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.

wizard12 wrote: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.

And why judge people by their past?

Let me refer you to politics, that is what the Catholic Church is now, if your governing political party was to cover up a sex offender in the party, would you be ok with just him being stood down and covered up only to find out 6 years later as to why he was stood down? I know most people would be furious. This same attitude is now placed on the Catholic Church, so yes. The Church shouldn't be hiding all of these things, they should be transparent, and be quick and public in its reaction.

Also, I want to see some proactive measures in stopping these people entering the church. How long will it take before something proactive is done?

On your last point, if I were to come over and sexually assault you and then we met in the super market a week later, would you judge me on the past event of me attacking you?

I'm not judging the people, its about the religion itself. Also, in a lot of times with wars, Religion was the Political motive.

religon and poltical motives are completly different.

Here I was think I was living in a civilisation that didn't mix Church and State.

Oh and Squig Herder. I'm sorry I didn't relly make my point clear. I meant why judge religions and buissness and countries by what they had done in the past, I'll change that in my post now.

wizard12 wrote:religon and poltical motives are completly different.

Here I was think I was living in a civilisation that didn't mix Church and State.

Oh and Squig Herder. I'm sorry I didn't relly make my point clear. I meant why judge religions and buissness and countries by what they had done in the past, I'll change that in my post now.

On your first point there, political motives and religious motives are almost one in the same. Both seek to get more voter/believers and look to be the nice guys while doing it.

Second point, your flag suggests you are from the UK. Your state is by no means secular.

Richard Dawkins really only seems to be furthering the cause of Richard Dawkins. This is a carny trick to generate publicity, pure and simple. If he really gave a rat's ass about doing something constructive he wouldn't be nearly so divisive with his actions.

The sex abuse that took place is terrible though. It's just a hideous situation all the way around. The only thing I would say is that the policies enacted by the Pope were based on rehabilitation(the Priests were made to seek counseling) and forgiveness which I guess makes sense if you've that hardcore of a Christian.

It's not something I agree with. Personally, I think that someone that rapes a child should be castrated with a rusty coffee can lid.

The Vatican is not a state recognized by the United Nations. It is now incontrovertibly clear that the Pope was more concerned about protecting the Catholic Church than he was about protecting children from rapist. He is a criminal and one can only hope he dies in jail.

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.

I totally agree. The real issue of child abuse is in danger of becoming lost in the thread with the discussion about religious beliefs and arthism.

Covering up effectively meant sanctioning the abuse to continue. In my view if he knew about it and did nothing he is party to the crimes. This is why I can understand Dawkins- especially as no one else has the spheres in the scrotum to touch the pope.

However, the point I was trying to make is that the law may not see it that way, so there has possibly been arrestable offence committed.
I don't know- but I assume Dawkins has calling in lawyers.

In my view the Pope is not infallible, nor above the law and should be accountable for his actions before the victims as well as before God.

Squig_herder wrote:

Commander Endova wrote:
1. Trying to arrest the pope. Good luck buddy.

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.

Well actually as a visiting diplomatic personage he is under international law. It also violates the first code of diplomacy, if you arrest people on diplomatic missions you run the risk of destabilising the world. This is an ancient truth from when a King would not arrest a Baron who came to the royal court but would arrest a baron who stayed away.
attempts to arrest the Pope while futile would be damaging to UK relations. What it means is that you cannot afford to trust us.
This line has been crossed by the arrest of Pinochet in the late 90's. The barstool politics attitude of 'lets arrest the baddie' while in our country did great harm. What people don't realise is that for the greater good you have to negotiate and keep the promise of diplomatic favour.
Some dictators need be rooted out of their bunkers, others who are not quite so bad can be given a plane ticket away on the promise that they will not be arrested in exile. This is how Chile got rid of Pinochet to begin with, and how Uganda was rid of Amin. The difference is that Idi Amins deal was kept. If such people had reason not to trust our word they would cling to power as tightly as Stalin or Hitler.

All this is moot, the Pope will be on a state visit, Pinochet wasnt. He is subject to full diplomatic immunity. In fact Dawkins risks arrest for hindering him.

Monster Rain wrote:Richard Dawkins really only seems to be furthering the cause of Richard Dawkins. This is a carny trick to generate publicity, pure and simple. If he really gave a rat's ass about doing something constructive he wouldn't be nearly so divisive with his actions.

Philosophers are not supposed to be media hogs. The whole idea of philosophy is that you let ideas and ideals speak rather than spin and publicity, Spin is a force multiplier that diverts arguments from the purity of logical and ethical debate. I am not sure Dawkins is planning what he is planning for this reason, and I would expect better from him. However just because someone has a reputation for level headed philosophy it is of itself no insurance against ethical collapse.

Flashman wrote: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.

What is odd about Dawkins' answer is that a theist has no reduced access to the majesty of nature. its not either/or.

Flashman wrote: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?

As for why Dawkins picks fights, the sad fact is atheism is a religion and it attractse its share of fanatics. Some atheists might be able to let go, but they would not really be atheists then, just people who dont beleive and dont think about it much. Those who dont beleive and do think about it alot get drawn into relgious debate no less fervently than any theist, and often a lot nastier. I have met enough atheist Taliban on these forums, who troll you no matter how polite and logically placed your comments. That is no shock to me. What is slightly more disturbing is that it looks like Dawkins is possibly getting radicalised. I respect Dawkins for trying to stick to the issues, I hope reports about him have been miscommunicated. The world is a safer place when one of the formost atheist apologists is not a raving fundamentalist; we need level heads to be leading the debate at both ends.

Orlanth wrote:

All this is moot, the Pope will be on a state visit, Pinochet wasnt. He is subject to full diplomatic immunity.

The Vatican is not a sovereign state recognized by the United Nations. Nor is it clear that diplomatic immunity would be applicable; I suspect Ratzinger could be vulnerable, in theory, to the International Criminal Court, because it prosecutes human rights violations--specifically by heads of states--where no prosecution is possible in the 'home' jurisdiction.

1. Vatican is recognised by the UK so this effects procedures on UK soil.

2. I am pretty sure the Vatican is recognised by the UN. Even most islamics states recognise the Vatican, they just might not have relations. it is certainly recognised by the Big Five.

3. The ICC has to have jurisdiction first. Some heads of state have immunity within their own laws, e.g. US Presidents. Generally speaking you need to depose a leader first then arrest him. This only deals with authority not defacto power, mileage can vary due to the inconsistencies of power politics at this level justice has little to do with it. For example how far would you get trying to arrest incumbent Chinese leaders for complicity in the Tienanmen Square massacres.

4. State visits are formal guests of Her Majesty, obstructing that will cause all manners of nasty. It would ambarass the government for starters and depending on where the guest is accosted could end up with a ton of guardsmen bearing down on the perp; Grens' vs Dawkins. I know who I would put money on.

When it comes to scandal about religion--but especially when it comes to the Catholic Church--most people have made up their minds long before a story breaks. Either the Pope should die in jail or the Church can do no wrong. (In either case, people don't let facts get in the way of their opinions.) Both viewpoints are utterly repulsive and only reveal how sadly detached from reality most folks are. Also, in their willful blindness and vitriolic fanaticism the two extremes have more in common with each other than they would ever care to admit. OP's newstory only indicates to me that Dawkins is at a low ebb of popularity and credibility and needs a stunt to boost his media image, to make people care again. If it was ever unclear that the man had no understanding of the world he lives in, besides the abstractions provided by science, here is the evidence. Dreadnote could not be more correct in his assessment of such shenanigans.

lol, how does he think billions of christians will react if their pope is in prison? just say "ah who cares? we can just get a new one"? lol

As a committed Atheist, I can only say that Richard Dawkins is a bloody nuisance and makes us look bad.

One of my genuine gripes about religions in general is their lack of tolerance compared to secularism, and yet Dawkins undermines that by showing that Atheists can be just as intolerant as religious folk. Being arguably the MOST high-profile Atheist out there, he manages to make the rest of us look a lot less tolerant than 99% of us are.

Thing is, I have a LOT of bones to pick with the Pope as well, but Dawkins methods are not the right way to go about dealing with them.

drakenkanon wrote:lol, how does he think billions of Catholics will react if their pope is in prison? just say "ah who cares? we can just get a new one"? lol

Fixed. The rest of Christianity doesn't need a pope. HRH Liz 2 is a fine replacement IMO.

George Spiggott wrote:

drakenkanon wrote:lol, how does he think billions of Catholics will react if their pope is in prison? just say "ah who cares? we can just get a new one"? lol

Fixed. The rest of Christianity doesn't need a pope. HRH Liz 2 is a fine replacement IMO.

There have been sexual abuse cover-ups in the Anglican Church, too, you know. Dawkins may very well want the Queen arrested as well.

Eventually, of course, he's going to try and arrest God himself, regardless of the fact he doesn't believe in him

@Manchu: You're comments on most people having made their minds up before entering a debate are sadly true.
-----
IMO- the Church had some members that abused their positions of trust. The body as a whole may have been mistaken in trying to keep the incidents quiet.

However I strongly object to persecuting the church as a whole, and particularly its head. It didn't happen on Benedict's watch, but he seems to be carrying the can for it.

Child abuse is utterly horrific, as members have expressed, and they rightly want sanctions against the perpetrators; however it is wrong to tarnish the entire catholic church due to the actions of individuals.

Manchu wrote:

George Spiggott wrote:

drakenkanon wrote:lol, how does he think billions of Catholics will react if their pope is in prison? just say "ah who cares? we can just get a new one"? lol

Fixed. The rest of Christianity doesn't need a pope. HRH Liz 2 is a fine replacement IMO.

There have been sexual abuse cover-ups in the Anglican Church, too, you know. Dawkins may very well want the Queen arrested as well.

If HRH were directly involved (as Dawkins alleges the Pope is) then I have no problem with that. The monarch isn't above the law and should not be. It's perfectly acceptable to replace bad monarchs with good ones. Of course no such allegations have been made against HRH so it's a moot point.

Anyway Dawkins wouldn't be making the arrest (unless he plans a citizen's arrest, which I doubt). He plans to get CPS and the police to do it. If the case is legal then they should do so. There seems to be some debate over the legality though. The government should not commit (another) illegal act.

The Dreadnote wrote:Eventually, of course, he's going to try and arrest God himself, regardless of the fact he doesn't believe in him

rofl, sueing god for everybody who died, lolz

Manchu wrote:

George Spiggott wrote:

drakenkanon wrote:lol, how does he think billions of Catholics will react if their pope is in prison? just say "ah who cares? we can just get a new one"? lol

Fixed. The rest of Christianity doesn't need a pope. HRH Liz 2 is a fine replacement IMO.

There have been sexual abuse cover-ups in the Anglican Church, too, you know. Dawkins may very well want the Queen arrested as well.

And if the Queen was responsible for "covering up" the cases of sexual abbuse,then by all means arrest her as well.
I personally belive much is being lost in the "religious vs athiest" debate,it's irrelavent...the question should clearly be "Did the Pope cover up/protect sexual predators",if so then he should be prosocuted.

George Spiggott wrote:]If HRH were directly involved (as Dawkins alleges the Pope is) then I have no problem with that. The monarch isn't above the law and should not be. It's perfectly acceptable to replace bad monarchs with good ones. Of course no such allegations have been made against HRH so it's a moot point.

She is the head of the Anglican Communion. Benedict XVI is the head of the Catholic Communion. Dawkins sees no need to investigate what these titles mean, what structures are actually involved, how the real people who were part of these cases made decisions and why. The story is transparent: Dawkins wants to discredit the Pope; the (trumped up) charges are just an excuse. (In Dawkins book [literally], there is no such thing as a good pope.) If anyone took Elizabeth II seriously as the head of the Anglican Church, I'm sure she'd also be on his hit list. It would have nothing to do with being a good monarch or a bad one.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

FITZZ wrote:I personally belive much is being lost in the "religious vs athiest" debate,it's irrelavent...the question should clearly be "Did the Pope cover up/protect sexual predators",if so then he should be prosocuted.

The answer, with regard to the case of Fr. Lawrence Murphy, is "absolutely not."

Manchu wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

FITZZ wrote:I personally belive much is being lost in the "religious vs athiest" debate,it's irrelavent...the question should clearly be "Did the Pope cover up/protect sexual predators",if so then he should be prosocuted.

The answer, with regard to the case of Fr. Lawrence Murphy, is "absolutely not."

And if that's the case,then by all means the Pope should certianly be left alone,unless there exist some other cases in wich he may have acted in a "criminal manner".
My point is..the issue should not be one of "athiest church bashing" or "religious solidarity",it should be an issue of "was there a crime commited",if not then it should be a dropped...if so,then the person resposiable,reguardless of standing or posistion should have to deal with the consequense of their actions.

I agree with you, FITZZ, and commend you for trying to give the thread some rational legs to stand on. Unfortunately and ironically, rationality is apparently the last thing Mr. Dawkins is concerned about when planning his abusive use of the soapbox. To respond more directly to your point, the Pope has not engaged in any criminal activity as defined by the laws of the United States or Germany or the norms set by the United Nations.

Manchu wrote:I agree with you, FITZZ, and commend you for trying to give the thread some rational legs to stand on. Unfortunately and ironically, rationality is apparently the last thing Mr. Dawkins is concerned about when planning his abusive use of the soapbox. To respond more directly to your point, the Pope has not engaged in any criminal activity as defined by the laws of the United States or Germany or the norms set by the United Nations.

In that case Mr. Dawkins should go else where to "pedal his papers" ...and I'm an athiest saying this.

I really don't see how this doesn't boil down to Mr. Dawkins wanting someone who he disagrees with to be arrested on the grounds of their disagreement.

Squig_herder wrote: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.

The myth of the persecution of thousands of witches has little to with reality, and even less to do with the Catholic Church. Catholic persecution was predominantly towards the Jews and Muslims.

Squig_herder wrote: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

Galileo was not the only scientist arguing the Earth orbited the Sun, others went unpunished and in some cases were even sponsored by the Church. While his apparent heresy of saying the Earth orbited the Sun was the reason given for his punishment, that was only because it was politically easier to make that charge stick.The imprisonment of Gallileo was about him insulting the Pope. You should look it up, it's an interesting story.

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.

I can only assume that people aren't aware of what the Pope specifically did to cover up the actions of paedophiles, and are just coming in here to have a go at Dawkins. The alternative is to think they actually believe someone should be exempt from legal action over covering up paedophilia.

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

The diplomatic immunity of dignatories from the Catholic Church is not as clear as you assume, as the Catholic Church is not a nation state.

Regardless, there's no actual plan here to arrest the Pope on his arrival - that'd be silly. There is a plan to raise awareness on what the Catholic Church and the Pope did to cover up what happened.

wizard12 wrote: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.

When that family has around a million members and is entrusted by the victims to work on their behalf the analogy starts to fail pretty badly.

Manchu wrote:I really don't see how this doesn't boil down to Mr. Dawkins wanting someone who he disagrees with to be arrested on the grounds of their disagreement.

Well,perhaps Mr.Dawkins honestly belives that there was a crime commited,and belives he is attempting to "right a wrong",wich I would see as comendable.
However,if there exist no evidence to substantiate his claims/belife he should drop the whole mess.
On the other hand,Mr. Dawkins may simply be trying to "discredit" the Catolic church by "any means possiable",in wich case,despite my agreeing with some of his points of view,makes him a tool.

FITZZ wrote: Well,perhaps Mr.Dawkins honestly belives that there was a crime commited,and belives he is attempting to "right a wrong",wich I would see as comendable.
However,if there exist no evidence to substantiate his claims/belife he should drop the whole mess.
On the other hand,Mr. Dawkins may simply be trying to "discredit" the Catolic church by "any means possiable",in wich case,despite my agreeing with some of his points of view,makes him a tool.

There's certainly grounds that there was a conspiracy to conceal a crime. Whether or not it's sufficient for a court I don't know, but I can't see how anyone that knows the details of the case would believe that there was no case to answer.

The issue is whether the Pope is a granted diplomatic immunity as a result of his position.

Dawkins wasn't the one who initiated this:

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 Horne, 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.

Richard

Ah yes. It was all a conspiracy by Rupert Murdoch to malign Richard Dawkins. Goodness me.

"Raise public consciousness?" As though anyone among the populace hasn't already heard this story and made up their mind about what to think of it?