Dawkins & Hitchens plan to arrest Pope.

Duggy747

youcrazyjesus! wrote: »

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?

Wait..........what? *reads my post again* I didn't say the 2 released this, did I?

youcrazyjesus! wrote: »

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 reconisged as a figure-head for Atheists, I've often watched his interviews and shows where he just ends up boiling my blood.

youcrazyjesus! wrote: »

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.

I know what I know but I don't go around calling people who believe in God "idiots", that sort of petty talk really pisses me off.

However, at least somebody is chasing after that Pope at last, I will give him that.

mjg

To repeat my post in A&A, if this does nothing more than remind people that are on the fence and/or those that unfailngly support the RCC that crimes have been committed and covered up, it's a good idea imo.

pablomakaveli

youcrazyjesus! wrote: »

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.

I dont know what to make of your ridiculous point above but given i'm not a legal expert i dont know if there is a legal basis to arrest him. Try asking an expert in British law.

youcrazyjesus!

Duggy747 wrote: »

Wait..........what? *reads my post again* I didn't say the 2 released this, did I?

Are you serious?

Originally Posted by Duggy747
What kind of smart arse would publicly release this information?

He's reconisged as a figure-head for Atheists, I've often watched his interviews and shows where he just ends up boiling my blood.

I think he has the patience of a Saint. He's a gentleman. Atheism is a broad church and few atheists I know are interested let alone find themselves irritated by Dawkins, to them it's self evident. I don't think you're an atheist.

I know what I know but I don't go around calling people who believe in God "idiots", that sort of petty talk really pisses me off.

Anybody who believes in a set menu of beliefs laid down to them from an organisation of celibate old men is an idiot and all right thinking people should identify them as such. It's not as if they live in a rain forest, in modern society information is everywhere and effectively free. There is no excuse for believing in silly Bronze Age stories in the modern world.

youcrazyjesus!

pablomakaveli wrote: »

I dont know what to make of your ridiculous point above but given i'm not a legal expert i dont know if there is a legal basis to arrest him. Try asking an expert in British law.

The definition of "crime against humanity" is quite straightforward. I believe the Church and it's CEO are guilty on two counts, AIDS and child abuse. It's an absolutely monstrous organisation and should be stopped by international sanctions and arrests.

Duggy747

youcrazyjesus! wrote: »

Are you serious?

Originally Posted by Duggy747
What kind of smart arse would publicly release this information?

I still didn't say either of them released it, I fail to see your argument here.

youcrazyjesus! wrote: »

I think he has the patience of a Saint. He's a gentleman. Atheism is a broad church and few atheists I know are interested let alone find themselves irritated by Dawkins, to them it's self evident. I don't think you're an atheist.

Wow, what a statement.

*pulls up seat*

If I'm not an Atheist, then what am I? Do I give you a hint of a devout Catholic? Talking to someone with faith and then talking down to them in a condecsending manner isn't very gentlemenly of Dawkins.

pablomakaveli

Duggy747 wrote: »

Wow, what a statement.

*pulls up seat*

If I'm not an Atheist, then what am I? Do I give you a hint of a devout Catholic? Talking to someone with faith and then talking down to them in a condecsending manner isn't very gentlemenly of Dawkins.

Since your not a follower of Dawkins than you must be a heretic.:pac:

goingpostal

Still waiting for someone to come up with a better idea on how to draw attention to Benny's immunity from having to face any legal consequences for his heinous crimes. Its easy to slag off Dawkins and Hitchens, but no-one has come up with an alternative. :rolleyes:

dvpower

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.

Would you be in favour of this move if it wasn't coming from Dawkins or Hitchins?

bnt

The papers spoke to one of the solicitors that were approached over this, and I'm reasonably sure that they would not have spoken to the press without the permission of their clients. So, in one sense, I think they have allowed this news to slip out with the aim of getting a reaction of some sort from the Vatican and/or to gauge public support. A serious threat to the Pope might lead to the calling-off of the tour, which would be a PR coup. Like it or not, the media is today's battleground.

One side note from the articles: though this Papal tour does not include Ireland, there is an Irish angle, since it might include the beatification of John Henry Newman. He was the first Rector of the "Catholic University of Ireland", which was later renamed University College Dublin (UCD), and the main Arts building there is named after him. Never mind that the guy was a convert from Anglicanism and was probably gay: Ratzinger admires him so much he's pushing for sainthood regardless.

goingpostal

Has anyone spotted the perp lately? Last time I saw him he was wearing a bright red ankle length coat with a natty white fur collar, and some ostentatious headwear. He was waving a pimp cane and demanding that his lackeys kiss an ENORMOUS gold ring that he had on his pinky finger.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AAa5rP64YbQ

pablomakaveli

dvpower wrote: »

Would you be in favour of this move if it wasn't coming from Dawkins or Hitchins?

I would if it was the victims of child abuse were the ones leading it as they are the ones who were affected.

I would be interested to know what the child abuse victims make of this case as well.

dvpower

Sheeps wrote: »

Isn't the Pope a head of state, thus immune from this kind of thing? Dawkins is a prick and pop atheists are literally the scum of the earth.

Did you not read the OP?

Dawkins and Hitchens believe the Pope would be unable to claim diplomatic immunity from arrest because, although his tour is categorised as a state visit, he is not the head of a state recognised by the United Nations.

Whats a pop atheist anyway?

ejmaztec

Fundamentalist atheists ramming their atheism down our throats are as bad as any religious fundamentalists.

Dawkins is odd.

Herbal Deity

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.

People should never protest against anything that they haven't been directly affected by?

pablomakaveli

Herbal Deity wrote: »

People should never protest against anything that they haven't been directly affected by?

No but in this case it would mean a lot more if the victims were leading this. It would show the pope that the victims demand justice.

With Dawkins and Hitchins leading it, it will only be seen as an attempt to one up the pope and the pope probably wont take it as seriously as a case led by the victims.

iUseVi

pablomakaveli wrote: »

No but in this case it would mean a lot more if the victims were leading this. It would show the pope that the victims demand justice.

With Dawkins and Hitchins leading it, it will only be seen as an attempt to one up the pope and the pope probably wont take it as seriously as a case led by the victims.

But whether its lead by Dawkins or the victims, its the courts which actually decide matters. But as a publicity stunt I know what you mean.

EDIT: can you imagine the Pope sitting in a court? That would be hilarious. The media would be like children in a sweet shop.

dvpower

pablomakaveli wrote: »

I would if it was the victims of child abuse were the ones leading it as they are the ones who were affected.

I would be interested to know what the child abuse victims make of this case as well.

You are in favour of a legal action against the pope, but not if it comes from Dawkins. You oppose Dawkins bringing this action because you think he is using the abuse issue to further his own agenda.

Don't you see some contradiction in this?

You oppose an action that would benefit child abuse victims because you are allowing your opposition to Dawkins to trump what you would otherwise support. Aren't you guilty of doing what you accuse Dawkins of; using one agenda to further another?

PeterIanStaker

pablomakaveli wrote: »

With Dawkins and Hitchins leading it, it will only be seen as an attempt to one up the pope and the pope probably wont take it as seriously as a case led by the victims.

The same way he doesnt take allegations of child abuse & covering up said abuse seriously?

pablomakaveli

dvpower wrote: »

You are in favour of a legal action against the pope, but not if it comes from Dawkins. You oppose Dawkins bringing this action because you think he is using the abuse issue to further his own agenda.

Don't you see some contradiction in this?

You oppose an action that would benefit child abuse victims because you are allowing your opposition to Dawkins to trump what you would otherwise support. Aren't you guilty of doing what you accuse Dawkins of; using one agenda to further another?

But Dawkins involvement could do more damage to the case than good. It will become an Atheism vs Catholicism debate and will take away from what the case should really be about which is justice for child abuse victims. There absolutely no reason why Dawkins can't step aside and let the victims lead the case and there's no indication that this is how the abuse victims wish to seek their justice.

orourkeda

Good luck with that

lemonjelly

banquo wrote: »

Not really. Name three people in the Vatican apart from the pope without using google? You can't. And if you can it's not because they're attention whores.

Dawkins doesn't love science; he hates religion and his hatred gets rewarded with attention, so he carries on with it. I'm not of the faith; if another person is then great, more power to them.

He speaks and writes science. He is entitled to hate theism if he wants.

dvpower

pablomakaveli wrote: »

But Dawkins involvement could do more damage to the case than good. It will become an Atheism vs Catholicism debate and will take away from what the case should really be about which is justice for child abuse victims. There absolutely no reason why Dawkins can't step aside and let the victims lead the case and there's no indication that this is how the abuse victims wish to seek their justice.

I have to say I agree with that. As evidenced in this thread, as soon as people see that Dawkins* is involved, the merits of the action itself are put to one side and it becomes about Dawkins and by extension, an Atheism vs Catholicism/Christianity thing.

If it was a victims group bringing this action, we would now be discussing matters of diplomatic immunity and the mechanics of the proposed case, and maybe even the substance of the charges that are being made against the pope.


*and Hitchins

dvpower

banquo wrote: »

Dawkins doesn't love science; he hates religion and his hatred gets rewarded with attention, so he carries on with it. I'm not of the faith; if another person is then great, more power to them.

You should read some of his stuff, not necessaily the God Delusion, but books like the Selfish Gene. It really is excellent stuff.

He loves sceince so much that he sent these books so that we could know:pac:

Pittens

Actually what is galling me is the certainty that the Anglican Church is covering up as much as the Catholic church ( absence of evidence not being evidence of absence).

Well that's one.

The other is this: attacks on the Pope in Ireland, or France are anti-clericalism. attacks on the Pope by the ethnic group who produced Cromwell, the Penal laws, the Know Nothings, and the Klu Klux Klan could be construed as sectarian bigotry.

I think that people of Anglo Saxon descent should spend their ire on Fundamentlist Protestantism - in particular the Bible Belt of the US. Let them deal with that. That protestantism is a direct result of the English protestant revolution, and it is far more an fundamentalist form of religion than Catholicism in practice. It is historically anti-Catholic as well.

English anti-Catholicism is not just anti-Irish. It meant a distrust of the near continent ( France, Spain, Portugal and down to Italy). Since the 19th century they have also been anti-German ( the amount of sh*t that Germans get on British TV is unbelievable).

The Pope is a German Catholic.

No wonder the Anglo Saxon bigoted psyche is going absolutely crazy.

orourkeda

Herbal Deity wrote: »

People should never protest against anything that they haven't been directly affected by?

Very valid point. However, it isn't always practical to stick to this principle.

Snowie

does this mean theres a british inquizistion?

Pittens

not necessaily the God Delusion

The interesting thing about the God Delusion is that he speant little time on Catholicism ( and why would an evolutionist care about Catholicism? The catholic church doesn't oppose it). he also, as I recall, in a side note mentioned he thought that the hounding of the Catholic Church on pedophilia was a bit over the top as all religions were equally culpable.

What happened? Catholic bashing has really taken off.

Dave!

Pittens wrote: »

The interesting thing about the God Delusion is that he speant little time on Catholicism ( and why would an evolutionist care about Catholicism? The catholic church doesn't oppose it). he also, as I recall, in a side note mentioned he thought that the hounding of the Catholic Church on pedophilia was a bit over the top as all religions were equally culpable.

What happened? Catholic bashing has really taken off.

That doesn't sound accurate... why would he say all religions are equally culpable when all religions aren't involved in sexual abuse?

If I'm not mistaken he was saying that all religious labelling of children is a form of child abuse, so the Catholic church isn't the only one that should be targetted.

I don't think he said we should lay off them for it though.

wes

Nothing will come of this, the Pope is a head of state. Its a publicity stunt, that will become more about the personalites involved, as opposed to the abuse about the Catholic church. Just look at this thread for proof of that. I am sure there intentions are to highlight the abuse, but it will fail, and become about them.

Also, I have 0 respect for Hitchens, who supported the Iraq war. The man supported a US war of aggression to look for something that didn't exists, and is no position to claim moral superiority over anyone. Dawkins should have ditched him and launched this on his own, as Hitchens drags him down.