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.

I just thought of something. If Dawkins does this and succeeds, apart from the publicity he can't win. There is a high chance the Pope will go "I forgive you" in which case all people religious or not will all learn about a massively religious value, forgiveness (I'm not saying you need to be religious to be forgiving here). If he doesn’t well, the Catholic Church gets loads of publicity (Even though it’s of the bad kind.) and Dawkins gets one of the world’s largest religions to turn against him. (Well done Dawkins, now you can't go to Ireland, Italy, Spain and don't get me started on countries South America and Africa plus others elsewhere.)

Oh yes, and squig hunter, I concede to your superior wit and intelligence (well, as much as one can do on the internet)

I would imagine that most of The Faithful weren't big Dawkins fans before any of this happened.

Orlanth wrote: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.

Ok sorry i cant let that one go.

First of all, Atheist Taliban? I use that word to refer to people like you, and you saying it about the non religious is pretty much every single kettle in the world calling every pot in the universe black.

If you are one of the very rare atheists who is indoctrinated by your family or some such close relatives, then i suppose it would be acceptable to use it. But that is extremely rare. Most people in the UK and certainly almost all of my social circle are like me, you know.. Church of England, got Christened just because its the done thing but your parents dont really care. Never mention or talk or care about Religion, and then you grow up and get to your twenties and realise that Religious Zealots are essentially screwing the world because THEY get brainwashed as a child. Taliban?! The Taliban are religious. Its ridiculous you even daring to use the term. And before we carry on, can you just remind me what it was you said last time? Something about physically talking to God in your mind wasnt it? And you want to call non religious critical thinking people "The Taliban" eh?




Watch that video. Then tell me it is somehow "wrong" to criticize the Pope. And condemn the filth that did those things to that poor man.

How many Religious people are "raised" religious? Barring personal tragedy it is almost all of them. You are a Devout Christian because you were raised to be one. And you DARE to call people like me, who just didnt care at all or even think about it until the twin towers got knocked down, Taliban?!

Your attitude is truly sickening. You defend this type of gak because you too are hard wired to do so. If you were raised in a Madrassa In Afghanistan you would be willing to blow yourself up. Its the exact same thing.

Criticize a decent law abiding citizen (Dawkins) because he condemns child abuse and wants to see the Pope charged? Please.. explain that to me. Why?!

If i criticized Ian Huntley you wouldnt slag me off would you? But just because Dawkins is having a dig at someone in your "gang" your slating the man?

Its genuinelly appalling behaviour Orlanth and you know it.

Take a deep breath and try to think critically.

What would a Non Christian do?

Who would he criticize?

The somewhat strident old Biology Proffessor for trying to boldy have a public figure charged...

Or the man who ENABLED child rape.

Watch that video first.

And be fething honest.

Whats your answer?

Sorry, but the Pope is an international leader and considered a diplomat so he is immune to arrest till he steps down from his position. Complain all you want but he can't be arrested even if he is diddling a kid in the popemoblie.

O... K... what's the right colour fire extinguisher for religious internet flame wars?

Yeah Pip. I dont actually agree with Prof Dawkins on this issue, as im a good old fashioned cynic.

Life aint fair, the pope wont get his commupence, and the MPs will keep robbing us, and the good die young etc etc etc

I dont worry about social crusades generally cos im well aware it makes hardly any difference, so of course i am well aware nothing will happen to the pope.

Doesnt mean we have to like though does it?

If i was a man given to emotional responses that video above could almost move me to tears. Sure i know nothing is gonna happen to the Pope. But you have to be made of stone (Or a Christian) not be angry about it.

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.

isnt trying to cover up child abuse illegal too? i mean: if i turn off the alarm in a store for you but only you take money from the safe (i dont) that still is illegal isnt it?

2 problems I have with this issue:

1) Lots of people are forgetting that, at least in the states, covering up a crime is illegal. You are considered an accessory to said crime. If you know someone is molesting kids and say nothing and it's brought up later in court you go to prison yourself. The Pope knowingly covered up the fact that certain Priests were molesting kids. That makes him an accessory by all legal definitions of the word "accessory" and his old wrinkly ass should be in prison for it, or very least be forced to step down and become a commoner.

2) Diplomatic Immunity. That "privilege" is the biggest crock of gak ever. "Oh look at me, I'm the Pope. I'm doing 120 on the freeway here in California and I can get away with it because I'm immune to arrest while over here". "Look at me. I'm the Prince of Egypt. I can shoplift in plain sight from Zales and nobody can touch me because I'm a diplomat, therefore I'm above the law."

Meh, those 2 things are what's wrong with this mess with the Pope.

I know it's a religious thing but perhaps if Priests were allowed to marry and/or poke women they wouldn't get the urge to poke little boys in the butt with their "staff".
Just saying.

Hey folks, let's not turn this into a Religion vs. Atheism thread. It shouldn't be one. Human life should be the most inportant thing in this instance, and the sexual assault of a child is one of the most dehumanising crimes a person can commit.

Treating an innocent child as a sexual object.

Think about that for a second.

Absolutely sickening isn't it? As a father, my anger for the perpetrators of such crimes knows no rationality - I would certainly be capable of violence towards such people. For me, this supposed 'Dawkins vs. The Pope' thing is sideshow - we should not, SHOULD NEVER lose sight of the real issue: Accountabilty. The people responsible for these heinous acts should be dragged into the light of justice, and the people who enabled them by relocating/covering up the perpetrators, are just as guilty in my eyes.

Fateweaver wrote:

1) Lots of people are forgetting that, at least in the states, covering up a crime is illegal. You are considered an accessory to said crime. If you know someone is molesting kids and say nothing and it's brought up later in court you go to prison yourself. The Pope knowingly covered up the fact that certain Priests were molesting kids. That makes him an accessory by all legal definitions of the word "accessory" and his old wrinkly ass should be in prison for it, or very least be forced to step down and become a commoner.

In the UK you can either be tried as an accomplice to the crime or simply for obstruction of justice for covering a crime up.

Either way he should be held legally for "something". feth his Pope status. Only one being is above the law. Everyone else is here to do His bidding and I'm pretty sure that He does not condone His servants molesting kids. If He did there wouldn't be laws against it.

Fateweaver wrote:Either way he should be held legally for "something". feth his Pope status. Only one being is above the law. Everyone else is here to do His bidding and I'm pretty sure that He does not condone His servants molesting kids. If He did there wouldn't be laws against it.

You're talking about Frazzled, yeah?

Albatross wrote:Hey folks, let's not turn this into a Religion vs. Atheism thread. It shouldn't be one. Human life should be the most inportant thing in this instance, and the sexual assault of a child is one of the most dehumanising crimes a person can commit.

Treating an innocent child as a sexual object.

Think about that for a second.

Absolutely sickening isn't it? As a father, my anger for the perpetrators of such crimes knows no rationality - I would certainly be capable of violence towards such people. For me, this supposed 'Dawkins vs. The Pope' thing is sideshow - we should not, SHOULD NEVER lose sight of the real issue: Accountabilty. The people responsible for these heinous acts should be dragged into the light of justice, and the people who enabled them by relocating/covering up the perpetrators, are just as guilty in my eyes.

100% correct my friend,and basicly what I've been saying since my first post in this thread.
This should not be a "Christian vs Atheist" issue,the issue should be "what are the facts" and who,if anyone,is guilty of these horrible acts/covering them up.

JEB_Stuart wrote:
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...

Diplomatic immunity does not extend to all state officials, nor is it a uniform law.

Fateweaver wrote:Either way he should be held legally for "something". feth his Pope status. Only one being is above the law. Everyone else is here to do His bidding and I'm pretty sure that He does not condone His servants molesting kids. If He did there wouldn't be laws against it.

Yeah sorry alb for almost derailing, but Orlanth gets my back up and i feel an urge to respond on the behalf of the non believers.

FW is spot on (with regards to nobody being above the law anyway!)

Screw his status, like the old guy in the video says (not this one, the one above!) If thats the law, then change the law. A diplomat is a human being same as me.. i dont see why they should be allowed to get away with anything.

Nothing wrong with a uniform law.

mattyrm wrote:
Screw his status, like the old guy in the video says (not this one, the one above!) If thats the law, then change the law.

There are a number of circumstances under which diplomatic immunity has, historically, been considered void. These are generally violent crimes, and major traffic incidents. Whether or not conspiracy would be considered an acceptable addition will depend largely on the political relations between the two states in question, as well as issues internal to the host nation.

... in a thread which touches on paedophilia, Fatey?

Really?

THAT picture?

mattyrm wrote:

Orlanth wrote: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.

Ok sorry i cant let that one go.

First of all, Atheist Taliban? I use that word to refer to people like you, blah blah blah...

This is exactly why they want to shut down this type of discussion in the forum. Can we calm down a bit?

According to the site all models are 18 and over.

If she's not it's not my fault.

Monster Rain wrote:

mattyrm wrote:

Orlanth wrote: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.

Ok sorry i cant let that one go.

First of all, Atheist Taliban? I use that word to refer to people like you, blah blah blah...

This is exactly why they want to shut down this type of discussion in the forum. Can we calm down a bit?

I know its a poor defense.. but he started it.

Fateweaver wrote:According to the site all models are 18 and over.

If she's not it's not my fault, officer.

Fixed!

Haha, if she's not 18 it's not me being arrested.

I just stole her pic blatantly from that site.

The legality of it is not up to me.

People of Dakka:
Before this gets any farther, I have a few questions. As one poster mentioned earlier, what are the facts?
1) Catholic Clergy have abused children
2)Other people, also, have abused children.
Can anyone give a linky to an actual article where it details, with as little bias as possible, exactly how the pope covered this up? All I've found is gak.

PS: The Catholic Church believes that the Pope is infallible in the teaching of Catholic Doctrine. This is totally different from how one should react when child abuse is happening, or what colour of socks to wear on Tuesdays. Let's get realistic here, folks.

wizard12 wrote:

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?

I know that in Japan that the police have the power to pick me up off of the street, detain me for 23 days without legal counsel or charge on their own discretion. They do permit translators to be in the interrogation room, but they are their translators. I think basically, wherever you live or are at any given moment, the law of the land applies to you. Admiralty law, the law of the sea is totally different. Google Jordan Maxwell and find out all about that.

The challenge I issued still stands.

I answer that challenge at 20 paces with pistols.

9mm or .45? Your choice good sir.

Fateweaver wrote:I answer that challenge at 20 paces with pistols.

9mm or .45? Your choice good sir.

You think that will work? you gotta nuke it from orbit... its the only way to be sure.

corpsesarefun wrote:

Fateweaver wrote:I answer that challenge at 20 paces with pistols.

9mm or .45? Your choice good sir.

You think that will work? you gotta nuke it from orbit... its the only way to be sure.

Fun, fun, fun. But seriously, does anyone have the location of an article I can read about this which will detail the offense, rather than talking about it in passing?

As soon as they cart off the pope they're going to have to throw Vladimir Putin, Wen Jiabao, dick cheney, Tony Blair, and pretty much every other foreign leader in the same box.

This is all a moot point and Dawkins is an unbelievable tool.