Dawkins & Hitchens plan to arrest Pope.

General Zod

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.

Vatican City is not a signatory to UN conventions, and as such is not recognised as a head of a nation under international law.

tipperaryboy

General Zod wrote: »

Vatican City is not a signatory to UN conventions, and as such is not recognised as a head of a nation under international law.

Thats correct.If the pope was recognised as head of a nation there would be no point of dawkins pursuing his plan to arreast the pope as he would have automatic immunity from arrest.

The Mad Hatter

ejmaztec wrote: »

Atheists aren't alone in voicing their concerns over religious interference...

We aren't? Because it certainly seems like that a lot of the time, and that anyone who objects on any terms to religious power is labelled a "fundamentalist." Incidentally, take a look at the power of religion in the US and the middle east, and tell me again that it's "dwindling day by day."

This has nothing to do with the context of the question that I asked Axer.

I don't do double standards, and didn't criticise anyone for writing more books than anyone else. All interested parties can write away, and bore the pants of anyone willing to part with their hard-earned cash.

You asked why you keep hearing about atheists and atheism, and why "they feel the need to publish their every thought." You hear about them because they write books, which by the way is as close as any atheist has yet come to "fundamentalist" atheism, whatever that means. And if it is fundamentalism to write a book defending your position, my question stands: are all religious authors fundamentalists too?

I completely agree with the idea to arrest the Pope. Everybody should be held accountable for their crimes. What is it the religious types say? "We are all sinners". Indeed.

I just hope this doesn't reflect badly on Atheism in general. We already have a reputation (undeserved) for arrogance. I hope people see that this isn't an atheism vs. Catholicism issue, but a criminal vs. justice issue.

Wreck

Political correctness gone mad.

ejmaztec

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

We aren't? Because it certainly seems like that a lot of the time, and that anyone who objects on any terms to religious power is labelled a "fundamentalist." Incidentally, take a look at the power of religion in the US and the middle east, and tell me again that it's "dwindling day by day."

Sorry, I've a low patience threshold for anything to do with soap-boxes.

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

You asked why you keep hearing about atheists and atheism, and why "they feel the need to publish their every thought." You hear about them because they write books, which by the way is as close as any atheist has yet come to "fundamentalist" atheism, whatever that means. And if it is fundamentalism to write a book defending your position, my question stands: are all religious authors fundamentalists too?

If you bother to go back and read Axer's reply to a previous post of mine, you will see why I asked the question. You're still off on a tangent.

Rabies

Wreck wrote: »

Political correctness gone mad.

Nothing PC about it really.

The Mad Hatter

ejmaztec wrote: »

Sorry, I've a low patience threshold for anything to do with soap-boxes.

...ok?

If you bother to go back and read Axer's reply to a previous post of mine, you will see why I asked the question. You're still off on a tangent.

Axer said that atheists have nothing to prove (which is true - it's up to people who believe to prove it, not up to atheists to show where God isn't, though atheists have been doing that for centuries anyhow). You asked why atheists keep writing books. I answered. The books aren't trying to prove that there's no such thing as God (nothing can prove that definitively), but they're making the argument and related arguments all the same; presenting the evidence. There's plenty to talk about.

Chorcai

Ok so the Pope vists the UK and is arrested... what then ?

mloc

I don't like Dawkins because he is massively irritating; I much prefer Hitchens. Ultimately, though, I'd prefer it was neither of them behind this.

Either way, I'm glad someone is making a point about it. It's about time somebody tried to take religion out of the argument for justice.

Chairman Meow

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

youcrazyjesus!

Chairman Meow wrote: »

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

Spurious point. The same could be said of anybody involved in any public life. Stay quiet if you've no points to make.

Chairman Meow

youcrazyjesus! wrote: »

Spurious point. The same could be said of anybody involved in any public life. Stay quiet if you've no points to make.

No actually, it couldnt. Lets take Shay Given for example, famous footballer, dont know anything about his political or religious beliefs and not once have i heard about him trying to convert people to atheism or theism. So that kinda makes your point utterly retarded eh? Maybe you should stay quiet instead of posting like you just mash your face against the keyboard and hope for the best?

ScumLord

Chairman Meow wrote: »

No actually, it couldnt. Lets take Shay Given for example, famous footballer, dont know anything about his political or religious beliefs and not once have i heard about him trying to convert people to atheism or theism. So that kinda makes your point utterly retarded eh?

He's forever trying to get people playing sports though, He's as bad as the advertisers who try to keep you indoors all day watching tele.

GLaDOS

Can we change the thread title to something accurate?

karma_

Chairman Meow wrote: »

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

That's the whole point of Dawkins in fairness.

Herbal Deity

Chairman Meow wrote: »

No actually, it couldnt. Lets take Shay Given for example, famous footballer, dont know anything about his political or religious beliefs and not once have i heard about him trying to convert people to atheism or theism. So that kinda makes your point utterly retarded eh? Maybe you should stay quiet instead of posting like you just mash your face against the keyboard and hope for the best?

Oooh, you can just feel the venom. That felt good didn't it?

youcrazyjesus!

Chairman Meow wrote: »

No actually, it couldnt. Lets take Shay Given for example, famous footballer, dont know anything about his political or religious beliefs and not once have i heard about him trying to convert people to atheism or theism. So that kinda makes your point utterly retarded eh? Maybe you should stay quiet instead of posting like you just mash your face against the keyboard and hope for the best?

Take a chill pill. No need for personal abuse. You could say the "ramming down your throat" thingy about anybody who espouses an opinion on any controversial subject. There are a million of these pithy and childish comments about Dawkins yet strangely nobody has cited one example of Dawkin's supposed failings. They use generic assaults that could be used against almost any human on the planet. "He's furthering his own agenda", LOL, well of course he's ****ing furthering his own agenda. It's obvious. It's not a bad thing, you know, having an agenda. Everybody on the planet has an agenda.

Which brings me on to my next point; holding an opinion and espousing it, or challenging something you believe is wrong does not mean you "ram it down people's throats". I don't think that anybody in the Catholic Church rams their religion down my throat when they espouse an opinion on a contemporary issue; abortion, divorce, international paedophile relocation services. They're entitled to do it and entitled to campaign on any issue. I don't take offence.

In short come up with a substantial criticism of Dawkins or STFU. "He has an agenda" or "he's arrogant" or "he rams his opinions down peoples throats" just isn't good enough if you want to debate on a grown up level. It doesn't further any point and just makes you appear lazy, too lazy to go any further superficial personal attacks.

My name is URL

ScienceNerd wrote: »

Can we change the thread title to something accurate?

Or just move it to a more fitting forum.. if this was a thread full of Christians proclaiming their beliefs or opinions it'd be moved to the proper forum, no?

dvpower

ejmaztec wrote: »

Sorry, I've a low patience threshold for anything to do with soap-boxes.

Welcome to boards.ie; its like a soapbox - on the internet.

ejmaztec

dvpower wrote: »

Welcome to boards.ie; its like a soapbox - on the internet.

I prefer soap that doesn't sting my eyes.:P

Bottle_of_Smoke

Fair play to Dawkins.

He knows this won't happen but at least he's bringing attention to the fact the pope's getting away with such a horrible thing to do.

I'd also strongly disagree he's doing this for attention rather than concern for those abused, think he's a very genuine guy.

Ickle Magoo

ejmaztec wrote: »

I prefer soap that doesn't sting my eyes.:P

Baby shampoo, huh?

ejmaztec

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Baby shampoo, huh?

That's the stuff, and a pint of Calpol.:cool:

ancapailldorcha

Personally, I couldn't care less what his intentions are. It beats the hell out of everyone (myself included) saying "That's awful" every time child abuse is mentioned in the news and leaving it at that. The headline is put together by the newspaper subeditor and not Dawkins himself according to his website (apologies if this has already been put up):
http://richarddawkins.net/articles/5415

dvpower

Richard Dawkins wrote:

Needless to say, I did NOT say "I will arrest Pope Benedict XVI" or anything so personally grandiloquent. You have to remember that The Sunday Times is a Murdoch newspaper, and that all newspapers follow the odd custom of entrusting headlines to a sub-editor, not the author of the article itself.

What I DID say to Marc Horne when he telephoned me out of the blue, and I repeat it here, is that 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. Beyond that, I declined to comment to Marc Horme, other than to refer him to my 'Ratzinger is the Perfect Pope' article here: http://richarddawkins.net/articles/5341

Here is what really happened. Christopher Hitchens first proposed the legal challenge idea to me on March 14th. I responded enthusiastically, and suggested the name of a high profile human rights lawyer whom I know. I had lost her address, however, and set about tracking her down. Meanwhile, Christopher made the brilliant suggestion of Geoffrey Robertson. He approached him, and Mr Robertson's subsequent 'Put the Pope in the Dock' article in The Guardian shows him to be ideal:
http://richarddawkins.net/articles/5366
The case is obviously in good hands, with him and Mark Stephens. I am especially intrigued by the proposed challenge to the legality of the Vatican as a sovereign state whose head can claim diplomatic immunity.

Even if the Pope doesn't end up in the dock, and even if the Vatican doesn't cancel the visit, I am optimistic that we shall raise public consciousness to the point where the British government will find it very awkward indeed to go ahead with the Pope's visit, let alone pay for it.

.

prinz

General Zod wrote: »

Vatican City is not a signatory to UN conventions, and as such is not recognised as a head of a nation under international law.

The Holy See is recognised as a soveriegn entity and has diplomatic relations with the vast majority of states and nations in the world. It has observer status with the UN and most international bodies, including full membership status in various UN organisations. It issues passports recognised internationally etc etc etc. As such under international law the Vatican via the Holy See is recognised as a 'state' and the Pope is recognised as the head of that state under international law.

As the article in question is UK based it is of note that the United Kingdom gives full recognition to the Holy See and the Vatican State thus to the Pope as head of state.

The article also shows blatant ignorance of the role of, the limitations of, and the statutes concerning the International Criminal Court.

ch750536

Next time he calls here should we just hassle the guards with calls like 'there's a drug dealer in dublin, dressed all in white 'cus he's a bit trippy' or 'a man dressed in white just stole my Nissan Almera, blessed me before he ran off'.

Would have no impact on the pope but I would feel better & it's good to talk to new & interesting people.

eblistic

prinz wrote: »

The Holy See is recognised as a soveriegn entity and has diplomatic relations with the vast majority of states and nations in the world. It has observer status with the UN and most international bodies, including full membership status in various UN organisations. It issues passports recognised internationally etc etc etc. As such under international law the Vatican via the Holy See is recognised as a 'state' and the Pope is recognised as the head of that state under international law.

As the article in question is UK based it is of note that the United Kingdom gives full recognition to the Holy See and the Vatican State thus to the Pope as head of state.

The article also shows blatant ignorance of the role of, the limitations of, and the statutes concerning the International Criminal Court.

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? Sorry about all the questions. I would just find your post incredibly disheartening if it was from someone with expertise in international law. He has a lot to answer for around the world (much more than just the recent child abuse storm).

It's really frustrating if the Pope can't be held legally accountable as head of state of the Vatican.
When you think about it though, there are many priests who have escaped conviction, who committed the crimes, not just covered them up. Move for them before getting any high notions of swooping in on the pope...