... I want to sue the Moors for invading us.

    I live in Spain... I want to sue the French for invading us.

  102. Damn that Vidic! by godfra · · Score: 1

    Mr Miles, get back inside the Animus!!

  103. Apologies to Gilbert & Sullivan by Sciryl+Llort · · Score: 1

    # I'm perfect-ally pleasant and I often like to proslytize,
      With shaking of my limbs and rapid counterswiv'ling of my eyes,
      In short, when there's a talk about the subjects theological,
      My zealotry and pedantry combine to make me comical. /#

  104. In other news... by Zwicky · · Score: 1

    George puts his elite legal skills to good use in the recently announced Broken Sword 5.

    It is rumored that he will use a clown's red nose and theatrical grease paint in a comedic fashion, in one of the most hilarious courtroom scenes you will ever see.

    --
    "Three eyes are better than one" -- Lieutenant Columbo
  105. reperations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    if they get anything more than an apology african americans are old a country!

  106. Good riddance. by RustinHWright · · Score: 1
    I agree completely. Well, the sooner the better. I've even written a little miniplan to help them on their way.

    So, waddayahthink, should we all buy cases of Red Mars and leave copies sitting around at their nearest gathering spots? Sounds like a plan to me.

    --
    It's all about the information. And what we do with it.
  107. Not really: please try again. by RustinHWright · · Score: 1
    Yeah, tribes fought. And I'm reluctant to make generalizations about what was, in fact, something like several hundred distinct cultures, but in general, they not only didn't fight "over land" the way that whites did, their definition of war was very different from ours indeed. I was just reading a few days ago about how freaky it was for white soldiers to find themselves facing a "warrior" tribe who would run up to them, touch them, and run back, to the roars and approval of their fellow warriors. Search the phrase "counting coup" to learn about this.

    Yes, Native American tribes fought each other. Yes, they sometimes killed each other. But what it means when you say that they "fought over territory" is very different indeed from what it means when modern countries go to war. There is no part of that phrase that means what you evidently think it means.

    --
    It's all about the information. And what we do with it.
    1. Re:Not really: please try again. by spun · · Score: 1

      You say 'I'm reluctant to make generalizations about what was, in fact, something like several hundred distinct cultures,' but then go on to do so. I know about counting coup, but it wasn't universal, and it only occurred in low level warfare. Basically, this was when a tribe had an excess of young men, they would engage in what amounts to more of an extreme sport than a war. Wives were often kidnapped in the same sorts of low level raids.

      However, this is different than the wars over territory. Perhaps you should read up on the history of Pre Columbian Native Americans. You may be surprised to learn that there were huge empires in the Americas. You can't have empires without wars for territory.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    2. Re:Not really: please try again. by RustinHWright · · Score: 1
      All of the huge empires you speak of were considerably further south than U.S. territory. Even long-past empires further north were pretty far south. Trust me, anybody who has read Bernal Diaz twice is all too aware of how not just territorial but flat out imperialist some pre-Columbian native American cultures were. But just about all of them would not apply to a question about the accountability of the U.S. government. The people Cortez fought and allied with were undoubtedly imperialist but they simply weren't on U.S. territory. A better example would be the Iroquois Confederacy, about whom such a question gets a good deal fuzzier. Or even groups like the "Seminoles" who only came into existence as an artifact of white activity. But if you look at the Seminole wars their activities tended to be true to their (mostly) Creek and African antecedents and showed a great reluctance to engage in the kind of sustained, winner-takes-all activity we consider normal for warfare.

      None of this addresses the very many cases of Indians attacking settlements from Maine right on down with a clear intent to kill and/or enslave every last man, woman and child they found. But even there, as I've read more books that go into the particulars of given attacks, it starts getting messy to try to define most of them as having been carried out under the leadership of what we would consider a nation-state and they fought against invading groups, not to hold territory.

      But, frankly, I'm none too clear about why you think you have grounds to disagree with me in the first place. Ya know, I've been mostly off /. for a few years recently and I've noticed that one thing that has changed is that these days /.ers just flat out insist on reducing every fucking statement to a grotesquely simplified absolute, whether the original post merits it or not. Gawd forbid anybody actually, ya know READ what somebody else wrote with any degree of attention. My original post contained several disclaimers, including "in general" and the one you noted. I never denied that there were exceptions. In fact, I did precisely the opposite. As somebody who has almost certainly "read up" at least ten times what you have on both Pre-Columbian cultures in general and warfare between them and Americans in specific, I am quite well aware of the complexity of the situation and made a point of noting just that. But it feels better to ignore that and then lecture me, doesn't it?

      --
      It's all about the information. And what we do with it.
    3. Re:Not really: please try again. by spun · · Score: 1

      Here's some advice. If you don't want others to be pedantic towards you, don't be a pedant. Don't tell people to go google phrases unless you are sure they don't know them already. And don't tell them that phrases they use don't mean what they think they mean, unless you are sure they are completely mistaken. Actually, even if you are sure, you don't need to be a dick unless you enjoy having other people be a dick right back to you.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton