Would anyone like to speculate on what would have happened if Pell had directed his abuse towards someone other than atheists -- say, women?
--
A minority of women, usually women without men, are frightened by the future,” Cardinal Pell, the Archbishop of Sydney, said during his homily at the St Mary’s Cathedral Mass.

”It’s almost as though they’ve … nothing but fear to distract themselves from the fact that without men the universe has no objective purpose or meaning. Nothing beyond the constructs they confect to cover the abyss.”

Life without men was ”life without purpose, without constraints”, he said.
--
How long would he have been permitted to keep his job? But atheists remain a safe target for any coward with bile to spill. Is it any wonder that we are becoming 'militant'?

Thanks Chrys great article, wish I had been there.
It still amazes me that supposedly learned hominids like Pell, Leader of the Roman Catholic Church in Australia no less, still lie about Hitler and Nazis being Atheist. Hitler was Roman Catholic to his jack boots. For those wanting the truth on this matter you can read Hitler’s translated own words in English here. http://www.nobeliefs.com/speeches.htm
It also amazes me that Christians can also ignore the established facts about the existence of Jesus Christ. It’s a myth, mostly built on the previous mythology and misunderstood astrological events of ancient peoples.
Rewriting history or ignoring the established facts for the sake of your blind faith can only be called one thing and that’s nonsense. If you can call Homeopathy, or anti-vaccination or clairvoyance nonsense you can certainly call religion nonsense and if a few believers get upset, so what!

What more can be said?

SCEPTIC | skeptk | n. & a. Also (arch. & N. Amer.) sk. L16. [Fr. sceptique or L scepticus, in pl. sceptici followers of the Greek philosopher Pyrrho (see below), f. Gk skeptikos, pl. skeptikoi, f. skeptesthai look about, consider, observe, rel. to skopein, skopos: see SCOPE n.1, IC.] A n. 1 Philos. A person who maintains the impossibility of real knowledge of any kind, orig. spec. (now Hist.), a follower of the Greek philosopher Pyrrho of Elis (c300 BC), a Pyrrhonist; a person who holds that there are no adequate grounds for certainty as to the truth of any proposition whatever. L16. 2 A person who doubts the validity of accepted beliefs in a particular subject; a person inclined to doubt any assertion or apparent fact. E17. 3 A person seeking the truth; an inquirer who has not yet arrived at definite convictions. E17. 4 A person who doubts the truth of (important parts of) the Christian religion; loosely an unbeliever in Christianity. M17.
2 S. NAIPAUL Jones' psychic talents would have convinced the most hardened sceptic. B adj. = SCEPTICAL a. Now rare. L16.

SCEPTICAL | skeptk()l | a. Also (arch. & N. Amer.) sk. E17. [f. as prec.: see ICAL.] 1 Of a person: inclined to scepticism; dubious, incredulous. E17. 2 Of a doctrine, opinion, etc.: characteristic of a sceptic; of the nature of scepticism. M18.
1 A. BISHOP Russell was sceptical aboutvaccinesto cure obscure diseases. sceptically adv. L17.

SCEOTICISM | skeptsz()m | n. Also (arch. & N. Amer.) sk. M17. [f. SCEPTIC + ISM.] 1 Philos. The doctrine of the sceptics, Pyrrhonism; the opinion that real knowledge of any kind is unattainable. M17. 2 A sceptical attitude in relation to a particular branch of knowledge; doubt as to the truth of some assertion or apparent fact. Also, mistrustfulness, doubting disposition. M17. 3 Doubt or unbelief with regard to the Christian religion. E19.Also sceptism n. (rare) M17.

Excerpted from The Oxford Interactive Encyclopedia
Developed by The Learning Company, Inc. Copyright (c) 1997 TLC Properties Inc. All rights reserved.

As usual an excellent piece Chrys. Pell's comments are so foolish and contrasting that with the TAM contents is quite stark.

@runner, you give a great example of the kind of stupid attitudes that people find it hard to believe are actually out there. Our education system has failed you and its very sad.

@imefree yes, science itself is based on not holding anything to be absolutely true. All knowledge is considered to be a provisional approximation and that data may come along later that shows existing theories must be revised or discarded. This is a good thing. Holding on to a point of view, not allowing doubt, means you are doomed to freeze your knowledge at the level of ignorance you had attained when it first came to you.

Thanks Chrys for a great article, it must have been an awesome meeting.

Cardinal Pell represents an antiquated institution bent on scamming people from all walks of life identifying with their deepest fears and lack of self esteem. This system takes peoples money, does not pay taxes and intrudes on peoples lives from the cradle to the grave. In Pells case, it also colludes to cover up child abuse of the worst type. Why should anyone care what he says? It's beyond me. He has lived off poor indoctrinated people all his life. To me he is the scum of the earth and I wouldn't give him the time of day.

Your group, on the other hand, is trying to discuss and bring light to some of the pressing problems we have in the world today. It seems to me that all you guys were actually doing was trying to find some solutions.

Very few religious representatives that I know of, actually do anything constructive. They claim to do good works, and maybe they do occasionally, but they take more than they give. Paying lip service is a technique religious representatives have down to a fine art - while their institutions fill their coffers with money which could be better spent on scientific research etc.

Deary me, poor old George.

For so many hundreds of years, religion was such an easy business.
You'd indocrinate the kiddies, you'd play on the punters hopes and
fears. People lacked information and education, so it was not hard
to blitz them with dogma. You'd build huge cathedrals to impress
them and flog them indulgences, when money was required.

No matter what the Vatican did, all was forgiven and the church
rolled on, from generation to generation with impunity.

Its all changing now. The church pews are empty, those left are
generally old. People are informed, with google at their fingertips.
Being a cardinal no longer earns automatic respect, everything that
the chuch does and claims is questioned, as it should be.

Today, the church is more infamous for sexual cover ups, then just
about anything else.

No wonder George seems worried about his future, or else why
would he be attacking non believers?

Flogging religion is just not as simple as it used to be, certainly
not in the first world.