Dawkins & Hitchens plan to arrest Pope.

MagicMarker

For as long as I can remember there are threads almost on a daily basis expressing what scum the church is.

Now there are two people trying to get something done about it, you're all just bitching about those people.

WTF is up with that?

Fair play to them I say, if they need a donation for legal fees then I'll gladly help out.

The Devil.

cleremy jarkson wrote: »

Enjoy hell athiests. long live the pope

Hell isn't so bad, it's kind of like Cork.

youcrazyjesus!

pablomakaveli wrote: »

Dawkins is an attention whore.

He's only doing this to push his own agenda rather than out of concern for victims of child abuse.

Absolute bollox. He's an honourable person. You're looking at him through the eyes of someone who is at the wrong end of his relentless logic.

Son Of A Vidic

professore wrote: »

It always amazes me what the main religions can get away with. If this was a private company (I exclude banks from this - they can apparently also do what they like) where this kind of abuse went on then the CEO would be serving a long jail sentence. Why is the pope any different? He personally covered up for known paedophiles and is STILL doing it. Let's be clear - these people are raping children and the pope gives his blessing. How can anyone defend him ?

Amen to that. Where is the Grey area here for the Church? These guys presided over all of this, concealing perverted 'sickos' within their church. Moving child rapist's on to ' greener pastures'. Is that how 'men of God' should behave? I think when Jesus said: ''Suffer little children.'' - I think the paedophiles of the church took it's meaning literally.

Regarding Dawkins, well he's another nut from the opposite spectrum I suppose. Maybe he should be arrested for suggesting we evolved from Apes. Can you imagine how insulted Apes must feel about such an association.


* Raises a glass to the professore *

youcrazyjesus!

Seloth wrote: »

Oh gawd...I wish Dawkins would jsut shut up..he is deffo an attention whore with the most undirect awnsering method ever may I also add.

He embarased Atheist as extremists do theists

He doesn't embarrass me.

pablomakaveli

MagicMarker wrote: »

For as long as I can remember there are threads almost on a daily basis expressing what scum the church is.

Now there are two people trying to get something done about it, you're all just bitching about those people.

WTF is up with that?

Fair play to them I say, if they need a donation for legal fees then I'll gladly help out.

They're using this to push their own agenda. Taking advantage of the child abuse scandals so they can try and further their own cause is pathetic and insulting to the victims of child abuse.

youcrazyjesus!

cleremy jarkson wrote: »

Enjoy hell athiests. long live the pope

The Pope has devoted his life to something which has no basis whatsoever. The joke is on him. Thankfully.

MagicMarker

pablomakaveli wrote: »

They're using this to push their own agenda. Taking advantage of the child abuse scandals so they can try and further their own cause is pathetic and insulting to the victims of child abuse.

Wow, your ability to know what others are thinking is remarkable. You should take that talent on the road!

Have you ever listened to Hitchens actually talk about the sex abuse scandals? It's quite clear it stirs up a lot of emotion in him.

youcrazyjesus!

pablomakaveli wrote: »

They're using this to push their own agenda. Taking advantage of the child abuse scandals so they can try and further their own cause is pathetic and insulting to the victims of child abuse.

This "pushing an agenda" thing always comes up when people come up against something they can't argue against. Everytime I open my mouth I push an agenda, when I go to the bar my agenda is to get a pint, when I go to school my agenda is to learn, when I write a letter my objective is to express my opinion publicly. It's a nonsense argument. I wish I saw less of it although it does tell me a lot about the person who uses it.

How do you know they're not concerned about child abuse? Have you asked them? I'm sure he's very concerned and quite angry it's been facilitated by a cabal of power mad deluded fools who pass themselves off as something worthy of respect.

pablomakaveli

MagicMarker wrote: »

Wow, your ability to know what others are thinking is remarkable. You should take that talent on the road!

Have you ever listened to Hitchens actually talk about the sex abuse scandals? It's quite clear it stirs up a lot of emotion in him.

I could say the same thing to you given you are assuming that they are being genuine.

youcrazyjesus!

medicman2009 wrote: »

Regarding Dawkins, well he's another nut from the opposite spectrum I suppose.

How exactly is Dawkins a "nut"? Have you read any of his books? Listened to him speak?

Seems to be they see an idiot arguing with someone and assume the other party is an idiot too. It's one of the reasons Dawkins shies away from arguments with those indoctrinated into a religion, be they clerics or laity, you give their "beliefs" substance by engaging with them on the subject.

pablomakaveli

youcrazyjesus! wrote: »

This "pushing an agenda" thing always comes up when people come up against something they can't argue against. Everytime I open my mouth I push an agenda, when I go to the bar my agenda is to get a pint, when I go to school my agenda is to learn, when I write a letter my objective is to express my opinion publicly. It's a nonsense argument. I wish I saw less of it although it does tell me a lot about the person who uses it.

How do you know they're not concerned about child abuse? Have you asked them? I'm sure he's very concerned and quite angry it's been facilitated by a cabal of power mad deluded fools who pass themselves off as something worthy of respect.

If they were really concerned they probably would have spent time consulting groups for victims of child abuse and letting them take the initiative in the legal case so that its the victims who are seeking justice.

Don't delude yourself it's a publicity stunt plain and simple.

youcrazyjesus!

pablomakaveli wrote: »

I could say the same thing to you given you are assuming that they are being genuine.

He's listened to him, he knows their work, he knows their personality and values through their extensive published works and media work. I hate Hitchens, he's an idiot when it comes to many subjects but on this from listening to the man I have absolutely no doubt he is genuine.

youcrazyjesus!

pablomakaveli wrote: »

If they were really concerned they probably would have spent time consulting groups for victims of child abuse and letting them take the initiative in the legal case so that its the victims who are seeking justice.

Don't delude yourself it's a publicity stunt plain and simple.

Your opinions are very simple minded. Why you assign such poor and simplistic motives to their actions? On what basis do you do this?

Please explain.

pablomakaveli

youcrazyjesus! wrote: »

Your opinions are very simple minded. Why you assign such poor and simplistic motives to their actions? On what basis do you do this?

Please explain.

Isn't it obvious? Why arent they letting the victims of child abuse lead this case? If they were really concerned with this they'd take a back seat in this case and let the victims lead it.

But they're not. Dawkins has used publicity stunts before like the bus adverts and i'd be more concerned about his motives than Hitchens.

You can't honestly deny beyond all doubt that this may be a publicity stunt.

youcrazyjesus!

pablomakaveli wrote: »

Isn't it obvious? Why arent they letting the victims of child abuse lead this case? If they were really concerned with this they'd take a back seat in this case and let the victims lead it.

He's entitled to take the case if he wants. It's not up to you to tell him he should put in child abuse victims as the public face of the case. Wouldn't that be another publicity stunt? How would it aid the case?

At this point, I suggest you're talking dribbling drooling nonsense.

But they're not. Dawkins has used publicity stunts before like the bus adverts and i'd be more concerned about his motives than Hitchens.


You can't honestly deny beyond all doubt that this may be a publicity stunt.

:rolleyes: Not everything everyone you disagree with does should be described as being done for the purposes of forwarding an "agenda" or for the purposes of publicity. You could assign every action every human has ever taken one or both of those motives. Dismissing this action in this way is not good enough. Find a good reason to criticise it or stay quiet.

I notice you've not even in passing mentioned the issue. The issue is: "Does Mr Ratzinger have a legal and moral case to answer in relation to actively facilitating pedophilia and is there a legal basis for the arrest".

galwayrush

I think they may have lost the element of surprise by announcing their plans.:rolleyes:
So, either they are pure stupid ot it's a publicity stunt.

blinding

Lock up Pope Rat. Damn good idea.

youcrazyjesus!

galwayrush wrote: »

I think they may have lost the element of surprise by announcing their plans.:rolleyes:
So, either they are pure stupid ot it's a publicity stunt.

They weren't planning on rugby tackling him inside St Pauls and dragging him outside in handcuffs. Makes no odds. It will become public once the legal action is initiated. Silly comment.

Max Power1

billy the squid wrote: »

But he is not a CEO, he is a head of state which gives him immunity. and who do you have to thank for that, why filthy nazis like Benito Musolini for one.

but thats the point, he isnt a head of state apparently

pablomakaveli

youcrazyjesus! wrote: »

At this point, I suggest you're talking dribbling drooling nonsense.

A case led by the victims would help there case and their involvement is relevant to it.

But I stopped reading your post at the above point as it shows you up for what you are. If you can't debate something without making little sly digs then your not worth debating with.

Duggy747

What kind of smart arse would publicly release this information?

I can't stand Dawkins, he makes me out as an atheist to be some sort of arse-wit who'll point a finger at someone for believing in a God. Piss off and stop representing me.

He's just as bad as the people he complains about, jumping on them with theological questions in hope he humilate them.

Still, though, I won't complain if their little fairyland dream of arresting the Pope comes through.............heh, 2 athiests off to arrest The Pope.....sounds like a plot for an awful comedy :pac:

youcrazyjesus!

The 2 threads on this are very high up on the searches for Dawkins+arrest+Pope and Hitchens+Pope (1st) on google incidentally.

Gordon

Fantastic idea, wish I thought of it! Well done Dawtchins

Max Power1 wrote: »

but thats the point, he isnt a head of state apparently

Aye, a couple of people have said that he's immune, if they read the first post they'll see that the pope is 'not the head of a state recognised by the United Nations'.

youcrazyjesus!

pablomakaveli wrote: »

A case led by the victims would help there case and their involvement is relevant to it.

Somebody, who is angry at what happened to them, is bringing a case against the CEO of the organisation who facilitated their rape and someone who protected their abuser. I think it's very relevant.

But I stopped reading your post at the above point as it shows you up for what you are. If you can't debate something without making little sly digs then your not worth debating with.

You're avoiding the issue.

pablomakaveli

youcrazyjesus! wrote: »

I notice you've not even in passing mentioned the issue. The issue is: "Does Mr Ratzinger have a legal and moral case to answer in relation to actively facilitating pedophilia and is there a legal basis for the arrest".

This post from the first page of this thread.

pablomakaveli wrote: »

I agree the pope should be made to answer for any wrong doing but this publicity stunt isn't the right way to go about it.

youcrazyjesus!

Duggy747 wrote: »

What kind of smart arse would publicly release this information?

Why do you automatically assume they "released" it in a PR statement? Couldn't the journalist have gotten wind of it and approached them? Why do you automatically assume the worst?

I can't stand Dawkins, he makes me out as an atheist to be some sort of arse-wit who'll point a finger at someone for believing in a God. Piss off and stop representing me.

Dawkins doesn't claim to represent anyone. I've read almost all of his books and I've yet to read a claim of representation.

He's just as bad as the people he complains about, jumping on them with theological questions in hope he humilate them.

The only small difference is Dawkin's knowledge of the world is based on decades of study and a scientific approach, he uses to this to "prove" his points. The people he complains about earnestly believe in Santa Claus.

galwayrush

youcrazyjesus! wrote: »

They weren't planning on rugby tackling him inside St Pauls and dragging him outside in handcuffs. Makes no odds. It will become public once the legal action is initiated. Silly comment.

A silly comment for a silly plan, does anyone honestly believe he will be arested by anyone?:rolleyes:

pookie82

Jesus (pardon the pun) this thread is like a walking example of Irish attitude. We've been pissed off for weeks about the inability of heads of state/anyone in authority to extract due compensation/apology/resignations from the church for its heinous acts against vulnerable children.

Someone comes along and actively tries to seek a method of making the criminal at the head of this organisation pay for his involvement and continued refusal to face up to the full enormity of what his church has covered up and people on here are pissing and moaning about the guys who are doing it looking for attention.

I actually like Dawkins to be honest, but even if it was someone I couldn't stand taking this kind of action, be it successful or not, more f*cking power to them!!! Would you prefer we all stand around like sheep waving our fists and giving out and doing nothing?

Though I suppose this is a country where our government has bailed out banks, our biggest developers and bank directors are now loan free and living in a mansion in Cape Cod or whatever, our hospitals aren't capable of opening letters and we've haven't done a damn demonstrative thing about getting Fianna Fail out of power, other than to moan.

youcrazyjesus!

pablomakaveli wrote: »

This post from the first page of this thread.

I believe Santa Claus should be held accountable for any wrong doing on his annual Christmas run, irreparably damaged chimneys, carrot theft and so on. The question is, IS Ratzinger guilty legally or morally and is there a legal basis for the arrest.