82 thoughts on “Mr. Deity calls out the Pope

  1. I kept waiting for him to say, “Fuck Jorge’s stupid bitch of a mother,” or the like, but he never seemed to get around to it.

    So let me.

    Fuck Jorge’s stupid bitch of a mother, and it’s a damned shame she’s not getting what she deserves (and probably secretly wanted) from Satan in Hell right now where she so clearly belongs.



    1. It does seem sort of unfair to attack his mother, who doubtless is/was a lovely señora who doesn’t deserve it, but he sort of asked for it.

  2. unbelievers are threatened with unbelievable anguish for simply not believing their insane horseshit? and we’re supposed to respect that? just take it? it’s psychological and emotional terrorism. i grew up in the bible belt, just awash with that bilge and bile. it’s completely evil.

    fuck the pope and the holy horse he rode in on.

    here’s darkmatter2525 on the real hate speech:


    1. As Sam Kinison said about the idea of JC (of biblical fame, not PCC) coming back: “Oh, sure, I’m coming back … AS SOON AS I CAN PLAY THE F**ING PIANO AGAIN!”

  3. No really, Brian, tell us how strongly you feel about this–stop holding back!

    Francis is running amok again, and is wrong in every way, just as Mr. Deity says.

    1. I appreciate your desire to emulate Dalton here, but I won’t tolerate accusations, humorous or otherwise, that the Pope himself engaged in criminal behavior. Do you have any evidence that he was a child rapist? If not, please retract that comment publicly.

      It’s fine to criticize someone, but accusing them of crimes without substantiation can get you (and this website) in big trouble. I’d appreciation a retraction of the “child rapist” accusation.

      1. If I could insert myself sideways…there, of course, is as yet no indication that Jorge himself rapes children, he continues to conspire after the fact with the child rapists as he shelters them and obstructs their criminal investigations. In my book, that’s every bit as perverted and disgusting and reprehensible as the act itself, if not more so.


        1. I agree with the thrust of your sideways insertion (interesting choice of words given the topic), however to PCC’s point it’s one thing to equate the act with the complicity, and quite another to accuse someone of the act without evidence. There are all kinds of harsh opinions that are within Da Roolz, but Jerry has consistently smacked-down unfounded assertions of fact of this nature.

      2. Mr. Coyne,

        I am not sure if someone has responded to you or not, but Mr. Atheist was referring to a song by comedian Tim Minchin. He wrote it in 2010 in response to Pope Benedict’s involvement in the child sexual abuse cover up.

        There’s a bit more info on it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pope_Song

        Additionally, you may have noticed that further down in the comments someone has actually posted the video of Minchin singing it.

        1. On second listen…

          I don’t think Minchin actually says a line about a “…cocksmoking child rapist pope.” In this case, I think Jerry’s comment still holds.

          Regardless, I still love the Minchin song about pope benedict!

      3. In my own opinion, if you are not actively fighting and crusading against the evils that fall the innocents and are aware of them, you are as complicit.

        Much has been made of the fucking Pope’s questionable past; namely the Dirty War in Argentina. His actions or inactions are questionable and his involvement either small or large or, as some has said, inconclusive, speaks to his character. He protects his own. Fuck the pope.

        Keeping in mind that he may not have been the one receiving the oral adulations (or worse) from those in the kiddie seats he sure as hell was not quick to act when he was in power in Argentina to speak out or condemn those priests that did receive these horrifically special favors from the innocents. He did nothing.

        You have access to a hose. You have access to tons of water. Your neighbors house in on fire and the closest fire department is 75 miles away. Do you close all your windows and doors and shut off of your lights and pretend to not be home? Or do you, at the very least, attempt to use the tools you have to assist your neighbor?

        I know what I would do.

        Is he a child-rapist himself? I don’t know. Did I mispeak in my haste at humor. I can’t say. I can say that if you wish to retract my statement or edit it, you can, if it should make you feel better, add the words “protector of” in front of child rapist and then pluralize the word rapist.

        The man has not done nearly enough to assist in the real issues that matter to the survival of those around the world. His stance and his protection of the church doctirine on condom use puts people in danger. What about those children that are born with AIDS in Africa (or elsewhere) because the church said that condom use was not allowed? He should be held responsible for any and all those deaths.

        According to Elizabeth N. Mataka, United Nations Special Envoy of the Secretary-General for HIV/AIDS in Africa, states:

        “It is disheartening to observe that nearly half of all adults living with HIV around the word are women. In sub-Saharan Africa alone, out of the 23 million adults aged 15–49 and
        infected with HIV, 13.1 million, or 57 percent, are women. In Zambia for example, women and girls are highly vulnerable to HIV and AIDS, and women aged 15–24 are three times more likely to be infected than males in the same age group. The toll that HIV has taken on women, especially those in Africa, has been largely underestimated. Children have also not been spared from the effects of AIDS, and the impact is devastating.”*

        And what happens to those children that survive their parents deaths? Especially the girls that are now forced into a role of protector to their younger siblings? Who will do what it takes to put food in the stomach of those she cares for? This vulnerablity speaks for itself and, in turn, creates situations that would and could have been avoided had the FUCKING POPE said that it was OK to use condoms.

        Since the FUCKING POPE has the inability to see what is happening around him (evidenced by his silence, at best/worst, during the Dirty War) to his relative blindness when it comes to the good that adopting condom use would have in the long run… he is part of the problem. He is complicit. If that is not enough for you, good sir, I don’t know what is.

        Feel free to remove my comment or edit it or whatever you see fit. It is your site not mine.


        1. This is the same fucking pope that, again in my opinion, is able to justify the actions of the terrorists in Paris.

          He basically compares you saying something in poor taste about his mother…you get punched… expect retalliation for making fun of someone’s faith. Expect it.

          Que? What? Huh?

          The fucking pope is basicaly saying that freedom of speech is ok, just as long as it does not insult.

          Fuck the pope.

  4. The good pope eh! As usual never far from total hypocrisy.
    As Hitch said, never forget what they did do when they could do it.

  5. I like Popes better in the good old days when they could be completely honest;

    I do further promise and declare, that I will, when opportunity presents, make and wage relentless war, secretly or openly, against all heretics, Protestants and Liberals, as I am directed to do and to extirpate and exterminate them from the face of the whole earth, and that I will spare neither sex, age nor condition and that I will hang, waste, boil, flay , strangle and bury alive these infamous heretics; rip up the stomachs and wombs of their women and crush their infants’ heads against the wall, in order to annihilate forever their execrable race.”
    — Pope Paul III, 1576

    1. Where can this quote be found? The date given is 1576. Pope Paul III died in 1549. Gregory XIII was pope in 1576.

      1. Googling some of the quote, I found the Wikipedia entry for Jesuit conspiracy theories, which contains the following:

        A 1689 work, Foxes and Firebrand by Robert Ware, claimed Jesuits took a secret oath that stated

        I do further promise and declare that I will, when opportunity presents, make and wage relentless war, secretly and openly, against all heretics, Protestants and Masons, as I am directed to do, to extirpate them from the face of the whole earth; and that I will spare neither age, sex nor condition, and that will hang, burn, waste, boil, flay, strangle, and bury alive these infamous heretics; rip up the stomachs and wombs of their women, and crush their infants’ heads against the walls in order to annihilate their execrable race. That when the same cannot be done openly I will secretly use the poisonous cup, the strangulation cord, the steel of the poniard, or the leaden bullet, regardless of the honour, rank, dignity or authority of the persons, whatever may be their condition in life, either public or private, as I at any time may be directed so to do by any agents of the Pope or Superior of the Brotherhood of the Holy Father of the Society of Jesus. In confirmation of which I hereby dedicate my life, soul, and all corporal powers, and with the dagger which I now receive I will subscribe my name written in my blood in testimony thereof; and should I prove false, or weaken in my determination, may my brethren and fellow soldiers of the militia of the Pope cut off my hands and feet and my throat from ear to ear, my belly be opened and sulphur burned therein with all the punishment that can be inflicted upon me on earth, and my soul shall be tortured by demons in eternal hell forever.[1][2]

        I note that the version Mr. Sawiki provides does not have the part about being loyal to the Pope.

        The CSICOP article in ref [2] states that Robert Ware is in fact the author of the fake oath himself and crafted it for propaganda purposes.

        In the Wiki article about the Society of Jesuits, it states that Pope Paul III approved the formation of the order in 1540, so there is an association, at least.

  6. Bill Maher just said, on Real Time, that the Pope is dead to him. About time as he had up to now been soft on him.

  7. I saw this earlier today & was very impressed. I subscribe to his channel and he very rarely breaks character, let alone let loose with profanity. I don’t agree with everything he said but I support his right to say it, cuss words and all.

  8. I like the message but I don’t like the messenger. My issue has to do with Dalton’s manner and the quality of his voice. The man can make sense. I just don’t like listening to him. Jerry, on the other hand, has a great voice (because it’s sonorous, for one thing).

    1. I guess it’s a matter of taste. I think Brian Dalton’s voice is perfect for impersonating an “all-powerful” deity–goes along with the way he plays God as lazy and capricious too.

      And Jerry’s voice is perfect for all he does. 🙂

  9. @ 14
    Just want to make sure you don’t make this type of statement to a Catholic who knows all of their secret codes.
    You said: So this is infallibility. Where does the pope go for confession?
    The pope in this case was simply chewing the fat out loud. Not speaking in a way that would be considered binding.

    Regarding confession, I have not kept in touch with the ways of the Catholic Church for some time now, but he may have a Father confessor as many popes have had.

    This in no way takes away from the astonishing fact that the pope is advocating from a position of fear.

    1. Oh there’s no doubt they will run in circles ducking and diving, hiding behind what is and isn’t dogma or doctrine, or whether the Pope is speaking ex cathedra.

      To that, I say to Pope Frank, would you please just shut the fuck up and tell your mother to do the same? At that point, I’d assume the defensive stance and get ready to neutralize the oncoming blow.

    2. So when the pope is just speaking off the cuff, it might just be bull. When he issues a bull, then it’s not bull.

      That’s the difference between people and authority and us regular people: we are bound by what we say, not just what we “say” – and when we don’t mean it, afterward we say crazy things like “I didn’t mean that.”

      Also, if we just make up nonsense, eventually no one takes us seriously.

      1. There’s another question. How can you only be intermittently infallible? Makes no sense. Maybe it’s only every other word in the infallible bulls that’re really infallible? Maybe he’s infallible some random 13% of the time?

        How is any of that even in principle remotely distinguishable from being a generic schmuck?


  10. The Pope’s statement clearly demonstrates that believing in God (and studying theology) provides no moral compass. If you think God exists, then anything goes.

  11. …and if anyone ever wonders why the word “pontification” connotes “head up the ass”, well. Francis: the updated, 2015 version of preposterous. halle-fucking-lujah. Anyways, thank you WEIT. This is a watershed issue. Blasphemy is a sick, infantile concept (that should have died long before any cartoonist).

  12. Nicely done, Mister Dalton. A great shame that half our so-called ‘movement’ will not be allowed to like the video as Dalton is persona non grata in the FTB camp (he humorously supported an unofficially accused famous skeptic in Mr Deity and the Hat).

  13. Dear Mr Dalton,

    Re: F… the Pope

    Notwithstanding and with regards to all the possible feelings and unintended offences involved, and considering the Pope’s mother’s nose (oh no, it was her insulters nose) I cannot but suspect you carefully, pussy-footingly, hinted at a point we should consider pertinent.
    (personally I would not f… the Pope, there are a few slightly more attractive propositions in this world, but of course you are entitled to your predilections).


  14. Well done Mr. Deity!

    It would be nice to see Amy Rohren who plays Lucy (aka Lucifer) to video a segment on the pope’s statement as well.

  15. A Catholic friend told me the Pope’s statements are like a letter from your father when you’re away at college: you’re “supposed to” heed his directions, but what can he do?

    I replied that dad can cut off the money if you don’t behave to his liking; the most the Pope can do is threaten your access to magic crackers.

    He thought that was wildly hilarious. It’s weird how many bright, rational people maintain loyalty to the church.

  16. We curb “fighting words” and racial, etc., slurs. Also, we curb commercial speech, e.g., tobacco companies are liable for falsely promoting the “health” benefits of smoking. We cannot yell “fire” in a crowded theater.
    However, in this instance I would at least say, NO ONE CAN BE OFFENDED BY ANY WORDS OR DEPICTIONS RE IMAGINARY BEINGS.

Leave a Reply