Holy See Declares a "Unique Copyright" On the Pope

An anonymous reader sends in news of what must be some kind of record in overreaching intellectual property claims: the Vatican has declared that the name, image, and any symbols of the Pope are for exclusive use of the Holy See. They may have a point if, as the declaration hints, some have used "ecclesiastical or pontifical symbols and logos to attribute credibility and authority to initiatives" unrelated to the Vatican. But how much room will they allow for fair use? Will high school newspapers have to remove the Papal Coat of Arms from their Vatican news columns? The royalty schedule was not released, so it's not clear how much Slashdot will have to pay to run this story (or if there will be a penalty for the accompanying pagan idol).

Comments

This definitely

[dcmoebius]

won't have ANY negative ramifications...

Re:This definitely

[toastar]

Wait Catholic's aren't Christians?

Re:This definitely

[sznupi]

No, it won't.

Followers of this particular flavor of mythology won't step out of line much, that's just how it works.

It might become a point of contention when it comes to "external" relationships...but however this pans out it will be beneficent for Vatican. Either it will reaffirm their position and authority or it will make the followers feel singled out, struggling against outside world. And this usually makes people more abhorrent; such little unease not only falls in line with the story, it also solidifies the group against disturbances (what, you don't think such little silliness makes people stop bending themselves to what shaped large part of their life?)

It's similar (though in much lesser degree) to the effects of repression of sexual life. In itself it's irrelevant. But it's in competition with very powerful force in all of us. If something manages to make you repress it, that something likely will have a grip on you for the rest of your life.

Re:This definitely

[Anonymous Coward]

Not according to a lot of Protestants they're not. Something about going to hell for praying to statues.

Re:This definitely

[williamhb]

won't have ANY negative ramifications...

Why would it? How is this in any way different to any other official entity (be it a company, the government, non-profit organisation, or anything else) from claiming copyright over its own logos and symbols. Even "Fair Trade", "Oxfam", and "National Heart Foundation" symbols are copyright. Funnily enough, I can't label this post as "officially endorsed by Bob Geldof" without his permission either, nor can I whack the "National Heart Foundation Approved" logo on it without their permission. (Of course, usual fair use / fair dealing exemptions from copyright in your jurisdiction continue to apply).

So would I be alone in asking "where is the story in this"?

Re:This definitely

[Penguinisto]

Umm, yeah.

(Disclaimer: Catholic guy here. Take that as you will)

1) The whole story/argument/whatever is based on an organization that literally invented a little something called an imprimatur (The funny part is, the deal with Galileo was largely based on the fact that he printed his famous book and using a papal imprimatur without permission, but that's a whole other argument that I'm sure I'd be modded into oblivion for elaborating on).

2) They've sorta held the trademark for roughly 1400 years or so, and the office for roughly 1973 years (an estimate counting back to when Peter was named to the office, counting Dennis The Short's mathematical hose-ups on the whole Anno Domini tabulations.)

3) It's their office, thus their right... still open for parody and news purposes though, at least in western nations that enjoy freedom of speech. No different than if Tux the Penguin were registered as a trademark by the Linux Foundation, really (For instance, using Tux as a marker for Linux news stories, versus Microsoft using Tux as their new logo for Windows 8...) They're no further beyond or above secular law (outside of Vatican City) than any other organization... which makes the summary kind of a moot point.

Re:This definitely

[ravenshrike]

Well for one, they claim trademark, not copyright.They've held 'copyright' for over 1000 years. Last time I checked, US copyright law didn't allow for more than 80.

Re:This definitely

[testadicazzo]

This isn't a copyright claim (the headline is completely wrong). It's a trademark claim. Copyright is a TEMPORARY restriction to free speech to encourage creative works. Even though Disney et al have been expanding copyright lengths to keep from returning their copyrighted material to the public domain (where it belongs), copyright lengths are still less than a hundred years. So even if they wanted to, they couldn't make a copyright claim on stuff that's more than a thousand years old. Trademarks are a different story.

The distinction between copyright, trademark, and patent law is important in todays information wars.

Re:This definitely

[Achromatic1978]

2) They've sorta held the trademark for roughly 1400 years or so, and the office for roughly 1973 years (an estimate counting back to when Peter was named to the office, counting Dennis The Short's mathematical hose-ups on the whole Anno Domini tabulations.)

It is somewhat unsurprising that a Catholic is blissfully unaware that nowhere in the New Testament is there any mention of Peter being named to this office, that Jesus even established the Papacy, or that Peter was even regarded as a bishop.

Most references only discuss the concept of Peter being in that role from about the 4th century AD, and indeed the Catholic church had to issue a document in the 1960s to codify this belief as dogma.

Re:This definitely

[MaskedSlacker]

I'm a Catholic, and I'm aware of all of that. And it doesn't contradict a damn thing he said (it may lay the grounds for your implied claim that the whole structure of the catholic church is baloney, but not a word of what you posted directly contradicts a word of what he posted).

Re:This definitely

[Nutria]

-1, Pointless

Re:This definitely

[Znork]

Still, trademark isn't something you can just claim out of the blue. Unless they've already had a trademark since the start and enforced it, those symbols will have lapsed into common use since a long time.

I'm not sure there (thankfully) exists any IP form appropriate for what they want to do. Even if they could claim trademark, they'd end up having to enforce it against ten year olds webpages which would make them look like (even bigger) asses.

Perhaps they could offer to sign anything they endorse with the official Papal Public Key instead.

Re:This definitely

[Nutria]

Also according to many Catholics I speak to ( including my parochial-school-attending children, until I explained "things" to them):

You're Christian, right?
No, I'm Catholic

Re:This definitely

[Pax681]

the first Bishop... hmmmz that'd be James The Just.... you know the guy who nearly had Saul/Paul thrown off the walls of Jerusalem for generally recruiting the diaspora and non jews to the "faith".

James the Just was the.. BROTHER of Jesus, the ELDER brother according to every writing contemporary to the times.

he was the first "Mebakker"(bishop/guardian)

funnily enough just after Constantine thought it'd be a great idea to perpetuate the Roman empire thought the Church of Rome there first appeared the fake entries in "Josephus : Antiquities of the Jews" which mentioned Jesus in an allegedly contemporary writing.

while Josephus DID indeed write the Antiquities of the Jews" the entries regarding Jesus were proven to be slotted in.
the same technique that identified the different authors of the bible was used to discover that the entries were indeed faked. The antiquities of the Jews also mentions James as the brother of Jesus and this could also be written off as fakery were it not for this also being said BY Origen in around 234 when quoting Josephus but makes no mention of the "Testimonium Flavianum" (wee bio of jesus) and also mentioned in the Dead Sea SCrolls (see James the Brother of Jesus: The Key to Unlocking the Secrets of Early Christianity and the Dead Sea Scrolls)

so... if James was his ELDER half brother..... how can the immaculate conception have occurred...... let me help you.. it didn't it just helped weave in the mythology of other Romano/Greek deities into the mix.. i could go on the the rest of the mythology surrounding jesus and his alleged story but i can't be bothered atm.. am on call and may have to shoot out and tend to my flock of clients who can't find their own ass with a map as far a their PC's go

Re:This definitely

[siloko]

I think we're all missing the point here - this isn't for the benefit of us mortals but an act to be judged in a 'higher' court - you can count on religious institutions to take 'keeping up appearances' to farcical extremes!

Re:This definitely

[TheLink]

Not all Catholics are Christians.

And not all those who say they are Christians are Christians.

It's just like in my country a lot of people say they are Buddhists, but they actually believe in a mix of Taoism with just some Buddhist references thrown in.

Similarly there are lots of muslims who don't know what the Koran and Hadith actually say about lots of stuff - because they don't understand Arabic - so they have to rely on a religious leader to tell them what their religion is (which sometimes diverges from what the Koran/Hadith says).

Re:This definitely

[nyctopterus]

Well, it depends on whether you think a religion is a set of doctrines or a social construction.

Re:This definitely

[jabuzz]

From a Roman Catholic (and for that matter Lutheranism, Eastern, and Oriental Orthodoxy) perspective that is all baloney, though as the Perpetual Virginity of Mary would make a brother somewhat difficult.

Re:This definitely

[Pax681]

well there are more learned men such as Bart D Ehrman(a world class and respected authority in the subjects i touched upon) who would not only beg to differ with you but probably have a chortle to themselves at your answer.

i stated nothing that cannot actually be backed up fully and entirely by very learned men with a VAST amoutn on knowledge which you clearly are not in posession of.....

Re:This definitely

[dcmoebius]

I wasn't implying that they didn't have the RIGHT to such a copyright/trademark, I was simply trying to point out the underlying problems with trying to enforce such a copyright claim. Given the especially litigious atmosphere surrounding IP and copyright these days, it seems to me that the the Papacy may have invited trouble unnecessarily.

Re:This definitely

[paxcoder]

Catholics (if true), are by definition Christians. Main fractions of Christianity is: Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants(basically, all other). The first two having apostolic and historic roots (ie go all the way back to apostles and first Christians) separated in 1054.
What protestant claim is due to their "sola fide"(eng. faith alone) doctrine, which is an innovation introduced at the time of the conception of Protestantism (16th ct.). Since they claim it's in the Bible (while we, Catholics, claim the exact opposite is), they regard all who do not adhere to this belief are heretics, and that is probably why some fundamentalists deem us not Christians, since we believe in salvation through grace, with man's works cooperating with his faith (and not just faith alone - as st. James in his epistle also says(in 2:24): "Do you see that by works a man is justified; and not by faith only?" - of course, they 'interpret' it differently).
Statues mentioned below, as well as images (which, of course, we do not worship nor do I think Protestants think that) are not relevant for the above view, although it is also a matter of dispute.
In short: Catholics are as Christian as it gets. And then there's other Christians :-)

Re:This definitely

[Miamicanes]

> From a Roman Catholic (and for that matter Lutheranism, Eastern, and Oriental Orthodoxy) perspective that is all baloney, though as the Perpetual Virginity of Mary would make a brother somewhat difficult.

But... but... what about *WESLEY* ?!? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFwvs8eYt6E

Re:This definitely

[mwvdlee]

(The funny part is, the deal with Galileo was largely based on the fact that he printed his famous book and using a papal imprimatur without permission, but that's a whole other argument that I'm sure I'd be modded into oblivion for elaborating on)

Nope.
I'm not modding you down for that.
In fact, I'm giving you a chance to provide impartial evidence on that.
Go ahead, I'm waiting.

Re:This definitely

[mwvdlee]

i stated nothing that cannot actually be backed up fully and entirely by very learned men with a VAST amoutn on knowledge which you clearly are not in posession of.....

Then perhaps you should give it to them, so they can learn for themselves.

Re:This definitely

[PopeRatzo]

Trademarks are a different story.

So come and get me, coppers.

Re:This definitely

[flyneye]

Anyway royalties have been paid with enough blood let by the Catholic Church over the last few centuries that I can walk down Broadway dressed as the Pope selling condoms to the Broads thereon with no worries. The debt has been paid up for centuries to come, so the holy See can take a peek and see my ass.
I can cause a big enough stink, they aren't gonna want my money let alone pursue it for their petty trademark.

Re:This definitely

[Anonymous Coward]

Well his coat of arms is only as old as his being Pope. They might be able to claim it. It's still a completely dickish move though, then again he does have that dickish hat...

Re:This definitely

[process]

Absolutely, Catholics are christians and believe in Jesus Christ, hence Christians.

I've found the quotes from that old T-shirt quite descriptive:

Protestantism: If shit happens, I have to work harder.
Catholicism: If shit happens, I deserve it.

Personally I'm a pragmatic agnostic, which would be something along the lines of "If shit happens, it doesn't matter if it's the work of a Deity, they don't seem to care about us anyway."

Re:This definitely

[TheLink]

But how's that relevant?

I could say I'm an Apple employee, wear black etc. Doesn't necessarily make me one.

Or I could even say I'm a hardcore Apple Fan. But if I actually serve and follow the Chair Throwing Steve instead, my claims would be in doubt.

I could say I'm serving the American Public and Protecting the Children. But it could be just a bunch of bullshit to get votes.

Re:This definitely

[OhHellWithIt]

but as Bush was a born again Christian he accepted Blair.

Wait a minute! I thought Bush accepted Christ. Do you mean to tell me he's a Blairian, not a Christian?

Now I am trying to increase my bad karma :P

Congratulations. As of this moment, your comment is at -1, Flamebait.

Re:This definitely

[Penguinisto]

It is somewhat unsurprising that a Catholic is blissfully unaware that nowhere in the New Testament is there any mention of Peter being named to this office, that Jesus even established the Papacy, or that Peter was even regarded as a bishop.

"I tell you that you are Peter, and it is on this rock that I will build my congregation, and the powers of hell will not conquer it."
-Matthew 16:18

While I do agree that the actual term "Pope", "Bishop" or etc weren't used (after all, they spoke Aramaic natively, not Latin), there is a line of succession that goes all the way back. Peter was named head of said church, which at the time had no name (the word "Catholic" actually is Latin for "Universal", though it wasn't known as such until far later).

The scripture reference was posted in case you were wanting to know where it all came from.

All that aside, sibling is correct - you haven't contradicted a single thing I've written - whether the line of Papal succession was codified later or on-the-fly makes no difference; I just wanted to show where the whole shebang was justified.

Re:This definitely

[orzetto]

1) The whole story/argument/whatever is based on an organization that literally invented a little something called an imprimatur [reference.com] (The funny part is, the deal with Galileo was largely based on the fact that he printed his famous book and using a papal imprimatur without permission, but that's a whole other argument that I'm sure I'd be modded into oblivion for elaborating on).

Italian guy here. Studied what an imprimatur was and its implications in literature in high school. In Galileo's times, imprimaturs ("be it printed", Latin) were necessary to print books in several areas of Italy, including, of course, the Papal States and all states that cared about good relationships with Rome. Therefore, obviously had Galileo to falsify one to publish a book, he would not have been able otherwise.

On the other hand, imprimaturs were widely recognised as marks of bad quality publications. They caused the same reaction that a label reading "this videogame has been approved by the Christian union of concerned mothers" would today.

No book worth reading has ever received the imprimatur, to my knowledge.

Re:This definitely

[kpesler]

Mathew 16:17-19:
Jesus said to him in reply, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Jesus did found his church upon Peter, as He said. And that same church, with the authority that Jesus gave it, and led by the Holy Spirit promised to guide it, believed that the office was intended to be propagated. After all, if Jesus believed that that church needed a head, a preeminent shepherd (see John 21:15-17), would it only need one for the couple of decades left to Peter? After Peter would be martyred, did Christ intend to leave His church again "...like sheep without a shepherd"?

Re:This definitely

[paxcoder]

Still more catchy phrases that are not true.
Protestants, as I have pointed out earlier, do not believe in "work", but faith alone. In their view, work only confirms faith (from which it comes). While we (Catholics) see work and faith as cooperating (see James again).
As for the second line from the T-shirt, I don't believe God "punishes" people on earth - that's what final judgment is for. He does however "school" you, but all experiences are for your own interest, and if you won't cooperate, you have free will - up until death, when God will acknowledge you set your mind to - well Hell (ie. refusal of God). God paid a price of sin in His only begotten Son, and if we trust onto Him, and confess our sins, we can be forgiven. Penance is voluntary on Earth, mandatory "only" if not done on Earth in Purgatory (see Corinthians) - prior to Heaven (for which one must be perfect).
Again, Protestants see it differently :-P
P.S. About CHRISTians: There is a big difference between those who view Christ(grk. Messiah) as only a servant (ONLY a Chosen One and ONLY a Man), and those who also know He is also a Son of God in true sense (as mentioned in John 1).
Since Mormons and LDS' deny the latter(so they don't believe in Trinity as we defined it), they are not considered Christians by either Catholic nor Protestant standards .

Re:This definitely

[zippthorne]

Wow. You got some cites for that? And an explanation for your non-standard use of the term "immaculate conception"? (Hint: it's about someone other than Jesus)

Re:This definitely

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you just post that whole rant so that you could make the accusation that the supposedly immaculate conception was not?

Just, wow.

Re:This definitely

[dgatwood]

Protestants, as I have pointed out earlier, do not believe in "work", but faith alone. In their view, work only confirms faith (from which it comes). While we (Catholics) see work and faith as cooperating (see James again).

No, some protestants believe in sola fide. AFAIK, neither the Anglican church nor the Methodist church believe that (in the purest sense, anyway), and both are decidedly protestant. There are two ways of looking at sola fide. One is that faith alone is necessary, one is that faith alone is sufficient. All protestants believe the first, not all believe the second.

A sinner comes to find God, then later murders someone. The evangelicals and the more Lutheran-descended protestants would argue that this person was never truly saved. The Methodist/Anglican way of looking at it is that faith not supported through continued justification is insufficient.

In short, sola fide isn't a binary switch. It's a continuum.

Re:This definitely

[Anonymous Coward]

just an FYI - the Immaculate Conception has nothing to do directly with the conception or virgin birth of Jesus.

The Immaculate Conception is the doctrine that when Mary was conceived in her mother's womb, she was not tainted with Original Sin (like every other human), which made it possible for her to later carry Christ in her womb.

As for the perpertual virginity of Mary, I've never agreed with that doctrine, but there's a still a lot of dispute about whether certain figures in early church history were actually Jesus's literal siblings, or actually cousins or something else. Some say they are from Joseph's first marriage (unrecorded in the bible), some say they are cousins, because Mary's sister was also named Mary, as was Joseph's sister-in-law.

Re:This definitely

[AndersOSU]

As a product of 12 years of catholic schooling, let me just say that this is generally regarded as ret-conning. You can tie institutional Catholicism to Peter though scripture, but drawing a line from Peter through to Leo is a bit dicey.

Re:This definitely

[shutdown -p now]

If they claim they aren't Christians, then they aren't Catholic either.

In any case, there's one simple test to determine whether someone is a Christian or not - Nicene creed (yes, there is more than one version; I'd consider a person accepting any one currently in use a Christian).

Re:This definitely

[darth_borehd]

Last time I checked, US copyright law didn't allow for more than 80.,

Tell that to Disney next time somebody uses Mickey Mouse.

Re:This definitely

[shutdown -p now]

But how's that relevant?

I could say I'm an Apple employee, wear black etc. Doesn't necessarily make me one.

Well of course. So someone who's claiming to be Christian isn't necessarily Christian, and someone claiming to be Catholic isn't necessarily Catholic. But your original statement was:

Not all Catholics are Christians.

Which is a different thing altogether, and fundamentally wrong. One cannot be Catholic without being Christian. One can claim to be both, but he's either right regarding both claims, or wrong regarding both claims.

Re:This definitely

[shutdown -p now]

It is somewhat unsurprising that a Catholic is blissfully unaware that nowhere in the New Testament is there any mention of Peter being named to this office, that Jesus even established the Papacy, or that Peter was even regarded as a bishop.

Of course, Catholic (and also Orthodox) teaching does not believe in sola scriptura, and also has this thing called Church Tradition, which may also be a source of dogma (insofar as it doesn't directly contradict the Scripture). So the lack of a mention of something in the Scripture is not an argument against its validity for a Catholic (or Orthodox).

Re:This definitely

[shutdown -p now]

Peter was named head of said church, which at the time had no name (the word "Catholic" actually is Latin for "Universal", though it wasn't known as such until far later).

Even then, Nicene Creed already speaks of "one holy catholic and apostolic Church", and that was long before Roman Catholic Church was an entity known under this name and distinct from other churches; and the earliest documented use of the term "catholic church" dates back to 110, which I wouldn't call "far later".

Of course, all churches claim to be "catholic" (i.e. universal) in practice - all Orthodox church communions do so, and so do protestants, though for the latter it's the more abstract concept unifying all true believers outside of any formal church hierarchy.

Re:This definitely

[Pax681]

then perhaps they should LOOK at the GREAT BIG HINTS in what i wrote

are you trying to tell me that no-one on /. can use the gift of google or knows how to find stuff on torrent sites?

however for thsoe that need spoonfed

James the Brother of Jesus: The Key to Unlocking the Secrets of Early Christianity and the Dead Sea Scrolls

Bart D Ehrman look out for his stuff from The Teaching company on audio and video

then there are many and various looks att he dead sea scrolls and also the apochrypha in which Ehrman is a specialist.

of course the smarter people will have already googled this info and started learning using their own learning skills instead of having top be spoon-fed

for those that cannot start learning from what i have stated here then maybes they will grow gills and walk backwards into the sea!

Re:This definitely

[dimeglio]

I think that everyone is clearly confused hence the sudden rise of Confucianism in the West as government no longer think religions should teach ethical behaviour.

So just to clear things up AFAIK:
1. All Catholics and Anglicans believe in Christ (the son of God) hence the are Christians.
2. Protestants also believe in Christ (the son of God).
3. Those who practice Judism are not Christians but have the same God.
4. Islamics are not Christians but have the same God as well.
5. Religions are mutually exclusive (so you cannot be both Jewish and Protestant) even if you have the same Gog.
6. Hinduism might also be Christians if their God had a battle royale and only one remained.
7. Buddhism are the laws of Buddah.
8. Animism typically give objects, animals, nature a certain divinity. Not sure about the spaghetti monster as he's both a monster and spaghetti.
9. Atheism, none of the above.
10. Agnostics, all of the above.

Re:This definitely

[Anonymous Coward]

Forgot a few of course but typically, they have nothing to do with religion but rather server as a place where agnostics can hide and collect some tax free cash:
Jeovah's Witnesses
Mormons and
Scientologists.

Re:This definitely

[Thinboy00]

Tux is somebody's copyright, and I think it's trademarked as well. Believe it or not "open source" is trademarked, but fortunately by the good guys.

Re:This definitely

[Nutria]

If they claim they aren't Christians, then they aren't Catholic either.

I know it, you know it, but there are a whole lot of people who don't seem to realize it.

Re:This definitely

[Buelldozer]

James, the elder half brother, was a son of Joseph's from a previous marriage.

Huh, I easily blew apart your whole theory. Sorry about that. :-D

In case you missed it a "half" sibling can come from either the mother OR the father's side.

Also, I don't have any references in my King James New Testament about "James the Jost" or him almost having Paul thrown from the walls of Jerusalem.

Re:This definitely

[Pax681]

James the JUST....... Why not read some Origen where it is mentioned and also his name is mentioned in the dead sea scrolls.

so erm... how can James be the half brother is joseph wasn't his father....... and Mary wasn't James brother.... that doesn't make the "half" anything.. that would make them , i suppose , "step brothers" or you could be suggesting that joseph IS the father of Jesus and thus popping the immaculate conception bubble yourself

also it's funny you never found him in the new testament......From this page you will see

According to the Church Fathers, he has posthumously been described as the first Bishop of Jerusalem, and is believed to be the author of the Epistle of James in the New Testament, the first of the Seventy Apostles, and originator of the Apostolic Decree of Acts 15. In the Epistle to the Galatians Paul of Tarsus describes his first visit to Jerusalem where he met James and John and stayed with Cephas. James is described by Josephus and the New Testament as being "the brother of Jesus", and in the Liturgy of St James as "the brother of God" (Adelphotheos).

so erm... you are blind to the epistle of James or were those pages ripped out your KGV?..lol

oh and remember when Saul/Paul had to plead with Roman soldiers he was a Roman citizen to be saved from being thrown off the walls of Jerusalem? .. erm.. yeah.. it was James and his followers who were going to do that.

they were doing so as what Saul/Paul was doing(ie preaching to the diaspora[actually he was diaspora himself you know] and also preaching to non jews) was absolutely vile and a heresy in the eyes of the ULTRA orthodox jews such as James

funny how you don't even know about the book you seem to defend

Re:This definitely

[paxcoder]

"One is that faith alone is necessary, one is that faith alone is sufficient".

Can you clarify the difference?

Re:This definitely

[tomhudson]

Which is a different thing altogether, and fundamentally wrong. One cannot be Catholic without being Christian.

Sure you can. "Catholic" means "universal" - and we all know that those "Universal" churches are all just cults (but then again, so are all religions).

Besides, the pope can't claim trademark OR copyright, since both predated trademark and copyright law, and the church never registered them within the delays provided by law, they're still in the public domain. You can't "un-public-domain" something. So much for "papal infallibility".

Looks like the pope is showing his jackboot nazi roots by trying to declare he is above the law.

Re:This definitely

[dgatwood]

I and many others believe that God forgives us solely because of our faith, but that faith must, by necessity, be more than just claiming to believe in something. Faith has to be lived out in our words and in our deeds; without living out our faith, it is not truly faith. Thus, faith is necessary for salvation (and no other specific single thing is necessary), but it is not sufficient.

Re:This definitely

[tomhudson]

God paid a price of sin in His only begotten Son

That just makes god into a shitty parent and a shitty example to follow.

"Someone has to pay for this!" Why? "Because those are MY rules!" Well, your rules suck. That's not forgiveness. That's "eye-for-an-eye."

"I love you all so much I killed my kid for you!" Well, we never asked for that, so you should accept responsibility for your infanticide. "I did it for YOU!" Why? "Because you're going to hell otherwise!" Why? "Because you disobeyed my laws!" In other words, you don't know the meaning of forgiveness. Fuck you.

Any parent that would torture and kill their own kid is not an example to follow. Any god that would ask one of their followers to do the same (and god did ask this of Abraham) is fucked up. Anyone who follows such a god deserves to go to hell.

It would be the height of irony if god existed and in her judgment only atheists qualify for heaven, because the good we do is done without the guilt of sin or fear of punishment by god.

Re:This definitely

[tomhudson]

Fact - the Catholic Church has paid out over ONE BILLION DOLLARS to settle child molestation suits by 2002, and the number grows and grows and grows.

But what do you expect from an organization that teaches that sex is bad except with their seal of approval, that gays and lesbians are going to hell even though same-sex activity of all kinds is normal in the animal kingdom, and also normal in humans, that you should be stoned to death for shopping on Sunday, and that cannibalism brings you closer to god ("take, eat, this is my body").

I wouldn't be surprised if there's a priest somewhere right now sewing an "alter boy meat suit" a la Hannibal Lecter. Or reading the alt.recipes.baby newsgroup.

Re:This definitely

[Anonymous Coward]

> So much for "papal infallibility".

IIRC infallibility applies to officially expressed theological positions.

Re:This definitely

[shutdown -p now]

Sure you can. "Catholic" means "universal" - and we all know that those "Universal" churches are all just cults (but then again, so are all religions).

Don't be a nitpicker. In modern everyday English, "Catholic" means "Roman Catholic"; I shouldn't need to explain this every time I use the word. I know perfectly well that the word "catholic" itself has a definite meaning, both inside (coming from an country with a "catholic"-but-not-Roman-Catholic church being dominant) and outside religious context.

Re:This definitely

[Roger W Moore]

Actually I thought even then it only applied to certain ones when he is speaking "ex cathedra" which he only does when there is absolutely no possibility that he can be proven wrong. It is extremely clear that popes are most definitely fallible (e.g. Galileo) but because the papacy never declared geocentrism as a required belief in an "ex cathedra" manner the Catholic church can breathe a big sigh of relief and still claim that their pope is infallible in certain situations.

Re:This definitely

[my_left_nut]

Just to clarify, since the content of this thread is starting to fall under the category of "non-falsifiable religious belief", the idea of verifiable "truth" or "falseness" doesn't really come into play. So, saying something is "true" in this context, at best means that you "believe it to be true" to you, and to the other members of your faith. It cannot be independently verified via the scientific method to be "true" or "false" (not "true").

On the other hand, the two catchy phrases are inherited from a number of qualities and behaviors that have been observed in adherents of those religions, and may actually be statistically verifiable.

For example, Protestants have the the Puritan "work-ethic" driven by the idea that God "blesses" his chosen or "saved" ones with hard-earned wealth. Many Catholics have guilt complexes over things that typically hurt nobody. For example, eating meat on Fridays in Lent, breaking restrictions on various sexual activity, etc.

These are real and measurable psychological phenomenon. So, oddly enough, the claims that those catchy phrases made, actually have the capability to be measured. In contrast, the claims that the dogma makes do not.

Re:This definitely

[brucemcdon]

"how can the immaculate conception have occurred..." let me help you. You meant the virgin birth. The Immaculate Conception, in Catholic terminology, was a different event entirely.

The same set of stories, Catholic standard issue, relies on Jesus having said to Peter, "Upon this rock I will build my church." (Matthew 16:18 -- is this among the entries you say were slotted in? Just curious, if you can be bothered, since you brought it up.

Re:This definitely

[paxcoder]

Let me see if you will understand the following comparison: "Oil and water", or "darkness and light", or "Christ and Belial".
What I'm saying is that a dirty soul cannot stand in presence of the Triple Holy. It's not just made up relative rules, it's the nature of things. I've been told you'd suffer even more in Heaven in front of God if in mortal sin, seeing Him, then in Hell, separated.
And it is a sacrifice if God lets you off by giving you another chance, washing your filth with His blood, ready to forgive you and give you a new life and a Holy Spirit to guide you in your path to sainthood.
Again, noone is pushing you, you still have free will, you're free to reject the gratis sacrifice. But don't blame God for it then!

P.S. If you knew Corinthians chapter 13, you wouldn't say Christians are thought to do good deeds just to avoid "punishment".

Re:This definitely

[paxcoder]

Notice he said "Catholicism" and "Protestantism" and not "Catholics", and "Protestants" - even though, I admit I would complain in the latter case as well because I wanted to bring up doctrine each of the groups subscribe to.
The truth of statements I have presented about *Catholicism* is verifiable in the official doctrine of the Church, and about *Protestantism* by research about the doctrines of the majority of them (since they differ in teaching, as pointed out by others).
To expound now on what I previously said in the light of what you added: The guilt we feel when we sin should (primarily?) be the product of our love for God whose will we disregard when we sin. Its source is also conscience which I believe is more refined in Christ seekers (I'm not talking about nominally Christians as a whole) than the moral and ethics of the world. Again, not punishment, but love & conscience.
Any difference between behavior expected of subscribers to Catholic teachings, and that observed in nominally Catholics, it can be a product of what is called "bad spirituality" - another one of Satans traps (ie he convinces you you cannot be forgiven, even though it's not true).

Re:This definitely

[Anonymous Coward]

The primacy of the bishop of Rome was attested by Saint Iraneous in the early 2nd century. The term for the Pope came into common use a few hundred years later. Apostolic succession and the passing the keys of Peter is well attested in early Christian history.

F/OSS Religion

[russlar]

Fortunately for the rest of us, the FSM is compatible with the GPL.

Re:F/OSS Religion

[the_humeister]

Yeah, but too bad FSM also condones eating babies.

Re:F/OSS Religion

[binarylarry]

And promotes piracy!

Re:F/OSS Religion

[Anonymous Coward]

Wasn't it only Jews that ate babies?

Re:F/OSS Religion

[girlintraining]

Fortunately for the rest of us, the FSM is compatible with the GPL.

The GPL allows you to modify the original work. The bible, however, clearly states that it is the word of God and should not be modified. It is therefore not GPL-compatible. The codebase it's based on is also of dubious origin.

But even if the licensing terms weren't crap, it'll never catch on. It's a buggy beta release that's been ported to other languages or forked dozens of times because the developers can never agree on a single design. It's also not very user-friendly: The interface tends to kill people, especially before you patch it to SP1 (New Testament). I'd be surprised if they aren't bankrupt in a year.

1900 years later...

Re:F/OSS Religion

[AuMatar]

I suggest you tell that to these guys

Re:F/OSS Religion

[elecmahm]

while I find your biblical lampooning funny and appropriate -- why are you talking about the bible with reference to the FSM? The FSM mythology is about as GPL'd as you can get -- I seriously doubt Venganza would have any problems with people making modifications to the original concept.

Re:F/OSS Religion

[skine]

So you're saying that Jefferson's rewrite of the Bible falls outside of fair use?

Re:F/OSS Religion

[Dachannien]

The FSM mythology

I find your attack on my religion insulting. May you be smote by His Noodly Appendage.

Re:F/OSS Religion

[Farmer Tim]

Unless Nietzsche was right, yes.

Re:F/OSS Religion

[Anonymous Coward]

"it'll never catch on" -- oh, how I wish this were true

though the code may be crap, but the release notes deem it perfect, and further defines all (the many, obvious) bugs as 'features'

pure marketing genius.

Re:F/OSS Religion

[MightyMartian]

I'm still waiting for the Space Pope's ruling, myself.

Re:F/OSS Religion

[gmhowell]

The catholics condone feeding your only begotten son to perfect strangers. Which is worse?

Re:F/OSS Religion

[Seraphim_72]

Um...No it is most definitely not

Re:F/OSS Religion

[tnk1]

Haven't you been paying attention? In the case of God and Walt Disney, copyright terms last until death plus infinity years.

Re:F/OSS Religion

[Anonymous Coward]

From your link (one of 10 guidelines the Conservapedia Bible follows):

3. Not Dumbed Down: not dumbing down the reading level, or diluting the intellectual force and logic of Christianity; the NIV

I really enjoy the part about logic. Ha.

Re:F/OSS Religion

[Anonymous Coward]

But we need pirates to save us from the global warming!

Re:F/OSS Religion

[Carewolf]

The bible, however, clearly states that it is the word of God and should not be modified.

No, the bible clearly states it is NOT the word of God. Check how different parts is attributed to different evangelists, none of them being God, and none of them under direct guidance by God.

The literal interpretation of the Bibile is only believed by some churches in North America, but not by the Catholics, and not by the Holy See. They would know, because they wrote the bible!

Re:F/OSS Religion

[JWSmythe]

    That could be construed as a hate crime.

Re:F/OSS Religion

[Eivind]

But the bible is out of copyright, so it's in the public domain. Just because parts of it makes some claim, doesn't make it true. Just because current DVDs will, in 3 centuries, still say "copyrighted", doesn't mean they are.

Re:F/OSS Religion

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the first and only known good use of this stupid IP Laws. Nobody can use those words and symbols and thus reducing their spread, hopefully to the ultimate disappearance of them and further hopefully the demise of one of the religions.

I only wish other religions come up with their own versions of IP protections.

Re:F/OSS Religion

[bronney]

FSM mythology... omg, let me stop laughing. So it's actually a "logy" now or what? :) I guess people are too easy sometimes. Ramen.

Re:F/OSS Religion

[nadaou]

1900 years later...
--
The cake is a lie.

A good demonstration of one of the three reasons why I leave /. sigs turned on.

Re:F/OSS Religion

[daivd]

I tried svn blame on the bible project and found some suspicious commits from monks in the middle ages.

Re:F/OSS Religion

[Anonymous Coward]

QUOTE: Will high school newspapers have to remove the Papal Coat of Arms from their Vatican news columns?

Really, is there any high school newspaper with a Vatican column???

Slightly more seriously, even Linux related stuff has copyrights.

What is important is not that you copyright something, it's how you enforce it. So I suggest we wait until the Vatican starts defending its copyright so argue if it's good or bad.

Re:F/OSS Religion

[advocate_one]

I'm waiting for SP2 before I convert...

Re:F/OSS Religion

[BlindRobin]

I'd like to see them try that with "The Book of Origin".

Hallowed ARE the Oars Aye !

Re:F/OSS Religion

[cpghost]

The GPL allows you to modify the original work. The bible, however, clearly states that it is the word of God and should not be modified. It is therefore not GPL-compatible.

So is it cc-by-nd (non-derivative-works)?

Re:F/OSS Religion

[OolimPhon]

"it'll never catch on" -- oh, how I wish this were true

though the code may be crap, but the release notes deem it perfect, and further defines all (the many, obvious) bugs as 'features'

pure marketing genius.

WTF? Has Microsoft been around that long then?

Re:F/OSS Religion

[ickleberry]

Well there is nothing preventing you from making a final state machine and releasing it's code under the GPL

Re:F/OSS Religion

[Anonymous Coward]

This shows it's impossible to pretend to be a conservative so fanatical, everyone realizes you're joking.

Re:F/OSS Religion

[the_womble]

That seems to prove it is open source. They are porting the original source, even though its been done before, in order to tailor it to what they want.

So much for fundamentalists being Christians who base their beliefs on the Bible. They are Christians who base their beliefs on selected, often out of context, bits of the Bible they like.

I wonder what they (with the pro-capitalist agenda) are going to do about "it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of the needle than for a rich man to enter heaven" and "give all you have to the poor".

Re:F/OSS Religion

[DrXym]

I think by this point the bible can be considered abandonware.

Re:F/OSS Religion

[Anonymous Coward]

Sadly I must point out that the so called SP1 of the Holy Torah is an infrigment on g-ds work! Damn religion pirates come here and take our stuff and the some greek for spice and gah the SP1 is out!

Re:F/OSS Religion

[Fished]

Speaking as a trained New Testament scholar... wow. Just ... wow. That is quite possibly the scariest charter for a Biblical translation I've ever encountered, and I include many oddities in the mix, like the New World Translation and Reformation minefields the Geneva Bible (it's a hobby of mine.) There's no awareness whatsoever that the Bible might not support every element of their agenda, and they're going to cut lose people with no knowledge of the original languages to use a Strong's concordance and the King James in order to create their "translation." Wow.

This is almost a formula for how not to translate the Bible.

Re:F/OSS Religion

[owlstead]

Ooh, that's brilliant. Lets just take 4) and 5)

4) Utilize Powerful Conservative Terms: using powerful new conservative terms to capture better the original intent;[4] Defective translations use the word "comrade" three times as often as "volunteer"; similarly, updating words that have a change in meaning, such as "word", "peace", and "miracle".
5) Combat Harmful Addiction: combating addiction[5] by using modern terms for it, such as "gamble" rather than "cast lots";[6] using modern political terms, such as "register" rather than "enroll" for the census

And that they call *NOT* altering the word of god. I would call that liberal translation. Not that it matters, they haven't decided on a base version anyway - they prefer the King James Bible - with some additional Greek & Hebrew sources added where the KJB does not suit them.

Re:F/OSS Religion

[Jason Levine]

There's a longstanding tradition in Judaism that the Torah, while written by God, is for man to interpret. It's not modifying the code, per se, but it is making it run in different manners.

For example, there are sections about the sacrifices that need to be done at certain times. However, the Temple (capital T, meaning the one that used to exist in Jerusalem) no longer exists so the rabbis declared that we don't need to do these sacrifices anymore. Instead, we need to perform deeds of lovingkindness. (There are other examples, but that's the only one that comes to mind right now pre-breakfast.)

Re:F/OSS Religion

[sorak]

1900 years later...
--
The cake is a lie.

I have never seen a tagline fit in so well with a post, before.

Re:F/OSS Religion

[Dragonslicer]

No, the bible clearly states it is NOT the word of God. Check how different parts is attributed to different evangelists, none of them being God, and none of them under direct guidance by God.

There's more than the New Testament, you know. A slightly older bit that some people may have heard about. Of course, about 2,000 years ago, some rabbis found a couple verses that supported their effort to reinterpret the laws as they saw fit:

"It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say: 'Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, and make us to hear it, that we may do it?'; Neither is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say: 'Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, and make us to hear it, that we may do it?'; But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it." D'varim 30:12-14

Re:F/OSS Religion

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you check out their newspeak dictionary? It's both hilarious and scary. Who knew the word algorithm meant 'an efficient and consistent step-by-step methodology for achieving a goal, the opposite of liberal style' or that altruism is in fact 'a counterexample to evolution'? It's fascinating. Did you know environmentalism is 'a mixture of pseudoscience and neo-paganism used to justify the imposition of socialistic controls'? Amazing. I never knew.

Oh and ladies, I believe there's lots of single guys over there! They're really committed to marriage too, I mean really! Who wouldn't want a husband that does such wonderful things as 'the pushing and prodding, analogous to what a supervisor, coach or sergeant does, that encourages and compels people in marriage to achieve their best' or 'a division of labor that enables each spouse to work on what he or she does best'! It'll be the BEST!

Re:F/OSS Religion

[vegiVamp]

Don't you like lamb, then ?

Re:F/OSS Religion

[Anonymous Coward]

So...

They saw all the success Muhammad had with removing his image from everything, and wanted to get in on the action?

Re:F/OSS Religion

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you for posting this link -- I'd never heard of conservapedia but am going to have lots of fun reading this madness. It does look a little bit like wikipedia, except the conspicuous absence of any [edit] options...

Re:F/OSS Religion

[OhHellWithIt]

From Conservapedia's Bible Project:

Liberal bias has become the single biggest distortion in modern Bible translations. There are three sources of errors in conveying biblical meaning are, in increasing amount:

• lack of precision in the original language, such as terms underdeveloped to convey new concepts introduced by Christ
• lack of precision in modern language
• translation bias, mainly of the liberal kind, in converting the original language to the modern one.

That's almost funny. The liberal bias in the King James version has a lot to do with why I am a liberal.

Re:F/OSS Religion

[Anonymous Coward]

There's no awareness whatsoever that the Bible might not support every element of their agenda, and they're going to cut lose people with no knowledge of the original languages to use a Strong's concordance and the King James in order to create their "translation." Wow.

This is almost a formula for how not to translate the Bible.

Even worse, there's no awareness whatsoever that they have an agenda.

I'm serious, read the discussion page behind the main page. There are a few comments that indicate intellectual honesty: Let's reach a translation without any bias (liberal or conservative). The responses are scary; to paraphrase: Removing the liberal bias will create a version without bias.
This is because the concept of 'conservative bias' is nonsense to these people, as contradictory as 'square circle'.

As an Atheist, I categorize the Bible as literary art. The Bible isn't everybody's cup of tea, just like Shakespear isn't everybody's cup of tea. Some people felt Baz Luhrmann's update of Romeo and Juliet was bad. Others will certainly feel The Conservative Bible project's update of The Bible is bad. I don't begrudge anybody their passion for art, as long as they don't begrudge me my right to ignore it.

Re:F/OSS Religion

[Joelfabulous]

hahahaha

thank you for writing this! I am a Christian with a bent towards deeply personal faith such that I choose not to impose it on others... and this blending of geek humour with religion is delightfully scathing! I want to hug you for it :3

Re:F/OSS Religion

[Joelfabulous]

this site really reads like the best parody ever written...

which should horrify me somewhat, I suppose. does this mean I'm growing up and ready to face the modern world? (21 years old here, university student in Ottawa) ;)

Re:F/OSS Religion

[AndersOSU]

my personal favorite is the screed against the guys who compiled the NIV because they're assosiated with institutes of higher education - and therefore can be expected to have a liberal bias...

I always remember to place bible scholars in my liberal pantheon... right next to Kieth Olbermann.

(p.s. there's little that I find to be more infuriating than anti-intellectualism)

Re:F/OSS Religion

[AndersOSU]

wait, you mean the story of Jesus and the money changers isn't a "free-market parable"?

Also, I'll thank you to note that the words "charter," "agenda" are liberal words. I suggest the following replacements, "covenant," and "mission."

Re:F/OSS Religion

[AndersOSU]

sweet jeebus. I haven't made it to the list yet - just read the intro - and I'm already alternating between hysteria and banging my head against the wall.

Re:F/OSS Religion

[AndersOSU]

apparently, the "Segway's" are conservative. Shoulda known what with those hoity toughty segway polo matches...

Re:F/OSS Religion

[Anonymous Coward]

What is wrong with the New World Translation?

Re:F/OSS Religion

[Hurricane78]

Seeing how the whole point of the Bible is to support one’s own agenda, to control people, I’d say this is using the Bible exactly for what it was invented. ^^

In the Koran on the other hand, there is just one version (at least they say so), but that one is so easily interpretable, and so wildly interpreted, that it’s no better at all.

Then again, that whole “religious” world is just sick beyond belief to me, and I’m only able to explain it with it being a Schizophrenia + companies that exploit the affected ones.

Re:F/OSS Religion

[AndersOSU]

What's the most relevant comment to be made for "deregulation"? I know, "Reagan won in 1980 by campaigning on this. "

Re:F/OSS Religion

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean the head vampire / cannibal is pro GPL?

Re:F/OSS Religion

[dgatwood]

Really, is there any high school newspaper with a Vatican column???

In Catholic high schools? Probably....

Re:F/OSS Religion

[shutdown -p now]

You must be new to Conservapedia. Their Bible translation project is hilarious in and of itself, but it's just the tip of the iceberg. It is, after all, a Christian young earth creationist neo-con project; consequently, it's an endless source of lulz (sorry, there's no term more applicable than this one here).

Re:F/OSS Religion

[shutdown -p now]

this site really reads like the best parody ever written

Fortunately, it's not a parody. While there have been an occasional "liberal impostor" sneaking into the ranks, the people behind Conservapedia are dead serious about it all. That's what makes it so funny.

Re:F/OSS Religion

[OldSoldier]

It's sad that modern culture seems to have it that the only way to get an "unbiased" opinion is to get an "equally but oppositely" biased opinion.

A true translation of the Bible using modern technology would have links on practically every word showing the background discussion of all the meanings of the original word, alternative words that could have been used and etc. Discussion on why other words may not capture the original meaning and, here's the key part, let people decide for themselves.

When did we start combating ignorance with alternatively biased ignorance instead of more knowledge?

Re:F/OSS Religion

[HiThere]

The idea that King James could be considered a liberal... Well, it's a bit beyond my boggle threshold.

Re:F/OSS Religion

[oreaq]

You don't change the code. You just change the interpreter. There are at least two different interpreters in widespread use and both have been in active development over the last couple of hundred years. Different forks spring up occasionally and usually fade in to oblivion pretty soon but some survive often driven by a ferocious leadership. Where's the difference to free software?

It's a buggy beta release that's been ported to other languages or forked dozens of times because the developers can never agree on a single design. It's also not very user-friendly

Oh ... I see.

Re:F/OSS Religion

[Rycross]

Back when I was still into the religion thing, I had a Bible with footnotes that discussed translation issues and meanings of certain passages, citing original sources where appropriate. It outlined areas where there was disagreement about interpretation as well.

I can't remember what it was called, unfortunately, but I had considered it a step above some of the other bibles I had seen.

Re:F/OSS Religion

[tomhudson]

May I suggest you check in the alt.recipes.babies news group.

Re:F/OSS Religion

[tomhudson]

I ran the source through an optimizing compiler with the command gcc (gods commands compiler)

gcc religious_texts.src -oda_rulez --with-best-result --cpu=human --arch all --check_out-of-bounds --licence gpl2.0 -nohell -nopurgatory -saveall -Dheaven 1 -Dhell NULL -Dchurch NULL -Dreligion "RELIGION_ANY | RELIGION_NONE"

First the preprocessor stripped out all the white space, newlines, superfluous stuff like page numbers and comments, and all the #ifdef stuff that defined obsolete, no-longer-supported architectures.

Then on the compilers first pass, it compiled everything that was left, which wasn't much, to tell you the truth.

Then came the optimizing pass. Out came the redundant loops, the busy-wait code, the code that was unreachable (aka "dead code"); By invoking the "--with-best-result option" most conditionals (if/else, switch) could be optimized out and only the one true path taken. Duplicate code was removed.

The whole compile time took 40 days and 40 nights - most of it was the optimizer.

Finally, I ran the resulting binary - ./da_rulez

Out came one line.

"Hello, world! Treat others as you would have them treat you."

Turns out that beyond that core concept, everything else is either contradiction, commentary, corruption, or crap.

Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays, whatever floats your boat.

Re:F/OSS Religion

[Anonymous Coward]

The interface tends to kill people, especially before you patch it to SP1 (New Testament). I'd be surprised if they aren't bankrupt in a year.

1900 years later...

So is SP2 the Qur'an? :-D

Re:F/OSS Religion

[Anonymous Coward]

"CURSES !! C U R$ S E !!!!!!!MOLOCH baby killing Antichrist the Pope Worships Satan in the end my friends in the end... Please know NO ONE may be called HOLY FATHER ACCEPT HE JESUS CHRIST!!!!! SHAME# And Horrid!! Curses on those who call The pope God's messenger for JESUS CHRIST THE ONLY SON OF THE TRUE FATHER YHWH!!!!!!!!!! The great deceiver is here people wake up and call my bluff... I need an exorcism baby molesting mother fucker CATHOLIC BISHOPS???? GOD FORSAKE YOU POPE SATAN!!!! "

Re:F/OSS Religion

[Anonymous Coward]

SHAME# And Horrid!! Curses on those who call The pope God's messenger for JESUS CHRIST THE ONLY SON OF THE TRUE FATHER YHWH!!!!!!!!!! The great deceiver is here people wake up and call my bluff... I need an exorcism baby molesting mother fucker CATHOLIC BISHOPS???? GOD FORSAKE YOU POPE SATAN!!!! ""CURSES !! C U R$ S E !!!!!!!MOLOCH baby killing Antichrist the Pope Worships Satan in the end my friends in the end... Please know NO ONE may be called HOLY FATHER on earth...!!!!!

Please keep in mind

[Anonymous Coward]

That the take-down notice is a lightning bolt... up your butt. You've been warned.

Re:Please keep in mind

[gzipped_tar]

Next in the news: Farad cages most popular Christmas gift

Re:Please keep in mind

[rtb61]

Yeah, I was going to say, isn't the Catholic church infringing on Gods copyright, unless of course they are declaring Papal supremacy.

Personally I would have thought they would have wanted to get their symbolism out there as much as possible and only react if it was being used negatively.

Personally I think they are heading down the dangerous and disgusting territory of exploitative corporate religion for profit ala scientology, rather than religion for charity and the furtherance of positive human social 'evolution'.

Re:Please keep in mind

[dazlari]

For a second there I thought you'd written "PayPal security".

Re:Please keep in mind

[Achromatic1978]

unless of course they are declaring Papal supremacy

Supremacy? No, but they do claim infallibility. From WP:

Over the centuries, popes' claims of spiritual authority have been ever more clearly expressed, culminating in the proclamation of the dogma of papal infallibility for rare occasions when the pope speaks ex cathedra (literally "from the chair (of Peter)") to issue a solemn definition of faith or morals.[2] The first (after the proclamation) and so far the last such occasion was in 1950, with the definition of the dogma of the Assumption of Mary.

PS: Slashdot, fix the fucking comment box.

Re:Please keep in mind

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

The Pope's argument would be, of course, that(while God is certainly the ultimate owner of the copyright in question, among a large number of other things) he is God's authorized agent/distributor for this territory.

Since this seems like the best excuse for doing so that I've yet had, I include the "software licensing analogy for distinguishing between Judaism, Catholicism, and Protestantism" below:

Judaism is a corporate site licence: All members of the organization are automatically entitled to software under the terms of a legal agreement between the organization and the software producer.

Catholicism is per-seat licensing from a value-added reseller: The church has an agreement with the software producer, under which its sales reps entitled to sell the software, along with a suite of helper utilities and documentation supplements, and the support of its field techs, to any interested individuals.

Protestantism is retail shrinkwrap software: The individual buyer enters into a contractual relationship with the software producer, without intermediaries. All that the buyer receives is the software and the packaged manual(sola scriptura).

Addendum: Quakers are FOSS: Individuals get together communally, and anybody who the spirit so moves can get up and code something.

Re:Please keep in mind

[Anonymous Coward]

Is Scientology malware?

Re:Please keep in mind

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Indeed. Mostly commonly, users receive it by clicking on spam emails with subject header "Free Personality test!". Downloading "AntiThetan Pro 2009" is also a major source of infections.

Re:Please keep in mind

[cusco]

Papal infallibility was only declared in the 1890s at the First Vatican Council. Prior to that the pope was just a man.

Re:Please keep in mind

[sznupi]

"heading down"?...

Re:Please keep in mind

[Alex Belits]

Personally I would have thought they would have wanted to get their symbolism out there as much as possible and only react if it was being used negatively.

NOBODY EXPECTS THE SPANISH INQUISITION!

Re:Please keep in mind

[hedwards]

In essence, the Roman Catholics do that on a regular basis. Rewriting the Bible as it suits them to add in bullshit like Limbo, purgatory and allow themselves to sell indulgences.

The idea of Papal supremacy isn't really that far fetched in that light.

Re:Please keep in mind

[Big Jojo]

Prior to that the pope was just a man.

Except when she was Pope Joan!

Re:Please keep in mind

[MaskedSlacker]

Given that Catholics wrote the Bible in the first place, and decided which texts were canonical and which were not, I'd say it's been written to suit them from Day 1. That you're dumb enough to think the day 1 version is any better than the day 584000 version is your problem.

Re:Please keep in mind

[kivi]

Nobody expects the Copyright Inquisition! :)

Re:Please keep in mind

[selven]

That's a lot of capacitance to store in a cage.

Did you mean a Faraday cage?

Re:Please keep in mind

[selven]

Since God is omniscient, can I sue the pope for privacy infringement?

Re:Please keep in mind

[the_womble]

He is stlill just a man. papal infallibility means that he very occasionally gets to exercise the level of authority formerly reserved for church councils.

Re:Please keep in mind

[Anonymous Coward]

"Personally I think they are heading down the dangerous and disgusting territory of exploitative corporate religion for profit ala scientology, rather than religion for charity and the furtherance of positive human social 'evolution'."

I hate to feed trolls, but what do you have to back this up? I am a regular church goer in the Catholic Church in the United States. There are no dues, nothing to pay. They ask, but there is no forced payment to belong to the church. They will never withhold information they feel with help you, and though they will ask for money every week, they don't ask for names. They publish a full itemized account of where your money goes each year-- complete transparency that not even our government can manage and yet you freely name them as the next scientology, a group that is completely non-disclosure oriented and will sue and intimidate people for speaking negatively.

As for the Catholic Church not giving to Charity? Catholic Charities alone bring in over 7 billion dollars a year and keeps only 3% for administrative costs. Keep in mind this is a decentralized organization which means there is no overarching control, just local units. Most Parishes run their own additional charity organizations as well. On average the cost of running is kept below 3%, which is exemplary for any charity.

Scientology regularly attacks disbelievers and attempts to silence them. When was the last time the Catholic Church attacked someone for speaking against them? The Church has a terrible history. I cannot deny this, but today their own priests and followers are encouraged to question their religion since birth. The priests encourage talks about gay marriage (In fact it was a side topic of last weeks Homily) and promote talks about women in the priesthood. Open meetings are frequently held to "get the pulse" of the people as well as inform them of the Churches current views. Dialogue and openness are far more valued than simple dogma. The church I attend now meets with the Muslim and Jewish communities each week to help better the community and build trust between faiths. Together these groups have begun a home owning initiative to improve the state of the surrounding neighborhoods and increase awareness of each others charity programs.

You clearly know nothing about Catholicism (or are pretending to know nothing).

Re:Please keep in mind

[drseuk]

Papal infallibility was only declared in the 1890s at the First Vatican Council.

Sorry, the declaration was nearly two millennia late due to a clerical error.

Re:Please keep in mind

[kent_eh]

The Pope's argument would be, of course, that(while God is certainly the ultimate owner of the copyright in question, among a large number of other things) he is God's authorized agent/distributor for this territory.

[Examining Yellowbeard's treasure]
El Nebuloso: Who is it more important to please: the King of Spain, or God?
El Segundo: Why, God, of course.
El Nebuloso: And who is God's personal representative in these parts?
El Segundo: Why, you, your holy ruthlessness.
El Nebuloso: Well, God wants to keep all of it.

Re:Please keep in mind

[Rolgar]

The declaration was in 1870.

However, infallibility extends to all preexisting dogma and moral teachings of the Church, but nothing else. There have only been 2 Infallible Teachings in the last 139 years, the definition of Infallibility itself and the declaration of the Immaculate Conception in 1950 (that Mary was born without sin).

But the Pope is still just a man as the_womble asserted. All infallibility means is that in the case of the rare infallible teaching, God will not allow the Pope to get it wrong. In all other ways, the Pope is no better off than any of the rest of us.

Scope

[MichaelSmith]

Well okay but where does this apply, other than in the Vatican?

Re:Scope

[The Snowman]

Well okay but where does this apply, other than in the Vatican?

In any organization connected to the Catholic church. This includes various parishes around the nation, high schools, some colleges, and any student or teacher organizations that are part of those. For example, a student-run newspaper at a Catholic university such as Notre Dame would be restricted in their use of papal symbols.

Even ignoring the fact that the U.S. does have treaties with the Vatican and would uphold their copyrights in court, a Catholic organization would suffer far more damage by being cut off from the church (i.e. excommunicated).

Disclaimer: I am Catholic and this does not bother me.

Re:Scope

[benjamindees]

The Pope? How many IP lawyers does he have?

Re:Scope

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Since this "copyright" is of a fairly unorthodox form(seemingly a weird blend of copyright and trademark) it may not matter; but the Vatican is a Berne Convention signatory.

If it satisfies Berne, it applies all over the place. If it doesn't, I sure hope the swiss guard likes exercise...

Re:Scope

[tverbeek]

Under the Berne Convention and all other copyright treaties, local copyright laws apply in every country. Trademark laws are local as well. The state of Holy See could pass legislation copyrighting the Bible for God's sake (pun intended), and it would have no impact whatsoever on the rest of the world, where that legislation has no relevance.

Whether organizations around the world connected to the Roman Catholic Church are affected by this isn't a matter of copyright law. That's simply a matter of the rules that a church lays out for its members. If the RCC says "no meat on Friday" or "no condoms" or "no use of the pope's logo without permission", that's just a church being a church. I can see members of that church being concerned about a change in those rules, but is this News For Nerds or Stuff That Matters? No.

Re:Scope

[Rockoon]

but is this News For Nerds or Stuff That Matters? No.

Nope, it says right at the top that its "Idly Passing The Time Away"

Re:Scope

[Pteraspidomorphi]

Under the Berne Convention and all other copyright treaties, local copyright laws apply in every country.

Well, not in Somalia or Papua New Guinea....

Re:Scope

[Artifakt]

This appears to be a reference to Stalin's remark "The Pope? How many Divisions does he have?" (Where Stalin was talking about military divisions, and making the point that without them, what the Pope said about whatever the USSR did didn't really matter.).

Re:Scope

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.wipo.int/directory/en/contact.jsp?country_id=182&type=ADMIN_IP

Re:Scope

[sznupi]

Holy See could pass legislation copyrighting the Bible for God's sake (pun intended), and it would have no impact whatsoever on the rest of the world, where that legislation has no relevance.

Which makes me wonder...we do have works that are out of copyright and most Bible translations fall under that. Assuring undeterred access only to old texts could really backfire for them... (not that I mind)

So, how far into the past this is legally binding? Only current symbols, current Pope?

Re:Scope

[sznupi]

Roughly: however many people who later become IP lawyers were also born in catholic family.

Re:Scope

[dryeo]

A good example is the Authorized King James Bible. Still in copyright in the United Kingdom. Free to use pretty well every where else. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorized_King_James_Version#Copyright_status

Re:Scope

[Anonymous Coward]

It would then only be the matter of registering the relevant symbols and pursuit the rights for the likeness and the identity of Pope in a case by case basis, just like any other public figure might do.

Re:Scope

[the_womble]

[quote]a Catholic organization would suffer far more damage by being cut off from the church (i.e. excommunicated).[/quote]

I really, really, doubt that anyone would be excommunicated for using the Pope's image without permission.

Re:Scope

[vlm]

I really, really, doubt that anyone would be excommunicated for using the Pope's image without permission.

I laughed out loud at that one. Give the 4chan, fark, or slashdot guys a pope pic, a goatse pic, and some playground pics, and within minutes we'll all be scarred for life... Or the ever popular 2g1c theme applied to communion wine. All kinds of fun ways to get excommunicated.

Re:Scope

[Anonymous Coward]

One but he is many ;)

Re:Scope

[cashman73]

IP Lawyers? Unfortunately, the Pope doesn't have access to them, considering that they've all been condemned to the firey pits of hell! Of course, one doesn't need IP Lawyers when all you have to do is ask God to smite all of the copyright "pirates" for you! Maybe CmdrTaco and CowboyNeal should each do 100 Hail Mary's to avoid being smitten?

Re:Scope

[Cwix]

maybe if they drew horns on the image first

Re:Scope

[DragonWriter]

Which makes me wonder...we do have works that are out of copyright and most Bible translations fall under that.

The most popular translation (I think the KJV still has that honor) might be, but given how the pace of new translations seems to increase over time, I highly doubt that most translations are out of copyright.

So, how far into the past this is legally binding? Only current symbols, current Pope?

I'm not sure where anyone gets the idea that this statement asserts any claim of legal right, rather than internal Church policy, at all.

Re:Scope

[Anonymous Coward]

The state of Holy See could pass legislation copyrighting the Bible for God's sake (pun intended)

They would actually probably be able to back up such a claim, since "the Bible", as you put it, did not exist prior to the Catholic Church creating it from various writings and manuscripts.

Simply following the Scientologists,

[thebiss]

...who have found using IP an effective way to manage criticism.

Re:Simply following the Scientologists,

[bertoelcon]

This will most likely cause a backfire in a similar way too.

Re:Simply following the Scientologists,

[Anonymous Coward]

That's the first thing I thought of too. Once religion hits copyright, the shit hits the fan. If you want to claim some sort of divine connection, fine, but that should also mean that every aspect of your religion is open to the interpretation of, well, everyone. Bob down the street can claim to be the next divinely chosen pope/profit/whatever. Of course, with organized religion, you've already got that problem.

Re:Simply following the Scientologists,

[grasshoppa]

I'm not so sure I'd use the word "effective". Or "manage" really.

Re:Simply following the Scientologists,

[wizardforce]

I don't know... The only comments ever to have been taken down from Slashdot's archives were related to IP that the COS holds... It is to date, the only organization to have succeeded in doing so.

Re:Simply following the Scientologists,

[Max Littlemore]

Yes, but Scientology registered a trademark. Which gets me thinking: surely if they have a trademark, they are trading. Surely that makes them a business and they lose tax free status. Laws around the world really need to be updated to clarify that.

You are either a business with trademarks and copyrights, or you are a church. that must content itself with religious vilification laws. Simple

Re:Simply following the Scientologists,

[Anonymous Coward]

...who have found using IP an effective way to manage criticism.

Allow me to be the nth person to say "Read The Friendly Article". Far from managing criticism, this is about limiting the number of people who want to trade on the pope's image. "The Papal Book of ...", "The Pope's No 1 tomato sauce recipe", etc. It doesn't sound much like "criticism" if you're trying to plaster the pope's image all over your product or service.

Re:Simply following the Scientologists,

[Vahokif]

Not really, unless you're saying Mozilla protecting its logo is the same as Dianetics.

Re:Simply following the Scientologists,

[Chrisq]

Of course to claim copyright they have to claim that the pope is a "creative work", like a play act rather than appointed by God. I cannot imagine that I would ever have need to infringe this copyright, but if I did then I would simply ask them to give a declaration that the pope and papal privilidge is all a creative work and I would capitulate. It would be inteesting to see what they'd so.

Re:Simply following the Scientologists,

[jcr]

Of course to claim copyright they have to claim that the pope is a "creative work", like a play act rather than appointed by God.

Don't know how creative he is, but he's definitely a piece of work.

-jcr

Re:Simply following the Scientologists,

[drinkypoo]

Registering a trademark gives you an automatic advantage in court, but it's not necessary to get trademark status.

Re:Simply following the Scientologists,

[John Hasler]

You are either a business with trademarks and copyrights, or you are a church. that must content itself with religious vilification laws. Simple

Simple, but not true.

Re:Simply following the Scientologists,

[mahadiga]

"Religion was born when the first con man met the first fool." -- Mark Twain

Re:Simply following the Scientologists,

[grasshoppa]

Well yes, but do you remember what that post was in reference to? The contents of that post are easily found elsewhere online.

Hence, all their activity did was annoy a population of users who are smarter than the average population.

Perhaps the world is now ready for PRM

[ekgringo]

Papal Restrictions Management.

Re:Perhaps the world is now ready for PRM

[Kryptonian Jor-El]

Hopefully the Vatican has to pay the guy who invented English for using his lower-case letter 't' their churches

Re:Perhaps the world is now ready for PRM

[ihuntrocks]

I believe they tried that once. If I recall correctly, we term that the Dark Ages.

Re:Perhaps the world is now ready for PRM

[Razalhague]

Yes, back when they still encoded everything with the LATIN algorithm.

prior art?

[nephridium]

Seeing the pictures here I believe there is a reasonably case for prior art, no? If anything the Vatican should pay George Lucas, as he has 25 years on them ;)

That being said imho the emperor from the Empire strikes back looked much more formidable, the pope should have gone with that look instead...

Re:prior art?

[Idiomatick]

First time I saw him that was my immediate thought. Since then I've been unable to remember his real name, Pope Palpatine is so freaking catchy. You can even add a 'the 3rd' or something to the end and it only makes it better.

Real Intent

[philcheesesteak]

I'm sure the Vatican would like to limit negative portrayals of the Pope, regardless of the rationale given in TFA

Comics...

[Anonymous Coward]

There goes reprints of "Battle Pope".

Interesting idea.

[girlintraining]

Next, those nativity scenes they try and throw up every winter will be declared illegal now because they haven't paid to license it from God. Atheists, you may now stop attempting to keep the church and state separate: Apparently, God has made himself illegal. Film at 11.

Re:Interesting idea.

[girlintraining]

We should condemn transsexualism and lesbianism as an immoral affront to the Wonder of God's creation.

A more recent version of morality is available. Changes include: Better support for alternative system configurations, 32bit color (your version is 1 bit), and fault tolerance.

Would you like to install the update now? _

Re:Interesting idea.

[MichaelSmith]

So why post as AC just here? Are you ashamed of your views?

Re:Interesting idea.

[Artifakt]

Please cite the bible verse which addresses Lesbianism.

Re:Interesting idea.

[sdiz]

Romain 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use [chresis] into that which is against nature.

The term /chresis/ has the force of 'sexual relations' here (L&N 23.65).

Re:Interesting idea.

[celle]

Apparently, God has made himself illegal."

Thank youuuuu!

Re:Interesting idea.

[Anonymous Coward]

I am infact a 49 lesbian with 3 children and experience in COBOL programming, and I'd appreciate it if you stopped with the fucking racist remarks about my religion, jewbag.

Re:Interesting idea.

[gbjbaanb]

and tomorrow its the CRAA (Christian Religion Association of America) coming down hard on you for illegally uploading prayers.

Re:Interesting idea.

[Cwix]

weak

Fine.

[olsmeister]

Then I'm going to file a patent on the process of performing miracles.

Re:Fine.

[armanox]

I think that many religions would site religious texts as evidence of prior art on that one.

Re:Fine.

[Anonymous Coward]

Then they can prove it in court.

Re:Fine.

[Anonymous Coward]

But then (quite brilliantly I my add) the churce would be force to prove that those miracles actually happend (which text aren't sufficient to do). When they fail, we'll have bot logical and legal proff that religion is plain and simply wrong. Though this won't change the fact that people are dumb and will continue to kiss the hand of a mand that fought to kill millions of jews, because he couldn't be bothered to go agains the tide (the same tide, which eventually lead him to sit atop the entire catholic community).

Re:Fine.

[Manos_Of_Fate]

I think that many religions would site religious texts as evidence of prior art on that one.

Since when has that stopped anyone from applying for (and in many cases being granted) a patent?

Re:Fine.

[Actually, I do RTFA]

Excellent. A reproducable process for performing mircales. I'm so gonna start bringing back the dead in 18 years.

Does this mean...

[myrmidon666]

We have to give money in chur.... oh wait. never-mind.

Re:Does this mean...

[Anonymous Coward]

Who's forcing you to give money? Or is asking for donations to keep something free going bad?

Re:Does this mean...

[PolygamousRanchKid]

We have to give money in chur.... oh wait. never-mind.

What do you mean give?

In Germany, they have a "church tax (Kirchensteuer)", which is deducted from your paycheck by your employer. When you apply for your first tax card, there is a seemingly harmless question about what faith you have. Once you check that box, you have opted yourself into this loop, and every year when your new tax card come, it will say to charge the church tax.

In order to get out of this loop, you have to officially quit your membership of the church. For poor Irish Catholic folks, a part of this process is getting a call from a local German priest, who threatens to call the priest in your hometown in Ireland, and inform your parents, and the rest of your hometown, as well.

Now, I have only heard of this church tax in Germany, I know of no other countries that do this.

Unfortunately, the new Pope happens to be German . . . hope he doesn't have any grander schemes planned . . .

Now we have a problem

[tftp]

the Vatican has declared that the name, image, and any symbols of the Pope are for exclusive use of the Holy See.

I searched /. usernames, and there are quite a few that claim to be Pope this or that :-)

Higher power copyright

[SilverJets]

Doesn't God hold the ultimate copyright on the Pope?

Fraudsters and copyright.

[FatSean]

The entire organisation is based on selling a bunch of silly and un-provable claims to millions...and they're seeking the legal benefit of copyright?

That is so wrong...

Re:Fraudsters and copyright.

[Stormwatch]

The entire organisation is based on selling a bunch of silly and un-provable claims to millions...

Wait, are you talking about the church, or copyright holders?

Re:Fraudsters and copyright.

[Anonymous Coward]

The entire organisation is based on selling a bunch of silly and un-provable claims to millions...and they're seeking the legal benefit of copyright?

That is so wrong...

Put the Pope on the end of a rope with a nice hangmans noose in the end over a 10 foot drop we will soon see how protected he is .

This entire Religion thing is just Mind control of the masses by the few for financial gain and one of these fine days people will WAKE THE FUCK UP to the fact but till then spose we gotta put up with some over dressed twit attempting to tell us what we can and cant do (not flippin likely)

Re:Fraudsters and copyright.

[Anonymous Coward]

The entire organisation is based on selling a bunch of silly and un-provable claims to millions...and they're seeking the legal benefit of copyright?

That is so wrong...

...that suspiciously sound like apple to me.

All hail pope jobs.

Better to eat them than rape them...

[FatSean]

FSM be praised. Ramen.

Re:Better to eat them than rape them...

[girlintraining]

Your subject line is about as related to your actual post as someone randomly shouting "Cowboyneal!" on a streetcorner is to world hunger. -_-

Re:Better to eat them than rape them...

[Z00L00K]

And I suspect that the Vatican has been cursing Dave Allen for many years.

Re:Better to eat them than rape them...

[228e2]

You'd rather eat them then rape them??? What a modest proposal!

Re:Better to eat them than rape them...

[funwithBSD]

That is how he lost half a finger.

Re:Better to eat them than rape them...

[Drantin]

I'm trying to figure out how you plan to do those two things consecutively, in that particular order...

Re:Better to eat them than rape them...

[Anonymous Coward]

Join us and do both, in any order, or at the same time! Cthulhu fhtagn!

Who cares? It's .17 square mile.

[Anonymous Coward]

The Vatican can dictate copyright in an area of 0.17 square miles. So who the hell cares?

So in response the question posed in the news post, wether "high school newspapers have to remove the Papal Coat of Arms from their Vatican news columns", I'd like to know which high schools are referred to. Because I doubt, there are schools in the Vatican, given that 80% of its 500ish citizens are celibate catholic clergy.

Statues on timelimit to "copyright"

[Fallen Kell]

How does this pass those statues? I can see if someone is using the current Pope's coat of arms or his particular name, in association with their service/company/announcement etc., but simply using a past Pope's coat of arms (especially one that has long been out of active use) can be restricted. Especially for ones which were developed and first used before trademark and copyrights even were written into law. Those are all in the public domain and free to use.

Re:Subject

[Loadmaster]

Hey, man! That'll be $50. Um, for the IP infringement, unless you're not a cop.

How about this?

[Brett Buck]

http://images.wikia.com/en.futurama/images/6/6b/SpacePope.png

Get the checkbook out !

[redelm]

... with so many slashtards, /. will not qualify for the normal "news" exemption on images and stories.

With copyright, Christianity would have died...

[Fished]

Something that I rarely hear pointed out is that, with copyright as we know it today, Christianity would have died "in the womb." Imagine if the various churches who were the recipients of Paul's letters were unable to make copies and forward them to other churches. Imagine if the Bible were originally copyrighted (the way that the modern critical texts are! I still don't really get that one--how a 2000 year-old text can be coyrighted.) Copyright is an enemy of the Christian faith, and I'm disappointed in the Vatican--of course, here I am a Baptist whose theological 40% evangelical, 30% Anbaptist, and 30% Eastern Orthodox, so maybe that's not surprising.

Re:With copyright, Christianity would have died...

[syousef]

Something that I rarely hear pointed out is that, with copyright as we know it today, Christianity would have died "in the womb." Imagine if the various churches who were the recipients of Paul's letters were unable to make copies and forward them to other churches. Imagine if the Bible were originally copyrighted (the way that the modern critical texts are! I still don't really get that one--how a 2000 year-old text can be coyrighted.) Copyright is an enemy of the Christian faith

While I class myself an atheist I have always believed that people must be permitted to believe what they choose. I'm against copyright in its current form, but in this case it's a good thing. If a religious sect chooses to use copyright to self-destruct, I won't shed a tear. Copyright does far worse things than make superstition less affordable and less popular. What makes this dangerous however is that any religion whose texts aren't available publicly and for free cannot be evaluated by someone before deciding to believe in it. One could argue anyone wishing to believe in superstitious nonesense gets what they deserve but the trouble is that is exactly how a cult operates, and we're all familiar with the dangers of cults.

Re:With copyright, Christianity would have died...

[Credible]

Something that I rarely hear pointed out is that, with copyright as we know it today, Christianity would have died "in the womb.

This is the first time anyone has ever managed to convince me that there are some positives to modern copyright law

Re:With copyright, Christianity would have died...

[Anonymous Coward]

Something that I rarely hear pointed out is that, with copyright as we know it today, Christianity would have died "in the womb."

Well that's *one* good thing about modern copyright laws then.

Re:With copyright, Christianity would have died...

[TubeSteak]

Something that I rarely hear pointed out is that, with copyright as we know it today, Christianity would have died "in the womb." Imagine if the various churches who were the recipients of Paul's letters were unable to make copies and forward them to other churches. Imagine if the Bible were originally copyrighted (the way that the modern critical texts are!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_curse

That's arguably the original copyright and Rights' Management.

Re:With copyright, Christianity would have died...

[Fallen Kell]

I still don't really get that one--how a 2000 year-old text can be coyrighted.

The 2000 year old one isn't copyrighted. Unfortunately, those were also written in Hebrew, Greek, or Aramaic and the majority of the world population can not read or translate those languages (especially when you also have to add in the fact that they are "ancient" variants, much like the difference between "olde English" and modern...). The various translated versions are copyrighted based on their translation and arrangement dates. Periodically, they get slightly different translations, especially when sections could be interpreted different ways, and thus a new copyright date is born. Many modern versions will also put specific "mistakes" in them so that if someone copies it, they can show that they based it on that particular work and have evidence that they breached the copyright. Got to love it...

Re:With copyright, Christianity would have died...

[DreamsAreOkToo]

Translations are considered copyright-able. Frequently you'll see people getting sued over making copies of shakespear... and losing.

Our legal quagmire is a swampy minefield of shitpiles, but hey, at least its a smaller shitpile than that guy over there!

Re:With copyright, Christianity would have died...

[Anonymous Coward]

Something that I rarely hear pointed out is that, with copyright as we know it today, Christianity would have died "in the womb." Imagine if the various churches who were the recipients of Paul's letters were unable to make copies and forward them to other churches. Imagine if the Bible were originally copyrighted (the way that the modern critical texts are! I still don't really get that one--how a 2000 year-old text can be coyrighted.) Copyright is an enemy of the Christian faith, and I'm disappointed in the Vatican--of course, here I am a Baptist whose theological 40% evangelical, 30% Anbaptist, and 30% Eastern Orthodox, so maybe that's not surprising.

You do now that copyists and printers that made mistakes i copying the bible was punished severly, usually by death, until the 18th century. Proofreading was a matter of life and death.

During the period the Bible was transcribed, monosteries had a monoply. Not very surprising as different Guilds had monpoly on different crafts.

Gutenberg and some other printers had powerful protectors. But the result of their work was quality controlled by the Church and the Church had the power to punish them severly, even for small mistakes.

Re:With copyright, Christianity would have died...

[Vahokif]

The Church did have a DRM of sorts though: Latin. The common man couldn't read the Bible and had to take the priest's word for it.

Re:With copyright, Christianity would have died...

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

Didn't you read Acts? I'm an atheist, but I know that the Apostles were setting up a religion under the Creative Commons license

Re:With copyright, Christianity would have died...

[Anonymous Coward]

copyright is the enemy of a free society.

Re:With copyright, Christianity would have died...

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

Well, of course, early Christians would have faced a choice of whether to profit from bible sales, or to increase distribution by allowing sharing.

Copyright is an enemy of the Christian faith

How? Does Christianity somehow rely on the distribution of other people's works without their consent?

Re:With copyright, Christianity would have died...

[k.a.f.]

Ridiculous nonsense. If present-day legislation had been active then, the very first thing that Paul would have done is to attach a the local equivalent of a creative commons license to his epistles. "Evangelizing" means "getting the good news out", after all. Give people some credit for brains!

There a lots and lots of smart arguments against the current mess. Don't use stupid ones.

Re:With copyright, Christianity would have died...

[cpghost]

Except that Latin was the English of the time, and a kind of common language (not really, but sort of). Only later did it die of obsolescence.

Re:With copyright, Christianity would have died...

[Fished]

I wasn't referring to translations. I was referring to the particular, critical arrangement of the Greek Text known as the "UBS4."

Re:With copyright, Christianity would have died...

[Fished]

Err... no. That's not true. It's so not true that I simply can't be bothered to say any more.

Re:With copyright, Christianity would have died...

[the_womble]

That assumes that St Paul would have asserted his copyright in a way that prevented copying. I think he would probably have used a creative commons license.

Re:With copyright, Christianity would have died...

[Anonymous Coward]

Although the Bible in its original form is certainly not under copyright, specific translations of it are. If you can read Latin and (ancient) Greek, feel free to read the public domain originals. There are plenty of translations that are not copyrighted, or which the copyright has expired.

Re:With copyright, Christianity would have died...

[Fished]

Very arguably, I'd say. The purpose of the Book Curse was to keep people from stealing the book, not from copying it.

Re:With copyright, Christianity would have died...

[DragonWriter]

Something that I rarely hear pointed out is that, with copyright as we know it today, Christianity would have died "in the womb." Imagine if the various churches who were the recipients of Paul's letters were unable to make copies and forward them to other churches.

Why would Paul have denied that permission, even if he had the legal right to do so?

Re:With copyright, Christianity would have died...

[Vahokif]

No it wasn't. English is spoken by pretty much everyone these days, but back then Latin was only spoken by the clergy and the educated few. Average Joseph only knew his mother tongue.

Re:With copyright, Christianity would have died...

[aBaldrich]

Average joe didnt know how to read so the language debate is pretty much useless, since everyone who could read spoke latin.

Re:With copyright, Christianity would have died...

[Vahokif]

Average Joe still couldn't read when the reformation came along and started preaching in the native language.

Re:With copyright, Christianity would have died...

[aBaldrich]

You say there were no translations before the reformation? Or that priests preached in latin? Extraordinary claims require at least ordinary evidence.

they don't need copyright for this

[martin-boundary]

All they need to do is register their symbols, images, etc as trademarks in every country of the world.

Re:they don't need copyright for this

[MichaelSmith]

All they need to do is register their symbols, images, etc as trademarks in every country of the world.

Even in Saudi Arabia, Israel and Iran? I wish them luck.

Re:they don't need copyright for this

[greenreaper]

Just registering a trademark in the US is an expensive nine-month hassle (or more), and it's one of the easiest and cheapest places to do so in the world. At least Europe now has a way - well two ways - of registering a Europe-wide trademark, as long as nobody in any of the 27 member states complains. As Michael says, good luck with the rest.

Re:they don't need copyright for this

[Penguinisto]

1) Trademark != Copyright.

2) The Berne Convention already handles that. ;)

Terrible article

[coppro]

Ugh... I wish people would stop mixing up the difference between trademark and copyright. Notwithstanding that the Vatican is a sovereign state and can do whatever the heck it wants within its boundaries, what they're really declaring is that the trademark of the Pope is going to be reserved for their exclusive use. Copyright isn't even involved here.

Re:Terrible article

[ExRex]

Blame the lawyers who specialize in patents, trademarks and copyrights. Ever since they invented the term "Intellectual Property" folks have become increasingly confused. This has benefited "IP" lawyers and those rights holders who try to overreach by playing on the public's confusion.

Re:Terrible article

[Yvanhoe]

And that all the law they proclaim are only effective inside Vatican... So fae as I'm concerned they may even say computers are verbotten from now, I couldn't care less.

Re:Terrible article

[John Hasler]

> And that all the law they proclaim are only effective inside Vatican...

I wouldn't bet on that. They won't get anywhere in the USA, but there are nations where they may have the power to enforce these "IP" claims.

Re:Terrible article

[DragonWriter]

And that all the law they proclaim are only effective inside Vatican...

(1) States often claim extraterritorial application of their laws (in fact, the US has many laws that apply only outside of the United States), and enforce them against alleged extraterritorial violators when they manage to bring them before the state's courts.
(2) The Holy See is not, anyhow, the State of Vatican City, it is the ecclesiastical office of the Pope, of which the office of soveriegn over the State of Vatican City is but a component. The ecclesiastical laws of the Church are, in theory at least, binding on Catholics everywhere in the world, and are enforced not in courts specific to the State of Vatican City, but in the ecclesiastical courts of every Catholic diocese.

Again?!

[Snowdrake]

That trick never works!

Power Mad Papa

[MarkvW]

I don't think that it's a good idea for a church to be able to assert a copyright monopoly over ANY aspect of religious doctrine.

If such nonsense were lawful, the Church could bring a lawsuit against schismatics for copyright infringement. That would infringe the right of schismatics to split from the church and form their own church.

One more VERY GOOD REMINDER why we need to separate church and state!

Re:Power Mad Papa

[natehoy]

If a schism group wanted to form their own church, why would they even want to use the Papal symbols as they exist today? Wouldn't they want to install their own command chain with some other symbol denoting their pontiff or leader? Using the same symbols would cause confusion and possibly give credibility to the Church the schismatics want to leave, right?

You do raise a good point, but I think this is more to prevent criticism of the Church ("you used the word 'Pope' in your article, and it's critical of the Church, so we're issuing a DMCA(*) takedown notice") and/or to make sure the clergy within the Church don't use the Pope's name, images, or symbols for their own agendas that the Church may disagree with. In the former case, it denotes a distinct lack of faith in God to defend his own Church, and in the latter it denotes a distinct lack of discipline within the church hierarchy.

(*): Assuming the article is correct and they are really trying to get an actual Copyright. I suspect they want to get Trademarks, which would require a different type of takedown notice.

Re:Power Mad Papa

[Daniel Dvorkin]

If a schism group wanted to form their own church, why would they even want to use the Papal symbols as they exist today?

The history of the Church answers that question pretty nicely.

Re:Power Mad Papa

[Belial6]

You seem to miss the point of splitting from the source church. Groups that do this usually don't think that the source is wrong, but that it has been corrupted. Thus, when they split, they see themselves as the 'real' church, and thus would take any part that they deem 'real' with them.

Re:Power Mad Papa

[Artifakt]

Several Protestant versions of Christianity have Bishops and even Archbishops, and of course, the Russian Orthodox and Greek Orthodox faiths do as well, plus maybe some of the Coptic branches and some others. These wear hats and robes at formal occasions that may look a lot like the Pope's hats and robes, and may carry a shepherd's crook that looks a lot like his too.
          The Pope usuallly wears white, and his cardinals red, but in the protestant faiths, Bishops mostly wear colors depending on the church year and the four colors normally associated (usually red, white, green, and purple), which, even if sticking very close to the official color system allows white a lot. (Although I've noticed several female Episcopal or Anglican bishops who tend to stick with purple more, most of the male bishops wear white often). (When not officiating, male Episcopal bishops mostly seem to like tweed jackets, sometimes Houndstooth patterns with leather elbow patches. Female bishops seem to also like jackets, but split about fifty-fifty for skirts or slacks with these. Tartans are a fairly common but minority option).
          Here we have a 'schism group', as you put it. They don't use all the Roman Catholic symbols (Most Episcopal churches have a cross rather than a crucifix), and the 'chain of command' structure definitely doesn't go to cardinals or really a single leader (The Archbishop of Canterbury is definitely not analogous to the Pope in terms of authority over the other bishops). But it's still got look and feel that could, as you put it, cause confusion.
      I'm actually wondering if this action could somehow be intended to result in some sort of look and feel claim in court, either for copyright or more likely for trademark. Either seems like a long shot, but I suppose it's possible. Maybe someone more familiar with the Lutheran faith or the various Orthodox forms could comment on whether the appearance is as similar there too.

Re:Power Mad Papa

[Penguinisto]

Well, except for the fact that you confused copyright with trademark... and the fact that kdawson screwed up as well.

Re:Power Mad Papa

[Byzantine]

To satisfy your curiousity: Orthodox bishops—since they're required to be monks[1]—generally wear (black) monastic cassocks, and oftentimes cylindrical hats. Here's a picture of His Beatitude Jonah, Archbishop of Washington, Metropolitan of All America and Canada, who is currently the primate of the Orthodox Church in America. His hat is white because he's a metropolitan; regular bishops' and archbishops' are black.

They have all kinds of stuff they wear liturgically in terms of vestments, but it's all basically variations on robes, as you might expect. During services, bishops wear a mitre which looks rather different from Western hats. (Priests can also be honored by being allowed to wear a mitre, but theirs doesn't have a cross.)

They don't have shepherds' crooks, and instead have crosiers in either shaped like a T or with just a little cross on top.

If you're really curious, there's a full rundown of the vestments, complete with technical terms here.

There are also a few "Western Rite" Orthodox parishes, primarily in the US and Australia; the clergy there look more or less like Roman Catholics or Episcopalians.

[1] The canons don't technically require them to be monks before they're raised to the episcopate. Theoretically, there could be a married man elected bishop; in that case, his wife would become a nun. I'm not sure if that's ever actually happened, though.
[2] Except for the Archbishop of Cyprus, who in 478 was granted (amongst other things) the right to use a replica of the imperial scepter as his crosier. I've never been able to discover why.

Why is enforcing legitimate copyrights news?

[turtleshadow]

Why is this even news.
It seems a bit prejudiced on /. to bring up this story. What other news stories of real importance could have been voted up.

The Catholic Church had practices for the protection of seals and other insignia long before some countries were countries or some peoples learned the the rule of Western law.
1) Vatican is a sovereign state.
2) They have a permanent observer status at the United Nations.
3) The Vatican has been more or less willing to send amassadors (Nuncios) to every major Western Nation for the bulk of history.
4) The Vatican respects the legitimate rule of law (as per their moral system which is based on natural law and their Canon system) of other sovereign nations and peoples
5) Some 2.2 billion persons have a relationship to the Vatican

So next time try the litmus test where one inserts one's own race/creed/nation into the sentence and see if it sounds awkwardly prejudiced.
[United Kingdom] Declares a "Unique Copyright" On the [Constitutional Monarchy]
[United States] Declares a "Unique Copyright" On the [Presidency]
[China] Declares a "Unique Copyright" On the [Premier of the State Council]
[Saudi Arabia] Declares a "Unique Copyright" On the [House of Saud]

Doesn't sound alarmist or noteworthy to me for the other ones.

Re:Why is enforcing legitimate copyrights news?

[JoshuaZ]

Really? It seems about as ridiculous to me. To use just the first example you list, how many countries other than the UK have some form of Constitutional Monarchy? And the general pattern continues. To pick another example, there are members of the House of Saud who are out of favor or who don't reside in Saudi Arabia. Does that mean they will be breaking copyright if they try to use their legitimate titles? This is as stupid with other groups as it would be with the Vatican. The issue here isn't prejudice against the Vatican, it is that the Vatican was dumb enough to try this.

Re:Why is enforcing legitimate copyrights news?

[AndersOSU]

Yeah, something like that would never happen in the states.

whoosh

[ysth]

right over your head

Isn't TM good enough?

[bzipitidoo]

Trademark is the appropriate protection.

Of all the things for such a bunch of sticks in the mud to pick to suddenly get with the times, why did they pick copyright? And why in such a bad way? They must listen to terrible advice. They ought to be out there decrying the evils of keeping people in the dark, not dirtying their hands wielding diabolical tools for dubious ends! They ought to endorse the Pirate Party. What's next? Will they try to assert copyright on the Bible?

Re:Isn't TM good enough?

[Max Littlemore]

They ought to be out there decrying the evils of keeping people in the dark, not dirtying their hands wielding diabolical tools for dubious ends!

The enlightenment was very bad for Catholicism. The Catholic Church would prefer that everyone was still in the dark.

Re:Isn't TM good enough?

[MPolo]

Strictly speaking, the Vatican didn't claim Copyright or Trademark, but ownership of the names and images.

I think that the point of this is connected with Catholic schools and churches taking names like "Pope John Paul the Great", before Pope John Paul II is even declared a saint, much less having stood the test of time to earn the title "Great". Or organizations that oppose the Catholic Church, but claim the patronage of a pope, like the hypothetical "Blessed John XXIII Society for the Abolition of Liturgy". They are just instructing the bishops to be careful what permissions they give. I doubt this declaration will have any effect at all outside of the Catholic Church.

Applicability and Scope

[DynaSoar]

There's been at least one long standing battle in the US over much the same problem: people taking an image, name and/or conceptual equivalent, and using it in such a way as to ... dishonor is frequently used here, but not many understand the it from the injured parties' standing.... insult is closer but too weak ... we'll just say: to promote a commercial product, the juxtaposition of the appropriated image and the product being contrary to the known statements of the party imaged and/or the descendants.

The product in this case is Crazy Horse malt liquor. Crazy Horse spoke out against alcohol many times, specifically claiming its use was destroying his people. His descendants have been trying to get the brewer to stop using the name. No, they didn;t attempt to acquire copy right or trademark protection, because they didn't think they'd need it. In their culture, such protection is automatic and seated deeply in the cultural mores.

Re:Applicability and Scope

[turtleshadow]

I think your looking for a word in the thesaurus that doesn't exist but really it is a modern problem.
Steven Colbert sensed this with the "product" such as the paste on Hitler mustache for anybody's portrait.

There is not a nice politically correct way to say willfully deride, malign, or intend a vicious and ill parody of person or entity for profit.
Many hide under the guise of sarcasm of a celebrity or public figure but that is not their true intent.

Others instances are not so such as Che Guevera, and the people never get a dime from all those t-shirts did they? But his image "pushes" a lot of "for profit products", to so many hipsters who don't know what he really did or didn't do yet he himself was Marxist.

This is a strange world of legal and human relationships

Re:Applicability and Scope

[DynaSoar]

Mods: this is a neutral discussion about peoples' reactions to certain things. It is not intended as the insulting(to some) material being talked about. No valuation is placed on any concept from any viewpoint.

You're absolutely right. This failure is one of language. But that too has roots. Specifically one of lack of understanding of the concept of honor as used. For example, sports teams using the names of indigenous groups sometimes claim that doing so "honors" them. That shows at least an complete lack of understanding of what they're talking about, and at worst a fossilized attitude generated in times past and attached so deeply to this concept that the association is the 'object'. Colbert's example is equally powerful, with the emotional content being so much stronger that the association with anything, a rational combination or not, and the thing is suddenly evil. For instance, put one on a public toilet door, and very few jews will use it after that.

Re:Applicability and Scope

[Anonymous Coward]

...or Black Velvet Elvis paintings!

Gone! All GONE!!!

Re:Applicability and Scope

[ImprovOmega]

I would say disparage is probably the word you're looking for.

Obligatory Simpsons quote

[SoVeryTired]

"...authorities say the phony pope can be recognized by his hightop sneakers and incredibly foul mouth"

Legit use

[bjackson1]

My guess is that if it's ever used it be against idiots like:

'Pope' Pius XIII
http://www.truecatholic.us/

or other people who set themselves up as the pope... Just a guess though...

Re:Legit use

[Anonymous Coward]

How is that “legitimate”? The vatican has “set themselves up as the pope” too, you know, with no greater legitimacy apart from thousands of years of theft, extortion, and deceit.

Re:Legit use

[lwsimon]

How is that different than the Great Schism?

(I was raised Catholic)

Re:Legit use

[aBaldrich]

The Patriarch of Constantinople recognizes that the Pope is a lawful patriarch; sacraments and the mass and everything from one church is valid for the other. This self elected pope denies the existence of the roman church

Not a real religion anyway...

[Anonymous Coward]

This is just futher proof that they are in fact just a business trying to make a buck... A true religion doesn't need BILLIONS of dollars to play with while watching the worlds poor suffer and die of starvation. They are all scam artists and should be put in prison for the crooks they are!

WTF?

[stonewolf]

Who do they think they are, god?

Stonewolf

Painter Francis Bacon

[certron]

When I heard of this, the first thing that came to mind was the painter Francis Bacon and his "Study after Velazquez's Portrait of Pope Innocent X" otherwise known as the 'screaming pope'. Have fun with that. I suspect they may only want to exercise their supposed copyright claim and control over a very narrow area.

Doesn't surprise me

[still-a-geek]

The Vatican is run like a business and has done so since its inception. It is one of the richest entities in the world that is its own country, has its own army and has its own economy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vatican_city.

How in the heck can a religion do this? It seems to contradict everything Jesus stood for: Peace, love, and helping people, not killing countless millions and building an empire in the name of God. What a bunch of hypocrites! It wouldn't surprise me that the Vatican will try and copyright (trademark, too) the name Vatican or even Jesus Christ one of these days.

Re:Doesn't surprise me

[Anonymous Coward]

Me neither, the Vatican is the single largest organization that deserves to be served the RICO act.

Re:Doesn't surprise me

[McGiraf]

The law of the US is not the world law (yet)

Re:Doesn't surprise me

[Seraphim_72]

Hyperventilate much?

Per your link

• It had revenues of ~380 million last year. Bill Gates made that brushing his teeth last month.
• Sure it has a military - on loan from a neutral country. They aren't going to be invading anyone any time soon.
• Yes it has it's own economy - so does Sioux Falls South Dakota. Whoopee!

In fact if you want to run the numbers there is about 2 billion flowing through Souix Falls South Dakota in a year. And they have a larger military footprint.

OMG! How in the heck can a ...erm... Dakota do this?

Stop being offended because it has a cross on it. You are becoming the thing you purport to hate.

Re:Doesn't surprise me

[BlindRobin]

How in the heck can a religion do this?

I take it you're not up on the history of and true nature of religion(s). The function of religions broadly has a lot more to do with control than anything else. The differences are mostly a matter of the social and cultural milieu in which they reside and of scale.

Re:Doesn't surprise me

[aug24]

It seems to contradict everything Jesus stood for

Luckily, it's the Vatican who defines that, for the fictional version.

I personally suspect that the real dude stood for the liberation of Palestine from (ironically) Rome, and him and his being in charge of it.

Re:Doesn't surprise me

[Anonymous Coward]

"The function of religions broadly has a lot more to do with control than anything else."

And then Nietzsche came along with a bone to pick. He said that traditional Judeo-Christian morality was bunk in the post-Darwin era. How many pages did he use to thoroughly discredit it? In any case, he must have "not been up on the history and true nature of religion(s)" either because his new vision of secular human morality had "a lot more to do with control than anything else." So much, in fact, that he inspired a whole new movement of godless megalomaniacs who raised "power and control" from the poverty of religious practice (where religion tended to get in the way of true and total power) to a high art of philosophical and scientific ideology.

The power-mongers of the religious age had nothing on this new secular religion. It turns out if you want power and control over people, it's far better to get out from under the baggage of religious language and base your ideology on social Darwinism or some other mathematical or secular scientism. Yes, many trusted men of religious bent have lorded over the poor and unfortunate; but the newly godless philosophies of men have proven to be far, far more efficient in their control of human lives than even this.

Re:Doesn't surprise me

[AndersOSU]

Standard christian history holds that most Jews didn't recognize Jesus to be the messiah specifically because he did not come to deliver Israel from Rome. He even tells his disciples to be good and pay taxes "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s..." He also affirms many times that his kingdom is not of the commonly understood political variety.

Nah, they were first

[NotSoHeavyD3]

The church has always had this thing about controlling information. They kept the bible and mass in Latin for a very long time which is just the most obvious example of controlling information.

Re:Nah, they were first

[sznupi]

Or that secrecy of the confession is often better protected than lawyer-client relationship.

In itself relatively late idea, certainly not at the roots of Christianity.

Re:Nah, they were first

[Chrisq]

Or that secrecy of the confession is often better protected than lawyer-client relationship.

In itself relatively late idea, certainly not at the roots of Christianity.

Especially when the confession comes from a child-abusing priest

KKK to sue

[wadey]

Surely the KKK did the whole pointy white hat thing first

Re:KKK to sue

[Anonymous Coward]

No, the Catholic Church invented and perfected the art of persecuting Jews long before America even existed. The KKK are copycats.

Brand management

[md65536]

Vatican marketing released this statement shortly afterward:

"Only real Vatican Pope has that real Pope flavor! If you are purchasing Poap brand or generic pope products from other non-holy sees, you may be getting only as little as 60% actual pope -- The rest is filler. Don't be fooled by packaging that boasts 'Papalaty flavor". If it doesn't have the official Pope logo on it, it's not genuine Pope inside.

Choose Vatican Pope for all your papal needs."

Re:Brand management

[natehoy]

Ivory Pope, 99.4% Pure Pope!

Which leads to some marketing spinoffs, including "Pope on a Rope". ... I'm going to hell now, aren't I?

Holy See?

[Anonymous Coward]

What language is that?

Without prior permission to "pontificate"

[The Second Horseman]

How will any of us be able to contribute to Slashdot?

Saint IGNUcius

[BobNET]

This guy already came up with a "unique copyright" some time ago...

What if ...

[Anonymous Coward]

What if they claim the exclusive use for "Jesus Christ", "Mother Mary", "Ave Maria", "The Cross", "The Crucifix", "Christmas" ??

What will this world be without Christmas ?

Re:What if ...

[erroneus]

Saturnalia of course!

The way we celebrate Christmas has nothing to do with the birth of Jesus Christ. If anything, the whole decorating the tree and gift giving thing would take on even further significance. I think that would be really great. The good will thing would carry on as well.

If we stopped calling it Christmas, that would just be bonus.

Re:What if ...

[NSN A392-99-964-5927]

What if they claim the exclusive use for "Jesus Christ", "Mother Mary", "Ave Maria", "The Cross", "The Crucifix", "Christmas" ??

What will this world be without Christmas ?

What is, I become your lover? How would we have sex?

Re:What if ...

[Nutria]

Christmas has nothing to do with the birth of Jesus Christ.

Especially because shepherds wouldn't be wandering around the mountains during the winter: too cold; they'd have the sheep penned.

Re:What if ...

[Anonymous Coward]

I vote for Klausmas, it's the holiday where all the children go on sleigh rides while sitting on a fat guy's lap in exchange for toys :)

Hey, it still beats out being an altar boy, at least you get something in exchange :)

Hah!

[copponex]

That's one thing the Catholic Church will never support. How dare someone else swindle people out of their money with silly fairy tales.

OB...

[Anonymous Coward]

http://sc.tri-bit.com/Pope_Plz

no big deal

[belmolis]

I haven't been able to find the actual Vatican statement, but as the news accounts describe it, it looks like this is really nothing more than a routine trademark claim. I don't think they're claiming that you can't refer to the pope or even display his symbols without permission. They just don't want them used in such a way as to suggest that the Pope has authorized something without permission. This is the same as a regular trademark. You can talk about IBM and even portray its logo; you just can't use them in such a way as to suggest that you speak for IBM or are affiliated with IBM.

Re:no big deal

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, I undestand it the same way. However, there are another examples, that are quite questionable. While nothing happens to you when displaying the vatican town symbol, try this with olympic circles. The media usually pay for display. Will it go this way? You finally pay to speak about peace and unification?

Re:no big deal

[DoofusOfDeath]

I haven't been able to find the actual Vatican statement, but as the news accounts describe it, it looks like this is really nothing more than a routine trademark claim.

So does that mean that the Catholic Church is a trade?

Re:no big deal

[Anonymous Coward]

>>I haven't been able to find the actual Vatican statement, but as the news accounts describe it, it looks like this is really nothing more than a routine trademark claim

You forgot to make the obligatory Slashdot statement talking about how much you hate Christianity, so your "facts" don't count.

Okay, fine

[HangingChad]

Please replace all references to the trademarked "Pope" with "Old Guy In The Funny Hat". Now that's better.

Re:Okay, fine

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's use the circumlocution 'The Poop', 'Poopal' et cetera. Poopal bull sounds good to me. ...Lorenzo

trademark or copyright?

[nulldaemon]

Why is everyone referring to this as a copyright? It sounds more like the Vatican is protecting their trademark (the Pope).

I actually agree with their reasoning too -- they don't want people leveraging their symbols for politcal, social or economical reasons unless they really do have the support of the church. Sounds fair enough to me...

Dare I say it...

[silentcoder]

"All your Pope are belong to us ?" - The Vatican.

As we know it today?

[Chuck Chunder]

I dunno, you don't get executed for having an unauthorised copy of the bible like in the good old days.

Some people may protest this

[istartedi]

Some people may protest this. They might even form a movement to protest it. Now... if I could just think of a name for people who protest actions of the Catholic church... hmmm...

Re:Some people may protest this

[rubycodez]

stake-kindlin' ?

Our three weapons are...

[funwithBSD]

fear, ruthlessness, and a trademark infringement takedown letter!

All hail

[Ceriel Nosforit]

As an ordained Pope of Discordia, I hereby excommunicate this Vatican fellow from all the realms. That'll shut him up. Haha!

Registered by "God"?

[N0Man74]

And will this "Unique Copyright" be registered by God, protected by Lifetime + 70 years?

I wonder...

[Ozlanthos]

I wonder if they will try to get money from me for having been ordained as a Discordian Pope?

-Oz

Vicar of Christ?

[kimvette]

If the pontifus maximus (or "the pope") is indeed the vicar of christ, I wonder what Yeshua the messiah ("Jesus Christ") thinks of copyrighting the message of the gospel and anything related to it.

What was it he said, oh, yes, go forth and spread the good news. He never once said "spread the good news, but only these romans and jews, not those blacks or anglo-saxons" nor did he ever say to otherwise restrict spreading of the good news in any way, shape, or form.

If one is a Christian (be it Catholic, Baptist, protestant, messianic jew) one really has to question what the heck the goal of the pope is, if that pope is trying to restrict the message or trying to claim ownership of anything even tangentally related to it.One might even think that the goal of the vatican is the lust of money and power, and not actually 'saving' people from 'hell' (or really, from the 'lake of fire' since 'hell' merely refers to the grave, if you refer to the original Hebrew and Greek).

The Vatican might try to claim that exclusivity of the word, related symbols, etc. is required in order to validate the authenticity of the material, but what did Christ himself say about that? He said that his people are known by their love for one another. Never once did he mention a pontifus maximus, a fish-head hat, or any roman-era symbols.

Re:Vicar of Christ?

[Anonymous Coward]

The real full title is:

Vicarius Filii Dei - The representative of the Son of God.

However, this is somewhat contraverse since the reference in the Bible has in the view of most protestants reserved this title to the Holy Spirit.

I wonder if this title could be trademarked due to this reason ;)

In response to Sabina Guzzanti?

[The Archon V2.0]

I wonder how much of this is a response to events like Sabina Guzzanti saying that Benedict had gay demons waiting for him in Hell. The Italian government tried to send her to jail for five years for saying that, specifically for the crime of insulting the Pope (which is a crime thanks to the Lateran Treaty of the 1920's). But after the case lost momentum... well, I wonder if they're not trying to shut her up in a different way, now.

declare all you want

[pydev]

Fortunately, the dark ages are over and nobody has to give a damn anymore what the Pope says or thinks, and we can use his name and his image like that of any actor, politician, dictator, or common criminal.

Good, now he can finish the job.

[kawabago]

Good, now the pope can finish the job and shut up.

Re:Good, now he can finish the job.

[Anonymous Coward]

YA!!!! Good one!

The Pope and Mickey Mouse

[Samarian Hillbilly]

...only Mickey Mouse has better enforcement.

from your viewpoint, yes

[r00t]

You're viewing Roman Catholics through the window of protestant belief. That's about as valid as a Muslim viewing your religion through the window of his belief: protestants do all sorts of stuff that Muhammed didn't teach!

From the Roman Catholic viewpoint, things are of course different. The Bible itself was assembled by the Pope about 1600 years ago; how could it possibly take priority over the Pope? Without the authority of the Pope, we wouldn't even have a Bible! We'd just have a loose and random collection of generally spiritual writings with varying value, including a huge pile of stuff that didn't make it into the Bible.

Re:from your viewpoint, yes

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's see. First of all you said it was assembled, not written which of course was not (I cannot find info that it was even assembled by the pope). Secondly, the "random" collection of spiritual writings were written (among others) by the disciples of Jesus, so saying that these writings were random before the pope is like saying that the pope decided that the random sayings of the disciples of Jesus suddenly are central to Christianism. But even if what you said was correct, that doesn't make the pope supreme and of course not infallible.

Re:from your viewpoint, yes

[rtb61]

I thought Emperor Constantine had a bigger hand in rewriting the bible than anybody else, in fact a fist if it contained anything he was unhappy with and lead to the contradiction, much like in modern days, where someone who didn't believe at all was using the religion for political convenience and to maintain power. In fact the Roman cult of Sol seems to feature more prominently in his beliefs, hence a particular day of worship was required, I think you all can guess which day that was ;).

As to copyright ownership, as every copy in existence is in fact an altered and techinically infringing work and there are no original copies available, it would be more accurate to say it is well and truly in the public domain, including all of it's symbolism, especially the pagan (as well a numerous other all ready existing religions) elements of the Christian religion and of course all of it's derivatives.

As for trademark infringements apparently the Christian religion was also a little naughty in that regard, turning prior religions gods and prophets into devils and demons and their symbolism into marks of evil as a 'er' missionary strategy and, quite often for far nastier purposes. So perhaps they mind need to tidy up some elements before claiming sole ownership.

Re:from your viewpoint, yes

[r00t]

Secondly, the "random" collection of spiritual writings were written (among others) by the disciples of Jesus

OK, and who determined that?

Hint: he has an office surrounded by Rome and he wears a funny hat

There are **lots** of ancient scrolls that people have thought to be written by the disciples of Jesus. (many more than in the Bible) If the Pope's determination of which ones are legitimate is not infallible, then your Bible could contain random junk.

What?

[pontifier]

I'm not changing my screen name.

Vatican Law - Jurisdiction

[nia60]

As the Vatican is a state with soverign rights and its own laws, I'm sure that this is totally enforceable - inside the Vatican's border that is!

Re:Vatican Law - Jurisdiction

[phrostie]

are they part of the EU?

if so will they have to follow the new 3 strikes rule?

Re:Vatican Law - Jurisdiction

[txwikinger-slashdot]

The Vatican is not part of the EU, but has a special agreement with the EU to i.e. use the Euro.

The Vatican could very likely not join the EU due to several obstacles. The EU is based on a separation of Church and State, however 5 member states have a State Church. However, far more important, religious discrimination is unlawful within the EU. Hence, as long as offices and jobs in the Vatican require the holder to be a Catholic, the Vatican would have tremendous problems complying with all EU law that would be required in that case.

I do not think the Vatican could get an exception like the UK get a lot of exceptions, since the discrimination in in the preamble of the Treaty of Rome and hence probably it is impossible to exempt from them.

Re:Vatican Law - Jurisdiction

[aBaldrich]

No, they are not part of the EU. But they use €

What about the Greek Orthodox Church ?

[dbcad7]

Don't they have their own pope ? Will they challenge this ?

Well...

[AA Wulf]

I for one welcome our new copyright enforcing, DMCA-takedown-issuing, encyclical wielding, Papal overlord.

That's ok, we'll make our own...

[rcasha2]

Well since we can no longer use "the name, image, and any symbols of the Pope", the sensible solution would be for the rest of the world to make up a new name, image and symbol for use when referring to the person formerly known as Pope. The competition for the new name, image and symbol will remain open until end December 2009, and the winner will get free permission to visit the city-state formerly known as Vatican. All entries must be open sourced.

And in other news...

[jamyskis]

And, in other news...

The Pope was today sued by God for GPL violations of the Bible. The complaint submitted by God claimed that all material published by the Holy Father was required to be released under the GNU General Public Licence because it was a derivative work of the scriptures.

not for individuals!

[r00t]

copyright lengths are still less than a hundred years

In the USA:

If created by a corporation, the term is 95 years from publication. (could be less if they didn't publish for 25 years)

If created by an individual, the term is 70 years past their death. A person could survive 30 years or more. In the extreme, copyright can persist for more than 200 years! There is thus an incentive public domain supporters to kill the person. Assuming the copyright was assigned/licenced to a corporation, that corporation has an incentive to insist on extreme life-saving measures and vigorously fight any living will or family member that might cause the plug to be pulled.

Re:not for individuals!

[testadicazzo]

Well, I think we can thank our lucky stars that copyright law wasn't around when the bible was written (not to mention modern life support technology)... I can just imagine the apostles and paul, kept in some kind of cryogenic pseudo-life state in the basement of the vatican, their hearts beating once a month a so, so that the vatican can keep collecting royalties on the bible ad infinitum...

not unaware, it doesn't matter!

[r00t]

It is somewhat unsurprising that a Catholic is blissfully unaware that nowhere in the New Testament is there any mention of Peter being named to this office, that Jesus even established the Papacy, or that Peter was even regarded as a bishop.

This only matters if your religeon is defined by the content of a book.

Seeing as the Bible was put together by the Pope about 1600 years ago, it's really contradictory to suggest that the Bible can have more authority than the Pope.

Re:not unaware, it doesn't matter!

[Pax681]

the bible wasn't put together by the pope. it was compiled by the [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea]Council Of Nicaea[/url] which was called together by Emperor Constantine

Re:not unaware, it doesn't matter!

[Pax681]

opps put bbcode instead of html... , well show i am fallible as any other man..LOL

Council of Nicaea

Re:not unaware, it doesn't matter!

[Rob the Bold]

Seeing as the Bible was put together by the Pope about 1600 years ago, it's really contradictory to suggest that the Bible can have more authority than the Pope.

I'm pretty sure you'd get a completely different (and totally circular answer) if you suggested that to a Southern Baptist.

Re:not unaware, it doesn't matter!

[Rob the Bold]

opps put bbcode instead of html... , well show i am fallible as any other man..LOL Council of Nicaea

Except the Pope, of course.

Re:not unaware, it doesn't matter!

[tomhudson]

opps put bbcode instead of html... , well show i am fallible as any other man..LOL Council of Nicaea [wikipedia.org]

Except the Pope, of course.

True, he's so fallible that when I looked up "FAIL" it had his picture.

Then again, he's just a politician who got voted in by a small group, same as the president of the usa was voted in by the electoral college.

WHAT ARE TRADEMARKS THEN???

[Anonymous Coward]

WHAT ARE TRADEMARKS THEN??? That's EXACTLY what trademarks are for.

Pope on a frigging rope.

High school newspapers' Vatican News column

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait what?

But how much room will they allow for fair use?

[91degrees]

Who cares? The copyright/trademark holder doesn't get to make this decision.

Rebranding

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, they may claim that.

How about Slashdot just starts referring to the Pope as the poop?

No, actually the original IS copyrightd... sort of

[Fished]

Disclaimer: I have a Ph.D. in New Testament, so I know of what I speak. While the Greek Text itself is not (technically) copyrighted in certain forms, the specific arrangement of the Greek Text known as the "UBS4" that is the basis of all modern translations IS copyrighted. And the copyright is enforced. That is why I said "critical edition" or something along those lines in my original post.

Really?!

[Simulant]

Will high school newspapers have to remove the Papal Coat of Arms from their Vatican news columns?

Just how many high schools would this be a problem for? (and one would assume that Catholic schools would be exempt...)

It seems to me the move is attempt to stifle criticism, satire, & parody.

This would be unconstitutional in many countries

[Bruha]

Any country that guarantees freedom in their constitutions would not be able to enforce this. Any nutjob who wants to could call himself the pope and start his own church.

Another big example

[abigsmurf]

There are other examples of specific reserved copyrights being granted through law. One big example is Peter Pan. This is specifically protected under UK law and will never expire (so long as the law lasts). All royalties from Peter Pan related items goes directly to Great Ormond Street children's Hospital.

RE: your sig

[Pogue Mahone]

Let them rape cake.

No

[Fished]

The Eastern Orthodox chuch has always been based around more-or-less equal "patriarchs", none of whom are called "pope." The Patriarch of Constantinople is regarded as first-among-equals, but that's it. He's not a pope.

Re:No

[TotoLeFoobar]

In many Eastern countries with an Orthodox background, they call a low-level priest a "pope".

The patriarchs are a level higher (national level?), iirc.

Prevent free satire

[Anonymous Coward]

It's probably just meant to prevent some senseless cartoonists in Denmark from drawing pictures of the Pope, wearing a bomb shaped tiara...

Please copyright other things

[sorak]

I have an idea for a few other things I'd like to see copyrighted. Please, someone, copyright these phrases and forbid any public performances:

1. You're going to hell!
2. God hates ________ (just a generic copyright on anything that follows that pattern, please)
3. judeochristian (this religious right's answer to "I have a black friend")
4. I have a black friend
5. think outside the box (off-topic, but still annoying)

Isn't it a major shame

[vegiVamp]

that they already exterminated most religions where they got the mustard ? :-)

It's pretty clear what they're doing

[idontgno]

They're trying to avoid another incident of "Pope, Antipope" by enforcing the non-copying of the Pope with the international equivalent of the DMCA.

No cloning His Holiness! DMCA Takedown for you!

Re:It's pretty clear what they're doing

[txwikinger-slashdot]

I would think the trademark of "Pope" should actually belong to the Orthodox Church:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriarch_of_Alexandria

The Patriarch of Alexandria is the Archbishop of Alexandria and Cairo, Egypt. Historically, this office has included the designation of Pope (etymologically 'Father', like Abbot etc.), and did so earlier than that of the Bishop of Rome. The first Bishop to be called Papas was the thirteenth Coptic Patriarch of Alexandria Papas Heraclas.[1]

It's an SNL Skit Come to Life

[Stormy Dragon]

From Weekend Update in 1979:

Father Guido Sarducci: It was. It was a real thrill, Bill. It was just terrific. But now I'm a little down. I have what my psychiatrist calls "post-papal depression." ... Was such a high, you know, bein' on that tour and now it's over. Only thing I didn't like about the tour was the merchandising. They had, like, Pope T-shirts, Pope buttons, posters, banners, anything you can think of. You know, you can call me anti-materialistic if you want to but I just don't think it's right for somebody to make a T-shirt, put a person's picture on it, and then not to give that person part of the percentage of the profits. ... I mean, look at this. It's amazing. [holds up a Pope T-shirt] If you buy T-shirt like this, it's not just for the T-shirt you buy it -- it's because the Pope is on it. If you just want a T-shirt, you can go to J. C. Penney's 'stead of going through all the traffic and crowds. But the Pope, from this T-shirt, I'll tell you what he got. He got absolutely zero. It was a rip-off. First, they did it to Mr. Bill, now the Pope. ... [applause]

Just a pre-emptive measure

[downix]

They witnessed Microsoft's attempt to edge in on Bing! and xBox and wanted to insure themselves from Office Papal edition.

This is about trademark, not copyright.

[kfogel]

No matter what word the Vatican used, this is fundamentally about trademarks, not copyrights.

Trademarks are about identity: they prevent impersonation. Identity protection is exactly the Vatican's concern here. They don't want other groups pretending to be the Catholic Church. (There remain interesting questions as to who has the right to decide what the Catholic Church is, as with any religion or other affinity group, but that's an inherent property of identity itself.)

This case is not about copyright, in any case, since copyright isn't about identity. When people illegally share music, for example, they don't remove the original artist's name and replace it with their own. Copyright is not about credit or attribution; it's about the sharing itself. That's why it's called "copyright" instead of "creditright".

Lumping these two unrelated concepts together under the term "intellectual property" just leads to confusion. And the copyright lobby is very happy to benefit from this confusion, since people have a strong moral attachment to accurate crediting. For example, see http://questioncopyright.org/promise#plagiarism-vs-copying for a blatant example of the RIAA trying to confuse copyright violation with plagiarism -- that is, confuse unauthorized sharing with identity theft.

Now, if the Vatican were claiming a monopoly right on the Bible, that would be a copyright issue. But they're not, of course, because the Bible is in the public domain everywhere.

High School

[tehcyder]

Will high school newspapers have to remove the Papal Coat of Arms from their Vatican news columns?

WTF? What kind of schools do you have in America?

Re: your sig

[AndersOSU]

you can't rape your cake and have it too.

Buca di Beppo

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.bucadibeppo.com/
One of my favorite restaurants will probably have to close now...

Re:No, actually the original IS copyrightd... sort

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm guessing Project Perseus doesn't provide this `critical text' you speak of, but....

        , , .

John 1:1 at Perseus Project (Open Classics)

Scientology=Mac

[Anonymous Coward]

Is Scientology malware?

No Scientology is a Mac. It is a cult largely started by one person. If you attempt to publish any "secrets" you will get sued and if you criticise it you get jumped all over by the adherents. You also have to have lots of money to be able to afford to join. Finally, why there is no direct repercussion from the Mac cult itself for leaving it being doomed to a lifetime of Windows probably bad enough! :-)

Hmmm my captcha was "ordained"....

Re:no big deal (and the actual statement)

[DragonWriter]

I haven't been able to find the actual Vatican statement, but as the news accounts describe it, it looks like this is really nothing more than a routine trademark claim.

The statement is available from the Vatican web site, and doesn't appear to claim any particular kind of legal protection (at least not under any secular law), simply a policy statement. The groups it is directed at are probably largely Catholic groups that don't have any particular intent to challenge the Holy See and see what they are doing as consistent with the interests of the heirarchy, so a general statement of policy is probably as far as this is intended to go.

It might be viewed as a clarification of the way the Holy See views the applicability of the Code of Canon Law, specifically, Canon 312 Sec. 3 Para. 1, reserving the authority to erect "public associations of the Christian faithful" with "universal and international" scope to the Holy See.

trademark or copyright? Neither

[DragonWriter]

Why is everyone referring to this as a copyright? It sounds more like the Vatican is protecting their trademark (the Pope).

This is neither trademark nor copyright, it is a statement of Church policy, and possibly a clarification of a particular application of a provision of Canon Law that deals more with the organizational integrity of the Catholic Church than anything else.

It has nothing really to do with copyright or trademark, but this is Slashdot, so things unrelated to IP law in general and copyright in particular get shoved into those frames anyway.

So what?

[DragonWriter]

Where in the statement do you find any indication that the Holy See intends to seek enforcement of this policy through the courts or other government organs of any country?

False Popes

[formfeed]

This will finally put an end to these cheap popes imported from China.

Re:No, actually the original IS copyrightd... sort

[Locke2005]

Wait a minute... if this is the word of God himself from 2000 years ago, shouldn't the copyright have expired by now? Man, this copyright extension is getting ridiculous! Unless, of course, you regard the UBS4 as an "original work"! Every time somebody makes an abridged copy of an old work, they get a brand new copyright?!?

Which begs the question...

[pwnies]

If we need the rights to him, can we pay the papal people with paypal?

So the bible says the devil is a christian?

[tomhudson]

All Catholics and Anglicans believe in Christ (the son of God) hence the are Christians.

The bible says that satan himself believes that jesus was the son of god.

By your argument, the devil is a christian.

After all, the bible can't be wrong, right?

It also explains why so many christians act like they're in a real hurry to go to hell.

Now let's extend it. This means that only atheists go to heaven.

After all, you're either going to hell or heaven,; you can believe that jesus was gods son, like satan did, and he's supposed to be in hell, so since unbelievers can't be in the same place as believers, and since unbelievers have to go "somewhere", and the only other option is heaven, atheists go to heaven. And since believers can't go the same place as unbelievers, they ALL go to hell.

Or there is no god, there is no jesus, there is no devil, there is no original sin, and there is no such thing as a pope - just another nazi dictator.

Also, your #10 is wrong. Atheists KNOW there is no such thing as god. Agnostics say you can't know for sure one way or the other, so agnostics can't include atheists.

Atheists regard agnostics as wishy-washy fence-sitters trying to hedge their bets.

Re:So the bible says the devil is a christian?

[Anonymous Coward]

> satan himself believes that jesus was the son of god.
Nope, he *knows* it. So if you claim belief is the sufficient and necessary condition of being a Christian - and the parable of the talents or even the seed's seems not to agree with you - you are still wrong as knowing has different implications than having faith. You can find inconsistencies in the bible without resorting to tricks like this, so why bother?

Re:So the bible says the devil is a christian?

[Josepdin]

Some issues with the logic here. Being Christian (and I am of the Roman Catholic variety - although pretty ecumenical), the concept is not JUST that you believe in the Son of God but that you also follow his teachings. Someone mentioned the Nicene Creed. I think that sums up the components to be considered Christian, as well. It's not 1 single statement (such as "I believe Jesus Christ to be the Son of God"). It covers quite a bit more territory than that. So Satan did, in fact, believe in the Son of God but he did not, obviously, prescribe to or follow His teachings.

Re:So the bible says the devil is a christian?

[Anonymous Coward]

Atheists KNOW there is no such thing as god ... Atheists regard agnostics as wishy-washy fence-sitters trying to hedge their bets

Perhaps atheists KNOW the concept of the mathematical limit and that evidence for an interventionist supernatural being (the "theos" part) exists only in the limit of non-reproducible anecdotes, whereas in the limit of readily reproducible physical experiment there is no evidence for such a being, and therefore for all practical purposes there is no god.

Is it still "agnosticism" if one concludes from sampling the effectiveness of prayers asking for divine intervention that there is a six or even nine sigma limit on the possible existence of an interventionist supernatural being, with the attendant belief that that essentially precludes the physical relevance of the hypothesized being, even if it does not categorically disprove the existence of it once and for all?

That is, is can one describe the use of "almost surely no god" as a statement of atheism, or is it simply "hardcore agnosticism"? Does it really matter? Dawkins uses "almost certainly no god" quite often. His background in zoology, ecology and population genetics involves quite a lot of statistics.

The "Atheist Bus Campaign" calls itself atheist, yet its signs generally say: "There's probably no god". Are they really agnostic? Does it matter?

Also, what's the difference between an agnostic who does admit the possiblity of a god or a godless universe (without committing to either, perhaps due to insufficient evidence) and an agnostic who insists that one must include both possibilities because it is not (logically, or perhaps physically) possible to preclude the godful condition?

What's the difference between the second type of agnostic ("it is not possible to preclude the godful condition") and an atheists who accepts that in the long-term absence of any three, four, five or even six sigma events that are most easily explained by the existence of a supernatural being, that there is no god?

Re:So the bible says the devil is a christian?

[tomhudson]

And what if Judas had refused to betray him? No martyrdom there. In other words, Judas and Satan were doing gods' work, obedient to god's will. Is it just to punish someone who does gods' will?

Fortunately, the bible's a crock so it dosn't really matter.

Re:So the bible says the devil is a christian?

[tomhudson]

Atheism means there is no possibility of the existence of god. None, nada, absolute zero. The "supernatural" is a crock.

Any believe that says there "might or might not be a god" is agnosticism. Agnostics (look up the origin of the term) simply say there is no way of knowing for sure either way. Hence the hedging of bets with weasel words.

The third state is theism - certainty in the existence of one or more gods. An "almost certainly there is a god" is not a theist - that's also an agnostic, because they admit to not knowing for certain. To say "almost certainly no god" is also agnosticism, not atheism. You'll never see an atheist such as myself use such phrasing, except to mock it.

Is it still "agnosticism" if one concludes from sampling the effectiveness of prayers asking for divine intervention that there is a six or even nine sigma limit on the possible existence of an interventionist supernatural being, with the attendant belief that that essentially precludes the physical relevance of the hypothesized being, even if it does not categorically disprove the existence of it once and for all?

Yes, that's agnosticism - it claims that there is a certain uncertainty as to whether god exists or not.

That is, is can one describe the use of "almost surely no god" as a statement of atheism, or is it simply "hardcore agnosticism"? Does it really matter? Dawkins uses "almost certainly no god" quite often. His background in zoology, ecology and population genetics involves quite a lot of statistics.

Agnosticism.

The "Atheist Bus Campaign" calls itself atheist, yet its signs generally say: "There's probably no god". Are they really agnostic? Does it matter?

The sign is agnostic.

Also, what's the difference between an agnostic who does admit the possiblity of a god or a godless universe (without committing to either, perhaps due to insufficient evidence) and an agnostic who insists that one must include both possibilities because it is not (logically, or perhaps physically) possible to preclude the godful condition?

Nothing - they're both nervous about the final outcome :-)

What's the difference between the second type of agnostic ("it is not possible to preclude the godful condition") and an atheists who accepts that in the long-term absence of any three, four, five or even six sigma events that are most easily explained by the existence of a supernatural being, that there is no god?

Both are agnostics - the so-called "atheist" you posit would accept the existence of god under certain events. A true atheist would, upon being presented with seemingly incontrovertible evidence of the existence of god, say "You've been fooled. There is no god. Now go review your evidence and find your error." A true atheist, upon being visited by a "being" or "presence" that claims to be god, would say "fuck you, liar" and spit in its' eye. It's only a "god" if you believe it is ... same as cavemen would probably think we are gods. Fortunately, we're at the point where we can bootstrap ourselves to the realization that god doesn't exist, only stuff that we haven't worked out the science ... there is no "supernatural", no "magick", just stuff that, given enough resources, we can duplicate. Would that make us gods, worthy of being worshiped? Of course not.

And why would ANY god need to be worshiped .. or even want to be worshiped? It's degrading to both parties. What a fucked-up concept.

Think of the dyslexics

[tomhudson]

I vote for Satan Clause!

Capitalization Important

[Roger W Moore]

Sure you can. "Catholic" means "universal" - and we all know that those "Universal" churches are all just cults (but then again, so are all religions).

No, "catholic" means universal, "Catholic" refers to a specific branch of Christianity. If you use the capital letter it refers specifically to the name and not the adjective. In the same way that not all people who are conservative will necessarily vote Conservative (which is a UK/Canadian right wing party - or somewhat slightly to the left of the democrats if you are in the US).

Correction

[Roger W Moore]

The first two having apostolic and historic roots (ie go all the way back to apostles and first Christians) separated in 1054.

Actually all three branches have apostolic roots the only difference being that the Orthodox schism happened earlier than the Protestant one. Anglican bishops still trace their lineage back through the Catholic church to the apostles.

Re:Correction

[paxcoder]

Orthodox still.. let's say 'more directly' trace their roots from Apostles, as do Catholics. Anglicans have, as I understand, nullified their priesthood after their separation (not sure if it's heresy or the mere fact of schism). Orthodox priesthood is, in contrast, acknowledged by the Catholic Church, and also then their sacraments are valid.
Also, Anglicans are one, and protestants another thing. They call themselves protestant, but even then, they are only one of many denominations. And a majority of them does not share their views, and have no pastors "ordained" by priests in their roots.

Re:Correction

[Roger W Moore]

Anglicans have, as I understand, nullified their priesthood after their separation

Not really - the Catholic church "nullified" the Anglican priesthood after separation however Anglicans do not acknowledge that as valid. Historically there is evidence to show that the chain of laying on hands from bishop to bishop back to the apostles is at least as unbroken as the Catholic chain.

Just re-name/gender/title him!

[brindafella]

"In a move supported by a pareto of cardinals, Pope Bernadette XVI has 'come out' as the first transgendered pontif."

Her Holiness was quick to say, "This does not mean that I am a transvestite! I just wear dresses!"

"I have decided to add another title to my list: She Who Must Be Obeyed," she said.

Re:No, actually the original IS copyrightd... sort

[welshsocialist]

It isn't just the UBS 4 (and NA 27) that is copyrighted. The most current edition of the Majority Text by Maurice A. Robinson is, but he gives it away (see here). The only PD Greek texts I know of would probably be the Scrivener edition of the Textus Receptus and the Westcott & Hort text as both were completed in 1881. Its sad it is like this, but what can you do?

The NET has tried to do this...

[Fished]

The New English Translation (The "NET" Bible) has tried to do this to some degree. And I think succeeded to a remarkable degree, especially given the backgrounds of the translators. While it doesn't have click-through translations on a word-by-word basis (which wouldn't be all that useful unless you're trained in Biblical languages) it does have exhaustive translator's notes explaining many of the interpretive decisions made. It's actually one of my favorite translations.

It has begun

[winsomecowboy]

No more 'Pope on a rope', says the Vatican http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article6964554.ece

Thank you!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, even if copyright law had existed back when the papacy started - it would have fallen in the public domain long ago. Aside from longevity, until now it has been used widely with legal copyright notice, and once something has fallen into the PD - it is forever in the PD.

Trademarking or Servicemarking is also a questionable proposition, since they have not been using appropriate notices: The Pope(TM)

Things like the pope hat, the cross, etc. have been in widespread common use for so long that they could no longer be protected.

What they might try is setting up a official franchise. Then they could sell licenses to operate a officially franchised '[unique name]-church (TM)'

Hey; if you want the protection enjoyed by a business, you have to run it like a business.

What about the old one?

[Anonymous Coward]

Are obsolete versions of the pope under the same copyright? I mean, how illegal would it be to wear a Penn and Teller inspired t-shirt with something similar to this (NSWF): http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/9909/oldpope.png

The New World Translation

[Fished]

It was done by the Jehovah's Witnesses in order to provide "scriptural" support for some of their doctrinal positions--e.g. claiming that Jesus was not divine and that the cross was a stake, not a cross. The problem is that the people who did the translating are anonymous, and so you can't tell whether they had any relevant training (or skill!) in the languages. Nor, since this translation was published by a rather tendentious sect, can it be thought that the translators were free to disagree with the doctrines of that sect in their translation. For example, in John 1:1 they translate "the word was 'A' god", which is just plain wrong. It is also just plain wrong to translate yrios as "Jehovah." And, let it be said, I often find myself in sympathy with some Watchtower positions--but not this translation!

WTF?

[Rockin'Robert]

Hmmm.
1. The Vatican is a recognised Nation (1 of 3 City States) with a seat in the UN (as in un-elected world government).
2. As such, it is a public body and
3. Said Vatican Inc, now claims commercial copyright on its bumph (with the CEO, Pope, anex- Hitler Youth German) and
4. The definition of fascism is: The convergence of government and corporate interests. (There is no other plus the EU blueprint was conceived by the Nazis in the early 1940s), thus -
5. Notwithstanding the separation of church and state issues -
JOB'S DONE?
Exposé

The Beatles are STILL bigger than Jesus ...

[tomhudson]

And better too ...

I know which I'd rather listen to. And the Beatles never paid out over a billion dollars to settle over priests molesting kids. And the Beatles never said "either you believe in me or my old man will kick your sorry butt." And the Beatles are open to everyone. I'm sure if we took a few minutes, we could come up with a Top 10 list for why the Beatles are better than Jesus.

There is no such thing as a soul. What you see is what you got. The "soul", like all "supernatural metaphysics", is just bullshit.

1 Cor. 13 is self-congratulatory garbage, the type of stuff someone writes when they want to pat themselves on the back for being good without it looking like they're doing it - try listening to the song "Oh lord, it's hard to be humble!"

People are free to hold religious beliefs ... doesn't mean that those beliefs have any relationship to reality, no matter how much you want otherwise.

[X] No proof of the existence of god.
[X] No proof of the existence of a soul.
[X] No proof of the existence of a spirit (holy or otherwise).
[X] No proof of the existence of jesus being the son of god or god the son.
[X] No proof of the existence of sin.
[X] No proof of any final judgment.
[X] No proof of the existence of heaven.
[X] No proof of the existence of hell.

No thanks, I'll keep my current life. It might not be perfect according to your standards, but it doesn't have to be. There's nobody to judge me except fellow humans (and my dogs, but they worship me like I'm god).

Besides, if god did exist, I'd have to root for the devil anyway - I always go for the underdog. And besides, what the FUCK was so wrong about giving people knowledge? Think of it - your "god", if he existed, likes his followers dumb and ignorant and powerless (because knowledge is power). But christians choose to live by "ignorance is bliss." Willfully dumb as a bag of nails with no hammer around to pound some sense into them. Good one!

There's an easier way to be "free of sin" than to follow christianity. Reject the whole concept. The only person who can keep you "under god's thumb" is you.

Christianity is just another in a long line of scams. You've been scammed. The question is, are you so heavily invested into it psychologically that you're not willing to be intellectually honest and look at it critically? Or are you going to continue because "OMG if I admit I've been scammed my life is a waste!"

Have a nice day.

Genesis

[JakartaDean]

So God created gigantic sea creatures, and made the waters teem with every moving creature after its kind, and every winged bird after its kind. God approved it because it was good.

The largest of sea creatures included more than the great whales. They also included several species of marine dinosaurs, at least two of which (the Loch Ness creature and "Predator X", identified in the Bible as "Leviathan") survived the Great Flood.

Maybe I haven't been following the story, but Right-wing conservative canon now includes the Loch Ness Monster? Get out of town, this is getting too easy...

Jesus is big by being small.

[paxcoder]

I'm sure if you took a few minutes, you could further demonstrate your total ignorance about the person of Jesus, a gap you fill in with your own (mis)understanding, and (mis)interpretation.

1 Cor. 13 is one of the greatest prose works in history of humanity (no wonder since it's inspired by Holy Spirit), and to its greatness testify many non-Christians. Believe me, the saint didn't want to pat himself on the back (projection comes to mind, sry), but rather diminish the the great, even miraculous works in favor of "simple" Love which is the goal.
I'm not familiar of the song "Lord, it's hard to be humble", but the title doesn't suggest (at least to me) "I am humble, I rock", but rather "I'm not, sorry, and give me strength".
That being said, I was talking about what should be a real Christian motivation to do good, which you fail to address (if that was your intent).

*Proof for God: Cosmological argument is convincing (see perhaps http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument - haven't read this article, but from what I saw, it explains it).
*Proof of Christ Jesus' sonship: The only Man in history resurrected.
*The rest just follows given the teachings of that same Christ.

I'm not burdening you with necessity of being a holy Christian. Neither is God. But that is a rational choice.
Ignorance is not bliss. The "tree of knowledge" is not the name of it. It's the "tree of knowledge of good and evil". It's metaphorical, and a symbol of choice. The act of eating of it is symbol of disobedience (tasting of evil?), followed by a natural punishment (sin separates you from God). Christians should not be stupid, in fact, greatest thinkers were Christian.

Even Lady Gaga is now more popular than Jesus (except this Christmas time perhaps). But in the long run, there isn't a more influential philosopher, or a greater inspiration for art, than Christ.

Re:Jesus is big by being small.

[tomhudson]

1 Cor. 13 is one of the greatest prose works in history of humanity (no wonder since it's inspired by Holy Spirit), and to its greatness testify many non-Christians. Believe me, the saint didn't want to pat himself on the back (projection comes to mind, sry), but rather diminish the the great, even miraculous works in favor of "simple" Love which is the goal. I'm not familiar of the song "Lord, it's hard to be humble", but the title doesn't suggest (at least to me) "I am humble, I rock", but rather "I'm not, sorry, and give me strength". That being said, I was talking about what should be a real Christian motivation to do good, which you fail to address (if that was your intent).

Here, let me fix that for you:

1 Cor. 13 is one of the most self-laudatory pieces of crap ever written in human history, where Paul attempts to show that he is SO good because now he "does everything out of love for Jebus." Again, this is not doing good because it is the right thing to do, any more than giving your kids presents for the holidays because you love them is necessarily "the right thing to do."

And "Lord, I'm trying to be humble" is NOT what you think ...

Motivation: Christian motivation is always unclean - it's based on being "subservient to gods word." In other words, it is based on abdicating personal responsibility for coming up with ones own ethics, and any consequences thereof.

A good example of this is the religious intolerance to same-sex marriage. This intolerance isn't based on love, but on a perversion of what love means - "I love Jebus and Gawd says these people is sinners!" Real love, or even just plain decency, would be to look objectively at the whole issue. The only conclusion that such an objective analysis can conclude is that there is no ethical reason for someone to try to interfere with two people's rights to marry based on their sex, same as it would be wrong to do so based on skin colour.

Then again, Jesus was one of the worst offenders when it came to espousing intolerance. Matt.10:34ff "Think not I came to send peace on the earth; I came not to send peace but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law." What an ass-hole. That's not love or an example of self-sacrifice, but of "I saved you, you now owe me, so if it comes down to your own kids and me, remember that!" Then again, what can we expect from someone who, as God, commanded Abraham to murder his own kid. Compared to him, the Beatles rock. God and Jesus promote war between individuals and nations, the Beatles promoted peace. God and Jesus say "worship me or else", the Beatles say "Hope you like our music."

It's the "tree of knowledge of good and evil"

And how is keeping this knowledge away from people a "good thing?" We teach our own kids what is good and what is bad so that they'll do good. We all hate the parent whose fat little brat is continually throwing temper tantrums to get their way because the parent would rather just give them the candy bar than take the time to say no, and back it up with action. In your "Eden", there was no such possibility of moral or ethical growth. And you want to go back to that?

in fact, greatest thinkers were Christian.

Nope. The greatest thinkers were lost in history - the ones who invented agriculture, animal husbandry, language, fire, clothing, tools, written or drawn depictions of reality as stand-ins for the actual objects themselves, simple counting, etc.

You're also discounting all the people in the pre-christian era, like this guy who figured out that the earth orbited the sun long before Copernicus, and worked out the distances between the sun, moon, and

Re:Jesus is big by being small.

[paxcoder]

"most self-laudatory pieces of crap"
Oh, wait, you said crap. That means I'm wrong.

"abdicating personal responsibility for coming up with ones own ethics, and any consequences thereof."

Homosexuality is objectively disordered, and marriage is a union with a distinct purpose of procreation, and it builds society. This is why it's - according to natural law - defined as union of the opposite sexes. If you'd like a homosexual union, you'd have to look outside the above mentioned institution of marriage.

I'll just skip to where you address my arguments, hope you don't mind.

1. The shroud of Turin is quite convincing when considered objectively. Also, the witnesses and quick rise of the new religion (which usually takes a lot to build). If you want to question the eyewitnesses, consider they died for the cause.

2. Excuse me, can you please elaborate what does the double slit experiment have to do with disproving causality? Please note that I am familiar with the experiment, so no need to explain what it does.

The uncaused cause needs to be... without a cause. There's a hint in what you say following in the second part of your "nr. 2". God is not subject to the physical laws (he is their creator). If we take that space-time is one, and created at the "time" of the big bang, we see that its cause cannot be bound by the laws it has created.

"Experiments show our current level of understanding is sufficient to dismiss any god as a cause or creator."
I'm sorry, but now you're just making stuff up. Your previous arguments were weak, but now you begin to offer none for your claims.

Re:Jesus is big by being small.

[tomhudson]

Homosexuality is objectively disordered

Why do you say that? It's documented as quite natural behaviour in many mammals, not just humans.

marriage is a union with a distinct purpose of procreation

Says you. You would deny marriage to couples who can't procreate? That means that once a woman hits menopause, they're no suddenly longer married? Or that a couple who are infertile can't get married? That makes you quite the little social Hitler (oh, wait, the current Pope already has prior art on that).

it builds society

Really? So people having kids in a stable union outside of marriage *doesn't* build society? Or is it just that it doesn't build *your* society ... nice to know you still maintain that kids "born out of wedlock" are just illegitimate little bastards.

his is why it's - according to natural law - defined as union of the opposite sexes

"Natural law" - what animals do in nature - says you're wrong. There are plenty of counter-examples IN NATURE! It's only you and your ilk who choose to ignore what is before your very eyes.

If you'd like a homosexual union, you'd have to look outside the above mentioned institution of marriage.

Why? The church does NOT have any special *right* to decide what a marriage is. Marriage existed LONG before christianity, or even judaism. It is what *we* the people choose to define it. If you don't like that, tough. Humans were deciding these things LONG before the "christian" god ever put in an appearance, and humans have the exclusive right to decide what laws they choose to live under.

The shroud of Turin is quite convincing when considered objectively

There is no proof that Jesus was the one in the shroud, never mind that the dating of the shroud is inconclusive, AND that it is certainly not proof that Jesus was in any way divine.

the witnesses and quick rise of the new religion (which usually takes a lot to build)

Bullcrap. Scientology, Jehovah's Witnesses, Moronism, Christian Science all how that people will check their brains at the door and latch onto the latest craze.

If you want to question the eyewitnesses, consider they died for the cause.

People do crazy things all the time. Look at how many willfully followed the nazis.

what does the double slit experiment have to do with disproving causality

The presence of an observer AFTER the photon has passed through the slits but BEFORE it hits the receptor influences whether you get a diffraction pattern. In other words, a later observation affects whether the particle previously interfered with itself. Causality is broken. But that's okay - our conventional model of causality has been under attack for quite a while.

The uncaused cause needs to be... without a cause

Or we can dispose of the need for a cause entirely, by accepting that our cause-effect model is an inaccurate description of the universe, and only seems to be what it is because we insist on an "arrow-of-time" that is invariant and unidirectional. The two-slit experiment with the post-slit observation kills that.

I'm sorry, but now you're just making stuff up. Your previous arguments were weak, but now you begin to offer none for your claims.

The exceptional behaviour of the two-slit experiment breaking conventional causality is sufficient to show that we do not require a "prime mover" or "creator". This being the case, positing one, where there is NO proof for its' existence, and which would break other currently-observed rules of this particular universe, doesn't make sense. It's just superstition.

Re:Jesus is big by being small.

[paxcoder]

>It's documented as quite natural behaviour in many mammals, not just humans.

Bonobo monkeys do it with everyone in their tribe - it's a social convention, the way they express loyalty to one another. It's not a genuine sexual activity. The purpose of sex is procreation. Logic dictates that evolution wouldn't allow for it to be genetic, and if it were psychological, even though you could argue it's 'natural' by definition, it would still be a disorder.

>You would deny marriage to couples who can't procreate?

You misunderstood me. I was speaking about natural basis for marriage, not a prerequisite for it. Its primary purpose was the above mentioned. There is no such basis, since no such purpose can ever be achieved in a homosexual union. This is why it doesn't even resemble marriage.

>having kids in a stable union outside of marriage *doesn't* build society?

It does, but kids are generally better of in a family with both father and mother. Not divorced, not abandoned, not with a single parent. A union of man and a woman which is not legalized resembles marriage and is probably acceptable for the development of kids, unlike homosexual unions which doesn't and isn't.

>Marriage existed LONG before christianity, or even judaism.

Yes, it did. Well, depends on what you regard as Judaism.

>[Shroud of Turin] is certainly not proof that Jesus was in any way divine.

There are documentaries on youtube that explain why the shroud is inexplicable (ie miraculous). I reckon you have looked it up at least, so thank you for checking out my references.

>all how that people will check their brains at the door and latch onto the latest craze.

I'm not quite sure what you meant by this, but I'll give it a shot: A man testifies he was friends with Christ, and saw miracles He preformed, and then goes to preach it and dies a martyr death for it. Now imagine eleven of such people. And I'm not even talking now about all those who haven't saw Jesus in the flesh.

>In other words, a later observation affects whether the particle previously interfered with itself. (...) we do not require a "prime mover" or "creator".

No, it's not "later observation" - the cause of the manifestation of just one of the dual natures of the photons is the "observation" itself, and it doesn't succeed the effect as you'd like it to be (as I understand, observation is made in the slit). So the cause-effect order is undisturbed, thus your conclusion (the thing after the three dots) does not follow.

Re:Jesus is big by being small.

[tomhudson]

Logic dictates that evolution wouldn't allow for it to be genetic

Your understanding of evolution is flawed. Evolution doesn't exercise any form of "logic". According to your "logic" argument, we should all be disease-free. No colds or anything else. Additionally, it's been proven that genetics enters into to. Same as with such other actions, such as altruism, which was formerly thought to be purely social.

You misunderstood me. I was speaking about natural basis for marriage, not a prerequisite for it. Its primary purpose was the above mentioned. There is no such basis, since no such purpose can ever be achieved in a homosexual union. This is why it doesn't even resemble marriage.

There is no such thing as a "natural" marriage. Marriage is a purely human invention. Also, you fail to address my point about infertile couples - they can never procreate, and in times past, various churches have declared their marriages null if you possessed enough power or $$$ (cf. Henry 8). And what about families that adopt? Additionally, procreation isn't limited to opposite-sex couples. Any lesbian couple with a net connection can get a turkey baster. Further, recent studies showed that same-sex couples who make it through the adoption process actually provide a better, more stable, home environment than opposite-sex couples. That's why my government now actively encourages same-sex couples to adopt.

It does, but kids are generally better of in a family with both father and mother. Not divorced, not abandoned, not with a single parent. A union of man and a woman which is not legalized resembles marriage and is probably acceptable for the development of kids, unlike homosexual unions which doesn't and isn't

Typical tunnel vision. The majority of children in my province are now born to common-law couples - and common-law couples now outlast married couples in terms of the length of the relationship. In other words, if you want a stable family unit, marriage isn't the way to do it. Additionally, we outlawed the concept of "illegitimacy" of children - there's no longer any such thing. All children are legitimate. To avoid even the possibility of discrimination, we also outlawed the practice of women taking their husbands' last name when they get married. This way, you can't tell if the kids were adopted, or from another relationship, just by looking at the last names.

If society chooses to (and we have), it can get rid of the problems religion causes in peoples' lives, such as heaping shame on kids for being "illegitimate." Shame on the church for pushing that concept for centuries, and on religious people for buying into it in ANY shape, manner, or form.

>Marriage existed LONG before christianity, or even judaism.

Yes, it did. Well, depends on what you regard as Judaism.

There were no jews around 30,000 years ago.

There are documentaries on youtube that explain why the shroud is inexplicable (ie miraculous). I reckon you have looked it up at least, so thank you for checking out my references.

There is NO proof whatsoever that the shroud ever came into contact with Jesus. Even if it were from the same era, that doesn't prove anything, any more than a claim that a cup from that same era is the holy grail or other such nonsense. It's also not "inexplicable" unless you choose it to be so, same as conspiracy theorists who want to believe we never landed on the moon.

I'm not quite sure what you meant by this, but I'll give it a shot: A man testifies he was friends with Christ, and saw miracles He preformed, and then goes to preach it and dies a martyr death for it. Now imagine eleven of such people. And I'm not even talking now about all those who haven't saw Jesus in the flesh.

Re:Jesus is big by being small.

[paxcoder]

You have either stopped reading even that which you comment from me, or you intentionally disregard it in hope you can somehow appear to win the argument. And still with multiple unsubstantiated claims might I add. In any case, I will not address those comments, since anyone reading can see their real value. As for you, I can give up now or spend hours more trying to get you think about my arguments which you now refuse to acknowledge. I hate to repeat myself just to get the point across so I won't.

One thing I will address is the experiment again: The effect (manifestation of one of the natures of the photon) does not precede the cause which is the fact that it is or isn't observed! You need to see which slit the particle went through, and in doing so, you influence its behavior (so it no longer acts as a wave, but rather a particle). Now, that is all. If you still want to argue that the double slit experiment disproves causality, please do that on Freenode in ##physics. Be sure to invite me, so I can watch.

Goodbye.

Re:Jesus is big by being small.

[tomhudson]

Your refusal to address the points I made wrt religion co-opting marriage, the occurrence of same-sex behaviour being documented as natural in hundreds of different species, and the flaws in logic wrt natural selection, etc., show that you are one of the willfully blind. Your grasping at straws like the debunked shroud of turin, and your claims that a dozen people willfully dying somehow establish the "truthiness" of christianity in the face of counter-examples where hundreds, thousands, and more have died for causes that are obviously false, shows that you're truly one of the willfully blind.

You have yet to propose an experiment that proves god's existence. You make all sorts of entirely false (and provably false) claims about marriage being "natural", etc. Anyone who thinks that the jews were around when marriage first came into being (as you implied) is both a slacker when it comes to history, and actively engaging in revisionist history There is no justification for such a lie. None. Nada. Zip.

Just like there's no justification in claiming that there's some "logic" behind the process of natural selection that would "naturally" prohibit same-sex relationships. This is obviously easily disproved - look around - they're here - evolution didn't use "logic" to "weed them out." By your argument, evolution must have some "logic" to them being here, so it MUST be natural.

So stop with the lies. Don't christians who knowingly lie commit a sin? Your "evolution" argument is demonstrably a lie. What does that make you?

Re:Jesus is big by being small.

[paxcoder]

Evolution weeds out undesirable traits, some quicker than others. But those pertaining to sexual inability - the quickest. Homosexuality would classify as one if it was indeed genetic. It is not, and noone is claiming this anymore but you for who knows what reason. Homosexuality is a non-genetic, non-inherited disorder.
I thanked you earlier that you have read things about Shroud of Turin, but I was obviously once again wrong about you following this discussion. In short, Shroud of Turin was not "disproved" and the burden of proof to prove otherwise would fall on you. But there is no conclusive evidence that it is not as old as claimed.
There is no reason for me to try to experimentally prove God. It would presumably be a futile attempt, since He is not bound by nature of this universe. But reason and logic prove His existence. And I have mentioned one of the logical proofs.
People died for various causes, some right, some wrong, this was *not my point*. My point was why would someone lie, and then die for a lie. It's obvious the apostles either lived with Jesus or not. If they lied they wouldn't stick to the lie for the price of their lives.
I implied God's personal involvement with humanity since its beginnings. That's what I meant when I said "depends on what you call Judaism", because clearly the Moses' law was not established then yet.
Logic uses laws of nature, which are very specific. You have randomness, but also selection. Had you had no laws of the universe (had it not been for a rational being to create them), evolution would not be possible.
Above I have explained how evolution permits not for genetic sexual disability (at least not of this magnitude, only few degeneric exceptions). Homosexuality is not genetic, and this isn't a baseless opinion.
Now stop shouting false accusations and calling me a liar. If you have any more "arguments", bring them on.

Re:Jesus is big by being small.

[tomhudson]

Shroud of Turin was not "disproved" and the burden of proof to prove otherwise would fall on you. But there is no conclusive evidence that it is not as old as claimed.

No, Carl Sagan's baloney detector makes it clear that the burden of proof for extraordinary claims lies with you, the person making the claim.

But reason and logic prove His existence. And I have mentioned one of the logical proofs.

But the logical "proofs" you offered fail in the face of facts. Just as the "proof" you claim about natural selection vis. same-sex activity fails in the face of evidence that it's STILL HERE. Why hasn't it been weeded out?

Homosexuality is not genetic, and this isn't a baseless opinion.

[citation needed]

As you now write:

Evolution weeds out undesirable traits, some quicker than others. But those pertaining to sexual inability - the quickest. Homosexuality would classify as one if it was indeed genetic. It is not, and noone is claiming this anymore but you for who knows what reason. Homosexuality is a non-genetic, non-inherited disorder.

You haven't kept up with the latest advances in genetics, that show that the expression of the xx or xy chromosome is not exclusively capable of determining either sex or gender. Also, where is your proof that it is a "disorder" when many species engage in it? It must have SOME advantage if its found in so many diverse species. Or all these species "disordered" when they behave naturally? Which begs the question, if it's natural behaviour, how is it a disorder? In other words, your claim to it being a disorder is entirely subjective.

I implied God's personal involvement with humanity since its beginnings

The egyptians who worshiped Rah would beg to differ with you as to which god.

My point was why would someone lie, and then die for a lie

... and my counter-point was that it happens all the time. See "terrorists".

the age of the shroud of Turin is immaterial if it cannot be established that it was Jesus' burial shroud, same as the age of a cup is immaterial if it can't be established that it was THE chalice. Same age means nothing whatsoever.

Re:Jesus is big by being small.

[paxcoder]

>the person making the claim.

Well I'd say it was you who was trying to disprove it. The evidence for its authenticity are mentioned in the documentary. Unfortunately, I'm not sure if we have the conclusive evidence for its exact dating (evidence I mentioned is geography, season of Christ's crucifixion etc). That being said, I trust the Tradition that it is Christ's body. If we were to date it to the exact date of Christ's death, we'd still need to prove it is Jesus' who lied there. But since it's miraculous itself, and the blood type matches those found in miracles of Eucharist, and since all other things correspond to descriptions of Christ's torments etc, I require no additional proof at this time (but would like a carbon dating if possible).

>Why hasn't it been weeded out?

Because it *is not* genetic! Are you messing with me?

>Also, where is your proof that it is a "disorder" when many species engage in it?

Because it has no natural, procreative purpose.

>It must have SOME advantage if its found in so many diverse species.

That is speculation. Plus, I don't think it's found in many species. Bonobo monkeys, for example - as far as I know - cannot be characterized as homosexual, for the reasons I have explained. They are bisexual at best (not really, but they do exhibit what we might call bisexual behavior - but I think they know ... "where to go" when procreation is in order).

>The egyptians who worshiped Rah would beg to differ with you as to which god.

Hehe, perhaps. My belief is that all have distorted spirituality, save those who received the Revelation from the genuine God (I'm sure you'd agree there are false gods).

> ... and my counter-point was that it happens all the time. See "terrorists".

They don't *know* it's a lie, they're convinced otherwise. Gospel writers and apostles would know if what they wrote about living with a miraculous Man was a lie.

>Same age means nothing whatsoever.

Is it same age? Because given everything else, that's pretty conclusive evidence as far as I'd say.

Re:Jesus is big by being small.

[tomhudson]

I trust the Tradition that it is Christ's body

Even the bible warns against placing faith in tradition :-) and no, it is not miraculous in itself.

Also, where is your proof that it is a "disorder" when many species engage in it?

Because it has no natural, procreative purpose.

Neither do many activities that species engage in. How many things did you do this week that had nothing to do with bringing kids into the world?

... and my counter-point was that it happens all the time. See "terrorists".

They don't *know* it's a lie, they're convinced otherwise. Gospel writers and apostles would know if what they wrote about living with a miraculous Man was a lie.

And the gospel writers had plenty of incentive to lie. In addition, we've seen how people can whip themselves into a state where they believe they see things that just aren't true - weeping statues, etc.

Physical proof of the existence of god. If god is not part of the universe, and doesn't interact with it, then god is of no effect, and can safely be ignored.

Also, we don't have proof that the shroud is contemporaneous with Jesus. Stop putting your faith in filthy rags. That's certainly not the definition of faith.

Re:Jesus is big by being small.

[paxcoder]

>Even the bible warns against placing faith in tradition :-)

It warns about human tradition. Holy tradition is promoted (can give you quotes if you want :-P). Even though I have no reason to doubt the authenticity of the shroud, this was not my only argument.

>Neither do many activities that species engage in. How many things did you do this week that had nothing to do with bringing kids into the world?

That's different, we were talking about weather it is a valid foundation for marriage, not weather it's a good excersise/feels good/whatever else.

>And the gospel writers had plenty of incentive to lie.

Oh? How's it in your benefit to die for a lie rather than live?

>In addition, we've seen how people can whip themselves into a state where they believe they see things that just aren't true - weeping statues, etc.

If a statue leaks and it's not a miracle, then it's a deception from someone with a hidden motive. Mass hypnosis of such magnitude is impossible (or would you disagree?).

>Physical proof of the existence of god.

What?

>If god is not part of the universe, and doesn't interact with it, then god is of no effect, and can safely be ignored.

Who said He "doesn't interact with it"? I stated otherwise.

>Stop putting your faith in filthy rags.

I put my trust into a person whose blood stained those rags.

>That's certainly not the definition of faith. ...

Re:Jesus is big by being small.

[tomhudson]

If god interacts with the universe, then the existence of god *can* be put to an experiment, or we should be able to see evidence - today - of this interaction, same as we see evidence of people, planets, gravity, etc.

BTW - Merry Christmas.

Re:Jesus is big by being small.

[paxcoder]

We could feel the effect of this interaction, but there's no reason why we should be able to test it.
Merry Christmas to you too.

Re:Jesus is big by being small.

[tomhudson]

We could feel the effect of this interaction, but there's no reason why we should be able to test it.

In other words, you have no objective proof, and you believe none is possible. It's just a "feeling."

So, why should anyone believe *your* "feeling" or anyone else's subjective opinion, rather than hard evidence? Or *my* feeling? Or anyone else's "feeling?"

Re:Jesus is big by being small.

[paxcoder]

This is an utterly false conclusion. We can logically prove (as said before) God, we can empirically experience Him, we just can't scientifically test Him (although we can test some of his works - miracles). Also if you're going to mock me, I don't really care. Just goes to show you're close-minded.

Re:Jesus is big by being small.

[tomhudson]

We can logically prove (as said before) God,

And I say your have failed to prove god. "Logic" doesn't do it. "Logic" supposedly "proved" bumblebees can't fly. Proof is that which can be produced and reproduced. Nobody has ever produced any proof that god exists. Otherwise, you wouldn't need to substitute faith for proof.

we can empirically experience Him

You use that word ("empirically") but you don't know what it means.

In scientific use the term empirical refers to the gathering of data using only evidence that is observable by the senses or in some cases using calibrated scientific instruments. What early philosophers described as empiricist and empirical research have in common is the dependence on observable data to formulate and test theories and come to conclusions.

The researcher attempts to describe accurately the interaction between the instrument (or the human senses) and the entity being observed. If instrumentation is involved, the researcher is expected to calibrate his/her instrument by applying it to known standard objects and documenting the results before applying it to unknown objects.

In other words, you can't scientifically prove that what "experience" is "God" - it may be self-delusion, it may be gas, it may be a brain tumour ... but you can't say that you have "empirically exprienced god" unless you have some physically detectable proof, not only that you experienced *something* (subjective) but that it had a specific cause (objective proof).

You are the one who is being closed-minded by refusing to acknowledge the many points I've brought up where you fail. You point to a dozen people who died for their cause 2,000 years ago and say "how could they have been wrong?" I point to thousands who die for their cause - are they all right? Obviously not, since some believe in contradictory things - so your argument is shown to be of no probative value, and yet you still cling to it, saying it "proves" something, when it clearly does not. This is not closed-mined so much as intellectually dishonest.

although we can test some of his works - miracles

Really? Show one that proves indisputably that it is the working of a miracle by god. Remember - just because we can't explain something does not mean it's a miracle, any more than a cave man could have explained radio. You've made a claim, now please back it up.

Just a man

[alexo]

Papal infallibility was only declared in the 1890s at the First Vatican Council.
Prior to that the pope was just a man.

Just a man
With a man's courage
He knows nothing but a man
But he can never fail
No one but the pure in heart
May find the golden grail

On a different topic, merry xmas.

[tomhudson]

Intellectual differences and vigorous, no-holds-barred discussion shouldn't prevent people from wishing each other the best in the upcoming year. I might disagree with you on almost everything, and find a lot of what you believe to be offensive (and I'm sure you are thinking the same wrt my posts :-), but I still wish you the best for the holidays, and a happy new year.

Take care.

BTW, you're invited to participate in the current contest, same as anyone else, including entering and the judging at the end. You can take the opportunity to slag my 2 entries there all you want. It might be fun :-)

Re:On a different topic, merry xmas.

[paxcoder]

What I believe is "offensive"!? That's not an intellectual difference, that's a non-provoked insult.

I wish you all the best, but this was uncalled for.

Re:On a different topic, merry xmas.

[tomhudson]

Not everyone agrees with your view that same-sex relationships are "deviant." Next you'll be saying that gays and lesbians "choose" to be the way they are, that transsexuals are perverts, and that "getting right with god through prayer and fasting" will "heal them of their sin."

Ask yourself this - did YOU choose your sexual orientation or gender identity? Or did you just accept how you found yourself naturally leaning?

They don't say you're "sinning" or deviant for being straight - why are you not showing the same courtesy? Your religious beliefs *have* given rise to a judgmental attitude that is very offensive to many of us, who believe that discrimination based on sex, sexual identity, sexual preference, gender, or gender identity is not only ignorant and unconstitutional, but actively promotes hatred and intolerance.

Re:On a different topic, merry xmas.

[paxcoder]

>Next you'll be saying (...)

Not a constructive comment.

>Ask yourself this - did YOU choose your sexual orientation or gender identity?

Again, irrelevant for the matter at hand. I don't claim straight people fornicating isn't a sin, and there is no justification for doing it. Celibacy is a valid option, and a calling for homosexual persons.

>They don't say you're "sinning" or deviant for being straight

I'm not saying they're sinning by being homosexual. Homosexual tendencies are intrinsically disordered, but not in themselves a sin - no. Sin are only homosexual acts, as they can be nothing more but forincation. For more information, or further discussion of the topic, you may want to visit my Youtube Channel and seek my old video (but active comments) on the topic.

>discrimination based on (...)

You're trying to assert again that there is some "right" for homosexuals to marry. Yet, you have not disputed my argument that there are no valid basis for such a union (since the foundations of the institution are clear).
I don't approve of discrimination based on inclinations of homosexual persons. But they are not discriminated against regarding to marriage, other than by their own sexual preference (which is unfortunate). Hatred and intolerance is not what I promote, but neither do I feel it's justified to rewrite the definition of marriage. Really, visit my religous channel on youtube.com/paxcoder - To see better where I stand on this issue.

Re:On a different topic, merry xmas.

[Anonymous Coward]

You're such an idiot.

Re:On a different topic, merry xmas.

[tomhudson]

You're trying to assert again that there is some "right" for homosexuals to marry. Yet, you have not disputed my argument that there are no valid basis for such a union (since the foundations of the institution are clear)

Sure I've disputed your argument. There's no such thing as "fornication" in nature. There's no "birds and bees afornicatin'". There's no such thing as sin. Again, that's a human construct. Just like there's no such thing in nature as "evil" or "good" - it is what it is. The "foundations of the union", as I've pointed out, have very little to do with "procreation" - and have *never* been limited, even by the church, to only those who can procreate.

Homosexual tendencies are intrinsically disordered,

You have no proof whatsoever of that, and those of who insist on proof rather than bible references find such attitudes offensive, same as previous generations used the bible to justify slavery. As I've pointed out, same-sex activity is widespread in nature, it's definitely not something that will ever be "naturally selected out of the human genome" for the simple reason that other species that have been around far longer than the expected duration of humanity still do it.

Gays and lesbians have the same rights to marry as anyone else. It's not up to the church to say otherwise - they should refrain from sticking their noses in other peoples businesses, unless they want other people to do the same - which would probably end up with the banning ALL forms of marriage as discriminatory and interfering with a person's freedom of association.

Look, religion is on the decline for a reason ... it doesn't meet peoples needs, its unrealistic, and it is increasingly divergent from reality. Atheists are the fastest-growing "religious preference" in North America, and outnumber Baptists. Within 50 years (more likely 25, because atheism now has the critical mass and the momentum, and social norms are on our side), the majority of the population will be atheists, and that will pretty much end that. If the various churches insists on continuing to slander and libel people by labeling them as sinners or disordered, a few more lawsuits should bankrupt them all, and that will end that.

Happy holidays! :-)

Re:On a different topic, merry xmas.

[paxcoder]

At this time, I'll have to stop answering you.

Re:On a different topic, merry xmas.

[tomhudson]

Well, you're always welcome to come back when you have some real answers. I'll certainly be willing to look at sientific, objective proof that can be tested by reproducible experimentation that god actually exists. Anything less than that is in the realm of supposition, superstition, or fantasy.