Dawkins calls for pope's arrest

Galvasean

Min wrote: »

People can see through Dawkins.

Abuse victims are there to be used against the Pope just like AIDS victims in Africa even though the evidence backs up the Pope.....

I'm gonna play Devil's Advocate for a minute. Let us assume that Dawkins is only using the abuse victims as a means to throw the Pope in the slammer. Surely it is still a good thing to have a criminal brought to justice, even if the one who catches him was mostly in it for the glory rather than actual empathy for the victims?

vodafoneproblem

MrPudding wrote: »

Interesting article form the barrister in question:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2010/apr/02/pope-legal-immunity-international-law

MrP

"The anomalous claim of the Vatican to be a state – and of the pope to be a head of state and hence immune from legal action – cannot stand up to scrutiny."

Wow, I'm really getting an anti-Catholic bigotry vibe there.

Zillah

vodafoneproblem wrote: »

"The anomalous claim of the Vatican to be a state – and of the pope to be a head of state and hence immune from legal action – cannot stand up to scrutiny."

Wow, I'm really getting an anti-Catholic bigotry vibe there.

Seriously? Someone mentions that the Vatican being an independent state is dubious from a legal point of view and you're calling biggotry?

ChocolateSauce

article wrote:

In the US, 11,750 allegations

That's over 3 allegations a day for ten years! In the US alone...it really boggles the mind...

ironingbored

Min wrote: »

People can see through Dawkins.

Abuse victims are there to be used against the Pope just like AIDS victims in Africa even though the evidence backs up the Pope.....

Care to elaborate on how the Pope is right on Aids? :rolleyes:

Galvasean

Zillah wrote: »

Seriously? Someone mentions that the Vatican being an independent state is dubious from a legal point of view and you're calling biggotry?

I googled 'bigotry' and found this:

del88

Galvasean wrote: »

I googled 'bigotry' and found this:

Random!!

MikeC101

ironingbored wrote: »

Care to elaborate on how the Pope is right on Aids? :rolleyes:

Maybe....

ISAW

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Seriously mate, this practice of informing people in caps and occasionally bold that they're WRONG in so many posts really isn't conducive to discussion, it just gets people's backs up whether they are wrong or not. If I say something that's wrong and someone explains why as you have done and provides evidence as you have just done I will happily accept the correction but if they preface the correction by informing me that I'm WRONG, I immediately have a "yeah well fcuk you" attitude before I read anything they have to say

Sam I don't confuse personal opinion about people with actual facts.
whether or not you think my style of posting or my personality has anything amiss it has nothing to do with the fact that the Holy See is a state recognised by the UN.

If you think posting opinions about other posters would cause you to baulk then I suggest you look at what some people claiming to be a&a posters posted in the Christianity forum on this very subject thread. However, much of it was deleted.

But as it happens whether or not people think anything about me the point happens to be factually true.

ISAW

robindch wrote: »

I'm no expert on the UN's legal systems, but while you're correct to point out that the Holy See -- which is different from the Vatican, btw -- upgraded its observer status some years ago, I don't believe that, technically, it qualifies as a State, per se (if it did, then it would be entitled to full voting rights).

i didn't make any claims about full voting rights. In fact i think I posted that the holy see derives all ther rights of other States except voting rights. This means that citizens of the holy see are regarded the same as citizens of anywhere else, with the consequent recognition of diplomatic status. Hence their ambassadors are regarded as other diplomats and the Pope is regarded as a Head of State.

The holy see didn't upgrade it's status - the UN did!

ISAW

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I'm totally calm, he didn't say it to me :pac:

I'm just letting him know that he's making people less likely to listen to what he's saying whether he's right or wrong by getting their backs up

So what? I posting a fact. If you don't like the way I post it that does not change the fact that it is true.

ISAW

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Er, I was talking to kieran26.

In any case, I went too far on the Vatican, you're right, but I'm pretty sure there's still enough of a question mark over it to make it worth making the case.

If you want to talk only to Kieran26 I suggest you PM him. If you post in a public forum please don't claim your post is not intended to be read by or commented on by others. It isn't private or one -to- one.

ther is no question mark over it! The Holy See is recognised by the UN!

Paparazzo

We get it, no back to the topic!

The Mad Hatter

ISAW wrote: »

If you want to talk only to Kieran26 I suggest you PM him. If you post in a public forum please don't claim your post is not intended to be read by or commented on by others. It isn't private or one -to- one.

I'm aware of that, but you began your message by quoting me and saying "Sorry I didnt read the discussion but you are WRONG about immunity/recognition etc. and the official term isnt Vatican but "Holy See"" and "I am just trying to point out a FACT I'm not interested in debating the thread issue here," both of which read like you were defending yourself from criticism I had made of you, hence my confusion. I did not claim my post was not intended to be read by or commented on by others, nor that it was private or one-to-one (and are you seriously telling someone with over 2000 posts on boards.ie how a public forum works?).

In any case, the article linked to by Mr Pudding above shows some of the question marks I'm talking about regarding the Pope's diplomatic immunity.

PapaRatzi

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5spUtCNpLbQ&feature=player_embedded

I thought, oh no, not another Hitler video cliche, but I ROFLcoptered at this! Dawkins should design himself some fancy robes. Might help in his plight for people to take him seriously.

ISAW

Galvasean wrote: »

I'm gonna play Devil's Advocate for a minute. Let us assume that Dawkins is only using the abuse victims as a means to throw the Pope in the slammer. Surely it is still a good thing to have a criminal brought to justice, even if the one who catches him was mostly in it for the glory rather than actual empathy for the victims?

Agan point of fact. justice not only must be done but must be seen to be done. If you dont follow the law for whatever reason you can't claim it is "a good thing" . Im not claiming the Pope is or is not guilty of anything here I'm just pointing out that if he has diplomatic immunity then you CANT prosecute him!

Nor can you claim killing the Pope, ghandi, Mandela Hitler stalin or anyone else is "for the good".
Just from where do you guess from the principle behind having a "fair trial" comes?

Try reading this: Journal of Human Rights, Volume 8, Issue 1 January 2009 , pages 37 - 52
Fair Trial: The History of an Idea
Author: Ian Langford

ISAW

MrPudding wrote: »

Interesting article form the barrister in question:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2010/apr/02/pope-legal-immunity-international-law

MrP

Yes interesting AND factually wrong.

Sam Vimes

ISAW wrote: »

So what? I posting a fact. If you don't like the way I post it that does not change the fact that it is true.

ISAW wrote: »

Sam I don't confuse personal opinion about people with actual facts.
whether or not you think my style of posting or my personality has anything amiss it has nothing to do with the fact that the Holy See is a state recognised by the UN.

If you think posting opinions about other posters would cause you to baulk then I suggest you look at what some people claiming to be a&a posters posted in the Christianity forum on this very subject thread. However, much of it was deleted.

But as it happens whether or not people think anything about me the point happens to be factually true.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Seriously mate, this practice of informing people in caps and occasionally bold that they're WRONG in so many posts really isn't conducive to discussion, it just gets people's backs up whether they are wrong or not. If I say something that's wrong and someone explains why as you have done and provides evidence as you have just done I will happily accept the correction but if they preface the correction by informing me that I'm WRONG, I immediately have a "yeah well fcuk you" attitude before I read anything they have to say

Seems you didn't notice the bit where I said that whether you're right or wrong doesn't actually matter. The point is that prefacing your posts by declaring that someone is WRONG just pisses them off and makes them stop listening to you. There have been two occasions where you have responded to posts of mine. The first time you referred to my "closed mind" and my "ignorant and ill informed opinions" and the second time you went on with that WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG crap and both times whether you were right or wrong instantly became irrelevant because I stopped reading. I have no idea if you were actually right either time because your attitude made me not care enough about what you had to say to finish reading the post. No?

ISAW

Zillah wrote: »

Seriously? Someone mentions that the Vatican being an independent state is dubious from a legal point of view and you're calling biggotry?

It isnt just that. ther are other factual errors in the article. the "appeal to authority" by the poster of it that the writer is a barrister does not therefore hold.

ISAW

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Seems you didn't notice the bit where I said that whether you're right or wrong doesn't actually matter.

seems you didnt notice the point that in a debate whether something is a fact and supported by evidence is what matters and not the personal beliefs or opinions of the poster or they style of their posting.

The point is that prefacing your posts by declaring that someone is WRONG just pisses them off and makes them stop listening to you.

so what I didn't post to make them happy. i just posted to point out factual errors. I wasn't interested in that debate here.

There have been two occasions where you have responded to posts of mine. The first time you referred to my "closed mind" and my "ignorant and ill informed opinions" and the second time you went on with that WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG crap and both times whether you were right or wrong instantly became irrelevant because I stopped reading.

So what? If you were wrong you were wrong. whether or not you care to accept you were wrong will not change the fact you were wrong.

I have no idea if you were actually right either time because your attitude made me not care enough about what you had to say to finish reading the post.

so what? If you were wrong you were wrong. whether or not you care to accept you were wrong will not change the fact you were wrong.

If you don't want to accept your errors then that isn't my problem.

Sam Vimes

ISAW wrote: »

seems you didnt notice the point that in a debate whether something is a fact and supported by evidence is what matters and not the personal beliefs or opinions of the poster or they style of their posting.



so what I didn't post to make them happy. i just posted to point out factual errors. I wasn't interested in that debate here.




So what? If you were wrong you were wrong. whether or not you care to accept you were wrong will not change the fact you were wrong.



so what? If you were wrong you were wrong. whether or not you care to accept you were wrong will not change the fact you were wrong.

If you don't want to accept your errors then that isn't my problem.

My original post to you said "If I say something that's wrong and someone explains why as you have done and provides evidence as you have just done I will happily accept the correction" and I haven't actually said anything in this thread that you have declared to be wrong so responding with "If you don't want to accept your errors then that isn't my problem" really misses the point.

I am quite happy to accept my errors, the point is simply that a declaration that someone is WRONG is unnecessarily hostile and, if your point is as strong as you think it is, totally unnecessary, not to mention redundant, because their wrongness should be evident from your post without you needing to declare it in bold capitals.

ISAW

Zillah wrote: »

Seriously? Someone mentions that the Vatican being an independent state is dubious from a legal point of view and you're calling biggotry?

the article starts off claiming the Pope should be on trial!
It goes on to a report on clerical abuse in Ireland. It mentions a criminal offence of "aiding and abetting sex with minors" which diod nt to my knowledge exist over the period dealt with by the Murphy report mentioned in relation to Ireland.

It then hops off to the US in 2002 (the Murphy Report goes back to 1974) with an "it has been alleged" comment! It mentions 11,750 "allegations" in the US. In fact in Ireland ther are probably thousands if not tens of thousands of sexual abuse cases but there are scarcely 50 clerics involved over 50 or so years! Research indicates clerics are about 1 percent of abusers. Little if ever is mentioned of the other 99 per cent! And that is worldwide.

Defence of the Pope is conflated with defence of George Bush torture policies. Incorrect legal reference is made to the diplomatic status of the holy see. It ends incorrectly stating the Pope blamed pedophelia on homosexuality and stating the Vatican is wrong on homosexuality abortion and contraception.


On that basis Id fairly much consider it anti Rome.

Sam Vimes

ISAW wrote: »

Research indicates clerics are about 1 percent of abusers. Little if ever is mentioned of the other 99 per cent! And that is worldwide.

Are the other 99% members of organisations who protected them from prosecution, swore their victims to secrecy and moved the offenders around, allowing them to abuse many many more children?

And if so, are these organisations still to this day trying to hide the truth, shift the blame, deny responsibility, avoid compensating the victims and use legal loopholes to escape justice?

Because if so, I would whole heartedly support going after those organisations with just as much zeal as people are currently going after the church.

ISAW

Sam Vimes wrote: »

My original post to you said "If I say something that's wrong and someone explains why as you have done and provides evidence as you have just done I will happily accept the correction"

and then you subsequently stated that i posted elsewhere you were wrong and you ignored it! Please stop contradicting yourself.

and I haven't actually said anything in this thread that you have declared to be wrong so responding with "If you don't want to accept your errors then that isn't my problem" really misses the point.

Eh? NO! It directly tackles the point! YOU raised the point that elsewhere I pointed out to you that you were wrong and you ignored it! that is a direct contradiction of "I will happily accept the correction"

It does not miss the point at all.

I am quite happy to accept my errors,

Really? then care to post the evidence to support your claim that i pointed out you were wrong before and we will see if you happily accepted any errors shall we?

the point is simply that a declaration that someone is WRONG is unnecessarily hostile

In your opinion ! and again so what? If you consider it hostile to point out someone is wrong then that is your problem. In fact you are the one who was warned off by ta moderator for being hostile. I didn't complain about you because have a tough skin maybe and as i pointed out i don't personalise posts. I tend to point out FACTS rather then personal opinions about the poster as you did.

and, if your point is as strong as you think it is, totally unnecessary, not to mention redundant, because their wrongness should be evident from your post without you needing to declare it in bold capitals.

i don't seek lessons in posting style from you. If you think I am being offensive or in breach of the charter report me and let a moderator deal with it by warning me. I waste no more time on you lessons on posting style. Note again by the way I dint urge the moderator to warn you. You managed that all on you own.

ISAW

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Are the other 99% members of organisations who protected them from prosecution,

1. The article referred to attests to a church policy ( all be it more recent) that abusers not be protected but reported.

2. YES. they were . Their families and whatever other non church units they were in protected them . the proof of that is that very few of the other non clergy 99 per cent were prosecuted either.

swore their victims to secrecy and moved the offenders around, allowing them to abuse many many more children?

It would seem so since if ther were 50 clergy ( say in the 1930- 1980 period) that suggests 5000 others. ther have not been 5,000 convictions in Ireland for non clergy from 1930-80. I went looking for Gardai reports from 1977 recently to compare it to the current Cardinal Brady case. they are not online. But i would guess ther are not 50 convictions over that time. and for every cleric there are 100 other non clerics. so the short answer is YES something was preventing them being locked up. In the case of the 100 other non clerics it wasn't the Church.

And if so, are these organisations still to this day trying to hide the truth, shift the blame, deny responsibility, avoid compensating the victims and use legal loopholes to escape justice?

i don't know are they? the church certainly today don't seem to be.

Because if so, I would whole heartedly support going after those organisations with just as much zeal as people are currently going after the church.

Good for you! so why aren't you asking for ALL abusers to be dealt with rather than focusing on the clerics? Or is ot only the organisation that is your focus rather then the abusers? especially the 99 percent of non church abusers?

Sam Vimes

ISAW wrote: »

and then you subsequently stated that i posted elsewhere you were wrong and you ignored it! Please stop contradicting yourself.

Eh? NO! It directly tackles the point! YOU raised the point that elsewhere I pointed out to you that you were wrong and you ignored it! that is a direct contradiction of "I will happily accept the correction"

It does not miss the point at all.

Really? then care to post the evidence to support your claim that i pointed out you were wrong before and we will see if you happily accepted any errors shall we?

In your opinion ! and again so what? If you consider it hostile to point out someone is wrong then that is your problem.

You're still not quite getting the point. The point I am making is that your attitude made me not give a crap what you had to say. I didn't say you "pointed out that I was wrong", I said you declared me to be WRONG as well as closed minded, ignorant and ill informed so I stopped reading the post before I ever found out if I actually was wrong.

ISAW wrote: »

In fact you are the one who was warned off by ta moderator for being hostile. I didn't complain about you because have a tough skin maybe and as i pointed out i don't personalise posts. I tend to point out FACTS rather then personal opinions about the poster as you did.

I wouldn't consider declaring me to be closed minded, ignorant and ill-informed to be "pointing out FACTS rather then personal opinions about the poster". And the less said about the moderation in the christianity forum the better (especially since it's against the charter here)

edit: or were you referring to robindch;s post?

ISAW wrote: »

i don't seek lessons in posting style from you. If you think I am being offensive or in breach of the charter report me and let a moderator deal with it by warning me. I waste no more time on you lessons on posting style. Note again by the way I dint urge the moderator to warn you. You managed that all on you own.

As you say, it is indeed my opinion. I am not complaining about you nor do I want to report you, I am telling you something that I think is for your benefit. You can choose to take my advice or not, it's entirely up to you.

ISAW

ironingbored wrote: »

Care to elaborate on how the Pope is right on Aids? :rolleyes:

On two levels first the statistical demographic one

condoms are not the major causal factor in preventing AIDS!
Even intravenous Drug use isn't
Getting people to stop having sex is.
Especially getting middle aged men to stop having sex with young girls.

the pope would be against such sexual practices with or without a condom!

Inter generational sex is well documented as a factor.
( Above i refer to Africa)





Second the moral one

The Pope is against condom use because he is for sex as part of a monogamous couple having children. He isn't against condom use if one of the couple happens to have AIDS.
so he is not opposed to condoms per se just their use for something that he is against - free sex. Now you may think sex with whoever you like is morally acceptable but he doesn't. You cant morally claim to be more right than him.

Also the Pope isn't against rifles but he is against shooting people. If you come along and claim the use of silencers or the use of handguns instead of assault rifles will cause less carnage the Pope would still have a moral position n saying that the "lesser evil" of shooting less people is still wrong.

Capiche?

Sam Vimes

ISAW wrote: »

1. The article referred to attests to a church policy ( all be it more recent) that abusers not be protected but reported.

2. YES. they were . Their families and whatever other non church units they were in protected them . the proof of that is that very few of the other non clergy 99 per cent were prosecuted either.



It would seem so since if ther were 50 clergy ( say in the 1930- 1980 period) that suggests 5000 others. ther have not been 5,000 convictions in Ireland for non clergy from 1930-80. I went looking for Gardai reports from 1977 recently to compare it to the current Cardinal Brady case. they are not online. But i would guess ther are not 50 convictions over that time. and for every cleric there are 100 other non clerics. so the short answer is YES something was preventing them being locked up. In the case of the 100 other non clerics it wasn't the Church.




i don't know are they? the church certainly today don't seem to be.



Good for you! so why aren't you asking for ALL abusers to be dealt with rather than focusing on the clerics? Or is ot only the organisation that is your focus rather then the abusers? especially the 99 percent of non church abusers?

I am asking for all abusers to be dealt with. I don't think that anyone who abuses a child or protects someone who abuses a child, thereby allowing it to continue, should escape justice and I hold a special contempt for organisations who do it to preserve their good name (as opposed to within families where emotions and irrational loyalties can play a big part) but other than a derived figure of the number of prosecutions there theoretically should have been I don't know who these people are and short of the victims or families coming forward voluntarily or going into every house in the country and interrogating the residents I don't know how to find out who they are so there's not a whole lot I can do about it. It's hard to call for a theoretical group of nameless people to be prosecuted.


But anyway, the fact that other people may have committed acts nearly as heinous as those of the church does not change the fact that the church has commited these acts and should be made to answer for them.

Sam Vimes

ISAW wrote: »

the pope would be against such sexual practices with or without a condom!

Which is really the point. The pope would be against condoms even if they were 100% effective. Abstinence works for some, monogamy works for some and condoms work for some. No matter how much abstinence and monogamy are promoted a certain number of people are always going to have sex and they should be protected while they do it

ISAW wrote: »

Also the Pope isn't against rifles but he is against shooting people. If you come along and claim the use of silencers or the use of handguns instead of assault rifles will cause less carnage the Pope would still have a moral position n saying that the "lesser evil" of shooting less people is still wrong.

Whether you use a handgun or a shotgun you're still maiming and killing people; both methods do harm, just one will possibly do slightly less. The pope's objection to condoms has nothing to do with failure rates, he's against them because he thinks they're morally wrong but I have yet to see a good reason for why they should be viewed as morally wrong other than an old book says so. Arguments of the form "it's wrong because god says so" are fine between catholics but when dealing with people of other faiths and none positions have to be justified with more than a declaration from an authority that the people you're talking to don't believe in.

So why should condoms be viewed as morally wrong, as only a lesser evil like using a handgun instead of a shotgun?

ISAW

Sam Vimes wrote: »

You're still not quite getting the point. The point I am making is that your attitude made me not give a crap what you had to say. I didn't say you "pointed out that I was wrong", I said you declared me to be WRONG as well as closed minded, ignorant and ill informed so I stopped reading the post before I ever found out if I actually was wrong.

So you say. But you produce no evidence whatsoever to support your off topic personal attack on me!

Why when you were shown you were wrong didn't you bother to read the supporting evidence and admit it as you claimed when you stated that you would admit it if it was pointed out to you? Hint "I have my eyes closed and my fingers are in my ears so I can hear you" isn't a valid answer to that sort of question.

I wouldn't consider declaring me to be closed minded, ignorant and ill-informed to be "pointing out FACTS rather then personal opinions about the poster".

I wouldn't consider unsupported allegations are either! Look! First of all

1. Where did i accuse you as you claim of being " closed minded, ignorant and ill-informed"?

and
2. did i or did i not support such alloegations if made?

And the less said about the moderation in the christianity forum the better (especially since it's against the charter here)

I have no idea what you are referring to. The moderator i refer to is this one from this forum:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=65416272&postcount=84

Who told you to "calm down" with no prompting from me at all. If you continue to get personal and go off topic I may however complain about you.

As you say, it is indeed my opinion. I am not complaining about you

You have no basis to complain about me! I havent done anything wrong and i resent you suggesting I have.

nor do I want to report you,

iu couldn't care less if you did. you haVE NO GROUNDS TO REPORT ME. I haven,t broken any rules. ILL WASTE NO MORE OFF TOPIC SPACE ON THIS TOPIC .

I am telling you something that I think is for your benefit. You can choose to take my advice or not, it's entirely up to you.

Keep you unsolicited and unsupported advice to yourself please and don't post them in public. If you sincerely want to help me PM me and ill take your suggestions unsupported or not under consideration.