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.

23 of 675 comments (clear)

  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.
  2. 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 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!
    2. 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
    3. 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
    4. 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;
    5. 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?

    6. 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.

  3. 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.
  4. 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/
  5. 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.

  6. 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
  7. "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"

  8. 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
  9. 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
  10. 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.

  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. 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
  14. 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/
  15. 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
  16. 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.

  17. 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.