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.

Manchu wrote:
That information is not pertinent to sebster's objection about the sovereignty of the Holy See based on the ravings of Geoffery Robertson. The bottom line is that the Holy See has legal personality in international law and sovereignty in the Vatican City State. Whether this arises sui generis or as a practical result of recognition is beside the current point.

I didn't see him object to the idea that the Holy See holds sovereignty over Vatican City. I saw him object to the idea that The Vatican/Holy See amalgamation constitutes a nation-state. Unless I missed something, it looks like this whole conversation is built on miscommunication.

I can't think of any way that The Vatican/Holy See could be considered to be a nation-state, and denying it that status certainly does not necessarily deny it sovereignty.

Manchu wrote:
This argument is erroneous on its face because another of the four requirements of the treaty of Vienna (and the tradition it is based on) is having a stable government capable of carrying out diplomatic relations.

As far as I know, the Congress at Vienna (and the various Vienna Conventions) do not deal in declarative theories of statehood. The most authoritative document in that regard is the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States, which broadly requires 'government' in order for an aspiring body to be considered as a state. Since the lack of a permanent population is a self-evident characteristic of Vatican City it should come as no surprise that an argument of classification would work to expound on the natural consequences of that characteristic.

Note that government is not a prerequisite for international (or, more properly, inter-actoral) relations.

Manchu wrote:
The NGO theory is a political position taken up by people who want the Holy See kicked out of the UN, a movement supported by no state.

That would be a poor argument then, as there are several NGOs that enjoy a status equivalent to that of the Holy See. There is no reason to suppose that the Holy See would be removed from the UN were it to lose its recognition as a state, or even that its position would be somehow diminished.

Commander Endova wrote: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...

I am just hoping he runs into the Westboro Church crowd. They could sue each other into oblivion. Good times. Good times.

Frazzled wrote:I am just hoping he runs into the Westboro Church crowd. They could sue each other into oblivion. Good times. Good times.

The irony being that lawyers will be the only ones to win from that, and they actually are the agents of S(a)tan

SilverMK2 wrote:

Frazzled wrote:I am just hoping he runs into the Westboro Church crowd. They could sue each other into oblivion. Good times. Good times.

The irony being that lawyers will be the only ones to win from that, and they actually are the agents of S(a)tan

Lawyers always win.

Why does Dawkins waste time picking fights instead of enjoying his wonderful, fleeting existence?

He earns his money, fame and power by being a high-profile foil to religion. That is it folks, he is motivated by the Other Golden Rule. Whoever has the Gold makes the Rules. This same worldview has motivated virtually every war and crime throughout our human history.

I do not buy what Dawkins sells. Certainly, that is fine by him. He markets his product to the young, hard man shouting in the street, "gonna take on the world some day" with blood on his face and waving his banner all over the place. I have grown out of that phase. Enjoy your turn kids.

sebster wrote:Alright, I can see this is a waste of time.

I reluctantly agree. Ah well.

dogma wrote:Since the lack of a permanent population is a self-evident characteristic of Vatican City it should come as no surprise that an argument of classification would work to expound on the natural consequences of that characteristic.

Self-evident it was not when you yourself concluded that the only condition that the Holy See did not meet was its lack of permanent population. The Holy See does certainly have a government, a defined territory, and the capacity to enter relations with other states.

dogma wrote:. . . there are several NGOs that enjoy a status equivalent to that of the Holy See.

Unless you're talking about the UN itself or some other treaty body, I do not think this is true.

utan wrote:

He earns his money, fame and power by being a high-profile foil to religion. That is it folks, he is motivated by the Other Golden Rule. Whoever has the Gold makes the Rules. This same worldview has motivated virtually every war and crime throughout our human history.

Yea, it also motivated almost the entire Christian religion in olden days.

I'm really sorry if this point has been made already, I honestly rarely do this, but the first few pages of this thread were maddeningly circular and repetitive.

However.
If Dawkins is so concerned about the scandal in the catholic church, why is he only going after the pope? The fact is the catholic church in Ireland and other countries would never have gotten away with it without collusion from State governments, who bear at least equal blame and take barely any heat.

And you know, someday I'd like to read 10 posts into a thread like this without some sort of sweeping generalisation. I mean, we can all ignore them, but maybe people should stop MAKING THEM and instead try for specific criticisms that are addressed to specific people and organisations, linked to real events that you can point out.
Next time I read "Yeah, like, modern religion causes wars and murders more than ANYTHING" I'm going to eat my shift key.

Hence my opposition to religion/atheism threads on this forum.

I'm not opposed, because sometimes people post actually interesting stuff here too.
I just can't fathom how people think comments like that are going to go anywhere good.

I've been pondering my debate with sebster all morning and I (perhaps finally) see the point he's making. Suffice it to say that I don't think Robertsons's hope of piercing Ratzingers immunity, even if he did manage to construct a cogent legal claim (which I will continue to affirm that he cannot), will gain any traction outside of the narrow circle he travels in and that his motives for attempting as much seem professionally questionable .

I think that "arresting the pope" could be a worthy substitute for "Jumping the shark".

Dawkins shoulda stuck to molecular biology- you know, the stuff he was good at.

Manchu wrote:
Self-evident it was not when you yourself concluded that the only condition that the Holy See did not meet was its lack of permanent population. The Holy See does certainly have a government, a defined territory, and the capacity to enter relations with other states.

I only stated that the lack of a permanent population was self-evident. I should have said that the lack of permanent population is the only condition for statehood which the Holy See explicitly does not meet. The argument I'm describing then goes on to postulate that any given actor cannot be said to govern territory if that territory does not have a permanent population. I do not necessarily agree with that argument, but I do see the merits of the position.

As I said above, I favor the position that the Holy See constitutes a special case in international relations. It is not a state, or an NGO, but an international religious organization with a special role in the political order due to its privileged historical position. For all intents and purposes the Holy See is the Holy See, there is nothing else like it.

Manchu wrote:
Unless you're talking about the UN itself or some other treaty body, I do not think this is true.

I am indeed talking about the UN, where several NGOs are permanent observers. The point being that the argument for the Vatican's status as an NGO is not based on undermining the authority of the Catholic Church. In fact, its generally more about enhancing the authority of NGOs.

Da Boss wrote:
However.
If Dawkins is so concerned about the scandal in the catholic church, why is he only going after the pope? The fact is the catholic church in Ireland and other countries would never have gotten away with it without collusion from State governments, who bear at least equal blame and take barely any heat.

The more you read about the abuse in Irish church convents you more you will notice how true that is. However the Irish government is doing what it can but is walking a moral tightrope not of their own making.

The Irish government has been at the centre of the modern cover up, far more than the church. To make matters worse from the witness I spoke to it was known about at the time. While some priests were evil and others not, abusive priests had a lot of backing from a society that prefered to do more than look the other way.

I was told that some of the orphans tried to escape, and other tried to get help, but they were brought back to their abusers BY THE POLICE. While this is inexcusable I can understand it, the events at the orphanages were so horrible that the authorities including government, church, police and social services were in denial. This is what is so horribly damaging? As the gentleman mattrym posted the video of said, victims don't want money they want recognition, I can see that because for the whole of their lives their abuse has been denied, and by more than just the church.


The Irish government has done what it thinks it can. The methods are harsh and remorseless but I can understand the cold logic behind them. Victims can get compensation, if they sign a waiver that gags them. Some accept some refuse, I can see why some refuse, they deperately need to be beleived like all victims of sex abuse. IIRC a few of the priests were defrocked and some charged though most were dead by the time action was first taken in the 90's. Why be so horribly vile to these victims? Why force them to face a panel of hostile lawyers at the inquests? Because this goes beyond embarrasing the church or the Pope or the party or the government. The horrible truth is too many people knew what was going on, but noone stopped these lives from being ruined. There was more than just neglect there was collusion, every time a pleading child was brought back to his abusers by the police or local authorities.

This sorry tale is not just a blight on the Catholic church, the church can survive that as while the priests are rotten in some parts in others they do good work. The true price to pay will be paid by the Irish people who will live with a shame similar to the shame the Germans are forced to bear. Paedophile guilt is like holocaust guilt it will taint the psyche of the Irish people even to generations who have no culpability for the crimes committed. I can see why the Irish government, who are not responsible for the actions of their predecessors, are trying all they can to save the good name of their nation and people and want desperately for this story to go away before it hurts Ireland was a whole. Opening this door will hurt Ireland like opening the doors of Belsen hurt Germany. This I beleive is why the previous Pope John Paul II, who was a goodly man by all accounts, said nothing for the greater good (no puns please) of the Irish church and Irish people.

So along come those who want to call the Pope to account publically and loudly not only have they got the wrong guy but they have the wrong motive. It's a great excuse to bash the Catholics for some, its an expedient beatstick for which others have to pay for the grandstanding of the public complainers. This is too convenient an opportunity to bash Catholics or even Christians or religion in general for persons with unrelated issues and is too tempting for some, which is selfish to the extreme. After all we don't see Dawkins et al helping victims, just capitalising on them.
This victims need quiet help; an apology, recognition that they are not liars and support. This should not be the political football, not only are the culprits mostly dead, the victims not helped by a general Catholicism bash and the whole of Ireland risks being dragged through the mud. This issue is of too great an importance that outsiders really ought to do some shutting up and let the Irish decide how to deal with their own dirty laundry in their own time.


Who steals my purse steals trash;...
But he that filches from me my good name
Robs me of that which not enriches him,
And makes me poor indeed.
Othello Act 3, scene 3

Bloody right Orlanth. I personally don't feel a lot of guilt about it, I was born after the worst of it and I don't feel responsible. What I do feel is disgust and anger at those who let it happen.
The church did a lot wrong in ireland on it's own (paedophillia aside), don't get me wrong, but the government is equally culpable.
Agreed with all else.

I still think it's hella funny... is that wrong?

No no, Richard Dawkins arresting the Pope is inherently hilarious. It could only be funnier if when it happens, His Holiness exclaims "Rats, it's the Fuzz! Let's cheese it!" and a high speed Popemobile chase ensues.

Da Boss wrote:No no, Richard Dawkins arresting the Pope is inherently hilarious. It could only be funnier if when it happens, His Holiness exclaims "Rats, it's the Fuzz! Let's cheese it!" and a high speed Popemobile chase ensues.

No, you need a Benny Hill soundtrack to top off the chase. Just saying.

I'd watch that show...

Maybe they can end up in a long hallway with a bunch of doors?

I feel the need to add in a plunger somewhere... but how....

So long as behind those doors aren't any children.



Maybe put this guy behind one of those doors.

What about Gray Children?

Fateweaver wrote:So long as behind those doors aren't any children.



Maybe put this guy behind one of those doors.

Who is he? I dont get the joke.

Answer

He used to have a show that was basically PR entrapment to the highest standards and has led to one man killing himself and lots more wrongfully accused of being molesters/predators.

It was cancelled and for good reason. I hate pedo's more than the next guy but that show had such a blatant disregard for legalities and pursuit of justice that even he admitted the show stepped on a few wrong toes a few times.

If Dawkins really has decided this is a good idea and has the notion it will work. For whatever reason.
It will work. *Full stop*

RD does not go into things half cocked.

I assume it will just be to make a point and to get on the religious worlds nerves.

People who think he is merely a scientist are way off.
I'd test his political / social knowledge against just about anyone’s.

Behold, the Fanatic.

Nothing to do with Fanaticism.

He just happens to be someone I respect as a scientist and an author.

I could go on to argue the point that my views are the opposite of fanatical. But, this isn't the site.

Mr-_-Flidd wrote:If Dawkins really has decided this is a good idea and has the notion it will work. For whatever reason.
It will work. *Full stop*

RD does not go into things half cocked.

I assume it will just be to make a point and to get on the religious worlds nerves.

People who think he is merely a scientist are way off.
I'd test his political / social knowledge against just about anyone’s.

Of course the pope has doplomatic immunity. his guards could just cap him with their oh so cool halberds, claim immunity, and skip town.