Richard Dawkins: : I will arrest Pope Benedict XVI

Jonny7

Taken from the headline on the timesonline.co.uk

Apparently Dawkins along with fellow atheists and legal will try to arrest the pope on his visit to UK.

The atheist in me is thinking 'stick it to him', but, quite honestly, I believe not much good will come of this, its more of a disgruntled revenge attack. Its up to the Catholic church to resolve this issue themselves. I'm not sure if this deserves its own post or should be merged with the ongoing thread.

t4k30

Its nothing but a media stunt for dawkins. He wouldnt dare try and arrest any other religious leaders. He'd be a marked man. The church at the moment is a soft target, it'll all blow over.... That or someone will knock dawkins off the block !!

coffee_cake

not quite the truth

See comment below it

http://richarddawkins.net/articles/5415

PDN

Peter Tatchell tried to do something similar with Robert Mugabe in Brussels in 2001. As I recall he had the crap kicked out of him by Mugabe's bodyguards.

Could be interesting.

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

strobe

It's just a statement of intent, something clearly designed to garner as much attention as possible, like when smoking hot PETA protesters strip naked and walk down a main pedestrian street. The means are questionable but the end is just (in a lot of cases). For too many reasons to list there will obviously be no serious attempt to follow it through made. Far from least the fact that the Pope is a head of state and any attempt to approach and restrain him in a foreign nation would arguably quite rightly result in the people attempting it getting dropped where they stood.

*Edit* Having read the article and verifying the story after posting, as I am unfortunatly prone to doing on rare occasions, obviously it seems Dawkins is just making a point that the law should allow for Ratzinger being arrested and potentially charged, not that he planned to make or was approving an attempt to make some kind of citizens arrest. Nicely played Times headline editor....nicely played...

PDN

strobe wrote: »

It's just a statement of intent, something clearly designed to garner as much attention as possible, like when smoking hot PETA protesters strip naked and walk down a main pedestrian street. The means are questionable but the end is just (in a lot of cases). For too many reasons to list there will obviously be no serious attempt to follow it through made. Far from least the fact that the Pope is a head of state and any attempt to approach and restrain him in a foreign nation would arguably quite rightly result in the people attempting it getting dropped where they stood.

Could make for an interesting poll. Which would you rather see?

a) A smoking hot model walking down the street naked in a PETA protest.

b) Richard Dawkins getting beheaded by one of the Pope's Swiss Guards.

strobe

Lol. I can say with an unblemished record of heterosexuality, it would still only be about 50/50.

Dave!

Jonny7 wrote: »

Taken from the headline on the timesonline.co.uk

Apparently Dawkins along with fellow atheists and legal will try to arrest the pope on his visit to UK.

The atheist in me is thinking 'stick it to him', but, quite honestly, I believe not much good will come of this, its more of a disgruntled revenge attack. Its up to the Catholic church to resolve this issue themselves. I'm not sure if this deserves its own post or should be merged with the ongoing thread.

You think so? Are there no civil authorities to which they should answer? Are they a law unto themselves?

I think the Dawkins-backed suggestion is more about applying pressure than anything else, but it does keep the question alive of who do the Church have to answer to? If the Pope was caught red-handed and found to have broken a load of laws, is there any circumstances under which he would be arrested?

Surely it should be investigated at least

seanybiker

Im atheist myself but I honestly think that he is a fool. Anybody can do a citizens arrest. I would love to arrest him for being a hate monger. Can the tool just not leave people believe what they want. What business of his is it. Since "coming out" as an atheist and reading threads on here. I hate being an atheist. Same as I cant stand about 90% of the bikers I know. Why cant people just live and let live.

tdv123

seanybiker wrote: »

Im atheist myself but I honestly think that he is a fool. Anybody can do a citizens arrest. I would love to arrest him for being a hate monger. Can the tool just not leave people believe what they want. What business of his is it. Since "coming out" as an atheist and reading threads on here. I hate being an atheist. Same as I cant stand about 90% of the bikers I know. Why cant people just live and let live.

I think this is why.

Dawkins, author of The God Delusion, said: “This is a man whose first instinct when his priests are caught with their pants down is to cover up the scandal and damn the young victims to silence.” Hitchens, author of God Is Not Great, said: “This man is not above or outside the law. The institutionalised concealment of child rape is a crime under any law and demands not private ceremonies of repentance or church-funded payoffs, but justice and punishment.

Zombrex

Publicity stunt

It is like the people who claim they were going to "arrest" George Bush when he was in Ireland.

Dave!

Publicity student? wtf

prinz

Dave! wrote: »

Publicity student? wtf

Yes. He still has a lot to learn.

Manach

Afaick, the British courts have taken a fairly hard-line about the concept of Locus Standi (the inability of a party to bring a court-case unless directly involved in a legal matter). So unless Mr. Dawkins is willing to convert briefly to the one true faith, Catholicism, so as to claim to be an interested party ...

edanto

People seem to have missed bluewolf's link, here is an extract from it.

Richard Dawkins wrote:

Comment #478580 by Richard Dawkins on April 11, 2010 at 8:48 am
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

Interestingly, in German law there are situations whereby it is a crime to do nothing. For example, if you are in a position to attempt to stop someone raping someone else, and you don't, then you can be charged.

I see some similarities between how the church has behaved, and that German Law concept.

For example, by not responding to allegation promptly, or by allowing abusive priests to be moved around, or by concealing evidence from civil authorities, the church as an institution was in the wrong.

When it comes to Ratzinger himself, there was a recent story of his long delay in acting on a diocesan request to retire a dodgy priest.

http://www.sfexaminer.com/nation/90450459.html

Even in his seminary days in the early 1970s, there were questions about California priest Stephen Kiesle: Colleagues said he had trouble relating to adults, lacked spirituality and didn't seem committed to anything but youth ministry.

Those colleagues, who helped make the case to the Vatican in 1981 seeking to let him leave the priesthood, said they were concerned before Kiesle was ordained, and more so after revelations Kiesle had molested children in his parish.

"He was not grown up. He spent more time with kids than with people his own age. You get suspicious of that. There's something wrong there," said John Cummins, former bishop in the Diocese of Oakland, now retired.

Still, future Pope Benedict XVI resisted pleas from the diocese to act on the case, according to a 1985 letter in Latin obtained by The Associated Press that bore his signature as then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger.

It would take another two years before the Vatican doctrine watchdog office headed by Ratzinger would approve Kiesle's own request to leave the priesthood in 1987.

Zombrex

edanto wrote: »

People seem to have missed bluewolf's link, here is an extract from it.

meh, I don't have time to be reading stuff and finding out the truth, I'm a busy man :P

BURN HIM!

Xluna

PDN wrote: »

Could make for an interesting poll. Which would you rather see?

a) A smoking hot model walking down the street naked in a PETA protest.

b) Richard Dawkins getting beheaded by one of the Pope's Swiss Guards.

Why can't we compromise,and see a hot smoking Richard Dawkins walking down the street naked.:pac:

prinz

Xluna wrote: »

Why can't we compromise,and see a hot smoking Richard Dawkins walking down the street naked.:pac:

No eye would definitely be better than half an eye in that case.

Handsome Bob

I'm shocked that Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens are whoring themselves out in return for publicity. Really, I am.

PDN

LZ5by5 wrote: »

I'm shocked that Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens are whoring themselves out in return for publicity. Really, I am.

I'm not shocked at all.

Fanny Cradock

LZ5by5 wrote: »

I'm shocked that Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens are whoring themselves out in return for publicity. Really, I am.

Yeah, who would have thunk it!

ISAW

LZ5by5 wrote: »

I'm shocked that Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens are whoring themselves out in return for publicity. Really, I am.

Why? People with fundamentalist beliefs like them do it all the time.

pljudge321

ISAW wrote: »

Why? People with fundamentalist beliefs like them do it all the time.

You are horribly abusing the word "fundamentalist" here. Fundamentalism refers to the belief in strict adherence to a set of basic principles/texts/etc. Dawkins and Hitchens do neither of those things.

ISAW

pljudge321 wrote: »

You are horribly abusing the word "fundamentalist" here. Fundamentalism refers to the belief in strict adherence to a set of basic principles/texts/etc. Dawkins and Hitchens do neither of those things.

Scientism is a form of fundamentalism.

Dawkings believes that religion is an evil in a Godless world.
Just as the atheistic communists did.

"I would like to see the Roman Catholic Church ruined, "...
"[clerics sexually abusing children] may be less harmful in the long run than priestly subversion of child minds."
http://richarddawkins.net/articles/118

Luis Benitez-Bribiesca, a critic of memetics, calls it "a pseudoscientific dogma" and "a dangerous idea that poses a threat to the serious study of conciousness and cultural evolution" among other things. As factual criticism, he refers to the lack of a code script for memes, as the DNA is for genes, and to the fact that the meme mutation mechanism (i.e., an idea going from one brain to another) is too unstable (low replication accuracy and high mutation rate), which would render the evolutionary process chaotic
http://redalyc.uaemex.mx/redalyc/pdf/339/33905206.pdf

Didnt stop dawkins believing in it though did it? He doesn't say much about memetics nowadays. Since the journal closed down he seems to have lost faith in this "science".

youcrazyjesus!

ISAW wrote: »

Why? People with fundamentalist beliefs like them do it all the time.

Name one belief of his you'd describe as "fundamentalist". You really should understand the meaning of a word before throwing it out there.

This is absolutely nothing to do with "publicity" or "whoring themselves out in public". Anybody who believes that is not very intelligent and has a very limited understanding of someone like Dawkins.

youcrazyjesus!

ISAW wrote: »

Scientism is a form of fundamentalism.

Scientism is a pejorative invented by people to equate belief or respect for science with religion so they can say "well it's merely another belief system, just like ours". Which is bollox. Luckily there are many people who have explained clearly why it's bollox.

Dawkings believes that religion is an evil in a Godless world.
Just as the atheistic communists did.

Stalinists wanted to destroy anything which didn't fit in with their doctrine. It wasn't a philosophical position, it was a political position. Religion had to be wiped
out because they were implementing their doctrine and enforcing their rule ruthlessly. Stalin attacked Ukrainians, military officers, Polish middle class because in
his mind they were a threat, in the same way Pol Pot killed anyone who wore glasses and anyone who gave the appearance of being educated. Religion was attacked
for the same reasons, none of it was caused by any deeply rooted atheistic belief.

Stalin, a former seminarian, actually revived the Orthodox Church during the Nazi invasion in order to rally support for the war. This proves it was
a question of power and doctrine and not absolute belief in atheism which caused Stalin to persecute the Church in the first place.

ISAW wrote: »

Luis Benitez-Bribiesca, a critic of memetics, calls it "a pseudoscientific dogma" and "a dangerous idea that poses a threat to the serious study of conciousness and cultural evolution" among other things. As factual criticism, he refers to the lack of a code script for memes, as the DNA is for genes, and to the fact that the meme mutation mechanism (i.e., an idea going from one brain to another) is too unstable (low replication accuracy and high mutation rate), which would render the evolutionary process chaotic
http://redalyc.uaemex.mx/redalyc/pdf/339/33905206.pdf

Didnt stop dawkins believing in it though did it? He doesn't say much about memetics nowadays. Since the journal closed down he seems to have lost faith in this "science".

Somebody comes up with a theory. Somebody else comes up with a criticism. What does this prove exactly? Why should Dawkins start or stop believing in a theory or hypothesis
because another scientist believes something else? One does not disprove the other or vice versa. That's completely illogical. That's the beauty of academia, somebody will always
come along who disagrees with you. This results in progress.

What journal are you on about?

vodafoneproblem

ISAW wrote: »

Scientism is a form of fundamentalism.

Dawkings believes that religion is an evil in a Godless world.
Just as the atheistic communists did.

"I would like to see the Roman Catholic Church ruined, "...
"[clerics sexually abusing children] may be less harmful in the long run than priestly subversion of child minds."
http://richarddawkins.net/articles/118

Luis Benitez-Bribiesca, a critic of memetics, calls it "a pseudoscientific dogma" and "a dangerous idea that poses a threat to the serious study of conciousness and cultural evolution" among other things. As factual criticism, he refers to the lack of a code script for memes, as the DNA is for genes, and to the fact that the meme mutation mechanism (i.e., an idea going from one brain to another) is too unstable (low replication accuracy and high mutation rate), which would render the evolutionary process chaotic
http://redalyc.uaemex.mx/redalyc/pdf/339/33905206.pdf

Didnt stop dawkins believing in it though did it? He doesn't say much about memetics nowadays. Since the journal closed down he seems to have lost faith in this "science".

Thanks for that, ISAW. I knew I'd come across somewhere recently that his memetics theory had been discredited but couldn't remember where so I'm delighted to have that info now. Seems Dawkins mightn't be that much better at science than he is at religion!

Also, I don't know why he and his disciples are moaning so much about that headline. Even if he didn't utter those exact words, it seems pretty close to the truth. Judging by his own words on the matter, no less! It seems that now his science has been discredited, he has to find new ways of getting media attention so he can flog his childish arguments against religion.

From http://richarddawkins.net/articles/5415

"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."


So he does think their challenge might land the pope in the dock. Hmm!

youcrazyjesus!

vodafoneproblem wrote: »

Thanks for that, ISAW. I knew I'd come across somewhere recently that his memetics theory had been discredited but couldn't remember where so I'm delighted to have that info now. Seems Dawkins mightn't be that much better at science than he is at religion!

You've read his books I take it?

What does this mean, "he's (not) better at science than he is at religion?". How does Dawkins "do" religion in the same way he does science? It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Seems quite a stupid comment.

As for "memes" and "memetics"; there are ongoing arguments in the scientific community about all of these things, some biologists support Dawkins and some oppose him. It's all part of the rough and tumble of academic life. There is no argument to be won by finding somebody who disagrees with Dawkins on the subject. There are probably hundreds of published biologists who disagree, Dawkins actually writes about these disagreements in his books, if you'd ever bothered to read even one you'd know.

vodafoneproblem

^I got his pettily-argued tgd out of the library. (I refused to pay for it but couldn't resist seeing what the fuss was about.)

My comment above was, I thought, obvious, but just to simplify: it seems his scientific reasoning isn't much better than his religious reasoning. I don't think I'd even bother read any of his other books after seeing his really schoolground-like arguments in tgd. I'll stick to more rational science authors, I think!

youcrazyjesus!

vodafoneproblem wrote: »

it seems his scientific reasoning isn't much better than his religious reasoning.

Because somebody disagrees with him? That is the dumbest ****ing thing I've ever read on the internet. Ever.

I happen to disagree with Dawkins on some important points when it comes to memes. I'm not just cheerleading him for the sake of it but to say "he's sh!t at science" because somebody somewhere has published a rebuttal is so ignorant. It's probably pointless attempting to explain to you why that is.