The Swedish government has formally recognized the Church of Kopimism, which considers information holy and uses copying as their sacrament. It’s rather silly, if you ask me, and I’d rather just get away from the nonsense of religion altogether, but it does have one virtue: it has inspired at least one crazy Christian to rage.
But Bishop Peter Ingham, head of the Catholic Diocese of Wollongong, said the move cheapens the value of ‘real’ religious organisations and labelled the group a ‘sham’.
"There should be some measuring stick against what you call religion," Bishop Ingham told ninemsn. "In my mind, if religion has nothing to do with God — or what people perceive to be God — then it’s a sham.
"It cheapens the currency of religion in general because [now] anything can be defined as a religion."
Right. I hear that there are some people who worship a dead man who they claim was a god! I hear that there are some people who think their god manifests as a cracker, so they eat him! I hear that there are some people who think that if you don’t dunk a baby’s head in a tub of water, it won’t go to heaven if it dies! Boy, there sure are a lot of silly beliefs out there that cheapen religion.
And that takes some doing. Religion is bottom-of-the-barrel garbage as it is.
And then he says this:
“It looks like it’s just a way of getting around the law of piracy and copyright. How could a religion promote illegal activity?”
Wait…isn’t it a tenet of the Christian faith that early in their history, they were intensely persecuted by the Romans? That the martyrs refused to obey the laws of the land and thus were executed? And wasn’t Jesus himself executed for his rabble-rousing disobedience? How self-unaware are these guys?
Does he consider the current events in Nigeria to be an example of a religion promoting a legal activity?
I have a friend who has never driven a car. He never got his car driver’s license. He was fully licensed for motorcycle, and rode everywhere. When he moved from Maryland to Oregon, they informed him that he would have to get his automobile license in order to change his license to an Oregon one. He tried working that angle that motorcycles were his religion, and that cars were the evil enemy. I’m not sure, but I think that might have worked.
Indeed. Strange how this works, isn’t it?
While we’re on topic, I have received a message from my god, the great Trimethylxanthios. He bids me to gather followers so that we may spread his message of The True Awakening, and to combat the nefarious influence of The Enemy – Adenosinios. Verily, ours is the only true religion.
Hey, it makes about as much sense as the bishop’s claims, or that file sharing religion thing. And I should probably not attempt to write after inaugurating my new coffee maker by drinking seven cups of coffee…
Apparently the bishop is unfamiliar with certain forms of Buddhism.
*cough* child rapists *cough*
When I first glanced at the title of the OP, I mis-read it as:
That made me hopeful, but only for a moment, until I read the rest of the post.
The hypocrisy is just staggering.
Of course, the Catholic Church is all about compliance with the law, and bringing to justice any law-breakers within its fold. /sarcasm
As to pirating, the Christian church leads by example, by having stolen so many ideas and rites from the pagans and from other religions. One of the ironies I enjoy every Christmas is the Christians’ wailing about “taking back Christmas” as if it were ever theirs in the first place.
I really enjoy how stuff like this makes guys like Ingham discuss questions like
– “How do you recognize/define true religions?”,
– “Which beliefs are crazy, which are not?”,
– “When does ‘but this is what I believe/what my God looks like/wants/does!’ cease to be a respectable position?”
Saves us the work of deconstructing religious beliefs ourselves. Besides, watching it is funny as hell.
CTRL+C
CTRL+V
Hallelujah!
But seriously, they might be mocking religion, which can only be good, and the copyright cartel, which needs to be done. There’s a very serious threat to freedom and the internet in the works. Check Cory Doctorow’s talk at the Chaos Communication Congress.
Information.
Dead Jew on a Stick.
One of them can actually be useful and potentially illuminate mysteries. The other has fanboys who hand out zombie crackers.
The “Register Radio” program on the Catholic EWTN network recently complained that critics of religion are insufficiently willing to “engage” religion and instead reject it unthinkingly. I especially liked the comment that we don’t try hard enough to “find out what serious religious people actually mean when they use language like, a wafer of bread is transubstantiated into the body of Jesus.” Really? I thought it was obvious.
Then it’s official. When creationists say that evolution is a religion, they are engaged in a sham.
I’m glad to see theists finally acknowledge that.
He says this like it’s a bad thing.
This is why governments should not be granting legal status for religions — why should some politician or bureaucrat get to say which is a “real” religion, and which a fake, or a joke. Why is Catholicism and Mormonism a religion, Scientology borderline (varies among jurisdictions), and Jedi-ism and Pastafarianism not?
(Hmmm: it occurs to me that the last two are the only ones that don’t try to run their adherents’ lives, often try to run non-adherents’ lives as well, and/or rip off people for their money. Maybe I just answered my own question — and not in a way that looks good for the “real” religions).
There are real-world consequences for state recognition of religion. In Canada, you can get charity status (ie: can issue tax receipts for donations) on grounds of providing a public service (eg. homeless shelter, cure-some-disease), public education (I think running public lectures on various topics counts), or being a religion (even though the bulk of the revenue goes to just maintaining the organization’s infrastructure).
“It cheapens the currency of religion in general because [now] anything can be defined as a religion.”
Like some form of spiritual Gresham’s Law.
But he’s got it backwards–it’s his religious coinage that’s the bad money propped up by society. The bishop’s currency has been wildly inflated to the point where its value is practically nil.
Kopimism’s practice actually enriches the practitioners–every sacrament performed makes the adherent demonstrably richer in information in this lifetime. No wonder folks are keeping it for themselves and passing on the worthless Christianity for the suckers to use.
So the scary virgin in a robe thinks this new religion of file sharing cheapens the currency of religion? He needs to be reminded that the currency of religion is bullshit and only has value to people who consume bullshit.
Great, more IDiocy, now in Sweden.
The DI should be rushing to their aid right now.
Glen Davidson
Juicy and ironic words from the Bish!
I have to agree. These fake religions are a sham in much the same sense as plastic dog turds. You wouldn’t want to play with the real turd, because obviously that would be gross, but the fake ones can still be good for some juvenile humor.
Self awareness for the win!
I remember when I was a teenager the execrable David Wilkerson (of The Cross and the Switchblade fame) wrote a book on cults he had seen in New York. One of them was a cleanliness cult that supposedly worshiped detergent (Oxydol, if I remember correctly) and celery and dressed all in white. I never was able to find another reference to the group outside of his book, so I think he just made it up. The joke was that he seriously thought this made his macho version of Xtianity look sensible. He was wrong.
Well there is and has been for millennia.
They simply fight wars. The winner is always the True Religion.
There is also a stick that religions use whenever they can. They just kill defectors and people who won’t convert. Long ago, religions found that if you put a sword to someone’s throat, they usually become fervent followers of your religion in minutes.
Yes. Professed belief is the same as actual belief.
At least for tax purposes.
“It cheapens the currency of religion in general because [now] anything can be defined as a religion.”
Note that this is an odd thing for an Australian bishop to say, because that is actually the law in Australia: the government cannot tell you that your organisation is not a religion. That’s the basis of the 1983 decision that the Church of Scientology could claim tax exemption as a religion. Lionel Murphy, the atheist leader of the High Court of Australia, pointed out that if the government really didn’t want to give the Scientologists a tax exemption, they had to stop giving everyone else a tax exemption. The government demurred, which is why the CoS is tax exempt in Australia.
Ah. Better.
Yes, but they’ve been believing in these absurdities and practicing these idiocies for a very long time. That makes all the difference.
Ridiculous! Oxydol is manufactured by Proctor and Gamble, and we all know about them; while celery was obviously created by the Evil One himself, using infernal techniques of genetic modification!
“Does he consider the current events in Nigeria to be an example of a religion promoting a legal activity?”
Indeed. And I’m wondering whether Christians are involved in the manufacture and sale of the firearms and ammo they’re using – those devotional christerous arms manufacturers who eagerly supply the demand “for Prophet”.
It’s people exploiting the privilege that religion grants you in society to get away with things they shouldn’t. It doesn’t cheapen religion, (religions do that to themselves already) it shows people how ridiculous it is to place undeserved importance on religious belief.
Which admittedly is by sheer accident because that was probably not the intention but what the hell, I’ll take it.
My rant: any “-ism” most probably is religion-like. The bigger the presence of the “-ism” in a society the more it will be such. Communism a good example.
Anything that makes up myths and fantasies/lies to support its premises, and then demands unquestioned allegiance, deference, and faith from followers/subjects, especially when laws, infrastructure, and hierarchy are instituted to propagate and enforce such, is religion! No god or supernatural required though certainly not precluded.
End of rant.
IANAC (I am not a catholic), but isn’t file sharing merely the 21st century version of the cracker and wine thing? Instead of getting up on Sunday and going to church and standing in a line to get the cracker you could download a file that would do the same thing. No getting out of bed in the depth of winter, you could stay in your Jammie’s.
The magic that makes the cracker become their god must be the same magic that makes the Internet work, otherwise how could all those online prayer sites work?
Their complete lack of introspection is astonishing. Reminds me of an old story about a pot and a kettle…
concernedjoe #26
While we are ranting, the comparison of religion to bullshit is rather odious. Bullshit has real world uses. It acts as a soil amendment. In some countries BS is used to generate methane for cooking and is dried for burning. It gets used in manufacturing a certain type of brick. More uses can be found using google.
I am at a loss trying to come up with any positives that can be attributed exclusively to religion.
Ordure > religion.
Scat beats god every time.
It appears that the connection between religion and shit is that after eating a cracker, the devout have a religious movement.
Nothing is better than religion, in fact, nothing is much better than religion.
So… I’m confused…
I read through some of the comments here, and this nagging thought crept into my head.
Wouldn’t this include ‘AtheISM’? I’m not saying I disagree, just asking the question. In place of a God-Construct, this ‘ism’ transfers those qualities to science and self.
I mean, obviously the corollary breaks down when we start talking about forms of art (cubism or impressionism) or philosophy (nihilism or neo-humanism) but it’s an interesting corollary none the less.
Even so, I’m almost certain that the average Atheist isn’t going to be quite so willing to get that introspective.
That’s enough to melt all irony meters in a 1000 mile radius. The lack of awareness is mind-boggling.
What qualities? Define what you mean by qualities.
I don’t believe in your imaginary deity. End of definition of atheism, and no other conclusions follow from that statement.
I’ll refer you to the definition given to the Supreme Court, in the case of Murray v. Curlett, 374 U.S. 203, 83 S. Ct. 1560, 10 L.Ed.2d (MD, 1963).
Further–
Which, is no less ‘Religion-Like’ (to borrow from concernedjoe) than, say… Buddhism.
Quodlibet:
-Catholic radio had a guest pastor on last night who talked about just that. Along with taking back Halloween (he did technically say All Saints, but he spoke as if both were the same). Do Christians really think their religion is responsible for all holidays?
You know a religion is serious when its prince of peace comes armed with a sword.
Zeno,
-the link you provided was quite amusing. I almost fell over when Tim Drake mentioned that the Catholic Church doesn’t get the respect it used to. Gosh, I can’t imagine why.
And of course, Father Barron stating that Catholics stand for something. I suppose standing for child rape, abuse of power, misogyny, and homophobia counts as standing for something. I’m not quite sure why he’s happy about that.
That’s a particularly stupid lie: no atheist I know of considers either themselves or science to be omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, or omnibenevolent.
kreepykritter,
I’m not going to chase up your reference to a particualr court case, because the Supreme Court of the United States of America* is not qualified to define the term “atheism”, which simply means believing there are no gods. Atheists may love or hate other people, they may or may not be utopianists, they could even favour the building of churches rather than hospitals. Now do stop being such a twerp.
* You are aware that there are atheists in other countries, I presume. They even post here.
Are we sure he doesn’t mean it as a term of respect?
to the kreepykritter,
Some atheists are humanists, also, just as some atheists are mothers, also, but neither makes them religious, and neither is a requirement for being an atheist.
Do you think then that Madalyn was mistaken in trying to help her case against forced religious practice in schools by humanizing her atheism? Should she have just purported to be an antisocial nihilist, which she was not, instead of a very human mother fighting for the rights of her child who was being bullied by the administrators of a public school?
She stood very much alone at that time, even the ACLU was no big help, and she and her children were being demonized in the press and in public gossip as being inhuman because they were not religious. She was a good lawyer who took the wind out of the opposition’s sails with her humanism, and she has gotten damned little thanks for it.
Religious, or religion-like she was not, unless you want to count courage as a religion.
…That…was glorious…
kreepykritter:
-I think you failed to account for the context of concernedjoe’s comment.
He said:
-He didn’t say “any ism is religious”. Yet your comments indicate you interpreted his post that way. He’s saying that more than likely any “ism” is religionlike. In addition, he lists those qualities he feels are inherent to religion. None of those qualities fits atheism. They can’t. Atheism isn’t a belief system. I’m also curious why you would think ‘not believing in a higher power’ transfers to science and self. One doesn’t have to like and/or accept science to not believe in a higher power.
If we could get that as a religion here, would that stop SOPA?
This is like listening to a conman complain that modern ‘phishing’ scams simply cheapen the noble art of the true confidence trick. And besides, he really is a Nigerian Prince who is trying to get his money out of the country, and simply needs a little start up capital to get the ball rolling, and will totally make you rich if you just transfer a little cash to him up front…
Actually I think recognizing more and more outlandish groups as religions is a good thing. The more groups that are able to cash in on the tax benefits of being a recognized religion, the more pressure it will put on governments to take away those tax benefits. Imagine if Coca-Cola could get everyone who drinks their products to be recognized as a religion? That might be enough to tip the balance and open up religion to taxation, as it should be.
kreepykritter:
-There’s the real possibility that the atheists involved in that court case conflated atheism and humanism. Or perhaps people have differing definitions. Or perhaps they were wrong (I certainly don’t agree with their definition). In any event, it seems that today atheism is held to be “a lack of belief in a deity” (at least that’s how a large number of non believers would define it; for theists, well I suspect they would define it differently).
formerchristianatheist:
-I was thinking more of college and pro sports. Certainly there are many qualities they share with religions. Football even more than some others due to the violence involved.
@carlie #43
Only if no one realizes that SOPA isn’t going to do a damn thing to stop piracy. At worst it’ll slow it down for a few weeks until word gets around that PirateBay is back up on Tor.
Well, actually, no, it should still totally rationally work. SOPA will still be screwing people who share LEGAL information, after all.
not that I necessary agree with the comment, but that’s just parsing the word wrong. it’s a-theISM, i.e. the lack of a specific -ISM, theism.
He’s saying that more than likely any “ism” is religionlike. – Tony
Like metabolism, or anachronism, or aphorism, or botulism, or jism :-p
Several schools of Hinduism are atheistic too. Samkhya is an example.
Added to last comment: Certain Samkhya philosophers also went to the extent of formulating philosophical arguments for why a creator god could not exist.
I never bought the whole “Certain types of Buddhism/Hinduism/whateverotherreligion do not espouse deities/supernatural forces, therefore religions can be atheistic”. It seems more correct, to me, to note that these strains of Buddhism and Hinduism at some point ceased to be “religions” by any meaningful definition of the term, and instead became philosophies that share some secondary elements with religions.
Feel free to glue whatever noun you find most applicable to the end of that first sentence.
And talking of atheistic religions, one should not forget , a religion from the Indian subcontinent which originated around the same time as Hinduism. It is not as popular in the west, but there are still a lot of adherents in India (probably more, or about the same as Buddhism).
A correct description of Jainism would be “militant pacifism”. The Jains took non-violence to such a level that very orthodox Jains would refuse to eat root vegetables like potato, since pulling out a potato from a field has the potential to harm tiny creatures living in the ground. Here are a few quotes from wikipedia:
As far as I know, non-violence, and the view that there is room for disagreement in religious/philosophical issues (Anēkāntavāda) were the only fundamental doctrines of Jainism. The founder, Mahavira, was an atheist.
So does Jainism qualify as a “religion” for the esteemed Bishop?
Wow, I messed up that link tag pretty badly in my last comment. The whole comment has now become just a link to Jainism. Really sorry about that.
The IRS defines religion by actually doing things–having churches, services, government, literature, schools (for ministers), Sunday schools, that sort of thing. There’s a requirement for a creed, but no requirement that you actually have any sort of philosophy. I can’t find anything useful in English about the Swedish system, but I suspect it’s similar. I wouldn’t be shocked if the Kopimists (sp?) went out of their way to exactly meet the requirements of Swedish law. You could certainly codify a secularist atheist church under U.S. law. Certainly the Pastafarians could do it just by setting up some weekly meetings in regular spaces and running a minister training program. The IRS would probably try and argue that they’re a joke, not a religion, but actually there’s a very serious undertone to the FSM. Might be interesting, if controversial even among those in on the joke.
Sir Sphlane: Atheism is not a “strain” of Buddhism. The original “strain” of Buddhism (Hinayana, or Theraveda) was always agnostic. The preponderance of gods and Buddha worship is what came later, historically.
“Bishop labels file-sharing religion a ‘sham’.” Well, it takes one to known one.
@Circe #59
I don’t really care which came first. If Buddhism was initially a philosophy and not a religion, my point still stands that those forms of Buddhism are not religions.
Sir Sphlane:
I agree partially with you. The concept of “religion” is by no means universal. At the risk of repeating the old “X have no words for Y” trope, I would note that Sanskrit, for example, has no word that translates to “religion” in its English sense. The closest word is “Dharma” which is more realistically translated as “righteousness” or “duty”.
Not to say that “philosophies” can’t be “religions”, just that any definition of “religion” that would contain anything that can be described as atheistic is going to contain all possible philosophies. This makes “religion” a useless term.
Personally, the most coherent definition of “religion” I can think of is “A philosophy that asserts supernatural forces”. Someone else can probably do better.
which doesn’t exclude Theravada Buddhism, even if it’s agnostic. not every “supernatural force” is considered a god
Actually, I don’t think that really fits what I’m trying to say, either. I guess when I’ve got this shit on lockdown I’ll just stop being lazy and start my own blog so that I can discuss it there instead of cluttering up PZ’s comments.
Sir Sphlane:
But then even the earliest forms of Buddhism did assert some ‘supernatural” forces, for example, the notion of Karma: that your actions come back to haunt you. Many earlier philosophies like that of Aristotle held what would today be called supernatural beliefs (such as spontaneous generation of insect life from garbage).
I think a more defining characteristic of religion would be the promise of rewards or punishments based on whether or not you follow a certain philosophy.
@Jadehawk #64
I also don’t quite buy the idea that atheism only entails a lack of belief in a deity. That’s what people will say it means, when asked, but when they actually use it they almost always mean a full rejection of all religions. Thus, the way that atheism is actually used in speech, which is the only way in which words matter at all, precludes religions.
The term “atheistic religion” is sort of like saying “cold fire” or “bright darkness”. The terms are contradictory.
So, essentially: If the technical definitions for “religion” and “atheism” are compatible, they need to be changed until they are not. Because that’s how people actually use the terms unless they are pedants or specifically pressed for arguments based on definition.
@ kreepykritter
I am an atheist. That means I don’t believe in the existence of any gods. Not even your ludicrous ones.
My behaviour towards my fellow humans, my views on the use of public funds in construction of public buildings, they’re all because I’m an all round nice guy.
I’m also not a US citizen, so supreme courts in your country do not have the power to legislate over my use of the English language. Ergo, your contention that atheism is religious, because of said supreme court is as ludicrous as your deity
On reflection, “ludicrous deity” is something of a tautology
It’s very hard to come up with a definition of religion that doesn’t exclude something everyone is sure is a religion (Buddhism) or doesn’t include college football.
But…but…celery is the sacred food of the Sphinxian Treecats! It can’t possibly be evil!
I hear the best way to judge a religion is by whether they make their clergy wear dresses and silly hats.
@catnip67 #69 — As you may know, the US Supreme Court doesn’t have the power to legislate at all. Nor does it define the normal use of words. In fact, the quoted statement did not come from the Court at all but someone presenting to the court, so it has no judicial force. The quote is from Madalyn O’Hair’s opening comment in the school prayer case, but even she doesn’t have the power to define atheism. But we all know that. One wonders what that person at #30 was thinking…but then I remind myself that perhaps “thought” wasn’t involved, only a semblance of it. To those who keep trying to make atheism into just another “religion”, let us all wish them a hearty, holiday bah humbug. But, if someone isn’t careful, the Professor of Logic may have to make another appearance or worse. A certain former President has had some rather frightening things to say about Cubism being only 90 miles from our shores. And don’t get started on Dadaism or we’ll have to break out the potato salad.
You should watch the miniseries “The Borgias”, on cable.
The ads for it call it “The original crime family”.
Which in a way they were. They also controlled the Roman Catholic Church. Needs to be shown with those new “come home to the church” commercials for extra humor.
christinelaing:
How about the following, as the risk of repeating myself:
A religion is a belief system which promises natural and super natural rewards or punishments based on whether or not you follow the belief system.
Buddishm: Promises Nirvana if you follow the Eight Fold Path (though, admittedly, the requirements of the Eight Fold Path are mostly rather secular and reasonable).
College Football: Does not promise Nirvana, Moksha or Heaven based on whether you support University of Football or Basketball College.
@Circe
That sounds like it would include “The Power of Positive Thinking” and all those similar “employee empowerment” programs I’m always being forced to sit through. It definitely includes “The Secret.” There are also religions where the emphasis is on ritual practice, not belief, i.e. you can be an atheist orthodox Jew and God will still reward you for good behavior.
@robro #74
Yes indeed I was aware of the supreme court’s legislative capability, or lack there of. I wasn’t aware of the kreepykritter misrepresenting the attribution of the quote to the wrong person, although not surprised to learn. I think though that I was pointing out the irrelevance of any US body in defining my atheism.
Thank you though, for clarifying & extending my point to include the irrelevance to US atheists also.
I think you are correct that kreepykritter is unlikely to have engaged in too much critical thought. Had they done so, they would certainly find it difficult to maintain their religious fervor.
A side note to kreepykritter. Almost all atheists look critically at our own beliefs. It’s how we come to the logical conclusion that there is no need to believe in things like zombie Jews on a stick being gods & tasting pretty good at the weekly cannibalism festival.
Re: Atheistic Religions
Churches may have been forced by changing times to make a show of respecting other religions up to a point, but it certainly makes it easier when these other religions have a similar general outline to their own.
As long as there’s a central God figure then they can pretend that the infidels are merely misguided in their interpretation of otherwise universally accepted facts.
Sure, Catholics always conform to the local laws.
Some above seem to resonate with me — some do not.
I for one hate “-isms” of the philosophical kind. They get us into trouble because many of us succumb. We follow them willingly or because we’re coerced somehow. Then we start to believe in their promise and power without their having to prove themselves and prove themselves over and over. They gain power, structure, and self perpetuation mechanisms. Some of their methods and means are odious like mental and physical coercion.
I especially hate the term Atheism with a capital “A”. That suggests dogma and doctrine. If atheists start to organize against such things I’ll pass.
I am an atheist SIMPLY because I do not believe in essentially fairy tales or the supernatural. I do not believe SIMPLY because I see no reason nor need to believe in the least they are true or necessary for understanding or advancement.
I do not come by this dogmatically or doctrinally. It is simply a consequence of the lack of evidence and need to believe in such things as supernatural phenomena.
I am a-religious because again SIMPLY I see no value in the institutions that claim to be religions. That again is not dogmatically or doctrinally derived.
All this is a consequence of using my reasoning power, being intellectually honest, and having some guts.
Am I a “Scientist” – that is a follower of “Scientism”. Well I do believe in the value of science. It is proven as a method and means to useful and truthful ends – and this method and means seems in practice far more effective than others we might be offered – ESPECIALLY those centered on the supernatural.
But I see no dogma and doctrine in the methods and means. Guides on how to do research or how to perform tests or how to statistically evaluate results are not dogma nor doctrine. Laws and Theories – proven and many times unsuccessfully challenged – are not those things either. There are no high priests we MUST obey. Science is a methodologically skeptical and quite internally disrespectful and internally irreverent endeavor. NOTHING is sacred – NOTHING in science. Prove something wrong that was held as useful and be a hero! Quite the opposite to religion (region-like) “-isms”.
I hate “-isms” – the philosophical kind. They usually become structured and powerful in some way. Then they become (very likely) deleterious viruses that infect humans – causing them to lose perspective, intellectual freedom, and arrogance.
Leave this atheist out of Atheism if there is such an “-ism”.
“causing them to lose perspective, intellectual freedom, and [increase] arrogance.”
“… [increase] arrogance.”
Hilarious. Absolutely hilarious.
This bishop is clearly stating that the worth of what he does (his religion and religious practices) is directly affected by what other, completely unrelated people do. If the worth of Christianity is affected by people trading movies and music on Bit Torrent, Christianity isn’t worth anything at all.
It’s like the DOM ass clowns crying that legalizing gay marriage lessens the worth of their own heterosexual marriages.
Religion is so silly.
Putting aside the well-deserved sarcasm with which you make your comment, we also need to remember that the catholic church – like all powerful special-interest groups – does everything it can to make the law be what it wants. This makes it *really easy* to claim to be law abiding. It’s just a small step along the path to the theocracy/dictatorship that most of them desire.
Them Pirate Bay boys is a’tryin’ to ride the frock-coatails of his Divine Noodliness! Arrrh!