Dawkins plans to arrest the Pope. No, really!

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Flashman**

What a card Richard Dawkins is. Clearly bored of having "shooting fish in a barrel" debates with Islamic Fundamentalists and Bible Belt Americans, he's decided to go for the big one this time.

Times wrote:RICHARD DAWKINS, the atheist campaigner, is planning a legal ambush to have the Pope arrested during his state visit to Britain “for crimes against humanity”.

Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, the atheist author, have asked human rights lawyers to produce a case for charging Pope Benedict XVI over his alleged cover-up of sexual abuse in the Catholic church.

The pair believe they can exploit the same legal principle used to arrest Augusto Pinochet, the late Chilean dictator, when he visited Britain in 1998.

The Pope was embroiled in new controversy this weekend over a letter he signed arguing that the “good of the universal church” should be considered against the defrocking of an American priest who committed sex offences against two boys. It was dated 1985, when he was in charge of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which deals with sex abuse cases.

Benedict will be in Britain between September 16 and 19, visiting London, Glasgow and Coventry, where he will beatify Cardinal John Henry Newman, the 19th-century theologian.

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.

They have commissioned the barrister Geoffrey Robertson and Mark Stephens, a solicitor, to present a justification for legal action.

The lawyers believe they can ask the Crown Prosecution Service to initiate criminal proceedings against the Pope, launch their own civil action against him or refer his case to the International Criminal Court.

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.

Last year pro-Palestinian activists persuaded a British judge to issue an arrest warrant for Tzipi Livni, the Israeli politician, for offences allegedly committed during the 2008-09 conflict in Gaza. The warrant was withdrawn after Livni cancelled her planned trip to the UK.

“There is every possibility of legal action against the Pope occurring,” said Stephens. “Geoffrey and I have both come to the view that the Vatican is not actually a state in international law. It is not recognised by the UN, it does not have borders that are policed and its relations are not of a full diplomatic nature.”

**Commander Endova**

A sarcastic "terrific" from me. I'm an atheist, and in my perfect world, there'd be no religion, or at least, predominant secularism. Still, this is hardly the right way to go about getting our point across.

I'd like to congratulate Mr. Dawkins for making us atheists everywhere look like tools for 2 reasons.

1. Trying to arrest the pope. Good luck buddy.
2. Announcing to the world that you're trying to arrest the pope. There's definitely no one in the Vatican, or in the pope's security detail, that can use the internet.

Le sigh...

**JEB_Stuart**

Times wrote: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.

As smart as Dawkins is, he is also a complete idiot. Hitchens, on the other hand, I find to be a complete fool. The Vatican City State is an internationally recognized state that has diplomatic relations with all but 14 nations across the entire globe, and is a permanent observer state that only lacks a vote, by the choice of the Church, in the United Nations. The Holy See, which is a different entity, but exercises all authority of the Vatican City State, is not a nation, but still recognized as an international authority. This was reconfirmed in 2004 unanimously by the United Nations. Since His Holiness is the Sovereign of a recognized nation, their point is moot...

**The Dreadnote**

What an arsehole. This plan sounds like something he came up with in his treehouse after school.

**Squig_herder**

Commander Endova wrote:
1. Trying to arrest the pope. Good luck buddy.
2. Announcing to the world that you're trying to arrest the pope. There's definitely no one in the Vatican, or in the pope's security detail, that can use the internet.

Is the Pope above the law? He is a human like the rest of us, not above the law, nor is he the law, he must live inside of it like anyone else.

Also, this isnt just above arresting the Pope, but if a judge would rule in favour of crimes against humanity (or something similar) it would cripple and undermine the church as a whole in the eye of the world, which in itself is cataclysmic for the church

**Flashman**

I like some of Dawkin's sentiments e.g. In counter to the question "Isn't the idea of death with no hope of an afterlife a bit depressing", he states that the earth is a truly amazing place and what more could you possibly want than the opportunity to spend what time is given to you taking it all in.

But in which case, why does he spoil "the time given to him" picking fights with the religious establishment? Wouldn't he be better off just chilling out on an island somewhere enjoying the scenery?

**Squig_herder**

Flashman wrote:But in which case, why does he spoil the time given to him picking fights the religious establishment? Wouldn't he better off just chilling out on an island somewhere enjoying the scenery?

He is trying to weaken organised religion, which I can totally understand. It has done a lot of "evil" without accounting for it, refuses to keep pace with modern society and slows down things like science.

**Emperors Faithful**

The Dreadnote wrote:What an arsehole. This plan sounds like something he came up with in his treehouse after school.

+1.

Squig_herder wrote:
Flashman wrote:But in which case, why does he spoil the time given to him picking fights the religious establishment? Wouldn't he better off just chilling out on an island somewhere enjoying the scenery?

He is trying to weaken organised religion, which I can totally understand. It has done a lot of "evil" without accounting for it, refuses to keep pace with modern society and slows down things like science.

To claim that religeon is the sole root of all, or even most, evil is a foolish statement to say the least. Humanity has never really needed religeon as an excuse to kill one another over archaic rules and ancient fueds.

**SilverMK2**

I can just imagine Dawkins trying to ram the popemobilie off the road in a high speed traffic jam around the M25

**JEB_Stuart**

Squig_herder wrote:He is trying to weaken organised religion, which I can totally understand. It has done a lot of "evil" without accounting for it, refuses to keep pace with modern society and slows down things like science.

No, you shouldn't understand that. For every "evil" that religion has done, it has done an insane amount of good. Besides, trying to destroy religion would in essence be a crime against humanity as it inflicts harm and sorrow upon those who adhere to said religion. We are not prisoners of some evil empire, we willingly believe and embrace this, who are you, or anyone for that matter, to tell us that we are wrong? It doesn't matter what he thinks, as I already outlined, he is just plain wrong and his plan is worthless.

**SilverMK2**

I think we should try and see the difference between arresting people who work for organised religion and have committed crimes, and removing organised religion.

Although I am sure that Dawkins would be happy to remove OR entirely, I am happy to support moves which lead to the removal of power people who have abused positions of trust to commit crimes, or cover up crimes (no matter if they are within OR, politics, science, football, etc).

I think that people see any move against such people as a move against the institution. Where the institution is a religion, this effect is magnified.

They need to be really careful to show that they are bringing up charges based on rational evidence for actual crimes, rather than just targeting the head of an organisation they don't like.

Because it is Dawkins who is attempting to bring these charges, most people, even atheists, will see it as an attack on the church, rather than individuals within it who have committed crimes.

It is a sad thing that it seems only a militant atheist with a blatant disregard for religion has the balls to go and try to bring about the arrest of people hiding behind the veil of religion.

**SagesStone**

Well while I'm not religious either, I doubt this idea would see like a good one to anyone besides him and maybe a couple of rocks.

Therefore, it is rare that I do it, but I'm actually facepalming this guy.

**Squig_herder**

JEB_Stuart wrote:No, you shouldn't understand that.

That's rather dictatorial of you, I respect what you have to say, so can you respect what I have to say?

JEB_Stuart wrote:For every "evil" that religion has done, it has done an insane amount of good. Besides, trying to destroy religion would in essence be a crime against humanity as it inflicts harm and sorrow upon those who adhere to said religion. We are not prisoners of some evil empire, we willingly believe and embrace this, who are you, or anyone for that matter, to tell us that we are wrong? It doesn't matter what he thinks, as I already outlined, he is just plain wrong and his plan is worthless.

I never said that the church had never done good, nor that it's evils outweighed it's good, I said that they don't take responsibility for what they have done and they need to set up and acknowledge what they have done. They also seem to think they are above the law, I disagree.

I am not tell you can't believe, im happy with people believing in god, what I have against it, is that it spends a lot of resources hiding/disproving/discrediting people and science. I also don't like that millions of Christians are willing to take the Pope's word as law, he is at best a guide, who is to say that god is closer to him than the average person?

On the topic of Dawkins's plan, if a judge will side with him, then clearly he is legally right, no matter your personal view.

Emperors Faithful wrote:To claim that religeon is the sole root of all, or even most, evil is a foolish statement to say the least. Humanity has never really needed religeon as an excuse to kill one another over archaic rules and ancient fueds.

I never said it was the sole root, or anything along those lines, I am saying that the church has not taken any responsibility for crimes committed by the church itself or the people working under its orders. It has harboured paedophiles and dont been prosecuted by the law for it because they seem to think they are above the law. What about the mass murder of "witches" or "Heretics", no sorry, no formal apology each like the Japanese, no the church turned god mode on and the rest of the world can't touch they seem to think, well im glad the law is catching up with them.

**Flashman**

I know I'm not a Mod, but don't particularly want this thread to descend into a conflagration. Been a couple of sparks already. Let's keep it rational people, just to show we can

**JEB_Stuart**

Squig_herder wrote:That's rather dictatorial of you, I respect what you have to say, so can you respect what I have to say?

Why should I respect it when you said you are ok with him weakening organized religion? I should be ok with people trying to undermine my beliefs? I think not.

Squig_herder wrote:I never said that the church had never done good, nor that it's evils outweighed it's good, I said that they don't take responsibility for what they have done and they need to set up and acknowledge what they have done. They also seem to think they are above the law, I disagree.

They aren't above the law, and the man responsible was tried and punished. The worst that the Pope did was commit obstruction of justice, which he is well past the Statute of Limitations for in Germany. So, again their legal standing is zip. Crimes against humanity are described by the UN as a concerted and systematic attack, against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack. This clearly does not fit that bill...

Squig_herder wrote:I am not tell you can't believe, im happy with people believing in god, what I have against it, is that it spends a lot of resources hiding/disproving/discrediting people and science. I also don't like that millions of Christians are willing to take the Pope's word as law, he is at best a guide, who is to say that god is closer to him than the average person?

So because the Church promotes ethics that you don't support means that it should be undermined? As far as his word as law goes, you should actually read Church theology on the matter, as it isn't as simple as you suggest, nor as broad.

Squig_herder wrote:On the topic of Dawkins's plan, if a judge will side with him, then clearly he is legally right, no matter your personal view.

My personal view on the matter is irrelevant, from a purely legal perspective they are wrong. The facts clearly point that out.

Squig_herder wrote:It has harboured paedophiles and dont been prosecuted by the law for it because they seem to think they are above the law.

Except they have been both prosecuted and punished.

Squig_herder wrote:What about the mass murder of "witches" or "Heretics", no sorry, no formal apology each like the Japanese, no the church turned god mode on and the rest of the world can't touch they seem to think, well im glad the law is catching up with them.

And those mass murders would be? If you knew the history and reaction of the Church, it has apologized many times over for the horrible things it has done in the past.

**Tim the Biovore**

That is plain ridiculous. I'd pick any religion just to avoid being an atheist like him. I'm adding him to my "To Hurt" list, right after Justin Beiber.

**Squig_herder**

Tim the Biovore wrote:That is plain ridiculous. I'd pick any religion just to avoid being an atheist like him. I'm adding him to my "To Hurt" list, right after Justin Beiber.

Most atheists aren't like Mr Dawkins, while I may support SOME of his actions, I am by no mean actively working against religion, the only proactive thing I do for atheism is support a strong secular state for my county, so it cannot interfere with politics. Don't judge atheists by the extremists in the news.

**Jackal**

For every "evil" that religion has done, it has done an insane amount of good.

So it should be left alone and not punished because it has done something good?
So, if hitler was to have done something great for people after all the gak he had done, it would make it ok?

Sorry, but religion is the main cause of fighting, and these days, it tends to break into civil wars (IRA?)

I myself have no religion, nor do i want one.
I think if a religion does something wrong, it should be punished.
It is not above the law, no one is, no matter how much they want to think it.

**CadianXV**

I find it incredibly sad that some people concentrate solely on the negative aspects of Religion, even if they acknowledge some good it has done.

Catholicism has a lot of skeletons in its closet I'll admit, with the Crusades, the Inquisition, and now this scandal. However attacking the Church and its members is not the right way of dealing with this: there has been an official inquiry and subsequent report, and there has been an official apology and I dare say reprimands have been issued privately. The Pope is meeting victims- an incredibly generous gesture which he was under no obligation to do.

It really bugs me that letters written several years ago are dragged up by journalists solely interested on selling news are paraded in front of the public. I very much doubt that the letter has been read in its entirety by the vast majority (I haven't), and the circumstances surrounding the incident it deals with are also largely unknown. Thus the letter, whilst certainly disgraceful to our very limited perspective, should not be held up as conclusive proof of a criminal 'cover-up', nor should phrases in it be taken out of context.

Do you recall when the Pope was elected? Did the media focus on his charity work, or the hope he gave to his parish? No they dragged up the fact that he was alive during the Nazi regime and was inducted into the Hitler Youth; they failed to mention that this was true for virtually all children of the time and was unremarkable. A clear example of digging up scandal for no reason other than to slander.

I wish the media would give some airtime to the vast good that Catholicism has done, rather than looking for a quick scandal to satisfy viewers appetites.

Furthermore, there is a current issue with compensation to families who were affected in this way. The issue is the amount of compensation given; I find this abhorrent. The Church admits that some of its members were in error, and has agreed to compensate victims- and now said victims are unhappy with the amount of money they receive? Again, I don't have the details of every case, but it makes me wonder how strong Catholics these people are when they will seize the opportunity to plunder their Church for money.

**Flashman**

I'm not religious either (agnostic at best), but I'll give you three areas where religion has been of some benefit to the world as a whole.

1. In less enlightened times, it provided a set of values for society to abide by.
2. Religion has inspired the creation of some truly magnificent architecture, sculptures, paintings and the like.
3. Faith gives people courage when they need it most. Can you imagine being an atheist in the trenches?

**Corpsesarefun**

Im an atheist myself but i can see why religion is needed in many peoples lives, it gives them answers to questions that science can only say i dont know even if those answers have no proof.

Religion is not evil, people are though and will use and abuse the concept of religion to control and inflict suffering on other people which is why to many religion is seen as evil.

Now I have no qualms with anyones beliefs as it is my own that forcing beliefs on others is wrong, you can worship the flying spaghetti monster if you want as long as you dont try to convert others.

This dawkins bloke sounds like a complete fool for trying to arrest someone of such international power but i will agree that the scandel over this child abuse cannot go unpunished.

**Squig_herder**

Flashman wrote:
1. In less enlightened times, it provided a set of values for society to abide by.
2. Religion has inspired the creation of some truly magnificent architecture, sculptures, paintings and the like.
3. Faith gives people courage when they need it most. Can you imagine being an atheist in the trenches?

Rebutting point 1 if I may: For along time, the church silenced (in which ever means they saw fit) scientists of the time for proving science to the world around, showing truth and the church didn't want truth, they want god (Ironicly now they like to claim god did all the science, when e few 100 years ago they didnt even know). The church was (maybe still is?) homophobic, for no good reason. After all the Greek's had homosexuals and were ok with it, so they are a 1000 years behind the times.

Rebutting point 3: As an atheist and having a brother who is atheist and toured in both iraq wars, found pride in serving with friends and to defend his home and the home of others (Qwat [spelling] and Iraq). I find it insulting that you insist that you must have religion to be proud serving your country, and that religion is the only thing keeping you going in a war.

**Soladrin**

۞ Jack ۞ wrote:
For every "evil" that religion has done, it has done an insane amount of good.

So it should be left alone and not punished because it has done something good?
So, if hitler was to have done something great for people after all the gak he had done, it would make it ok?

Sorry, but religion is the main cause of fighting, and these days, it tends to break into civil wars (IRA?)

I myself have no religion, nor do i want one.
I think if a religion does something wrong, it should be punished.
It is not above the law, no one is, no matter how much they want to think it.

I agree, though not as extremely as you state it. In my honest opinion the world as it is now has little to no place for religion, in a lot of places it's holding humanity back. And it's still fueling hate around the world... which if you objectively look at it, is utter nonsense. I don't mind people believing in any deity, I do mind if they use it as a way to justify the unjustifiable.

As for people saying religion has also done a lot of good things, it's still doing plenty of bad too. And I've never seen this compensation for mindless slaughter, centuries of holding science back and fueling hate for all kinds of people.

Now with this whole pedophilia thing, I saw it as an insult to injury for the victims that the Pope didn't even mention it in his easter speech. More victims are coming out of hiding everywhere and the numbers are simply shocking.

**Jackal**

People, watch angels and daemons, it explains it all

Squig - go join the illuminati.

**Flashman**

Squig_herder wrote:
Rebutting point 3: As an atheist and having a brother who is atheist and toured in both iraq wars, found pride in serving with friends and to defend his home and the home of others (Qwat [spelling] and Iraq). I find it insulting that you insist that you must have religion to be proud serving your country, and that religion is the only thing keeping you going in a war.

Not sure I was insisting anything, but apologies if you read it that way and were duly insulted.

**Chibi Bodge-Battle**

Have not managed to read all the posts so apologies in advance. Promise I will do so when my noggin is les fuzzy.

It raises a couple of issues for me.

Firstly being an aetheist I still detest any form of funamentalist and dogmatic behaviour. Even from aethists.
Personally I don't care for stamping down on other peoples' beliefs.

Secondly the Catholic Church think the Pope is infallible. Well sorry but he ain't and any cover up needs to be exposed and he should stand down if it is true.

That ain't gonna happen of course, but I hope his Catholic sense of guilt kicks in big time.

Actually thinking about it I can understand Dawkins's motives. But the problem is, Papa hasn't been accused of actually perpertating the child abuse, but covering it up. While that still is reprehensible, I am not sure it is a criminal offence? Therefore arrest would be inappropriate.

If it was a manager of an institute whose workers had committed these offenses and covered up, he would be sacked.
It is interesting how the terrible abuse that has been the cause of this row is now sidelined and Dawkins is being vilified.

may be the Popsicle is infallible after all. The Teflon Pastor

**mattyrm**

Let me get this straight, Dawkins is a tool because he wants to get a man who enabled child rape punished? Sorry religious chaps, but this sickens me utterly. Go watch some of the victims testimonies on youtube (i wont link because it gets the thread instacensored if people say bad things about religion) and I will bow out of this thread while i have the will power to remain civilised and you guys can get back to defending the pope. Awesome.

**Corpsesarefun**

mattyrm wrote:Let me get this straight, Dawkins is a tool because he wants to get a man who enabled child rape punished? Sorry religious chaps, but this sickens me utterly. Go watch some of the victims testimonies on youtube (i wont link because it gets the thread instacensored if people say bad things about religion) and I will bow out of this thread while i have the will power to remain civilised and you guys can get back to defending the pope. Awesome.

No dawkins is a tool for not thinking his plan out propperly, the pope is a recognised head of state.

**Squig_herder**

۞ Jack ۞ wrote:
Squig - go join the illuminati.

Do they have a facebook page?

Flashman wrote:
Not sure I was insisting anything, but apologies if you read it that way and were duly insulted.

Its ok, I get a little touchy when it comes to Defece Force and Religion, I might of over reacted, sorry as well

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:
Actually thinking about it I can understand Dawkins's motives. But the problem is, Papa hasn't been accused of actually perpertating the child abuse, but covering it up. While that still is reprehensible, I am not sure it is a criminal offence? Therefore arrest would be inappropriate.

Being the Head of the Catholic Church he has every reason to be accountable, if it has been brought to his attention and nothing was done. I think the Vatican would have known of some cases regardless of where it happened, there is a whole score of cases.

**wizard12**

I don't get this. The guy who commited a crime has been punished and all the church has done is tried to cover it up. Yet some people want the church to be punished for doing this.

If a close member of the familly goes and kills/rapes/burgles someone, you don't go around screaming at the top of your lungs that the member of the familly if a murderer/rapist/robbber because people will think your famillies completly bad while most of your familly work for charities. No you want to keep it on the quiet.

I don't get why people try to force their beliefs on others (OK not the best sentence for someone whose Cathorlic) but seriously, give me one example of a war caused by religion that had no political motives behind it. Now take that list and cancel out the ones that were started by non-cathorlics. There won't be many and definatly non in the time of Benedict. And why judge religions, countries and buissnesses by their past?

Edit: oh yes, I have a quick quesion for people who know about law. If a person who is employed by a country overseas and isn't acturly a citzen of that country. Does the contry that employs them have to deal with any crime they commit?