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)
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.
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.
Re:statute of limitations? (Score:2, Insightful)
Murder has no statute of limitations.
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.
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.
Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy (Score:3, Insightful)
As long as we're applying reason to the Bible, why not acknowledge it as nothing more than a book of bronze age mythology and treat it as such?
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: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.
Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd patent it, but there's WAY too much prior art.
This hasn't stopped anyone before, why let it get in your way now?
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:5, Insightful)
No one would remember the Good Samaritan if he'd only had good intentions; he had money as well.
Margaret Thatcher
"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.
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.
Sure... (Score:3, Insightful)
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?
Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy (Score:3, Insightful)
ahem,
The followers of Muhammed are also fucking up the place pretty darn good.
and dont get me started on those wackjobs that worship the great space race taht will come down to save us... or do they worship L ron Hubbard? I forget.
dont blame just the christians, they simply have a head start on everyone else.
Re:What about the native americans? (Score:5, Insightful)
Ouch! It almost sounds like there are no consequences for perpetrating a successful genocide.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
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, 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, 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:What about the native americans? (Score:2, Insightful)
That's not 'theft', it's 'posession of stolen property'. Columbus was the one who stole it and saddled them with it. I'm fairly sure they'd even give it back if they could figure out how.
Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy (Score:2, Insightful)
I think they should be forced, in the international courts, to give up all their lands for which they cannot show provenance.
That may be problematical, as the only surviving records for most of Europe are likely to have been kept by the Church, either on their own behalf or for the local king. The records are thus likely to be forged in cases where the land was acquired illegally, and in other cases, the acquisition would have been in accordance with the law and thus there would be no way for the courts to do anything either.
Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, but in response to the comments here about giving everything to the poor, I would note that there was a study on that subject while back. It concluded that even if the Church sold all of its possessions including real estate and gave everything to the poor, it would feed the people of Africa for, IIRC, about a year.
So they have a choice: continue an organization of people who regularly spend their time and talents on an ongoing basis to help the poor of their communities or disband it and lose all of that just to gain a very temporary improvement in one part of the world. I think anyone with a solid grasp of reality would agree that sometimes there are better ways to help the poor than selling everything you have and giving the money to them.
As for whether it is theirs or not, the good book also says that children should not be punished for the sins of their fathers. We should leave the past in ashes. It is the past. There is nothing to be gained from dredging it up again. Just my $0.02.
Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy (Score:3, Insightful)
http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=54617 [google.com]
But stop and consider that "billions" is still less than the personal wealth of many individual many around the world.
Now stop and consider that that, according to Wikipedia, "In 2000, worldwide Catholic institutions totalled 408,637...". Or, there were half a million Roman Catholic churches around the world, so for every billion in assets, that represents $2000 per church, or about $1 per person.
So now you'd have to stop and ask, "if the church needed it, would its people be able to give $1? $10?" You'd have to answer yes. So yes, the Roman Catholic Church does have billions, even tens (maybe hundreds) of billions at its disposal, should it need it.
But then you need to ask, "Does that justify holding up the Roman Catholic Church for billions, because they can get it, and I want it?" (You have to include the "I want it" part, because that's really what's driving your statement -- either "I want it", or "I want it by proxy."
Now consider whether the Roman Catholic Church sees a brother in need and has no pity. My experience, is that the liquid assets of the church are so low (see the original google answers link above) *because* they have pity.
Just as a corallary... the organizations to which you belong: what assets are at their disposal, and do *they* show pity?
Re:What about the native americans? (Score:3, Insightful)
Either you or Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] is completely wrong. In fact, Wikipedia is definitely wrong since it contradicts itself [wikipedia.org].
Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy (Score:3, Insightful)
You are quite right. Money is not the root of all evil, as is often quoted. The LOVE OF money is the root of all evil.
Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy (Score:1, Insightful)
"on this rock I will build my church"
Protestants and Catholics differ on what 'rock' he was talking about with Catholics believing its Peter and Protestants believing its the truth that Christ is the Messiah. but its pretty clear Christ is saying he will build a church
It's pretty clear he's using metaphor, since he can hardly build a physical church on a belief or a person, miracles aside. I am completely unfamiliar with the specifics of the Bible, but that particular example pretty much supports the idea of private religion, since Jesus' church here is quite blatantly philosophical.
"No one, when he has lit a lamp, covers it with a container"
...Nothing to do with churches, as far as I can tell. Isn't the lamp man, and the light faith, making the container concealing or lying about one's beliefs?
I'm only arguing against the interpretation of biblical evidence as framed by this short discussion; I have no idea about the Christian bible in full, but I hear it might contradict itself in a few places, so I suppose this style of argument is doomed to failure. I only reply because I am intrigued as to how you and I can interpret the same lines in opposing ways; I am interested why you chose them and what led to our difference of interpretation.
Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy (Score:2, Insightful)
why the addition of (i.e in a church) and why the curious lack of context around the quote youre using to say a church is not biblical?
Matthew 6:
" 2"So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. 3But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, 4so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you."
On can, and should keep their offerings private, nobody in my Church save the one person who does the church finances has a clue what I give. This provision can clearly be followed within the environment of a church.
" 5"And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. 6But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. 7And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. 8Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him."
In the Time of Christ the Judaism was a temple based faith and the synagog was the center of daily life in their communities, some would stand in the center and show how holy and great they were by loud prayers in what was effectively the town center, they would then go home and do nothing of the sort. Christian need to find time alone to pray but prayer within a group setting is not prohibited. Christ several times mentions 'the church' and his apostles who knew him better than you or I founded many, many churches throughout Asia and Greece in their lifetimes.
16"When you fast, do not look somber as the hypocrites do, for they disfigure their faces to show men they are fasting. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. 17But when you fast, put oil on your head and wash your face, 18so that it will not be obvious to men that you are fasting, but only to your Father, who is unseen; and your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.
This is not a prohibition on fasting, this is a provision on fasting to glorify yourself, just like the above versus are not a prohibition on public prayer, merely public prayer meant to set yourself apart.
Re:"WTF" is "their good name?" (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
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.
Be careful where this leads... (Score:3, Insightful)
...can the native americans sue europe for defiling their land, and ruining their culture?
If they can then the next step will be Britain suing the US for return of the land that was "stolen" by that well known "terrorist" gang lead by George Washington. This may lead to the US government declaring itself a terrorist organization by its own laws and promptly disappearing in a puff of logic.
Re:What about the native americans? (Score:1, Insightful)
If not, do I get to call atheists who argue for atheism "nutjobs"?
Hmm... For that matter, either way, do I get to call an unpleasant atheist a nutjob?
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: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:3, Insightful)
"If you cant prove you are 50% or greater american indian I think you have no case."
Quite on the contrary. Since we are talking here about some nuts that declare themselves to be "The Templars" (as if there could be any other templars than those so accepted by the Pope), the proper analogy would be somebody calling himself indian american being say, 100% Danish and then ask for relatiation because of the damages suffered by "we" the real indian nation (not those newcomers that just because their ancestors has been in North America for the last 10.000 years think they can claim themselves being this or that).
Re:Yes the Vatican Is So Pure & Holy (Score:3, Insightful)
A Mormon is perfectly capable of using non-Mormon sources. However, many researchers will find things that directly contradict their points and ignore them. So, having a bias going in will definately bias the sources. Researchers don't just assemble everything they can find on the subject. They come up with a theme and look for that which supports it. Thus, the bias of the author is going to alter the results, whether he be Mormon, Catholic, Wiccan, athiest or FSM.
Many of his sources are secular, and many are Catholic. He does occasionally use LDS scriptures in his arguments, but he also uses Old and New Testament scriptures and other Catholic sources.
And how many sources does he quote that directly contradict his point? None? Then he has a bias. That is all that was stated, with "Mormon" being an indication of the direction of the bias, not proof there is a bias. The proof there is a bias is that he's human.
Re:What about the native americans? (Score:3, Insightful)
Any non-native White American would also be sued because most of you came from europe at some point.
If your a white American, are you sure those rejects arn't related to you?
Re:What about the native americans? (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm sometimes dealing with child-like men on this site, many times with egos far exceeding their humanity.
That is the most cogent statement I have seen on or about this site in a long time.
Re:What about the native americans? (Score:3, Insightful)
Other than that, I can understand how you might feel irritated by an unsolicited invitation to talk about religion--or anything else, from political messages to invitations to sign petitions--but I don't think it would be reasonable to call people unpleasant for asking. Not if they're respectful about it.