Knights Templar Sue the Pope 675
pdragon04 writes "According to The Register, "the Knights Templar are demanding that the Vatican give them back their good name and, possibly, billions in assets into the bargain, 700 years after the order was brutally suppressed by a joint venture between the Pope and the King of France..."." I wonder what a holy grail goes for with 700 years of compound interest.
No legal standing to sue (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:No legal standing to sue (Score:5, Interesting)
If that succeeds, maybe the Freemasons have a case to fight too.
Re:No legal standing to sue (Score:5, Funny)
If that succeeds, I'm going to rename myself "satan" and then sue the Vatican to get them to give me back my good name.
Re:No legal standing to sue (Score:5, Funny)
Satan [wikipedia.org] plays for the Penguins.
Re:No legal standing to sue (Score:5, Funny)
In more ways than one [wikipedia.org].
Re:No legal standing to sue (Score:5, Funny)
You'll just be censored as "Hercule" then.
What about the native americans? (Score:5, Funny)
Or, maybe they could just sue the USA for making them look silly - I mean, those native headdresses don't look silly to people who are native - just everyone else.
Re:What about the native americans? (Score:4, Insightful)
I mean, if europe hadn't sent over all those rejects, the native americans would rule the (un)known world...
Might be time to go down to the local community college and take a history class bud.
Re:What about the native americans? (Score:5, Funny)
The English deported their religious fanatics to America and their criminals to Australia. I think we, the Americans, got the short end of the stick on that one. I want to sue the English government for dumping their religious nut jobs here. I'm going to admit videos of the 700 club as evidence of this maleficence.
Re:What about the native americans? (Score:5, Insightful)
Their leadership came from a religious congregation who had fled a volatile political environment in the East Midlands of England for the relative calm of the Netherlands to preserve their religion. Concerned with losing their cultural identity, the group later arranged with English investors to establish a new colony in North America.
From Wikipedia, Or perhaps even more insightful...
In 1617, discouraged by economic difficulties, the pervasive Dutch influence on their children, and their inability to secure civil autonomy, the congregation voted to emigrate to America. Through the Brewster family's friendship with Sir Edwin Sandys, treasurer of the London Company, the congregation secured two patents authorizing them to settle in the northern part of the company's jurisdiction. Unable to finance the costs of the emigration with their own meager resources, they negotiated a financial agreement with Thomas Weston, a prominent London iron merchant. Fewer than half of the group's members elected to leave Leiden. A small ship, the Speedwell, carried them to Southampton, England, where they were to join another group of Separatists and pick up a second ship. After some delays and disputes, the voyagers regrouped at Plymouth aboard the 180-ton Mayflower. It began its historic voyage on Sept. 16, 1620, with about 102 passengers--fewer than half of them from Leiden.
From mayflowerfamilies.com
I still stand by my statement, go take a history class.
Re:What about the native americans? (Score:5, Funny)
This is slashdot. No one was upset with the historical inaccuracy, nor the insulting of americans. The troll moderation was for the insinuation that community colleges were for idiots who don't know history.
Re:What about the native americans? (Score:5, Funny)
>The troll moderation was for the insinuation that community colleges were for idiots who don't know history.
Right. Everyone knows that the idiots aren't going to learn any history in a community college. :-)
Re:What about the native americans? (Score:5, Funny)
Well said - they'd be teaching it!
Re:What about the native americans? (Score:5, Informative)
Hmm, I beg to differ. While certainly the initial population of the American colonies was voluntary, convicts were indeed sent in later years. From NPR:
"In 1718, the British Parliament passed the Transportation Act, under which England began sending its imprisoned convicts to be sold as indentured servants in the American colonies. While the law provoked outrage among many colonists -- Benjamin Franklin equated it to packing up North American rattlesnakes and sending them all to England -- the influx of ex-convicts provided cheap and immediate labor for many planters and merchants. After 1718, approximately 60,000 convicts, dubbed "the King's passengers," were sent from England to America. Ninety percent of them stayed in Maryland and Virginia. Although some returned to England once their servitude was over, many remained and began their new lives in the colonies."
This data also appears in the excellent, "Benjamin Franklin: An American Life" by Walter Isaacson.
Re:What about the native americans? (Score:5, Funny)
After 1718, approximately 60,000 convicts, dubbed "the King's passengers," were sent from England to America. Ninety percent of them stayed in Maryland and Virginia.
Of course, descendants of those people still live in Maryland and Virginia, but instead of being called "The King's Passengers", they're now known as "The US Government".
Re:What about the native americans? (Score:5, Informative)
Whether you want to consider press-ganged individuals and criminals fleeing certain death in floating prisons on the Thames "volunteers", that's your choice. Religious pilgrims were a minority of American settlers -- they get a lot of attention in history classes due to the "justness" of their cause.
Perhaps instead of taking a high-school or community-college level history class, you should take some real history classes, or read some real history books. What you were taught in public school (especially regarding history) is often a lot of propaganda... and is almost always incomplete.
Re:What about the native americans? (Score:4, Interesting)
The second group, however, are among the ones I referenced -- they came to the Americas to avoid being put in debtors' prison, where they would likely die from contagion. What often happened is that a colony venture would buy out the debt from the person's creditors (usually at a fraction of the amount owed), and then indenture the person to work off the debt.
Violent criminals, etc, were also sent... but more often to penal colonies (Georgia, etc) than to other colonies.
Another thing I'd note is that there was plenty of Crown manipulation to ensure that certain populations suffered economically in England. Desperation drove some of these people to the Americas, and while it would be false to say that most of them were "sent" by the Crown, many of them had few other options due directly to actions of the Crown.
It is absolutely justifiable to argue that the Crown deliberately worked to ensure that many "undesirables" were shipped to the colonies, and whether they did so directly or indirectly does not change the fact that it happened.
Re:What about the native americans? (Score:4, Funny)
Psj... Europe was present more than 500 years before Jamestown!
Best Regards,
The Norsemen!
Re:What about the native americans? (Score:4, Funny)
If you cant prove you are 50% or greater american indian I think you have no case. Only american indians would be able to sue for the illegal dumping.
Holy shit, if the remaining american indians get wind of this we are all screwed.
Re:What about the native americans? (Score:4, Insightful)
If you cant prove you are 50% or greater american indian I think you have no case. Only american indians would be able to sue for the illegal dumping.
Any remote descendant of a native American still has a far better case than any Knights Templar descendant.
Re:What about the native americans? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:What about the native americans? (Score:5, Interesting)
In fact, they only started using Australia when they lost Georgia. Australian settlement did not begin in earnest until @1800 if I recall correctly.
Re:What about the native americans? (Score:4, Informative)
Try 1788 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_fleet/ [wikipedia.org]). What year did Georgia gain independence?
Re:What about the native americans? (Score:5, Informative)
What year did Georgia gain independence?
Is that rhetorical?
If you were serious, their declared independence (along with the rest of the rebelling American colonies) was 1776 and recognized was 1783.
Re:What about the native americans? (Score:5, Funny)
Georgia also declared independence on January 19, 1861 [wikipedia.org], but that one didn't work out quite so well.
Re:What about the native americans? (Score:5, Funny)
most of the posters in this are chimps with no education and no spine
Re:What about the native americans? (Score:5, Funny)
I think we, the Americans, got the short end of the stick on that one.
I'm not so sure about that. I suspect religion was merely a cover for those secretly desiring improved dental hygiene.
I want to sue the English government for dumping their religious nut jobs here. I'm going to admit videos of the 700 club as evidence of this maleficence.
Quakers != Baptists. Different breed of nut job.
Re:What about the native americans? (Score:5, Informative)
Quakers != Baptists. Different breed of nut job.
I think that was more about the Puritans than the Quakers. And while the Quakers I know tend to be on the flakey side (much like the Wiccans), they're perfectly pleasant and don't proselytize; I think that would disqualify them from the "nutjob" label.
Re:What about the native americans? (Score:5, Insightful)
If I'm perfectly pleasant and do proselytize--that is, discuss questions of religion with people who disagree seeking to persuade them--can I still avoid the nutjob label?
I think that would depend on whether you're bothering them about it. If you're friends who are talking about it because it interests both of you, or they came up and tried to sell you on their views, I don't think many people have a problem with that (if it's private -- I've gotten into trouble with that myself on message boards). If you approach strangers and ask if they've heard the good news about Ceiling Cat, that another matter.
If not, do I get to call atheists who argue for atheism "nutjobs"?... do I get to call an unpleasant atheist a nutjob?
If they're approaching people in church parking lots on Sunday morning telling them the good news about being able to sleep in, sure. And I assume you mean they're unpleasant about being an atheist (the guy in the next cubicle is unpleasant and a conservative Christian, but those have nothing to do with each other, so I wouldn't call him a religious nutjob) -- if so, I'd call that fair. We do tend to grow out of it after a couple years of not convincing anyone, though.
Re:What about the native americans? (Score:5, Insightful)
On my book, (unsolicited) proselytizing would disqualify you from being perfectly pleasant. You can hold any religious belief you want, but I sure don't want to hear about them.
Re:What about the native americans? (Score:5, Insightful)
Ouch! It almost sounds like there are no consequences for perpetrating a successful genocide.
Re:What about the native americans? (Score:5, Insightful)
The Knights Templar, as parent and GP mentioned, are very unlikely to be making any material claims.
Ouch! It almost sounds like there are no consequences for perpetrating a successful genocide.
Well Duh!
I'm reminded of a quote from the mini-series " Shogun [imdb.com]":
Toronaga asked Pilot to name any excuse that justified making war on your Lord, the Pilot responded "Winning"
Re:What about the native americans? (Score:5, Informative)
B) The pogrom was localized in France, and the Pope only went along with it reluctantly, mostly because King Philip threatened war if he didn't. Templars in other parts of Europe escaped alive, and were even allowed to join rival organizations.
Re:What about the native americans? (Score:5, Informative)
As a Protesant, I can't recall ever having read anything about Rome doing *any* of that. From the papal bull Sublimus Dei of 1537:
Re:What about the native americans? (Score:4, Informative)
My memory's not that great either. From papal bull Romanus Pontifax, 1455 :
...We, weighing all and singular the premises with due meditation, and noting that since we had formerly by other letters of ours granted among other things free and ample faculty to the aforesaid [King] -- to invade, search out, capture, vanquish, and subdue all Saracens and pagans whatsoever, and other enemies of Christ wheresoever placed, and the kingdoms, dukedoms, principalities, dominions, possessions, and all movable and immovable goods whatsoever held and possessed by them and to reduce their persons to perpetual slavery, and to apply and appropriate to himself and his successors the kingdoms, dukedoms, counties, principalities, dominions, possessions, and goods, and to convert them to his and their use and profit...
Re:What about the native americans? (Score:5, Informative)
If this lawsuit succeeds the native americans could only sue the catholic church for slander and defamation eg: saying they had no souls and could be slaughtered like animals or however manifest destiny is justified.
Except the Catholic Church never did either of those things. They're urban legends.
About your first allegation, it suffices to say that there's no point in converting something that has no soul. Besides, the Catholic Catechism teaches that everything that self-moves possesses a soul, and among those, everything that moves by virtue of reason to be human, body shape or color not being requirements. (Yes, Catholicism is "aliens ready" since the Middle Ages.) Case in point: the most important Catholic theologian for the first 1200 years of Western Church history, Saint Augustine, was black.
As for your second point, back in the beginning of the discoveries, you already had important Catholic theologians, such as Francisco de Vitoria [wikimedia.org], one of the creators of modern international law, writing extensively against the European subjugation of the New World. European crowned princes, of course, did it anyway. Politicians are the same, no matter whether they're in a monarchy or in a democracy.
Good reasons to criticize the Church do exists, but these two surely aren't listed among them.
He was not black (Score:5, Insightful)
Case in point: the most important Catholic theologian for the first 1200 years of Western Church history, Saint Augustine, was black.
St Augustine was not black, at least certainly not in the sense one thinks of today. He was a Berber.
He was African, yes, but African != Black, especially North African.
Re:What about the native americans? (Score:5, Insightful)
Doubtful, Saint Augustine was a Berber and the likelihood he would have been the only black Berber seems remote.
There are indeed black Berbers [wikipedia.org]. But okay, I must concede that since the only thing we know about Augustine was that he was a Berber, we cannot be sure of which group he came. In any case, non-black ethnic Berbers still have darker skin than ethnic Italians, so the point remains.
Re:No legal standing to sue (Score:4, Informative)
There is an order within the Free Masons who call themselves Knights Templar, but it is symbolic. It is a Christian-only order within the York Rite.
Re:No legal standing to sue (Score:5, Funny)
Hello! My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father, prepare to settle.
Re:No legal standing to sue (Score:4, Funny)
"Hello! My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father, prepare to settle."
Re:No legal standing to sue (Score:5, Funny)
Re:No legal standing to sue (Score:5, Funny)
Re:No legal standing to sue (Score:5, Funny)
statute of limitations? (Score:5, Funny)
I'm thinking that 700 years might be a bit past the statute of limitations...
Re:statute of limitations? (Score:5, Funny)
I'm thinking that 700 years might be a bit past the statute of limitations...
NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition!
Re:statute of limitations? (Score:5, Insightful)
Except that the Templars ran into trouble with the French, not the Spanish. Their real problem was that King Philip IV owed them a huge pile of cash that he didn't have.
Of course, that would have made Jacques de Molay even more surprised and fearful if the Spanish Inquisition showed up on his doorstep.
Re:statute of limitations? (Score:5, Informative)
As informative as your post is, I think it qualifies for a "Whoosh".
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=gldlyTjXk9A [youtube.com]
Re:statute of limitations? (Score:5, Informative)
True, but the murder charges would be against individuals in France (not Spain) who are dead. Anyhow, that is criminal, and I was thinking this was a civil suit.
Re:statute of limitations? (Score:4, Interesting)
In France it does. It is 30 years.
Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy (Score:5, Insightful)
I wonder what a holy grail goes for with 700 years of compound interest.
I'm much more interested in how you make up for the lives & civilizations your organization destroyed [wikipedia.org].
I'm not saying this is true but Newsweek/MSNBC ran a story on pagan relics stored beneath the Vatican [tripod.com]. I've also read and heard that many Native American (both North & South) relics and documents were shipped back to the Vatican to be stored under it so they could study heathenism and combat it. This was after their owners were either converted or burned/shot.
I would think that the Catholic church could at least (as a sign of good faith) return these to their descendants or at the very least release them to a museum with all the information they have on it so that the rest of us can gain insight to their culture & religion. Of course, if this were true, I don't think the museum donations would be worth the black eye.
"the Knights Templar are demanding that the Vatican give them back their good name and, possibly, billions in assets into the bargain, 700 years after the order was brutally suppressed by a joint venture between the Pope and the King of France..."
The funny thing is that the Vatican probably has billions in capital at its disposal. I always got a kick out of the pope ruling a small nation-state in Europe (with its own currency, mind you) telling me to be more like Jesus. The same Jesus who said in Matthew 19:21
Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."
Or what Luke said (12:23)
Sell your possessions and give to the poor. Provide purses for yourselves that will not wear out, a treasure in heaven that will not be exhausted, where no thief comes near and no moth destroys.
Or John 3:17
If anyone has material possessions and sees his brother in need but has no pity on him, how can the love of God be in him?
The funny thing is I could go on all day finding quotes from most major religions ... Like Buddha or Gandhi, I'm a huge fan of this Jesus guy. It's 99% of the people who purport to follow him that manage to genuinely fuck up the world.
Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy (Score:5, Funny)
(see sig)
Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy (Score:5, Funny)
[...]still standing by for Christianity-bashing and something about open source.
YEAH, how come Jesus didn't post the sermon on the mount for all of us to modify and improve upon instead of dictating it like Microsoft would do?
Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy (Score:5, Funny)
YEAH, how come Jesus didn't post the sermon on the mount for all of us to modify and improve upon instead of dictating it like Microsoft would do?
It's pretty obvious that the original source code has been lost, and the current source is a combination of ignorant reverse engineering, clumsy hacks, and viruses.
Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy (Score:4, Informative)
I believe your last two citations are incorrect. The last should be 1 John, and was not uttered by Jesus. The middle one is Luke 12:33.
Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy (Score:5, Funny)
The middle one is Luke 12:33.
Would that be AM or PM ?
Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy (Score:5, Funny)
Great. Before we had spelling Nazis and Grammar Nazis, now it's Bible Nazis.
Is nothing sacred?
Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy (Score:5, Funny)
Great. Before we had spelling Nazis and Grammar Nazis, now it's Bible Nazis.
Is nothing sacred?
Off hand, I'd say spelling, grammar, and The Bible.
Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy (Score:5, Funny)
Three things: Spelling, grammar, The Bible, and Monty Python quotes.
I'll come in again.
Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy (Score:5, Interesting)
As long as we're quoting from the Bible, why not disband the whole church system using Matthew 6?
"Be careful not to do your 'acts of righteousness' before men, to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven.
2"So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. 3But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, 4so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.
Prayer
5"And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. 6But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you."
Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy (Score:4, Informative)
As long as we're quoting from the Bible, why not disband the whole church system using Matthew 6?
For one thing, because Christ himself established the church system. (Matthew 16:18)
In Matthew 5, he says this:
You are the light of the world. A city set on a mountain cannot be hidden. Nor do they light a lamp and then put it under a bushel basket; it is set on a lampstand, where it gives light to all in the house. Just so, your light must shine before others, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your heavenly Father.
The obvious reconciliation of these two passages is that of INTENT. You are ignoring the second half of the sentence. "Be careful not to do your acts of righteousness before men, to be seen by them." He's not telling people to avoid doing acts of righteousness, he's telling them to avoid doing them solely for the sake of being seen (i.e. for the purpose of glorifying themselves).
Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy (Score:4, Interesting)
Well if you want to snip a few words here or there you can make something clear as you want, but the Bible clearly not only says there should be churches but gives some loose guidelines as to how they should function. In context Jesus is admonishing those who would go out into the streets and puff out their chest at how holy and good they were which was a common practice at the time. He was not telling people to hide their faith. If you want scriptural evidence that churches are indeed a critical component of Christianity:
In Mt 16:18:
"on this rock I will build my church"
Luke 8:16-17
"No one, when he has lit a lamp, covers it with a container"
Protestants and Catholics differ on what 'rock' he was talking about with Catholics believing its Peter and Protestants believing its the truth that Christ is the Messiah. but its pretty clear Christ is saying he will build a church
We can also look at the letters of the apostles (and the book of acts) to see that clearly church formation was a very important component of Christianity and is a very important support mechanism for Christians who, themselves, are as flawed and sinful as anyone else.
One might disagree in such a large central and controlling a church as the catholic church but to try and scripture twist your way into Christ saying their should not be common places of worship for Christians and that those places are not to be a beacon to the world is agenda driven drivel of the highest caliber..
Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy (Score:5, Informative)
You seem to have missed the part in the Bible where Jesus prayed, in front of everybody, as an example of how to pray. He also prayed in the garden of Gethsemane in front of his apostles.
Prayer in front of others is only wrong if you're doing it so other people see you praying - similarly, Christ said that those who fast and act like they're fasting so others know they're fasting already have their reward. Praying in front of others is fine if your only intention is to pray, that is, if you do not do it for the praise of man.
Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy (Score:4, Informative)
If the Bible (or at least, the Gospels) are the word of Jesus, and it's his word that good Christians are supposed to be following, then the fact that he says "pray in private" would seem to suggest that Jesus doesn't want you to get together in a big building once a week to say your prayers in front of everybody else. Seems pretty straightforward to me...
He said not to pray out loud on the street corners to show everybody how devout you are. He never seemed to have any serious problems with group prayer.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy (Score:4, Insightful)
Congratulations! You have discovered the secret of Instant +5 Insightful here in our happy community:
"[Catholic Church|US Government] sucks and [Catholics|US Citizens] are [ignorant|corrupt]." Followed by "I'm sure [Jesus|the Constitution] is great, but no one really does what they want."
Instant gratification and celebrity! I'd patent it, but there's WAY too much prior art.
Congratulations! (Score:5, Funny)
Congratulations! You have discovered the secret of Instant +5 Insightful here in our happy community:
"Blah blah [vapid knee-jerk complaining about vapid knee-jerk complaining and slashdot groupthink] blah blah," followed by a suggestion of patenting it.
Re:The Vatican has no cash! (Score:4, Informative)
The funny thing is that the Vatican probably has billions in capital at its disposal. I always got a kick out of the pope ruling a small nation-state in Europe (with its own currency, mind you) telling me to be more like Jesus.
Actually, the Vatican made a loss last tax year.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7501486.stm [bbc.co.uk]
And this would be the same Jesus who said:
For ye have the poor always with you; but me ye have not always. Sounds like a charitable guy.
Re:The Vatican has no cash! (Score:5, Informative)
Y'know... I've never really liked it when people use the word "ye" to mean "you"... it means "the". And it's actually supposed to be pronounced that way, too... The letter 'y' in that place replaces a thorn [wikipedia.org], and started doing so with the introduction of moving type. It does so because the French-made printing presses didn't have that letter in their character set, because it's of Anglo-Saxon origin, not Latin, and so the letter Y was used in its place. Over time, the letter simply fell out of use in the English alphabet, and was replaced with the combonation "th", which had started appearing about 100 years earlier.
Off topic, I know. But *shrugs*
The Two Forms of Ye (Score:4, Informative)
No, it could be either, depending on context. Use as a pronoun was far more common. Don't let the overuse in fantasy novels and faux-archaic bar signs fool you.
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=ye [etymonline.com]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ye_(pronoun) [wikipedia.org]
Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy (Score:4, Interesting)
Umberto Eco's Novel "The Name of the Rose" has this as a major subplot (I think it's less significant in the movie).
Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy (Score:5, Insightful)
No one would remember the Good Samaritan if he'd only had good intentions; he had money as well.
Margaret Thatcher
Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm much more interested in how you make up for the lives & civilizations your organization destroyed.
I'm more interestded in how the list you pointed to is in any way relevant.
etc. What do any of these have to do with destroying people's lives?
I would think that the Catholic church could at least (as a sign of good faith) return these to their descendants or at the very least release them to a museum with all the information they have on it so that the rest of us can gain insight to their culture & religion.
I don't see how anyone could disagree with that. "Thou shalt not steal," not even if you are the Catholic Chruch.
The funny thing is that the Vatican probably has billions in capital at its disposal.
More pathetic than funny IMO, especially considering Matthew 19:23 - "Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. 24 And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God"
Never trust a preacher who wears a five thousand dollar suit preaching in a million dollar church.
It's 99% of the people who purport to follow him that manage to genuinely fuck up the world.
Amen to that. Pat Robertson has converted more Christians to athiesm than all the athiests at slashdot combined. Most of the people you find in any church worship money, not God.
Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy (Score:4, Informative)
The often quoted (out of context mind you) Jesus' words:
Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. 24 And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God"
do NOT mean that it is wrong to be rich nor that rich people can not go to heaven. If you read a few passages before the quote you will see that a rich man rejected the offer to follow Jesus because he could not part with the money (that was the condition Jesus requested of him: sell all you have and follow me).
The question any "rich" man or anybody who holds something really dear to their heart is always "is this more important to me than God. Am I serving that something and not God and people around me, failing to see them as my brothers".
If the honest answer is no, then you are in the exact same danger as the rich man in the Bible.
Note that money is just a tool, so is knowledge, reason or any talent. People often forget that.
Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy (Score:5, Insightful)
The funny thing is I could go on all day finding quotes from most major religions ... Like Buddha or Gandhi, I'm a huge fan of this Jesus guy. It's 99% of the people who purport to follow him that manage to genuinely fuck up the world.
I'd love to see where you got your statistics.
I don't disagree with you. Christians have done quite a good job of messing up the world. Heck...Christians are people too - we mess up. But, then again, we are all part of this earth, so we all hold responsibility for its state...it's not just Christians (and people of other faiths) who are at fault. The problem as I see it is, and as you very nicely pointed out, religions tend to be caught in their hypocrisy which makes them look that much worse. (What's worse - someone who does something bad, or someone who says to do good and still does the bad thing?)
I am also not disagreeing with you that all of that capital could not be used to help millions (billions?) of people in this world, and it's not. I am with you 100% on that.
With all that said, what I find interesting is that you quote passage after passage in the Bible, condemning Christians (and religions) about not being perfect, yet you forget one passage...
Matthew 7:5 - You hypocrite! First remove the beam from your own eye, and then you will see clearly enough to remove the speck from your brother's eye.
I challenge you that, instead of complaining about how others are not doing the right thing, go out and do the right thing yourself. How much better would that make the world?
Not so fast. (Score:5, Informative)
http://zzpat.tripod.com/cvb/oct_2006/pagan_graves_in_vatican_basement.html [tripod.com]
To be fair, you completely misrepresent this article that you linked. The aforementioned "pagan relics stored beneath the Vatican" is nothing more than a new archeological site. It's not some cache of pagan artifacts gathered from past crusades/missions or some such.
If you read the article you'll see that it is a ancient Roman necropolis that was discovered recently, quite by accident*, during the construction of a new parking garage for the Vatican. It even has the rather tongue-in-cheek name "Necropolis of the Parking Garage" ("Necropoli dell'Autoparco").
The fact the burial customs used were clearly non-christian/Catholic, is the only reason why the site is labeled as a Pagan site. Also, it is dated to around 23 B.C.-14 A.D, which dates it just before Christianity as a whole.
The Vatican even plans to open the site to the public. This quote best sums up how the Vatican feels on the matter:
(* This kind of stuff happens all the time in Rome. It just so happens that the Vatican isn't in the habit of digging so deep.)
Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy (Score:5, Informative)
Well, if Jesus is God, then he owns the whole Universe and beyond. Can't be richer than that, can he?
Anyway, if you go beyond the Gospels into Acts, you'll see the apostles made such a money-less community. The problem is, it didn't last. At the end, they had to ask Paul to go around get donations from the churches abroad, what he did. Morals: being poor is good and all, provided you have someone from whom to ask money once poorness' ugly side shows up.
Oh, and by the way: the land the Church owned in Europe up to the 18th century were usually reserved for usage by the landless or anyone under persecution of angry Feudal lords. When those Church lands were appropriated by the many greed governments around, they got distributed among nobles, bourgeois and other close friends of said governments. That's when being a poor European landless peasant really became a problem (for the peasant).
In short: actual History is more complicated than our cherished oversimplifications would prefer it to be.
Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy (Score:4, Informative)
The funny thing is that the Vatican probably has billions in capital at its disposal.
The Vatican's finances are a matter of public record, so you don't have to guess about its financial resources. You can look it up [nlrcm.org]. The short answer is: no, they don't have billions in capital at their disposal. Their annual budget is less than that of Harvard University.
Some sources to prove you wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
I call bullshit. The Vatican gets at least 0.5% of Italy's tax revenue through the Otto per mille, a way to publicly finance religion in Italy. Through that channel alone, the Vatican got one billion euros [wikipedia.org] (not dollars) last year. That's one tax, for each year, in one country, and that's even a legitimate channel; illegal channels include tax breaks on commercial activities [iht.com] operated by the church, which are granted by my country's government, headed by a "legitimate businessman", in spite of European rules, and financing of religious private schools, forbidden as explicitly as possible by the Constitution of Italy, article 33 [wikisource.org], which however politicians use as toilet paper; In case you did not know how schools work in Italy, private schools are basically diploma mills for stupid or lazy sons of rich people who can't handle public school, where your professor can flunk you without fear of making the school lose its money.
Read on about cardinal Marcinkus [wikipedia.org] and the IOR [wikipedia.org] to know more about the greed of the Vatican.
... and, by the way, Harvard university's budget is in the range of billions of dollars [pdf] [harvard.edu], 2.6 in 2005 to be precise.
Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy (Score:4, Funny)
dont blame just the christians, they simply have a head start on everyone else.
Oh no you don't! We Jews were here long before those Christians! Err wait, we've already had enough blame laid on us over the years, forget I said that.
Re:Silly (Score:5, Funny)
Let's go further than that! Join the Gondwanaland Reunification Movement!
Good luck with that... (Score:5, Insightful)
They'll have enough trouble trying to prove that they are the rightful heirs of the Knights Templar...Trying to get money from the church on top of that? And why not sue France? They got a huge chunk of change as well.
Not even close to being the first time someone has tried this, and it never goes anywhere. The dream of the Templars wealth keeps it going, but in reality there is no wealth to claim, no one with the right to claim it, and no one to claim it from.
Its all a coverup! (Score:5, Funny)
Rightful heir of the Knights Templar (Score:5, Funny)
How about Sir Roger Moore? He's a Knight, and is famous for playing Simon Templar.
Re:Good luck with that... (Score:4, Informative)
The Knights Templar were merged with the Knights Hospitaller who still exist as The Sovereign Military Hospitaller Order of Saint John of Jerusalem - they are recognised as a sovereign state (with no territory) and are based in Rome
They are trying to claim they are an organisation which still exists and is recognised in international law .... !
DNS hack! (Score:5, Funny)
I think the traffic to the register is being redirected to the onion!
I propose a deal. (Score:5, Funny)
They go back and *actually* liberate the Holy Land, and *then* the Pope has to pay them all the golden doubloons in Christendom.
10% bonus doubloons for finding the True Cross. On second thoughts, 10% bonus for each True Cross found.
Heck, I'll even chip in a squadron of Turcopoles and some Genoese arbalesters.
I had to look it up (Score:5, Informative)
So now you don't have to [wikipedia.org].
I fail to see how this is nerdy, but I do appreciate the humor of someone suing the pope.
We demand the Pantheon back! (Score:5, Insightful)
The Pantheon, in Rome [wikipedia.org], was built as a temple to the Roman gods, but was taken over by the Catholic church in 609 AD. It's time to return it to its original purpose, and restore the statutes of Mars, Venus, Apollo, Jupiter, and Diana.
All I can say, is ... (Score:4, Funny)
Ni!
"WTF" is "their good name?" (Score:5, Insightful)
As standing with The Register's excellent reputation these days, the article is short on details and what exactly "restoring their good name" means. Here's something that might make more sense:
http://www.cathnews.com/article.aspx?aeid=8360 [cathnews.com]
What the Templars want is the lifting of the ban on the order itself by the catholic church. Follow the money on this one. The templars appear to be a charitable organization now, but even 700 years later, c'mon, if you said you were a templar, the first two stupid questions you'd expect from an ignorant person are "weren't they all burned at the stake for crimes a long time ago", and "so where's the grail?"
Obviously the Templars want some legitimacy, and this is the first step. If the church basically lifts the ban, they can also probably get financial and political support from the Vatican, which is huge. By getting legitimacy, they stop having to answer the same stupid questions and can go back to doing good works "in the name of God and with the pope's blessing," if that's the type of thing that floats your boat, and people will start taking them more seriously. Right now I bet no one in the world takes them seriously, but if they win this, since this will be a pretty visible thing if the Pope does what he asks, it will catapult the group into the world spotlight.
I'm a living Neanderthal (Score:5, Funny)
...and I want to sue the whole of Europe for damages.
Pretty Slick (Score:4, Interesting)
Most suits for medieval atrocities would face a number of hurdles, e.g.:
These 'Templars' seem to be able to overcome 1 because, according to Catholic doctrine, the current Pope is the direct successor of an unbroken line going back to St. Peter. They seem able to overcome 2 because the Pope is not sovereign in Spain. Overcoming 3 and 4, though, seems unlikely.
Everybody knows Freemasons (Score:5, Funny)
are the true Knights Templar, and that we have hidden the treasures of the world beneath a highly recognizable public building (no, not that one).
Claims about us secretly directing the destiny of nations and peoples are greatly exaggerated, though. I've been in fifteen years and still only get to oversee Botswana.
Re:Everybody knows Freemasons (Score:5, Funny)
Who controls the British Crown?
Who keeps the Metric System down?
We do! We do!
Who leaves Altantis off the maps?
Who keeps the Martians under wraps?
We do! We do!
Who holds back the electric car?
Who makes Steve Guttenberg a star?
We do! We do!
Who robs cave fish of their sight?
Who rigs every Oscar night?
We do! We do!
Genocide? (Score:4, Insightful)
Can someone sue them for genocide in the African continent too? Seeing how they must know that AIDS is common there and that it's deadly they still keep insisting that condoms are forbidden. The only thing that can save lives is forbidden.
Yeah, they keep preaching abstinence but that's like trying to forbid good food. It's possible to get by without it but most people wont.
Not that I think that it will ever happen. And now I'm probably on the vaticans "going to hell"-list too.
Re:How many Knights Templar? (Score:4, Informative)
I believe the name of the organization is "Knights Templar". And, if the organization as a whole is suing (rather than each member suing in a class-action), then the correct sentance is "Knights Templar sues the Pope"
Re:Umm... hello, respect to the Holy Clergy? (Score:5, Informative)
They did, and the Pope & the king of France conspired to kill them all & seize their lands on the charges of heresy, satanism, and a few other rather unpleasant things. Betrayals don't foster respect. If the record is to be believed, it was a raw money/power grab.