Dawkins & Hitchens plan to arrest Pope.

Paparazzo

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Dawkins' own comment on the matter: "I did NOT (his emphasis) say 'I will arrest Pope Benedict XVI'."

More importantly: "I am whole-heartedly behind the initiative by Geoffrey Robertson and Mark Stephens to mount a legal challenge to the Pope's proposed visit to Britain."

So it's not his idea, nor is it his announcement, nor is it a publicity stunt. It's some journalistic digging and an attention-grabbing headline which doesn't reflect the facts.

From here.

Chairman Meow wrote: »

**** Dawkins. He's as bad as any bible basher trying to ram their point of view down your neck.

Even though it wasn't him, (read the first quote) but don't let the facts get in the way of a good Dawkins bashing.

And as for getting it rammed down your throat (pardon the pun), I don't know about you, but I had "religion"* class for 40 minutes a day in school from 1st class in primary school to 6th year in secondary school of psycho teachers that physically hit you if you disagreed with anything they said. Having to scroll pass the odd thread on boards that you can ignore if you like isn't getting anything "rammed down your throat".

*It was only 1 religion we talked about, it should have been called Catholic class

ascanbe

Orizio wrote: »

Charlatans.



Link.

19 pages in, OP, you have yet to be granted your, admittedly odd, given the subject matter, request.
Anyway, better late than never:

Irlandese

OutlawPete wrote: »

That's not fair, he wears a dress.

Do you know what happens men in prison that wear dresses?

Karma.

which one wears the dress?

Skinback

Nor me

Skinback

My name is URL wrote: »

But a lot of people religiously subscribe to it. They use anything they can to bring into question the beliefs of others.. it's why there's a thread stickied in A&A about the church abuse scandal.

I consider myself to be an Atheist, but I wish those that just want to attack religion and believers would make the distinction between the two, instead of dragging the meaning of Atheism into the realms of Anti-theism, which I don't subscribe to

anti-theism and atheism....like theres a difference.eyeroll

Skinback

Chairman Meow wrote: »

**** Dawkins. He's as bad as any bible basher trying to ram their point of view down your neck.

no he's not,he just does'nt suffer fools gladly.

prinz

eblistic wrote: »

Really? Is this an expert opinion? Is he really above International Law to that degree? Is there really no way to hold him accountable for anything - ever?

It could be argued for but highly, highly unlikely that any court would find against the Pope's status tbh given the de facto recognition afforded to the Holy See and Pope by 90+% of the countries of the world. Worth a shot but basically a shot in the dark. As for the International Criminal Court mentioned in the article.. yeah that was total rubbish, no chance whatsoever there I'm afraid.

Skinback wrote: »

anti-theism and atheism....like theres a difference.eyeroll

There's a huge difference.

rubadub

eblistic wrote: »

Is he really above International Law to that degree? Is there really no way to hold him accountable for anything - ever?

I was reading about the US courts trying to get him, and I think Bush had to officially recognise him again or something, so if he is accountable I expect the queen might put some pardon or something in place, or change his status etc. In regards to the US they did say there is nothing to stop them getting other senior people in the vatican.

I was wondering if head of states have immunity in their own countries, like why would people have to wait for them to come to their country, I did not think you have to be a citizen of a country to report a crime.

Skinback wrote: »

anti-theism and atheism....like theres a difference.eyeroll

Of course there is a difference, I have no interest in football, I do not "belive" in any team, I do not go slagging off teams down the pub like others do who follow man utd or liverpool religiously. It is more likely to see religious people being anti-insert religion they have no faith in

Chorcai

Sorry to ask again, but lets say they do arrest him...
What happens ?
Where would he be held ? in their house ?
Would a UK court have a trail ? Could he then claim that he is a hostage of some sorts ?

The Mad Hatter

Chorcai wrote: »

Sorry to ask again, but lets say they do arrest him...
What happens ?
Where would he be held ? in their house ?
Would a UK court have a trail ? Could he then claim that he is a hostage of some sorts ?

Read the thread, please.

Richard Dawkins is not trying to arrest the pope.

Again:

me wrote: »

Dawkins' own comment on the matter: "I did NOT (his emphasis) say 'I will arrest Pope Benedict XVI'."

More importantly: "I am whole-heartedly behind the initiative by Geoffrey Robertson and Mark Stephens to mount a legal challenge to the Pope's proposed visit to Britain."

So it's not his idea, nor is it his announcement, nor is it a publicity stunt. It's some journalistic digging and an attention-grabbing headline which doesn't reflect the facts.

From here.

Galvasean

Chairman Meow wrote: »

**** Dawkins. He's as bad as any bible basher trying to ram their point of view down your neck.

Any Bible basher? I don't recall Dawkins shooting up people in an abortion clinic...

ScumLord

Deleted User wrote: »

It's really frustrating if the Pope can't be held legally accountable as head of state of the Vatican.

It's no different from any other big corporation the head guys are protected and nobodies responsible for anything.

The Mad Hatter

Richard Dawkins has written a very good article for the Guardian today, making a defence of his position.

This analogy I'm quite fond of - and if anyone can dispute it, I'd very much like to see it:

Suppose the British secretary of state for schools received, from a local education authority, a reliable report of a teacher tying up his pupils and raping them. Imagine that, instead of turning the matter over to the police, he had simply moved the offender from school to school, where he repeatedly raped other children. That would be bad enough. But now suppose that he justified his decision in terms such as these:

"Although I regard the arguments in favour of prosecution, presented by the local education authority, as of grave significance, I nevertheless deem it necessary to consider the good of the government and the party, together with that of the offending teacher. And I am also unable to make light of the detriment that prosecuting the offender can provoke among voters, particularly regarding the young age of the offender."

The analogy breaks down, only in that we aren't talking about a single offending priest, but many thousands, all over the world.

Noreen1

Has anyone here actually read this entire letter?
If so, I would appreciate a link.

Noreen

eth0_

Galvasean wrote: »

Any Bible basher? I don't recall Dawkins shooting up people in an abortion clinic...

Those guys weren't "bible bashers", they were religious extremists. Being a religious extremist isn't something that's exclusive to Islam, you know.

youcrazyjesus!

Noreen1 wrote: »

Has anyone here actually read this entire letter?
If so, I would appreciate a link.

Noreen

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8612596.stm

prinz

youcrazyjesus! wrote: »

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8612596.stm

Basically it says they need more time to investigate such cases. Kiesle was subsequently defrocked IIRC in 1987 when the investigation was completed. Something which doesn't of course suit Dawkins, so he fails to make mention of that fact.

Irlandese

Noreen1 wrote: »

Has anyone here actually read this entire letter?
If so, I would appreciate a link.

Noreen

Try this, it covers a whole lot of stuff that might surprise most of us.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...tml?ref=europe

youcrazyjesus!

prinz wrote: »

Basically it says they need more time to investigate such cases. Kiesle was subsequently defrocked IIRC in 1987 when the investigation was completed. Something which doesn't of course suit Dawkins, so he fails to make mention of that fact.

Yeah, to be fair it only took them 9 years. The matter had only been known about for a mere 6 years when Ratzinger sent his November '85 letter and only another 2 years before he was defrocked. C'mon people, give the guy a break. Let's also ignore the principle of the thing, that the most important thing in Ratzingers mind was the good of the Church and that child safety wasn't even an issue for him.

http://www.kansascity.com/2010/04/09/1867364/timeline-of-defrocked-priest-stephen.html

youcrazyjesus!

This is far more serious imo:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/apr/24/children.childprotection

prinz

youcrazyjesus! wrote: »

Let's also ignore the principle of the thing, that the most important thing in Ratzingers mind was the good of the Church and that child safety wasn't even an issue for him.

What was the most important thing in the minds of the lay officials and civil judicial system who gave the man animal probation and later went as far as expunging this from his record? Shouldn't they also be called to account?

youcrazyjesus!

prinz wrote: »

What was the most important thing in the minds of the lay officials and civil judicial system who gave the man animal probation and later went as far as expunging this from his record? Shouldn't they also be called to account?

For prosecuting him in accordance with the law? No. When more serious charges were brought he was sentenced to 6 years and became a registered a sex offender.

Sentencing and law making is a completely different issue totally removed from the actions of the RCC. It makes me sick to my stomach when I hear you and the Pope and his Jew-blaming minions excuse the sinister actions of the RCC by looking elsewhere in the world for weak action by lay authorities or endemic abuse in other religious organisations. It completely misses the ****ing point and tells me there's no hope whatsoever for change. It's saddening.

prinz

youcrazyjesus! wrote: »

For prosecuting him in accordance with the law? No. When more serious charges were brought he was sentenced to 6 years and became a registered a sex offender..

Therefore your point about the RCC 'knowing' about the first case is irrelevant unless you apply the same logic to all parties. I am not condoning what the RCC did, but at least be consistent.

youcrazyjesus!

prinz wrote: »

Therefore your point about the RCC 'knowing' about the first case is irrelevant unless you apply the same logic to all parties. I am not condoning what the RCC did, but at least be consistent.

What exactly are you on about? What comaprisons are you trying to make?

prinz

youcrazyjesus! wrote: »

What exactly are you on about? What comaprisons are you trying to make?

The RCC took more action from the beginning of this case than the civil authorities did, but don't let that get in the way of your axe grinding.

iUseVi

prinz wrote: »

The RCC took more action from the beginning of this case than the civil authorities did, but don't let that get in the way of your axe grinding.

This RCC action wouldn't have anything to do with "covering up" would it. Hard for civil authorities to act on someone they are not informed about...

youcrazyjesus!

prinz wrote: »

The RCC took more action from the beginning of this case than the civil authorities did, but don't let that get in the way of your axe grinding.

Did you not read the link I provided?

Please STFU if you're not going to bother taking one minute to read the links people go to the trouble of providing. He was arrested and sentenced with 2 years of follow up probabtion supervision a total of 8 years before the RCC took any action against him. The local bishop was writing letters for 5 years before former Hitlerjugend Ratzinger got in touch, who in his letter ignored all child protection issues and said the Church should come first before all other considerations.

I suppose there's no point in repeating the points I made in my post about the Church blaming everyone else and looking everywhere else for faults, as if finding fault elsewhere in the world absolves them of responsibility in some way or lessens their responsibility. I'm sure Herr Ratzginer will preach about moral relativism when he arrives in London. Lenin accurately described the people who defend this type of nonsense imo.

Galvasean

eth0_ wrote: »

Those guys weren't "bible bashers", they were religious extremists.

Religious extremists who decided to shoot up abortion clinics based on their interpretation of the Bible.
Since 'Bible Basher' isn't exactly the most clearly defined of terms, more of a slang actually, solid defintions are hard to come by, but the urban dictionary has a few suggestions:
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=bible+basher
So, if we take a 'Bible basher' simply as one who lives their life by the bible, and tries to force the bible upon all they meet, then yes, a psycho who shoots up an abortion clinic because they reckon the Bible says they should is both a 'Bible Basher' and a religious extremist.
My point about Dawkins not being as bad as any 'Bible Basher' still stands.

eth0_ wrote:

Being a religious extremist isn't something that's exclusive to Islam, you know.

I'm fully aware of that, and a combination of both insulted and amused that you would think I was not. As I have outlined earlier in my post just because someone is a 'Bible basher', it does not stop them from being a religious extremist too. They are not mutually exclusive.

prinz

iUseVi wrote: »

This RCC action wouldn't have anything to do with "covering up" would it. Hard for civil authorities to act on someone they are not informed about...

How did they "cover up" the original abuse? He was found guilty and given probation by the civil authorities?

youcrazyjesus! wrote: »

Did you not read the link I provided?
Please STFU if you're not going to bother taking one minute to read the links people go to the trouble of providing.

Yes I have.

youcrazyjesus! wrote: »

He was arrested and sentenced with 2 years of follow up probabtion supervision a total of 8 years before the RCC took any action against him.

He was on a leave of absence from his clerical duties..long before he was defrocked. By the way it was 3 years probation. Perhaps you should read your own links before you tell people to STFU.

youcrazyjesus! wrote: »

The local bishop was writing letters for 5 years before former Hitlerjugend Ratzinger got in touch, who in his letter ignored all child protection issues and said the Church should come first before all other considerations.

Ironic that you would drag the Hitlerjugend into this. Hitlerjugend was in itself institutional child abuse, no better than the RCC. But hey that's another stick to beat the Pope with.

youcrazyjesus! wrote: »

I suppose there's no point in repeating the points I made in my post about the Church blaming everyone else and looking everywhere else for faults, as if finding fault elsewhere in the world absolves them of responsibility in some way or lessens their responsibility..

At least I am consistent. If you want Ratzinger arrested over the Kiesle case then you can expand your net to include the civil authorities who knew Kiesle had been given no more than probation for child abuse, removed the case from his record - which presumably would have shown up when applying for jobs etc, and allowed him to go on in a position to abuse more people. This is not about absoving the RCC of it's responsbilities this is about applying the same criteria across the board.

youcrazyjesus!

He was on a leave of absence from his clerical duties..long before he was defrocked. By the way it was 3 years probation. Perhaps you should read your own links before you tell people to STFU.

:rolleyes: I'll put it another way, they did all this 6 years before Herr Ratzinger bothered to reply to the Bishop and 8 years before they defrocked this paedophile. Ratzinger refused to take action sooner because he put the good of the Church over child protection and basic human decency.

At least I am consistent. If you want Ratzinger arrested over the Kiesle case then you can expand your net to include the civil authorities who knew Kiesle had been given no more than probation for child abuse, removed the case from his record - which presumably would have shown up when applying for jobs etc, and allowed him to go on in a position to abuse more people. This is not about absoving the RCC of it's responsbilities this is about applying the same criteria across the board.

I'll repeat what I said earlier: the strength and weaknesses of sentencing law is a totally separate issue. I think everyone agrees that was pretty weak. It wouldn't happen today but there was at least a conviction and supervision of this man. I do not know when the record was expunged, was it 10 years later? I don't know. I don't think you know either.

The weaknesses in sentencing law do not excuse Ratzinger actively facilitating child molesters and protecting them from the wishes and concerns of their own Bishops for the "good of the Universal Church". He is a disgrace. The fact is the lay authorities arrested and sentenced this man and put him under probationary supervision for a number of years after his crime. This is contrasted with the Vatican which literally refused to lift a finger against this man. There is absolutely no comparison and absolutely no justification or mitigation of Ratzinger's action here.

We get this time and time again with the RCC Church and it's blind followers. "It's the Jews and their media who are responsible for this, we won't bow to these accusations. Other faiths and atheists have their abusers too you know ". It's frightening, it completely misses the point. You wonder what is still being facilitated in 3rd world countries.