Richard Dawkins: I will arrest Pope Benedict XVI [Archive]

Stormy

04-10-2010, 11:17 PM

Richard Dawkins: I will arrest Pope Benedict XVI

118091

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 ****** 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 *** 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 *** 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 The warrant was withdrawn after Livni cancelled her planned trip to the UK.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.”

@ http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article7094310.ece

Chulo

04-10-2010, 11:20 PM

Dawkings = PMSing drama queen

Panchito12

04-10-2010, 11:21 PM

Oh God are the security agents going to have a blast opening up the car door with his face.

Rokovak

04-10-2010, 11:26 PM

An arrest is too diplomatic. I propose a wrestling match instead.

SoSo

04-10-2010, 11:30 PM

Everyone knows the Swiss Guards would never permit anyone to lay hands on the pontiff and lead him away. The very idea is absurd.

pacifist

04-10-2010, 11:31 PM

Dawkins is the man.

Catholic church should also be sued for false promises of afterlife, anti-semitism, murders and torture commited by catholic inquisition etc. It should be banned as a hate group.

Stormy

04-10-2010, 11:34 PM

Chulo

04-10-2010, 11:35 PM

Podman

04-10-2010, 11:38 PM

False promises? Any proof they are wrong?

Don't even argue with pacifist. Pure flame bait.

Hollis

04-10-2010, 11:39 PM

Maybe Dawkins is broke, good way to raise money.

Noons86

04-10-2010, 11:42 PM

Dawkins is the man.

Catholic church should also be sued for false promises of afterlife, .

That is an opinion, and the church is an organization of people who share that same opinion. By your standards, any group that disagrees with you should be sued.

Ballistic

04-10-2010, 11:44 PM

False promises? Any proof they are wrong?

Any proof they are true?

While I don't think arresting the Pope would fix any of those problems, I wish him well.

Money and time would be better spent in making sure children are never hurt by those perverts now or in the future. How? Who the hell knows.

Steelersfan413

04-10-2010, 11:47 PM

I say they do it in the Vatican alongside Ethan Hunt and Ving Rhames.

This is kind of stupid on Dawkins's part anyway. Would they not get another Pope in soon after anyway? Am I the only one not seeing logic in his plan?

Kilgor

04-11-2010, 12:03 AM

ISNJH

04-11-2010, 12:04 AM

Chulo

04-11-2010, 12:10 AM

Any proof they are true?

Absence of proof for any once position is not the presence of proof for the other.

Steelersfan413

04-11-2010, 12:13 AM

Dawkins may be a nut, but the pope should rot for protecting these paedophiles.

Absofruitly.

Is he trying to start a religous war? Britain is a protestant country and if they went ahead and did this when the pope was making a state visit then it would be seen by many Catholics as an attack by the crown on the church as a whole. not to mention it could stir up trouble in Ireland between the Catholics and Protestants.

Also I agree that legal action against the priests be taken and that if more comes out then the pope should resign and a new one be elected.

I don't think they're going to actually abduct/kidnap the Pope. Dawkins isn't Catholic.

SniperRu

04-11-2010, 12:58 AM

SoSo

04-11-2010, 01:35 AM

We can already forecast this scenario turning quite "ugly" if pursued.

Speaking of the Swiss Guard, indeed, they are more than halberds and renaissance outfits. I good number of variational small arms in their armory.

You'd better believe it! Mr. Dawkins, say hello to the pontiff's good friends, Mr. Heckler and Mr. Koch!

Roids

04-11-2010, 01:45 AM

Although, I do enjoy Dawkins, I have mixed feelings about this stunt. Takes some big balls though, bad enough what he had before but this could make him the next Kurt Westergaard in terms of death threats.

goat89

04-11-2010, 01:49 AM

An arrest is too diplomatic. I propose a wrestling match instead.
Google Battle Pope.

Curtis E. Bear

04-11-2010, 02:25 AM

Maybe Dawkins is broke, good way to raise money.

Yup. A multi million copy selling author, public speaker and BBC personality is broke. Makes sense.

theholeinthedonut

04-11-2010, 02:47 AM

Interesting how the same people that crucified Polanski ( and rightly so) now rally to the defense of the Pontstiff. Inherent with being a "believer" I guess.

La8pv

04-11-2010, 03:51 AM

Absence of proof for any once position is not the presence of proof for the other.

So this means that since there isn't proof that pink uncorns doesn't exist, the probability of pink unicorns existing is the same as them not existing. right?

wagon

04-11-2010, 03:57 AM

Dawkins is an attention whore. What good would come from arresting the pope?

La8pv

04-11-2010, 03:58 AM

Dawkins is an attention whore. What good would come from arresting the pope?

What good comes out of arresting a criminal?

monolit

04-11-2010, 04:09 AM

So this means that since there isn't proof that pink uncorns doesn't exist, the probability of pink unicorns existing is the same as them not existing. right?
I think you don't get it. We have instruments to detect unicorn existence, but we are not able to make any researches about afterlife and I suppose we will be able in future.
BTW. Dawkins is just nut - it's so apparent.

wildcat

04-11-2010, 04:12 AM

Dawkins, what a dork,

on what grounds and authority can he arrest a foreign diplomat, and what crimes have has the pope committed in 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.”

wow good to see that they make the rules

somebody should tell them the vatican is a landlocked sovereign city-state, it is it's own country and if the UN does not recognize it has nothing to do with the fact.

Vatican City State is a recognised national territory under international law, but it is the Holy See that conducts diplomatic relations on its behalf, in addition to the Holy See's own diplomacy, entering into international agreements in its regard. The Vatican City State thus has no diplomatic service of its own. Because of space limitations, Vatican City is one of the few countries in the world that is unable to host embassies. Foreign embassies to the Holy See are located in the city of Rome; only during the Second World War were the staff of some embassies given what hospitality was possible within the narrow confines of Vatican City — embassies such as that of the United Kingdom while Rome was held by the Axis Powers and Germany's when the Allies controlled Rome.
The size of Vatican City is thus unrelated to the large global reach exercised by the Holy See as an entity quite distinct from the state.[27]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vatican_City

wagon

04-11-2010, 04:13 AM

What good comes out of arresting a criminal?

Is the pope a criminal? He is most likely incompetent and cowardly, but he is probably not a criminal. A trial of the pope would go for years, cost millions, accomplish very little ; meanwhile, the kiddy-fiddlers continue their disgusting habits.

La8pv

04-11-2010, 04:15 AM

I think you don't get it. We have instruments to detect unicorn existence, but we are not able to make any researches about afterlife and I suppose we will be able in future.
BTW. Dawkins is just nut - it's so apparent.

Where are these pink unicorn detectors? Everything points to there being no afterlife. That's what our modern detectors tell us.

La8pv

04-11-2010, 04:19 AM

Dawkins, what a dork,

on what grounds and authority can he arrest a foreign diplomat, and what crimes have has the pope committed in the UK.

It isn't dawkins who would be arresting the pope.

Well may the pope defy "the petty gossip of dominant opinion (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/mar/28/pope-benedict-******-abuse-scandal)". But the Holy See can no longer ignore international law, which now counts the widespread or systematic ****** abuse of children as a crime against humanity.

The anomalous claim of the Vatican to be a state – and of the pope to be a head of state and hence immune from legal action – cannot stand up to scrutiny.
The truly shocking finding of Judge Murphy's commission in Ireland was not merely that ****** abuse was "endemic (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/may/20/irish-catholic-schools-child-abuse-claims)" in boys' institutions but that the church hierarchy protected the perpetrators and, despite knowledge of their propensity to reoffend, allowed them to take up new positions teaching other children after their victims had been sworn to secrecy.
This conduct, of course, amounted to the criminal offence of aiding and abetting *** with minors. In legal actions against Catholic archdioceses in the US it has been alleged that the same conduct reflected Vatican policy as approved by Cardinal Ratzinger (as the pope then was) as late as November 2002. ****** assaults were regarded as sins that were subject to church tribunals, and guilty priests were sent on a "pious pilgrimage" while oaths of confidentiality were extracted from their victims.

In the US, 11,750 allegations of child *** abuse have so far featured in actions settled by archdioceses – in Los Angeles (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/jul/16/religion.usa) for $660m and in Boston for $100m. But some dioceses have gone into bankruptcy and some claimants want higher level accountability – two reasons to sue the pope in person. In 2005 a test case in Texas failed because the Vatican sought and obtained the intercession of President Bush, who agreed to claim sovereign (ie head of state) immunity on the pope's behalf. Bush lawyer John B Bellinger III certified that Pope Benedict the XVI was immune from suit "as the head of a foreign state".
Bellinger is now notorious for his defence of Bush administration torture policies (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/nov/05/usa.international). His opinion on papal immunity is even more questionable. It hinges on the assumption that the Vatican, or its metaphysical emanation, the Holy See, is a state. But the papal states were extinguished by invasion in 1870 and the Vatican was created by fascist Italy in 1929 when Mussolini endowed this tiny enclave – 0.17 of a square mile containing 900 Catholic bureaucrats – with "sovereignty in the international field ... in conformity with its traditions and the exigencies of its mission in the world".
The notion that statehood can be created by another country's unilateral declaration is risible: Iran could make Qom a state overnight, or the UK could launch Canterbury on to the international stage. But it did not take long for Catholic countries to support the pretentions of the Holy See, sending ambassadors and receiving papal nuncios (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuncio) in return. Even the UK maintains an apostolic mission (http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/travel-and-living-abroad/travel-advice-by-country/country-profile/europe/holy-see/?profile=intRelations).

The UN at its inception refused membership to the Vatican but has allowed it a unique "observer status", permitting it to become signatory to treaties such as the Law of the Sea and (ironically) the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and to speak and vote at UN conferences where it promotes its controversial dogmas on abortion, contraception and homo******ity. This has involved the UN in blatant discrimination on grounds of religion: other faiths are unofficially represented, if at all, by NGOs. But it has encouraged the Vatican to claim statehood – and immunity from liability.
This claim could be challenged successfully in the UK and in the European Court of Human Rights. But in any event, head of state immunity provides no protection for the pope in the international criminal court (see its current indictment of President Bashir (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/feb/03/sudan-president-darfur-genocide-charges)). The ICC Statute definition of a crime against humanity includes rape and ****** slavery and other similarly inhumane acts causing harm to mental or physical health, committed against civilians on a widespread or systematic scale, if condoned by a government or a de facto authority. It has been held to cover the recruitment of children as soldiers or *** slaves. If acts of ****** abuse by priests are not isolated or sporadic, but part of a wide practice both known to and unpunished by their de facto authority then they fall within the temporal jurisdiction of the ICC – if that practice continued after July 2002, when the court was established.
Pope Benedict has recently been credited with reforming the system to require the reporting of priests to civil authorities (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/mar/20/full-text-popes-letter-ireland), although initially he blamed the scandal on "gay culture". His admonition last week to the Irish church repeatedly emphasised that heaven still awaits the penitent paedophile priest. The Holy See may deserve respect for offering the prospect of redemption to sinners, but it must be clear that in law the pope does so as a spiritual adviser, and not as an immune sovereign.

wildcat

04-11-2010, 04:33 AM

pope

Bellinger is now notorious for his defence of Bush administration torture policies. His opinion on papal immunity is even more questionable. It hinges on the assumption that the Vatican, or its metaphysical emanation, the Holy See, is a state. But the papal states were extinguished by invasion in 1870 and the Vatican was created by fascist Italy in 1929 when Mussolini endowed this tiny enclave – 0.17 of a square mile containing 900 Catholic bureaucrats – with "sovereignty in the international field ... in conformity with its traditions and the exigencies of its mission in the world".

still the vatican is an sovereign state, if the UK chooses to ignore that, then what other nation sovereignty will they choice to ignore next, but I doubt the British government will arrest the pope, or allow it to happen.

I am not defending Catholics or any of their actions, but the pope, did he commit the crimes no, did he uses his states internal system to punish, yes. Is it the right thing to do, no, it did not even fix the problems. The offenders do whoever ,need to be brought in, in those countries these acts happen, they need to be prosecuted criminally.

going after the pope is just a publicity stunt, and will do nothing about bring justice to those that have committed this gross crime.

wildcat

04-11-2010, 04:41 AM

The way I see it, seeing the pope did not promote or order the priest to commit these crimes, and failed what he may in preventing and punishing, it does not seem to fit the international criminal court. But if he ordered or made policy that permitting these practices then he would be guilty.

But seeing that this priest did receive punishment, no matter how pathetic it was, or wrong, it does show that the church view negatively on this behavior and did not condoned it. So the definition of a crime against humanity does not apply, they church does not condone it. I do not see any legal grounds. We can only hope that International pressure, will be enough to force the Vatican to peruse the perpetuators .

unlike President Bashir, who they mention was guilty of instructing forces to commit crimes, there is a difference.

Mr Gently Benevolent

04-11-2010, 04:41 AM

Is Dawikins picking up the anti-papal mantle now Rev Ian Paisley is dead.

Jurinko

04-11-2010, 04:45 AM

La8pv

04-11-2010, 04:47 AM

=wildcat;4879222]still the vatican is an sovereign state, if the UK chooses to ignore that, then what other nation sovereignty will they choice to ignore next, but I doubt the British government will arrest the pope, or allow it to happen.

"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."

I am not defending Catholics or any of their actions, but the pope, did he commit the crimes no, did he uses his states internal system to punish, yes. Is it the right thing to do, no, it did not even fix the problems. The offenders do whoever ,need to be brought in, in those countries these acts happen, they need to be prosecuted criminally.

They moved the pedophiles to other places where they could prey on new children!! These old men have butt****ed thousands of children unpunished. Raped little children and gotten away with it! NO other insitution would have survived a scandal like this.

Here people are attacking Richard Dawkins for trying to punish people who have committed hidous crimes. How very Christian of you guys.

Goes to show how moral believers are:roll:

budgie

04-11-2010, 04:51 AM

An arrest is too diplomatic. I propose a wrestling match instead.

Naked with lots of oil? His Eminence may go in for that...

wildcat

04-11-2010, 04:57 AM

"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."

it does not matter about the UN, and it recognition of state, for a state to be recognized it must be recognized by another state, like France recognized the creation of the USA, as an example, Taiwan is not recognized as a state either under UN, but most nations treat it as one.

They moved the pedophiles to other places where they could prey on new children!! These old men have butt****ed thousands of children unpunished. Raped little children and gotten away with it! NO other insitution would have survived a scandal like this.

I agree, it is wrong

Here people are attacking Richard Dawkins for trying to punish people who have committed hidous crimes.

I think he is going about it the wrong way, but the guilty do need to be held accountable, the church needs to be accountable and deliver these pediofiles to criminal justice, and also the church is fully liable for civil damages to the victims.

How very Christian of you guys.
Goes to show how moral believers are:roll:
:cantbeli:

--------

The ICC has no jurisdiction of any crime committed in the USA because the USA is not part of the 111 states of the ICC, nor has the United Nations Security Council referred this to the ICC.

futurepilot2004

04-11-2010, 05:09 AM

. not to mention it could stir up trouble in Ireland between the Catholics and Protestants.

.

hahahahah wtf are you smoking?

Alex G

04-11-2010, 05:10 AM

I think he is going about it the wrong way, but the guilty do need to be held accountable, the church needs to be accountable and deliver these pediofiles to criminal justice, and also the church is fully liable for civil damages to the victims.

Church did know about such cases for a long time. But they never alarmed police or did something to punish the criminal and prevent him from doing so. They just redirected him to next church where he could start again. And if he was caught there he was transfered to next location. And its isnt just one case, there are a lot of them. This means that church DID help criminals and that is an criminal act itself.

wildcat

04-11-2010, 05:14 AM

Church did know about such cases for a long time. But they never alarmed police or did something to punish the criminal and prevent him from doing so. They just redirected him to next church where he could start again. And if he was caught there he was transfered to next location. And its isnt just one case, there are a lot of them. This means that church DID help criminals and that is an criminal act itself.

that is true, my argument of knowing and encouraging are 2 different things, and I do not think the pope can be held accountable as an individual for these crimes, seeing he did not order them.

The International Criminal Court (French: Cour Pénale Internationale; commonly referred to as the ICC or ICCt)[1] is a permanent tribunal to prosecute individuals for genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court)

it is a stretch and a twist to make this stick to the pope.

I do believe the church is wrong, and should be prosecuted for those crimes and fined, or removed from nations, if they harbor this criminals.

Alex G

04-11-2010, 05:18 AM

that is true, my argument of knowing and encouraging are 2 different things, and I do not think the pope can be held accountable as an individual for these crimes, seeing he did not order them.

.

I dont think its possible too. On other hand there are a lot of bishops and priest who could and should be punished, aswell as Church as organisation.

wildcat

04-11-2010, 05:23 AM

I dont think its possible too. On other hand there are a lot of bishops and priest who could and should be punished, aswell as Church as organisation.

I think the host nations should expel the church from their countries for the crime of coverup. It is a lot more feasible, and a lot more powerful of a message.

I hope they get them too. What the church has done is sick and very very wrong. Personally I wish all pedophiles and rapist, should get a bullet in the head, but that is not the law. To me they have proven, that they are beyond being part of the human society, so they should be terminated.

I think Dawkins is using this publicity promote himself. He just an attention whore.

La8pv

04-11-2010, 05:35 AM

I hope they get them too. What the church has done is sick and very very wrong. Personally I wish all pedophiles and rapist, should get a bullet in the head, but that is not the law. To me they have proven, that they are beyond being part of the human society, so they should be terminated.

I think Dawkins is using this publicity promote himself. He just an attention whore.

So everyone who wants justice is an attention whore? Beacuse he is politacally active he is an attention whore?
You see how one could us the term "attention whore" on quite a lot of people. Is Obama an attention whore? Maybe the pope is?

I do not wish for these pedophile priests to be shot as you, but I would be very happy if the church would stop hiding them and allowing them to commit more crimes.

Ar first I thought that there were just a small amount of cases, but there seems to be literally tens of thousands. Not just in a few countries, but I have seen cases from just about every European country.
Here in Norway several priests have been moved to other countries after being discovered that they have been ****ing little childen in the ass. Norwegian newspapers reported that one of them still work for the church and is still getting paid. The vatican is fully aware of this as it was their descision to move the guy.
This isn't an isolated case, there are hundreds of priests guilty of these crimes, but they go unpunished.

Why should the pope go unpunished? Beacause he didn't knew? yeah right!

wildcat

04-11-2010, 05:38 AM

S
Ar first I thought that there were just a small amount of cases, but there seems to be literally tens of thousands. Not just in a few countries, but I have seen cases from just about every European country.
Here in Norway several priests have been moved to other countries after being discovered that they have been ****ing little childen in the ass. Norwegian newspapers reported that one of them still work for the church and is still getting paid. The vatican is fully aware of this as it was their descision to move the guy.
This isn't an isolated case, there are hundreds of priests guilty of these crimes, but they go unpunished.

Why should the pope go unpunished? Beacause he didn't knew? yeah right!

just think it is a waste to go after the pope, better off just punishing the offenders and expel the church, the church does harbor.

Richard Dawkins is a god hater, and to me a bigot, I think he just trying to sell more books, prop himself up, and attack anybody that does not follow his view point.

theholeinthedonut

04-11-2010, 05:40 AM

Why pacifism and atheism goes so often hand in hand with thinking deficiency?
There's a pic I made specially for you...enjoy, you earned it!
http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w310/theholeinthedonut/useful%20images/2.jpg

La8pv

04-11-2010, 05:45 AM

just think it is a waste to go after the pope, better off just punishing the offenders and expel the church, the church does harbor.

Richard Dawkins is a god hater, and to me a bigot, I think he just trying to sell more books, prop himself up, and attack anybody that does not follow his view point.

So is he a hater beacuse he wants justice? I'm quite sure he doesn't hate god. It's hard to hate something that you think is rubbish.

wildcat

04-11-2010, 05:53 AM

So is he a hater beacuse he wants justice? I'm quite sure he doesn't hate god. It's hard to hate something that you think is rubbish.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins, he is very well read, and a scientist, he is also an atheists.

as for him being an attention whore

Dawkins founded the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science (RDFRS), if he was not he would of just called it Foundation for Reason and Science.

I just do not think his remarks are viable, probable. He hatse religion, I see him using this as away to promote his ego, self as an important atheists prophet.

I do agree with him that the church and sinners should be brought to justice.

Ulytau

04-11-2010, 06:05 AM

Ulytau : If you can i can change my name,even run naked on streets.

pacifist

04-11-2010, 06:07 AM

Why pacifism and atheism goes so often hand in hand with thinking deficiency?

Yeah, hoping for peace and not believing in deity sure is stupid. :roll:

False promises? Any proof they are wrong?

From what we know for a fact about the world today they are pretty extraordinary claims. And like it's been said: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". I'm still waiting for christians and other religions to prove their claims about these things.

Kilgor

04-11-2010, 06:24 AM

Richard Dawkins is a god hater, and to me a bigot, I think he just trying to sell more books, prop himself up, and attack anybody that does not follow his view point.

At least he isn't a paedophile or protecting one. That and telling fairy tales are facts.

XShipRider

04-11-2010, 06:52 AM

Dawkins is hoping to sell a few more books, nothing more.

Goldfishsoldier

04-11-2010, 07:33 AM

Ah, just sit back and enjoy the chaos. :lol:

Steak-Sauce

04-11-2010, 07:33 AM

Naked with lots of oil? His Eminence may go in for that...

Our dear Pope Benedict has lots of experience with troublemakers:

http://www.abload.de/img/1029116_e785_625x1000a54q.jpg

Richard Dawkins will be destroyed.

monolit

04-11-2010, 07:33 AM

I think we have on mp.net many Christians, Jews, Muslims and other believers, but only atheists repeatedly try to force their believings on others.

Nepeccel

04-11-2010, 07:39 AM

Well he knew about the kiddy fiddling going on in the church, so if we want to stop kids being ******ly abused, then the Pope should be arrested. That is the only way to get the cogs moving and have a proper reform in the church.

If I knew about someone ******ly abusing children and I did nothing then I should be charged with some sort of crime at least. The same can be said for the Pope.

This should have nothing to do with religion, what this should be about is the child abuse. And if people defend the Pope I reckon they would feel much much different if their child was being abused at the church!

Let's be honest here, if you bring up religion into this discussion you are a fool and avoiding the real point of what Dawkins wants to do.

Niels

04-11-2010, 07:44 AM

I think we have on mp.net many Christians, Jews, Muslims and other believers, but only atheists repeatedly try to force their believings on others.
http://i.imgur.com/Ya8Tj.png

All those atheist crusades and inquisitions, outrageous!

Corrupt

04-11-2010, 07:46 AM

I just do not think his remarks are viable, probable. He hatse religion, I see him using this as away to promote his ego, self as an important atheists prophet.

I do agree with him that the church and sinners should be brought to justice.

Agreed, I think the church is in the wrong and should hand over the wrong doers, protecting them is definitely the wrong thing to do and I honestly want to see something done to punish them and ensure nothing like this can happen and go unpunished.

But the way Dawkins is going about it is incredibly childish. Not that Im surprised. Has anyone read "The God Delusion" its atrociously bad. He completely fails to answer any of the serious arguments major world religions bring forth and instead seems content with things like "A child survives a plane crash, its really good news, therefore there is a god" and no I did not just make up that argument, he genuinely thinks thats a "proof" for the existance of God. Along with "I believe I believe I believe I believe, therefore there is a God"

From what we know for a fact about the world today they are pretty extraordinary claims. And like it's been said: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". I'm still waiting for christians and other religions to prove their claims about these things.

I think you missed the whole point. How can it be a "faith" or a "belief system" if it can be scientifically proven, it would be impossible. The whole point is that you have to just believe, otherwise is falls on its face a little bit. There are pieces of evidence to help you believe and strong arguments, but at the end of the day you have to make the "leap of faith" yourself.

WDECT

04-11-2010, 07:55 AM

I actually want to see him try; It’ll be great to see him get owned by the Swiss guard

LineDoggie

04-11-2010, 07:59 AM

Dawkins is the man.

Catholic church should also be sued for false promises of afterlife, anti-semitism, murders and torture commited by catholic inquisition etc. It should be banned as a hate group.And your posting demanding the same of Islam, Judiasm, Buddhism, Hinduism, Shintoism?

Seriously, yours is the most obtuse post I've seen. If Benedict should face charges for the Inquisition, I'm sure a Refugee Jew could be found to press charges against Finlands head of state, or the survivors of Finnish POW camps where 19,000 Soviet POW died. You see how that works? every country on the planet could have its Head of State arrested for crimes committed in the past.

Obama in the Hague for Wounded Knee and Slavery

Where does this end for you retards?

La8pv

04-11-2010, 07:59 AM

But the way Dawkins is going about it is incredibly childish. Not that Im surprised. Has anyone read "The God Delusion" its atrociously bad. He completely fails to answer any of the serious arguments major world religions bring forth and instead seems content with things like "A child survives a plane crash, its really good news, therefore there is a god" and no I did not just make up that argument, he genuinely thinks thats a "proof" for the existance of God. Along with "I believe I believe I believe I believe, therefore there is a God"

First of all it really doesn't sound like you have read the book. If you have, then i suggest you read it again because you clearly haven't been paying attention.

You guys are making this an atheism vs faith discussion, not we the atheists. We just want a criminal prosecuted, but you guys keep defending him because ****ing altar boys isn't such a bad thing apparently.

monolit

04-11-2010, 07:59 AM

All those atheist crusades and inquisitions, outrageous!
And all time the same stereotypes - propaganda did very well job indeed.

CG51

04-11-2010, 08:01 AM

Dawkins is hoping to sell a few more books, nothing more.

Exactly. Using the suffering of these children and their families to make a buck. He is not any better than those pedophile priests.

La8pv

04-11-2010, 08:03 AM

Exactly. Using the suffering of these children and their families to make a buck. He is not any better than those pedophile priests.

Yes shame on him for being one of very few people wanting justice!!!

La8pv

04-11-2010, 08:04 AM

I actually want to see him try; It’ll be great to see him get owned by the Swiss guard

Yes, because prof. Dawkins is the one who will be arresting the pope. Please read the article before you comment.

Stonewall71

04-11-2010, 08:08 AM

Dawkins, Your Pityfull skills are no match for the Power of the Dark Side!!!!!

http://deadwildroses.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/pope-benedict2.jpg

WDECT

04-11-2010, 08:12 AM

^^^^ nice one, that made me laugh, lol

La8pv

04-11-2010, 08:13 AM

http://img521.imageshack.us/img521/1618/100411signature.jpg (http://img521.imageshack.us/i/100411signature.jpg/)

The AP's story (http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-US-Pope-Church-Abuse.html?_r=1) on Joseph Ratzinger's direct involvement in delaying for six years (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/10/world/europe/10pope.html?hp) the defrocking of a priest who had confessed to tying up and raping minors ends any doubt that the future Pope is as implicated in the *** abuse crisis as much as any other official in the church.

The facts are as clear as they are damning. From the documents (http://documents.nytimes.com/the-document-trail-stephen-kiesle), the priest fits exactly the model of arrested development I sketched out here (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/03/sin-or-crime.html). He seems to have been pressured by a bossy mother to become a priest, and was interested only in hanging out with children around the ages of 11 to 13 (the age of the boys he raped). He had no genuine impulse to ordination, but the church was so desperate for priests he was acceptable.
When confronted with the charges, the priest pleaded no contest to tying up and raping two pre-teen boys in 1978 in the rectory of Our Lady of the Rosary Church in Union City. There were, apparently, several more victims. There was no dispute as to his guilt. The priest, Stephen Kiesle, personally requested he be defrocked. His legacy is horrifying (http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_14856881?source=most_emailed&nclick_check=1):
Kiesle, now 63 and recently released from prison, lives in the Rossmoor senior community in Walnut Creek and wears a Global Positioning System anklet. He is on parole for a different *** crime against a child. Numerous accusers have said he abused them as children at Our Lady of the Rosary, Santa Paula (now Our Lady of Guadalupe) in Fremont and Saint Joseph in Pinole, where he served in the mid-1970s, then returned in 1985 to volunteer as a youth minister.

Yes, this rapist was subsequently allowed back into the parish where he tied up and raped children seven years later as a volunteer youth minister. Even after his eventual defrocking, in 1987, he continued to work with children at the parish for another year.
Whose fault was this? In this case, it is absolutely clear that his remaining a priest was entirely the fault of the Vatican, and the person directly responsible for the delay in defrocking him was Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI. Kiesle himself requested he be defrocked. The local bishop desperately wanted him to be defrocked and petitioned Raztinger first in 1981 that it happen expeditiously. The bishop, knowing that what the hierarchy cared about was bad press, not the protection and welfare of children, argued that there would be more "scandal" if the priest were kept in ministry than if he were fired:
"It is my conviction that there would be no scandal if this petition were granted and that as a matter of fact, given the nature of the case, there might be greater scandal to the community if Father Kiesle were allowed to return to the active ministry," Cummins wrote in 1982. Despite several appeals from Cummins, Ratzinger's office delayed any resolution for three years and then proposed more time to process the case because of two things (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5h6nIKHrrT6dc6NGDELu224PhhUrwD9EVNR300):
This court, although it regards the arguments presented in favor of removal in this case to be of grave significance, nevertheless deems it necessary to consider the good of the Universal Church together with that of the petitioner, and it is also unable to make light of the detriment that granting the dispensation can provoke with the community of Christ's faithful, particularly regarding the young age of the petitioner.
It is necessary for this Congregation to submit incidents of this sort to very careful consideration, which necessitates a longer period of time.
In the meantime your Excellency must not fail to provide the petitioner with as much paternal care as possible and in addition to explain to same the rationale of this court, which is accustomed to proceed keeping the common good especially before its eyes.
This is signed by Ratzinger himself. It reveals several key things.

It is a document designed to prevent dismissing a priest as young as 38. Perhaps the fast-aging priesthood was a concern and dismissing such a young priest was to be avoided. But it's clear that the age of the priest is of far more importance to Ratzinger than the age of the minors he raped. All the sympathy and concern is with the rapist, not the raped. This is a document about protecting the powerful even when they rape the powerless.
Ratzinger also seems to believe that there would be more outrage among the faithful about defrocking such a young priest than about keeping a known child-rapist in the employ of the church. It seems clear that this is not a routine dismissal letter, as the Vatican is trying to spin this morning (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/11/world/europe/11lena.html?hp). It specifically acknowledges the "grave significance" of the charges. Not even the most reactionary (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100033706/and-so-the-relentless-attempts-to-get-pope-benedict-xvi-continue/) of Vatican apologists can muster a coherent defense on this one.
My only lingering question is why this case went to Ratzinger before he assumed formal responsibility for all these abuse cases in 2001. But it reveals his - and the Vatican's mindset - in the early 1980s.
The Pope cannot blame the local bishops this time - they desperately tried to get the priest fired.
He cannot claim he was out of the loop: his signature is on the letter.
He cannot get an underling to take the fall: it's his name and his office behind the unconscionable delay and behind the actual, despicably callous and self-serving reasons to protect a man who tied children up and raped them.
It's over now.
When we look at this Pope we see a man who knew that one of the priests he had authority to fire had restrained and raped children. Yet he did nothing for years, and finally sided with the priest. He had more sympathy for the relatively young age of the rapist, rather than the innocence and trauma of the raped children.
We see a man utterly corrupted by power and institutional loyalty.
So when does he resign?

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/04/the-third-strike.html

12446546570++

pacifist

04-11-2010, 08:34 AM

Richard Dawkins is a god hater, and to me a bigot...

Don't worry for God. He has so many mortal supporters ready to kill and cut of heads for him.

LineDoggie

04-11-2010, 08:53 AM

Don't worry for God. He has so many mortal supporters ready to kill and cut of heads for him.Say that about Muslims and you would be infracted.

ISNJH

04-11-2010, 08:55 AM

I am all for locking the priests up in prison for what they did but doing it like how Dawkins wants it to be done is a bad idea.

Afterglow

04-11-2010, 10:12 AM

You guys are making this an atheism vs faith discussion, not we the atheists. We just want a criminal prosecuted, but you guys keep defending him because ****ing altar boys isn't such a bad thing apparently.

Now this is where you are wrong. I am a Christian, and very low key about it because what I believe in and what I do in my free time is my own thing, but every time there is a discussion about religion it is usually an atheist that starts it and raves and drones on about Flying Spaghetti Monsters and people who dont have any free will etc etc. The works. That is my personal experience, maybe it is different in your surroundings, but I witness this sort of *missionary work* almost every other day. And your funny little quip about doing altar boys not being such a bad thing is precisely the sort of thing that gets people thinking that some people are just conveniently pushing faith = deviation thing in these circumstances.

Now a guy on the previous page said something along the lines of "I dont defend Christians or their actions". So from a number of morons that rape children and an equally moronic attempts at damage control from the brass suddenly every Christian has some *actions* to atone for?

I do believe that things are going in the wrong direction with these gimmicks like mr. Dawkins` ( a fine writer, though bit too poppish for my tastes ), because he is using this situation not to help those poor kids that got their lives ruined or punish their tormentors but to sell a few more books and further his agenda. If he wanted to do something other than that he would go after a target he can actually hit and I do believe that as a public figure he could pack a punch. This way there is also a chance that there will be a newspaper ****storm for a few days and than everything will fade into obscurity and be dealt in a hush hush manner. Again.

Though, when I read those reports and think of all the pain the victims will suffer as they piece their life back together I just feel sorry that good ole days of tar and feather mobs and direct justice are over...

greendzflash

04-11-2010, 10:15 AM

An arrest is too diplomatic. I propose a wrestling match instead.

WWE smakdown.....the pope in one corner, hulk hogan or the undertaker in the other....(tag team with peter griffin from family guy.......)

Hollis

04-11-2010, 10:18 AM

Don't worry for God. He has so many mortal supporters ready to kill and cut of heads for him.

I don't know which is worse, religious bigots or atheist bigots. If you can not handle someone not 100% agreeing with you, this isn't the place to be. I get tired of quasi intellectual bigots bloviating how perfect they are and rest of humanity are a bunch of primitive back water hicks.

Hollis

04-11-2010, 10:21 AM

You guys are making this an atheism vs faith discussion, not we the atheists. We just want a criminal prosecuted, but you guys keep defending him because ****ing altar boys isn't such a bad thing apparently.

Ever thought the "we" in your statement just might encompass a hell-of-a-lot more people than "not we the atheists". <-- let me had not all atheist just the self proclaimed atheists that are little whinny bigots/intellectual elitists.

dava

04-11-2010, 10:45 AM

La8pv

04-11-2010, 10:51 AM

I think it is telling that when a child bride dies in a backward country, Islam is at the root of it and is proclaimed as being a threat to the modern world.
However, when there is large-scale children abuse by christian priests, it is somehow immoral to even question religion.
Double standards?

Are you defending the system that has allowed for this to happen? Who are you targeting with your comment?

This is a comment from Dawkins on the article:

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

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

pacifist

04-11-2010, 10:53 AM

ISNJH

04-11-2010, 10:53 AM

The pope should resign and a new pope be elected or at least suspend all trips and focus on showing that the church will make a clean start and remove all the priests and appoint new ones.

Hollis

04-11-2010, 10:55 AM

pacifist

04-11-2010, 10:56 AM

Say that about Muslims and you would be infracted.

I was infracted.

And i meant both muslims and christians. They're both God worshippers.

Corrupt

04-11-2010, 10:59 AM

First of all it really doesn't sound like you have read the book. If you have, then i suggest you read it again because you clearly haven't been paying attention.

You guys are making this an atheism vs faith discussion, not we the atheists. We just want a criminal prosecuted, but you guys keep defending him because ****ing altar boys isn't such a bad thing apparently.

I have actually read the book. And I stick to my point. Nowhere was there a serious challange to any of the "proper" arguments for God put forth by world religions. Just stupid ones involving plane crashes and believing hard enough...but thats OT and a different thread.

Im not. I want criminals prosocuted too. What happened was completely abhorrant. What im saying it Dawkins is going about in a pathetic and stupid manner in an attempt to drum up publicity for himself and genrally acting like a tool.

ISNJH

04-11-2010, 10:59 AM

hahahahah wtf are you smoking?

I am not smoking anything, I have a bunch of friends in Ireland from both sides in the Catholic and Protestant churches and religouse tension is still a issue in some communities.

Hollis

04-11-2010, 11:09 AM

I just fight fire with fire.

I can handle with people disagreeing with me, but i will speak my mind.

I was infracted.

And i meant both muslims and christians. They're both God worshippers.

I would suggest that you read the rules of this forum. After all you did agree to follow them to be a member here. Have you forgotten or your word is meaningless ,,, BTW I am not looking for a answer unless you want to exacerbate this issue.

La8pv

04-11-2010, 11:10 AM

I have actually read the book. And I stick to my point. Nowhere was there a serious challange to any of the "proper" arguments for God put forth by world religions. Just stupid ones involving plane crashes and believing hard enough...but thats OT and a different thread.

Im not. I want criminals prosocuted too. What happened was completely abhorrant. What im saying it Dawkins is going about in a pathetic and stupid manner in an attempt to drum up publicity for himself and genrally acting like a tool.

I'm still of the opinion that you haven't read the book if you say that those are his arguments.

Read my previous post where i quote prof. Dawkins.

Corrupt

04-11-2010, 11:19 AM

I'm still of the opinion that you haven't read the book if you say that those are his arguments.

Read my previous post where i quote prof. Dawkins.

Does he or does he not include a reference to a plane crashing and a small child survivng? And that unlikely but good event is somehow a proof god exists?

Hollis

04-11-2010, 11:26 AM

Does he or does he not include a reference to a plane crashing and a small child survivng? And that unlikely but good event is somehow a proof god exists?

Not all atheists are materialists. I would place myself as a materialist. Unless you can physically demonstrate something, attributing some kind of "secret" reasoning to it does not work. The rules of science works the same. That there is a physical causation to everything. So far we it has been working very well in finding cures and improving quality of life rather than setting in a hut, thinking it is all beyond the control of mere mortals. For more of a discourse on the subject, read Hagel and "scientific method".

greendzflash

04-11-2010, 11:29 AM

or read "the lost Symbol".......

Corrupt

04-11-2010, 11:34 AM

Not all atheists are materialists. I would place myself as a materialist. Unless you can physically demonstrate something, attributing some kind of "secret" reasoning to it does not work. The rules of science works the same. That there is a physical causation to everything. So far we it has been working very well in finding cures and improving quality of life rather than setting in a hut, thinking it is all beyond the control of mere mortals. For more of a discourse on the subject, read Hagel and "scientific method".

Im not actually trying to prove god or doesnt exist (although I believe he does) Im just saying in my opinion Dawkins is hardly convincing on the matter and his books are not patricularly well written or thought out. His choice of "proofs" god doesnt exist are not the major ones most faiths put forth. While hes a bit of a big name and he causes a few headlines now and then he's not actually that great a scholar. The example I gave is one of the ones in the "definitive" God cannot exist book, The God Delusion. Yet it'san argument for God that is at its best flimsy, yet he champions being able to reason around it as the ultimate evidence that there is no great diety. But thats just me.

Your point however does sound like it would be worth reading, I'l look it up

JJHH

04-11-2010, 11:37 AM

If it turns out that it was a cover-up of ****** abuse, prosecute him.

La8pv

04-11-2010, 11:39 AM

Does he or does he not include a reference to a plane crashing and a small child survivng? And that unlikely but good event is somehow a proof god exists?

Yes he does if I'm not mistaken. (I've borrowed my copy to afriend of mine)

That is one of many arguments he points to where people invoke god. The question is: which arguments wasn't covered in the book? (start another thread or contact me in private if you want to continue this discussion so that we don't derail this thread)

Corrupt

04-11-2010, 11:40 AM

If it turns out that it was a cover-up of ****** abuse, prosecute him.

I presume you meant if he was involved and not generally?

Hollis

04-11-2010, 11:44 AM

Im not actually trying to prove god or doesnt exist (although I believe he does) Im just saying in my opinion Dawkins is hardly convincing on the matter and his books are not patricularly well written or thought out. His choice of "proofs" god doesnt exist are not the major ones most faiths put forth. While hes a bit of a big name and he causes a few headlines now and then he's not actually that great a scholar. The example I gave is one of the ones in the "definitive" God cannot exist book, The God Delusion. Yet it'san argument for God that is at its best flimsy, yet he champions being able to reason around it as the ultimate evidence that there is no great diety. But thats just me.

Your point however does sound like it would be worth reading, I'l look it up

One of humans most unique attributes, is the ability to symbolize. Give some sort of additional meaning to anything. Just because human reasons, does not make it true. Even in the rules of logic, a logical argument does not have to be factual/true, only that the conclusion follows the statements. A lot of opinion are pretty much equally fictitious using any bases of fact. Humans like to find meaning in any event. If the meaning is not known, one can be made up. A good read, Freud, Totem and Taboo.

If it turns out that it was a cover-up of ****** abuse, prosecute him.

Yep, if he did the crime, he needs to do the time. Ideally under the law, we all stand equally, as it should be.

Corrupt

04-11-2010, 11:53 AM

Yes he does if I'm not mistaken. (I've borrowed my copy to afriend of mine)

That is one of many arguments he points to where people invoke god. The question is: which arguments wasn't covered in the book? (start another thread or contact me in private if you want to continue this discussion so that we don't derail this thread)

I'l PM you later when i have time for a proper debate, but i think such a debate could be fun...I'l have to get a copy from the library again and reread it. I recall another one based on "if I believe hard enough he exists" but my point was I dont recall any of the arguments being particularly convincing.

One of humans most unique attributes, is the ability to symbolize. Give some sort of additional meaning to anything. Just because human reasons, does not make it true. Even in the rules of logic, a logical argument does not have to be factual/true, only that the conclusion follows the statements. .

Oh no i agree, some people would hold that as an example for God existing, but its not one of the big central ones like the something from nothing argument which are the real pillars of faith. Again though we're getting OT. Out of interest whats your opinion on Dawkins "threats" (if thats the right word)

Steak-Sauce

04-11-2010, 12:38 PM

Even if Dawkins succeeds with his plan to arrest the Pope and accuse him of "crimes against humanity" *, it would be interesting to see internatonal reactions, especially from countries with a great majority of Christians.

* I'm curious how Dawkins defines "crimes against humanity" in this case. Sounds like he compares him with criminals such as Göring, Eichmann, Hussein, and other convicts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:People_convicted_of_crimes_against_humanity_by_nationality).

From the Wikipedia entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_against_humanity):

Crimes against humanity, as defined by the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court Explanatory Memorandum, "are particularly odious offences in that they constitute a serious attack on human dignity or grave humiliation or a degradation of one or more human beings. They are not isolated or sporadic events, but are part either of a government policy (although the perpetrators need not identify themselves with this policy) or of a wide practice of atrocities tolerated or condoned by a government or a de facto authority. Murder; extermination; torture; rape and political, racial, or religious persecution and other inhumane acts reach the threshold of crimes against humanity only if they are part of a widespread or systematic practice.

Hollis

04-11-2010, 12:47 PM

Even if Dawkins succeeds with his plan to arrest the Pope and accuse him of "crimes against humanity" *, it would be interesting to see internatonal reactions, especially from countries with a great majority of Christians.

Would be interesting. There are 2 billion Christians in the world, about 1 billion are Catholics. From comments that I have heard from other non-Catholic Christians, some probably would support Dawkins. Also my understanding is that the Catholic Church enjoys the same status as being a sovereign country, that adds something to the case.

Victor1

04-11-2010, 12:50 PM

The Vatican is a sovereign State, so wouldn't the pope have diplomatic imunity?

Lov3ll

04-11-2010, 01:04 PM

The Vatican is a sovereign State, so wouldn't the pope have diplomatic imunity?

Universal jurisdiction, It's the same law that allowed for the arrest of Pinochet and the arrest warrants of a few Israelis.

Hollis

04-11-2010, 01:08 PM

Universal jurisdiction, It's the same law that allowed for the arrest of Pinochet and the arrest warrants of a few Israelis.

Pinochet was no longer head of Chile when he was arrested. Going to be interesting.

Afterglow

04-11-2010, 01:14 PM

It wont be interesting...this whole thing is just a gimmick and I do believe the people who would be most surprised if it worked would be the guys who thought it up. If they really wanted to jail someone they would pick a target that they can hit. This way they make the greatest amount of noise without actually having to do anything. Win win situation.

big_les

04-11-2010, 01:28 PM

Can I point out that this is not Dawkins' plan, but Christopher Hitchens? Thanks, back to your regularly scheduled ranting.

http://richarddawkins.net/articles/5415

Mastermind

04-11-2010, 01:38 PM

SniperRu

04-11-2010, 02:20 PM

I wonder if Mr. Dawkins would want the same types of warrants issued on any Muslim Clerecs who protected, supported or praised the perps when the subways were blasted?

No...thought not.

I'm pretty sure he would, but the intelligence services are already on this case no doubt. The Pope is a bigger and juicier target, and it would have much more impact on the western world.

Hollis

04-11-2010, 03:24 PM

I'm pretty sure he would, but the intelligence services are already on this case no doubt. The Pope is a bigger and juicier target, and it would have much more impact on the western world.

There is a maybe there. But then Catholics have not recently gone the rampage because of bad press, insults, creative artists who blast their leaders, etc. Easy to be brave when you know your opponent plays it nice.

drevil5000

04-11-2010, 03:26 PM

False promises? Any proof they are wrong?

The burden of proof lies with the church.

0rphie

04-11-2010, 03:55 PM

Catholic church should also be sued for false promises of afterlife.....
Man, you made may day :)

Corrupt

04-11-2010, 05:22 PM

The burden of proof lies with the church.

How convenient. Id say it lies with both sides personally. Why does one side get to be right until proven wrong, and the other is wrong until proven right?

OnTheRocks

04-11-2010, 05:42 PM

Because one side is adamant that something that nobody has ever seen or heard nor presented any proof of its existence does in fact exist

La8pv

04-11-2010, 05:48 PM

There is a maybe there. But then Catholics have not recently gone the rampage because of bad press, insults, creative artists who blast their leaders, etc. Easy to be brave when you know your opponent plays it nice.

What kind of comment is that? You obviosly haven't bothered to find out if he does go after muslims or not, you just can't stand the guy. I can assure you that prof. Dawkins doesn't discriminate, he defends science and reason from all dogmas.

Just a quick google search:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zD1SXVAXxls

Violet Fashion by Mindy

04-11-2010, 05:49 PM

It would be interesting, to say the least, if the Pope were to be arrested and held against his will in Britain. I can't imagine the unintended consequences of such an action.

I wonder if Mr. Dawkins would want the same types of warrants issued on any Muslim Clerecs who protected, supported or praised the perps when the subways were blasted?

No...thought not.

It wouldn't be the first time somebody from England/UK has pissed off the Pontifice. The UK probably more then any other country has clashed horns with the Vatican.

And if have ever read anything about Dawkins or what he stands for you will come to realise that if this happened in a Mosque, Synogue or (insert other religious building here) you will find that he would be just as critical and openly so abuot it.

Nathan_M

04-11-2010, 05:52 PM

I have read one or two books by Richard Dawkins. Persuasive.

Hollis

04-11-2010, 05:53 PM

What kind of comment is that? You obviosly (choice A) haven't bothered to find out if he does go after muslims or not, (choice B)you just can't stand the guy. ]

You missed it was Choice D.

Skutatos

04-11-2010, 05:57 PM

Corrupt

04-11-2010, 06:13 PM

Because one side is adamant that something that nobody has ever seen or heard nor presented any proof of its existence does in fact exist

Plenty of proofs have been given by various world religions, both based on logic and also by looking at the world around us...

SniperRu

04-11-2010, 07:39 PM

I think some people in this thread could seriously profit from spending a few sundays(or saturdays depending) in a church. I think it do them a bit of good to see that your average church goer is not stupid nor crazy and especially not the least bit violent. Yeah there are bizarre churches out there, but they don't represent the majority despite getting the majority of attention. Most of the vitriol I hear from atheists seems to stem from pure ignorance of what religion looks like from the inside.

I don't practice any religion but I know many who do, and they are good people.

The problem is not with normal people going to church every sunday... it is more when the Vatican convices catholics in AIDS-plagued sub-saharan africa that using the condom is a sin. I could give you other countless examples of problems created by religious institutions basing who base their authority on a book of fairytales, but I think you get the point.

seraosha

04-12-2010, 12:29 AM

I would find the arguments for arresting child rapists more compelling if it was actually about catching, trying and convicting criminals and not an assbackwards attack on the Catholic Church, and religion in general. Each and every child molester and person that would harm a child should be shot, and anyone that protects that criminal should suffer a similar fate.

But look up the statistics folks...that would mean countless fathers, uncles, brothers and the family members that cover up the crimes...frequently the wives, mothers and grandmothers would be up against that bloodstained wall.

I'll believe the outrage and anger when it targets the culprits that far outnumber the predators that hide behind the priest's collar...because that's what this is really about, as the ...what 8 pages now of posts show, it's an attack on faith, and the Church in particular.

I am a practicing Roman Catholic, and I fully support your rights to be atheist, agnostic, and spaghetti monster worshiping whatever.
But what I don't support is bigotry hiding behind a thinly disguised new faith being pushed by Dawkins and his ilk.

Snoshi

04-12-2010, 01:19 AM

Plenty of proofs have been given by various world religions, both based on logic and also by looking at the world around us...

NO you DINT! So what kind of "proof" are you talking about that are based on "logic"?

SniperRu

04-12-2010, 01:29 AM

Volksgrenadier

04-12-2010, 01:44 AM

Read some Aristoteles and later St. Thomas Aquinas.

You'll realise that Aristoteles beliefs are basically the same as those of the Church.
Not gona write a lecture here about Natural Law or anything like that, but if you are interested you can easilly find the books.

Xithos

04-12-2010, 01:50 AM

SniperRu

04-12-2010, 02:31 AM

I believe that the Swiss guard under the pope will be their in full force since they already have warning. This is what you get for announcing your plans to arrest someone before you do it, they double their guard.

sweet, so pedophiles around the world should start hiring the swiss guard to avoid getting arrested... because apperently these folks are above the law.

Xithos

04-12-2010, 02:38 AM

sweet, so pedophiles around the world should start hiring the swiss guard to avoid getting arrested... because apperently these folks are above the law.

That isn't what I meant, please don't twist my words to make it seem like I support a Heinous act like that.

SniperRu

04-12-2010, 03:03 AM

That isn't what I meant, please don't twist my words to make it seem like I support a Heinous act like that.

Well mister Dawkins is building a case in justice against the pope, because he allegedly protected pedophiles, which is a crime (I think so... can somebody confirm this?). When you're convicted with a crime, you get arrested. You're implying that he won't because of the swiss guard... what the pope should get a special treatment or something?

Royal

04-12-2010, 03:43 AM

Maybe Dawkins is broke, good way to raise money.

If he can afford to engage Geoffrey Robertson he sure as hell aint broke!

Violet Fashion by Mindy

04-12-2010, 03:53 AM

He had a debate with the Archbishop of Canterbury about evolution vs intelligent design on this documentory he presented on the BBC. Was a bloody good insight.

His alright.

oldsoak

04-12-2010, 03:59 AM

randir14

04-12-2010, 04:04 AM

Throughout history Popes have been replaced for a variety of reasons. At least this is a legitimate reason, but too bad it's coming from a guy who is only doing it to push his own agenda.

La8pv

04-12-2010, 04:19 AM

Mr Dawkins doesnt have to wait for the arival of the pope - theres quite a few people who incite crimes against humanity within the UK in the name of rieligion. But I suspect Mr Dawkins real bent is directed against Chrisitanity and not other religions whose followers might have him stoned on sight.

Well if you bothered to read a bit about him you would know that's not true (as others in this thread already has pointed out).

Kilgor

04-12-2010, 04:23 AM

Dawkin's lays into all religions. Stop playing the victim card.

Sometimes I wonder the number of people who believe it worse to be a atheist than over a protector of paedophiles.

Russian_dude

04-12-2010, 04:43 AM

Mr Dawkins doesnt have to wait for the arival of the pope - theres quite a few people who incite crimes against humanity within the UK in the name of rieligion. But I suspect Mr Dawkins real bent is directed against Chrisitanity and not other religions whose followers might have him stoned on sight.

Nonsense, he was critical about everyone, islam included.

Russian_dude

04-12-2010, 04:45 AM

Dawkin's lays into all religions. Stop playing the victim card.

Sometimes I wonder the number of people who believe it worse to be a atheist than over a protector of paedophiles.

True, americans need to check numbers of atheist in jail vs christians. Should be enlightening.

randir14

04-12-2010, 04:54 AM

True, americans need to check numbers of atheist in jail vs christians. Should be enlightening.

Most of those people become religious while in jail, and most of it is Islam, not Christianity. They even have a term for it now, "Prislam"

Billy No Mates

04-12-2010, 04:56 AM

Throughout history Popes have been replaced for a variety of reasons. At least this is a legitimate reason, but too bad it's coming from a guy who is only doing it to push his own agenda.

X2 As a believer of sorts, i suppose i should see Dawkins as an intelectual adversary,but i can't let that colour my attitude towards the stand he is taking on this issue which whatever his ultimate motivation is entirely correct .
The Pope should clear out the pedo's and those that covered for it and then resign himself,the Church is both less and more than a state so rightly or wrongly the moral imperative for it to do the 'right' thing is far greater than for a secular state attoning for its crimes .

sepheronx

04-12-2010, 04:57 AM

Kant

04-12-2010, 06:42 AM

Someone may have already said this, but I'm not going to read through 8 pages to try and find it.

"It’s all in good fun when Dawkins mocks a buffoon like Pat Robertson (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/r/pat_robertson/index.html?inline=nyt-per) and fundamentalist pastors like the one who created “Hell Houses” to frighten sin-****e children at Halloween. But it is less edifying when he questions the sincerity of serious thinkers who disagree with him, like the late Stephen Jay Gould (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/g/stephen_jay_gould/index.html?inline=nyt-per), or insinuates that recipients of the million-dollar-plus Templeton Prize, awarded for work reconciling science and spirituality, are intellectually dishonest (and presumably venal to boot). In a particularly low blow, he accuses Richard Swinburne, a philosopher of religion and science at Oxford, of attempting to “justify the Holocaust,” when Swinburne was struggling to square such monumental evils with the existence of a loving God."
Jim Holt,. "Beyond Belief (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/22/books/review/Holt.t.html?ex=1319169600&en=d9a0ba69b41f32df&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss)." New York Times, Sunday Book Rev (http://www.nytimes.com/pages/books/review/index.html)iew (http://www.nytimes.com/pages/books/review/index.html). (http://www.nytimes.com/pages/books/review/index.html)<http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/22/books/review/Holt.t.html?ex=1319169600&en=d9a0ba69b41f32df&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss (http://www.nytimes.com/pages/books/review/index.html)> (31 July, 2008).

LineDoggie

04-12-2010, 08:28 AM

Most of those people become religious while in jail, and most of it is Islam, not Christianity. They even have a term for it now, "Prislam"A Person I know who was imprisoned in NY and changed to Islam did it for a Very simple reason

Better food

If you keep Halal in NY prison system you get better food than the General Population, no green bologna sandwiches

La8pv

04-12-2010, 08:29 AM

The Connecticut legislature is considering a bill that would remove the statute of limitations on child *** abuse cases. Guess who is opposing the bill. No, it's not NAMBLA. No, it's not a mob of ******ly precocious toddlers. It's…the Catholic Church (http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/04/11/connecticut.abuse.bill/index.html?hpt=T1)! You probably didn't see that one coming.
The reason they oppose it isn't some conservative legal principle. They spilled the beans already — it's the cost to the church.

The proposed change to the law would put "all Church institutions, including your parish, at risk," says the letter, which was signed by Connecticut's three Roman Catholic bishops.
Oh? Why are they worried? Do they have a gang of septuagenarian child molesters tucked away somewhere in the bosom of the Connecticut church?

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/04/an_interesting_admission.php

Corrupt

04-12-2010, 08:54 AM

NO you DINT! So what kind of "proof" are you talking about that are based on "logic"?

Start a new thread then. This is discussing Dawkins and his actions. As i said to Spineshank00 we can discuss the logic for the existance of god etc in a dedicated thread. But examples include the Watchmaker argument.

Can we just clarify here that the Pope himself as far as we are aware did not abuse the children. Others in the church did.

Sootan

04-12-2010, 09:15 AM

Start a new thread then. This is discussing Dawkins and his actions. As i said to Spineshank00 we can discuss the logic for the existance of god etc in a dedicated thread. But examples include the Watchmaker argument.

Can we just clarify here that the Pope himself as far as we are aware did not abuse the children. Others in the church did.

He protected some of those who did, though.

seraosha

04-12-2010, 09:28 AM

So wait... you're telling me that trying to persecute a person who allegedly protected child molestors is biggotry? wow, simply wow... now I've seen everything on this forum

Really? Thats all you got from my post?
Oh well...I guess when all you have is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail.
And you sir, are a bag full of hammers.

Corrupt

04-12-2010, 09:32 AM

He protected some of those who did, though.

Not personally he didnt. This isnt comparable to the Ian Huntley/Maxine Carr situation. Institutionally the chuch covered it up. It wasnt just the pope who partook in it and you cant single him out just because he's the guy at the top. If anything you should focus on the guys just above the rapists who kept moving and protecting them

Hollis

04-12-2010, 09:32 AM

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/04/an_interesting_admission.php

I think the legislature is a good idea, some crimes should be never disappear because of time. My understanding it will only effect crimes committed after the law is past. I find it difficult that there would be opposition.

Hollis

04-12-2010, 09:47 AM

If he can afford to engage Geoffrey Robertson he sure as hell aint broke!

Maybe that is why he is broke. I don't know, but as this thread continues, I am starting to think, "Hey I hope he succeeds." I have no use for people who harm children and those who would protect those people.

La8pv

04-12-2010, 09:49 AM

Not personally he didnt. This isnt comparable to the Ian Huntley/Maxine Carr situation. Institutionally the chuch covered it up. It wasnt just the pope who partook in it and you cant single him out just because he's the guy at the top. If anything you should focus on the guys just above the rapists who kept moving and protecting them

http://img521.imageshack.us/img521/1618/100411signature.jpg (http://img521.imageshack.us/i/100411signature.jpg/)

and second:

It wasnt just the pope who partook in itYou see how this is wrong don't you?

kamaz

04-12-2010, 09:54 AM

if this wasn;t the Pope, but a head of a child safety agency or head of school who knowingly hid and shuffled around his employees whom he knew committed child rape and torture like these priests did, this head would be in jail in no time. But because its the pope and he has an expensive hat and calls Jesus every week, he is immune.

Good on Dawkins for at least attempting to bring the law that I and everyone else here would need to answer to, to the Pope, who should be judged and kept to same standards and law as everyone else.

Hollis

04-12-2010, 10:06 AM

Corrupt

04-12-2010, 10:10 AM

You see how this is wrong don't you?

You missed the point. Im not denying he had knowledge of the events or that it is awful that there was a cover up. But the fact remains it was not JUST the pope who covered up the situation, the whole of the caltholic church was involed (im exaggerating here, but you get my point, lots of people were involved all through the heirarchy) and therefore you cannot single out the pope for punishment.

This isnt a school, or even a couple of school. This is a totally different scale. We're talking about something spanning almost every country in the world with millions of members. Am not saying there should be no punishment because there certainly should be, especially for those who actually abused the children. The pope cant singularly be held responsible for this.

LineDoggie

04-12-2010, 10:15 AM

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/04/an_interesting_admission.php You conveniently left something out when you linked the Blog opinion instead of the actual news link

The bishops' letter raised concerns that the bill would allow claims that are 70 years or older, in which "key individuals are deceased, memories have been faded, and documents and other evidence have been lost." The letter said that the majority of cases would be driven by "trial lawyers hoping to profit from these cases."

SOURCE: (Full Story here)-
http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/04/11/connecticut.abuse.bill/index.html?hpt=T1

Hollis

04-12-2010, 10:22 AM

You conveniently left something out when you linked the Blog opinion instead of the actual news link

The bishops' letter raised concerns that the bill would allow claims that are 70 years or older, in which "key individuals are deceased, memories have been faded, and documents and other evidence have been lost." The letter said that the majority of cases would be driven by "trial lawyers hoping to profit from these cases."

SOURCE: (Full Story here)-
http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/04/11/connecticut.abuse.bill/index.html?hpt=T1

Is there any comments on if the bill is constitutional. Wouldn't this be like punishing a person for a crime that was not a crime when they committed it? I think that may be in the Bill of Rights. Again, I am don't know if this applies.

La8pv

04-12-2010, 10:23 AM

Problems with thread like this; Is that they can become a religion VS non-religion thread. That is just a flame war. The Pope is a man and, IMHO, should be responsible for his actions. IF he has committed a crime, he needs to answer for it. What adds to this, he is not just some dude, he is a head of a state/large religious organization. The Courts should decide if he violated any laws.

I don't know Dawkins or actually know what his intention are. I don't know if there is merit to his position or not, I am not a lawyer nor have I read all the information on this case. In emotional issues, let's face any crimes against children are emotional, going off half baked is not going to help promote your point.

Issues that I see;

1) does Dawkins have merit in his charges.

1a) meaning, is there reason to believe that the Pope knowingly cover-up/protected pedophiles. Reason is not wishful thinking.

2) can it legally happen, can Dawkins have the Pope arrested and would there be court action?

for me if 1 a is true................ Jail is the answer.

This thread is about the catholic church and its handling of these issues, so its bound include some faith vs non faith discussion. The pope is after all "gods man on earth". But it shouldn't be a problem keeping it civil.

I'm quoting Ajita Kamal, an Indian freethinker:

In fact, I do not engage in debate with believers any more. At least, I try not to. This is the least effective strategy for someone like myself, since many religious folk seem to be unable to make the distinction between personal attacks and criticism of ideas.

This is why people like Dawkins attack religion, because of the undeserved respect it has in some parts of of society. This case would be a no brainer if it wouldn't have involved the catholic church or another institution of faith.

Anyhow, the pope won't be arrested. At best Britain won't pay for his upcoming visit.

Corrupt

04-12-2010, 10:27 AM

This is why people like Dawkins attack religion, because of the undeserved respect it has in some parts of of society. This case would be a no brainer if it wouldn't have involved the catholic church or another institution of faith.

1) What undeserved respect does it have in which parts of society just out of interest (Am genuinely curious)

2) So if it happened at a boarding school in the 1930's and the current head sanctioned a cover up he's guilty of protecting paedophiles? Or is he simply trying to preserve the reputation of his school.

La8pv

04-12-2010, 10:41 AM

1) What undeserved respect does it have in which parts of society just out of interest (Am genuinely curious)

2) So if it happened at a boarding school in the 1930's and the current head sanctioned a cover up he's guilty of protecting paedophiles? Or is he simply trying to preserve the reputation of his school.

Pedophiles are the lowest form of scum on earth, even prison inmates hate pedophiles, but here you are defending them. Why? would you do it if it was any other institution?

La8pv

04-12-2010, 10:45 AM

You conveniently left something out when you linked the Blog opinion instead of the actual news link

The bishops' letter raised concerns that the bill would allow claims that are 70 years or older, in which "key individuals are deceased, memories have been faded, and documents and other evidence have been lost." The letter said that the majority of cases would be driven by "trial lawyers hoping to profit from these cases."

SOURCE: (Full Story here)-
http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/04/11/connecticut.abuse.bill/index.html?hpt=T1

It was not on purpose. I hadn't checked out the original source, but it still raises some imported questions.

Corrupt

04-12-2010, 10:46 AM

Pedophiles are the lowest form of scum on earth, even prison inmates hate pedophiles, but here you are defending them. Why? would you do it if it was any other institution?

I am NOT definding paedophiles. I have said several times that I want them to be properly punished to the full extent of the law. I am saying why has the pope been singled out when tens if not hundreds of members of the church are involved in this cover up.

La8pv

04-12-2010, 10:58 AM

I am NOT definding paedophiles. I have said several times that I want them to be properly punished to the full extent of the law. I am saying why has the pope been singled out when tens if not hundreds of members of the church are involved in this cover up.

Because he is the boss. He is directly responsible for the church's' politics. If their policy is to relocate pedophiles in stead of turning them in to the police, and the pope has been fully aware and condoning this policy, he is under most countries law guilty. If there are other people guilty, and there are, they should also go to jail.

Hollis

04-12-2010, 11:06 AM

Pedophiles are the lowest form of scum on earth, even prison inmates hate pedophiles, but here you are defending them. Why? would you do it if it was any other institution?

I don't think he is defending it. Tort litigation is part of the issue. We have criminal and civil laws. The burden of proof is less in a civil case than in a criminal case. There is also a term frivolous litigation. A case that is 70 years old, that is initiated today can be impossible to develop sufficient evidence to come to trial as a crime but can be heard in a civil court, as mentioned in Linedoggie's post. That does not say a crime was or was not committed. A civil case can also have a emotional appeal. Also whether there is real merits or not, a case can be settled out of court. That does not mean anything that was done was wrong. Out of court settlements are often done for financial reasons. The court finding on a plaintiff behave can be overturned in the appellate court. The legal fees to take a case to the appellate court can be 10 -20 times higher than in the first court and then there is risks. One of the reasons a out of court settlement is viewed as a option for the defense.

None of this is a black and white issue. Also look up the term, "deep pockets".

Let me say, this by no means is saying that pedophiles should not be punished to the fullest extent of the law.

A lawyer could explain all of this better than I, US court system has it's sets of pros and cons. Not all people accused are guilty, not all people who say they are a victim is/was as victim. Sorting it all out, can be very difficult.

If it is proven that a cover up was sanction, I disagree with Corrupt, that is like aiding and abetting. That would put the school at greater risk. Problem is saying so, does not make it so. If the crime happened in 1930 is it proven? If it is proven, a cover up would be a horrific mistake. If it just came to light today, still a cover up would only support the case of the plaintiff.

wildcat

04-12-2010, 11:14 AM

P

1) does Dawkins have merit in his charges.

1a) meaning, is there reason to believe that the Pope knowingly cover-up/protected pedophiles. Reason is not wishful thinking.

No and yes, Dawkins has merit, but not for the ICC court.

2) can it legally happen, can Dawkins have the Pope arrested and would there be court action?

They can only arrest the pope in the UK, if there is evidence he covered up a crime committed in the UK, but I believe the charges against him is from when he was in Germany. It would require the Germans to file for an arrest, then extradite him back to Germany for a trail in German Court.

For this case to go to the ICC, which can only have trials for individuals not organizations, then there needs to be evidence that the pope ordered and supported the pedophile behavior.

Is the the pope guilty, well in my books he sure is, should he stand trail, yes, for the crimes he committed (harboring a criminals), tried in the correct court. I personally think the Catholic church needs to expel and cleans itself of these perverts, if they chose not too, I think they should be shut down, or be expelled.

Taking the pope to the ICC over covering up a crime, seems to be far fetched idea, and I doubt the ICC can take the case. The ICC is to try people that order acts against humanity.

Corrupt

04-12-2010, 11:17 AM

I don't think he is defending it.

If it is proven that a cover up was sanction, I disagree with Corrupt, that is like aiding and abetting. That would put the school at greater risk. Problem is saying so, does not make it so. If the crime happened in 1930 is it proven? If it is proven, a cover up would be a horrific mistake. If it just came to light today, still a cover up would only support the case of the plaintiff.

1) Correct.

2) I agree that him aiding and abetting (perverting the course of justice as it is known here) is wrong. My point is that those directly responsible (the paedophiles and the bishops moving them around and keeping it hush hush for so long) are the ones who are responsible and should face the harshest punishments. The pope, several hundred miles away in a different country and almost a different generation to the crimes should not be the one facing the most severe (or only as some people want to see) accusations. We're talking about crimes decades old here as people have pointed out. He was not the first one to cover them, not by a long way. A lot of people seem to want to punish him asif he personally abused the children or decided at the time having chatted the to perverts personally he'd save their skins.

This has been happening for years and he just happened to be the pontiff when it came out. This policy went all the way up and he went along with it in order to try and save the reputation of the church. Which I agree was wrong and stupid. But i dont think he should be lynched and burned alive as a lot of people want to see apparantly...

I personally think the Catholic church needs to expel and cleans itself of these perverts,

Taking the pope to the ICC over covering up a crime, seems to be far fetched idea.

Agreed on both counts

kamaz

04-12-2010, 11:32 AM

I am saying why has the pope been singled out when tens if not hundreds of members of the church are involved in this cover up.

are you really asking this? I'm sure you arent this stupid. Pope is the leader of his 'employees' and actively and knowingly covered up these unbelievable crimes.

This btw, has been going on for decades, with multiple popes, with thousands of children raped and tortured. And the law is powerless because the pope has a funny hat and shuffles old pedophile virgins around whenever another kid is raped.

Corrupt

04-12-2010, 11:41 AM

are you really asking this? I'm sure you arent this stupid. Pope is the leader of his 'employees' and actively and knowingly covered up these unbelievable crimes.

This btw, has been going on for decades, with multiple popes, with thousands of children raped and tortured. And the law is powerless because the pope has a funny hat and shuffles old pedophile virgins around whenever another kid is raped.

Im sorry if Id rather see a paedophile prosecuted and jailed than the figurehead of the organisation he works for...

Im aware its been going on for decades, which is why he cant be blamed for them. This pope didnt actively decide to start a cover up. If he did I'd be all for stringing him up. He went along with one thats been going for years, he cant be held accountable for starting this and allowing it to happen. That all happened in the past. He hasnt actively covered anything up. He passively allowed it to remain hush hush. And Im not saying it was a moral or good decision, because it wasnt. But people are acting asif he personally abused the kids and started off this big keep it quiet operation. Its was already in place before he came to be pontiff, and probably before he even joined the church...

Just out of interest I'd ask your opinion on Martin McGuinness?

La8pv

04-12-2010, 11:48 AM

I don't think he is defending it. Tort litigation is part of the issue. We have criminal and civil laws. The burden of proof is less in a civil case than in a criminal case. There is also a term frivolous litigation. A case that is 70 years old, that is initiated today can be impossible to develop sufficient evidence to come to trial as a crime but can be heard in a civil court, as mentioned in Linedoggie's post. That does not say a crime was or was not committed. A civil case can also have a emotional appeal. Also whether there is real merits or not, a case can be settled out of court. That does not mean anything that was done was wrong. Out of court settlements are often done for financial reasons. The court finding on a plaintiff behave can be overturned in the appellate court. The legal fees to take a case to the appellate court can be 10 -20 times higher than in the first court and then there is risks. One of the reasons a out of court settlement is viewed as a option for the defense.

None of this is a black and white issue. Also look up the term, "deep pockets".

Let me say, this by no means is saying that pedophiles should not be punished to the fullest extent of the law.

A lawyer could explain all of this better than I, US court system has it's sets of pros and cons. Not all people accused are guilty, not all people who say they are a victim is/was as victim. Sorting it all out, can be very difficult.

If it is proven that a cover up was sanction, I disagree with Corrupt, that is like aiding and abetting. That would put the school at greater risk. Problem is saying so, does not make it so. If the crime happened in 1930 is it proven? If it is proven, a cover up would be a horrific mistake. If it just came to light today, still a cover up would only support the case of the plaintiff.

We have a murder case here in Norway in which the accused murderer was acquit, but was later sentenced to pay damages to the murder victims parents. This due to the evidential burden of proof being lower in a liability case. (digression)

I fully agree that cases that are so old that the evidence has been corrupted/forgotten etc. should be left alone. I'm also not sure if rescinding that statute of limitations would be a good ide, but that is for people with better legal/law skills to debate.

The reason I'm sure he knew, even without his signature on the paper which was in the media, is because this sheer magnitude of cases which has been uncovered. Every day there are numerous of new cases, even here in Norway with a population of 4,7 million mostly atheist/protestant.

An example: (not from norway)

Rachel was found screaming in a pool of blood by her Auntie Emily and flown 229 miles to a hospital in Nome. The doctor asked if she wanted to see a priest. She said yes. In walked Father James Poole—a popular priest, radio personality on KNOM, and, according to allegations in at least five lawsuits, serial child rapist. Father Poole has never been convicted of a crime, but the Jesuits have settled numerous ***-abuse claims against him since 2005, in excess of $5 million, according to an attorney involved in four of those five lawsuits. Exact figures aren't available because some of the settlements involve confidentiality agreements. The Jesuits have never let a single case against Father Poole go to trial.
"Jim Poole is elderly," answered Very Reverend Patrick J. Lee, head of the Northwest Jesuits, by e-mail. "He lives in a Jesuit community under an approved safety plan that includes 24-hour supervision."
http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/the-pedophiles-paradise/Content?oid=1065017Some cases are reported here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_***_abuse_cases_by_country

Afterglow

04-12-2010, 12:09 PM

Problems with thread like this; Is that they can become a religion VS non-religion thread. That is just a flame war.

This.

The problem is that some people really quickly seize the opportunity to equate the religion as a human practice with maniacs that rape kids and immediately start pushing their thesis of religion as a source of all evil.

Do I want to see someone in jail over child abuses? Hell yeah. Do I want to see the Catholic Church shaken to its very core over their moronic and criminal attempts to save face at expense of the children? Yes! Would I mind seeing the pope attending a lot of PUBLIC hearings over these practices? I would love it.

What I dont want is being part of someones attempt to push his agenda that has nothing to do with paedophilia, punishing the perpetrators and exacting justice but is solely a swipe against organized religion.

La8pv

04-12-2010, 03:31 PM

This.

The problem is that some people really quickly seize the opportunity to equate the religion as a human practice with maniacs that rape kids and immediately start pushing their thesis of religion as a source of all evil.

Do I want to see someone in jail over child abuses? Hell yeah. Do I want to see the Catholic Church shaken to its very core over their moronic and criminal attempts to save face at expense of the children? Yes! Would I mind seeing the pope attending a lot of PUBLIC hearings over these practices? I would love it.

What I dont want is being part of someones attempt to push his agenda that has nothing to do with paedophilia, punishing the perpetrators and exacting justice but is solely a swipe against organized religion.

Its all fine and dandy, but if it were up to believers he would go free. Where is the outrage? Why isn't any catholic leader condemning the practice that has lead to much suffering among children.

The first posts in this thread are probably from believers, attacking Dawkins. Why? Because he is a well known atheist. Not a word condemning the Pope or the priests.

Religious leaders could gain a lot of good pr towards the secular society, but they chose to be silent. Just as the secular society expected it would.
Majority of posts in this thread are just such responses atheists expect from people of faith. Okay, there are some posts from atheists that are uncalled for, but what would you expect? People defending these acts or these people bring up such answers.

The right thing to do for the church would have been to fire all priests involved, launch an investigation and help the police. The Pope should have been the first to go, but there he is. Not a word from him to the victims, not did he condemn the priests caught (kind of hard when you are involved (moving priests around)), but in stead he attacked people for "spreading rumours".

Over the past few weeks, new revelations have cast a startling light on the extent to which the Vatican–and even Pope Benedict XVI himself–may have been involved in preventing clergymen accused of child abuse from facing legal repercussions, or even being removed from contact with children.

New documentation reveals that church officials may have ignored repeated warnings from bishops as to the dangers of a Wisconsin priest who is accused of molesting more than 200 deaf children.
The same month, a Munich priest’s alleged abuse showed that the Pope may have directly ignored cases of abuse by the clergy while serving as then-Archbishop Joseph Ratzinger. This incident is just one in a string of cases that seem to reveal that child abuse by priests has been, contrary to original assertions, a world-wide problem rather than simply an American phenomenon.

As offensive as the possibility of church officials covering up child abuse may be, the church’s reactions to allegations of a cover-up are perhaps even more offensive. During a Good Friday service, Pope Benedict’s personal preacher, Rev. Raniero Cantalamessa, equated criticism of the church in these times with anti-Semitism against Jews in the lead-up to the Holocaust. According to Cantalamessa, the perceived “passing from responsibility and guilt to a collective guilt, remind me of the more shameful aspects of anti-Semitism.”
Furthering Rev. Cantalamessa’s feelings of persecution, American Catholic League leader Bill Donohue added this month that the abuse of children by priests should have been handled as a private, internal matter within the church instead of a cause for police involvement. He added that, because many of the victims in question were post-pubescent, the issue is one of homo******ity and not of child abuse.
Up to this point in the editorial, the Editorial Board has felt content to simply restate the facts at hand rather than develop an argument. All the same, we will make a brief statement concerning what is, on an intellectual level, perhaps the most disturbing aspect of this situation–the idea that criticism of the church’s handling of abuse cases amounts to anti-Catholicism, which in turn amounts to Nazi anti-Semitism.

Aside from being highly insensitive to the actual victims of the Holocaust and anti-Semitism, this argument dangerously implies that criticizing the actions of the church, even those that may be illegal, amounts to attacking Catholics as individuals. It is one thing to associate cultural insensitivity with prejudice, but it is an entirely different matter to try to excuse deplorable and illegal behavior by claiming church privilege. It does not offend anyone’s faith or culture to demand that justice be met, and it does not help any organization to allow corruption and abuse to go unchecked. In fact, the Editorial Board would imagine that there are a sizable number of active members in the Catholic community who are also disappointed and outraged by the church’s handling of these cases. When the leaders of any organization permit this kind of corruption to permeate its ranks, they betray the trust of all those who have put their faith in them.
The Editorial Board condemns the assertion that Vatican leaders should not be criticized or held accountable for the failure, or possible unwillingness, to end a world-wide pattern of abuse. Even with all considerations of multiculturalism and church privilege taken into account, there can still be no just argument for excusing this kind of negligence.

http://www.stanforddaily.com/2010/04/08/editorial-in-abuse-scandal-vatican-is-not-excused-from-criticism/

greendzflash

04-12-2010, 03:36 PM

1) Correct.

2) I agree that him aiding and abetting (perverting the course of justice as it is known here) is wrong. My point is that those directly responsible (the paedophiles and the bishops moving them around and keeping it hush hush for so long) are the ones who are responsible and should face the harshest punishments. The pope, several hundred miles away in a different country and almost a different generation to the crimes should not be the one facing the most severe (or only as some people want to see) accusations. We're talking about crimes decades old here as people have pointed out. He was not the first one to cover them, not by a long way. A lot of people seem to want to punish him asif he personally abused the children or decided at the time having chatted the to perverts personally he'd save their skins.

This has been happening for years and he just happened to be the pontiff when it came out. This policy went all the way up and he went along with it in order to try and save the reputation of the church. Which I agree was wrong and stupid. But i dont think he should be lynched and burned alive as a lot of people want to see apparantly...

Agreed on both counts

but surely he must have known about it BEFORE he became Pope and there then could be a distinct possibility that he COULD have been one of the ones moving the others around?

just thinking outside the box here.

Volksgrenadier

04-12-2010, 03:50 PM

Its all fine and dandy, but if it were up to believers he would go free. Where is the outrage? Why isn't any catholic leader condemning the practice that has lead to much suffering among children.

have you read the numerous letters written by the pope latelly?

Johnny_H02

04-12-2010, 03:59 PM

I like Dawkins and he is right to call the pope out on this issue. Arresting him is a very strong move though and if ... if there is sufficient evidence that Ratzinger was involved in the cover up why shouldn't he stand trial like any other criminal? I can't believe there are rational people who think that because hes the pope hes above the law. If hes innocent then the evidence or lack there of will clear him.

I'm not really a religious person by any stretch and I think that Pope John Paul II was a honourable man who stood for many good things, this new guy though if hes involved in the plot then he should fry with everyone else that covered up or participated in those despicable crimes of child rape don't call it child abuse thats mislead child rape is exactly what happened and there should be no softening language used to describe it.

Connaught Ranger

04-12-2010, 04:02 PM

Connaught Ranger

04-12-2010, 04:06 PM

have you read the numerous letters written by the pope latelly?

The victims in the Irish Republic came out in protest at the lax response offered by the Pope to their suffering.

I would be inclined to belive they are the ones in the right capacity to determine if the Pope response was valid.

Johnny_H02

04-12-2010, 04:09 PM

Yeah, I wasn't going to grand-stand Pope John Paul II and he too was the head of the Church during the start of the recognition of the horrible crimes committed on children, I just wasnt ever aware he was directly implicated. I know its semantics but this joker actually had his hands tied up in this affair.I spoke out of turn with regards to John Paul and I should have just professed ignorance to it. Where however does it stop? When does the civilized world stop playing with kid gloves to a organization that although never sanctioned child rape were accomplices in covering it up? The buck has to stop somewhere if not Ratzinger will it be the next pope? No pope? Just get the underlings 20 + 30 years after the fact?

Corrupt

04-12-2010, 04:15 PM

The first posts in this thread are probably from believers, attacking Dawkins. Why? Because he is a well known atheist. Not a word condemning the Pope or the priests.

I'm attacking Dawkins because he's a tw@t pushing his own ageda and publicity, rather than trying to target those responsible for physically abusing the children. As you yourself said, this is in danger of bemind a faith/non faith debate. I know iv condemned the priests several times, or did you miss that in your efforts to brand me as a fan of casual child rape.... As for the pope, I maintain he should not be the one in the firing line (certainly not solely) given how long this has been going on (certainly longer than he was the head of the church) as he did not start the cover up or condone the maltreatment of children...

Im going to quote the wiki article here...For anyone confused Joseph Ratzinger was his name before he became pope..

As Cardinal, Joseph Ratzinger had tried to investigate cases of ****** abuse as head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, but his efforts were blocked by Pope John Paul II. Cardinal Christoph Schönborn explained that Ratzinger "made entirely clear efforts not to cover things up but to tackle and investigate them. This was not always met with approval in the Vatican". According to Schönborn, Cardinal Ratzinger had pressed John Paul II in vain to investigate ****** abuse cases Biographer Andrea Tornielli also suggested that Cardinal Ratzinger had wanted to take action against Marcial Maciel Degollado, the founder of the Legion of Christ, but that John Paul II had defended him. Despite strong opposition from John Paul II, Ratzinger took it upon himself to start an investigation of Maciel already in 2004. Once he become pope, he forced Maciel to resign. He would refer to the abusers as "filth" and starting a tough campaign of zero tolerance for ****** abuse, acting far more aggressively against ****** abusers than any other leading cardinals or recent popes

As I have said many times, he was not the one to actively cover this up and start this policy, and the previous pope (and probably ones before that aswell) wanted this kept quiet.

but surely he must have known about it BEFORE he became Pope and there then could be a distinct possibility that he COULD have been one of the ones moving the others around?

He knew about it as a cardinal before becoming pope aswell, we know that anyway. But this crime dates back to about the time he was born, if not longer.

kamaz

04-12-2010, 04:38 PM

what the church has done here is doubly shameful and criminal.

first, the church is quiet about these rapists for decades, moving them around and never calling the police or reporting the crimes to the public, all in name of church tradition, then they go out and start comparing the obvious criticism and anger at this latest child rape, to what the Jews went through during the pogroms. They spit on the names of the child victims and on the names of thousands of jews who died in real persecution.

disgusting..

We Can't Let the Pope Decide Who's a Criminal
Bringing priestly offenders and the church's enablers to justice.
By Christopher Hitchens
Posted Monday, April 12, 2010, at 10:47 AM ET
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In 2002, according to devout Catholic columnist Ross Douthat, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger spoke the following words to an audience in Spain:

I am personally convinced that the constant presence in the press of the sins of Catholic priests, especially in the United States, is a planned campaign ... to discredit the church.

On April 10, the New York Times—the apparent center of this "planned campaign"—reprinted a copy of a letter personally signed by Ratzinger in 1985. The letter urged lenience in the case of the Rev. Stephen Kiesle, who had tied up and ******ly tormented two small boys on church property in California. Kiesle's superiors had written to Ratzinger's office in Rome, beseeching him to remove the criminal from the priesthood. The man who is now his holiness the pope was full of urgent moral advice in response. "The good of the Universal Church," he wrote, should be uppermost in the mind. It should be understood that "particularly regarding the young age" of Father Kiesle, there might be great "detriment" caused "within the community of Christ's faithful" if he were to be removed. The good father was then aged 38. His victims—not that their tender ages of 11 and 13 seem to have mattered—were children. In the ensuing decades, Kiesle went on to ruin the lives of several more children and was finally jailed by the secular authorities on a felony molestation charge in 2004. All this might have been avoided if he had been handed over to justice right away and if the Oakland diocese had called the police rather than written to the office in Rome where it was Ratzinger's job to muffle and suppress such distressing questions.

Contrast this to the even more appalling case of the school for deaf children in Wisconsin where the Rev. Lawrence Murphy was allowed unhindered access to more than 200 unusually defenseless victims. Again the same pattern: repeated petitions from the local diocese to have the criminal "unfrocked" (an odd term when you think about it) met with stony indifference from Ratzinger's tightly run bureaucracy. Finally a begging letter to Ratzinger from the filthy Father Murphy himself, complaining of the frailty of his health and begging to be buried with full priestly honors, in his frock. Which he was. At last, a human plea not falling on deaf ears! (You should pardon the expression.)

So in one case a child rapist escaped judgment and became an enabled reoffender because he was too young. In the next, a child rapist was sheltered after a career of *** torture of disabled children because he was too old! Such compassion.

It must be noted, also, that all the letters from diocese to Ratzinger and from Ratzinger to diocese were concerned only with one question: Can this hurt Holy Mother Church? It was as if the children were irrelevant or inconvenient (as with the case of the raped boys in Ireland forced to sign confidentiality agreements by the man who is still the country's cardinal). Note, next, that there was a written, enforced, and consistent policy of avoiding contact with the law. And note, finally, that there was a preconceived Ratzinger propaganda program of blaming the press if any of the criminal conduct or obstruction of justice ever became known.

The obscene culmination of this occurred on Good Friday, when the pope sat through a sermon delivered by an underling in which the exposure of his church's crimes was likened to persecution and even—this was a gorgeous detail—to the pogroms against the Jews. I have never before been accused of taking part in a pogrom or lynching, let alone joining a mob that is led by raped deaf children, but I'm proud to take part in this one.

The keyword is Law. Ever since the church gave refuge to Cardinal Bernard Law of Boston to spare him the inconvenience of answering questions under oath, it has invited the metastasis of this horror. And now the tumor has turned up just where you might have expected—moving from the bosom to the very head of the church. And by what power or right is the fugitive cardinal shielded? Only by the original agreement between Benito Mussolini and the papacy that created the pseudo-state of Vatican City in the Lateran Pact of 1929, Europe's last remaining monument to the triumph of Fascism. This would be bad enough, except that Ratzinger himself is now exposed as being personally as well as institutionally responsible for obstructing justice and protecting and enabling pederasts.

One should not blame only the church here. Where was American law enforcement during the decades when children were prey? Where was international law while the Vatican became a place of asylum and a source of protection for those who licensed or carried out the predation? Page through any of the reports of child-rape and torture from Ireland, Australia, the United States, Germany—and be aware that there is much worse to come. Where is it written that the Roman Catholic Church is the judge in its own case? Above or beyond the law? Able to use private courts? Allowed to use funds donated by the faithful to pay hush money to the victims or their families?

There are two choices. We can swallow the shame, roll up the First Amendment, and just admit that certain heinous crimes against innocent citizens are private business or are not crimes if they are committed by priests and excused by popes. Or perhaps we can shake off the awful complicity that reports this ongoing crime as a "problem" for the church and not as an outrage to the victims and to the judicial system. Isn't there one district attorney or state attorney general in America who can decide to represent the children? Nobody in Eric Holder's vaunted department of no-immunity justice? If not, then other citizens will have to approach the bench. In London, as already reported by the Sunday Times and the Press Association, some experienced human-rights lawyers will be challenging Ratzinger's right to land in Britain with immunity in September. If he gets away with it, then he gets away with it, and the faithful can be proud of their supreme leader. But this we can promise, now that his own signature has been found on Father Kiesle's permission to rape: There will be only one subject of conversation until Ratzinger calls off his visit, and only one subject if he decides to try to go through with it. In either event, he will be remembered for only one thing long after he is dead.

timetraveller

04-12-2010, 05:48 PM

Is he trying to start a religous war? Britain is a protestant country and if they went ahead and did this when the pope was making a state visit then it would be seen by many Catholics as an attack by the crown on the church as a whole. not to mention it could stir up trouble in Ireland between the Catholics and Protestants.

Also I agree that legal action against the priests be taken and that if more comes out then the pope should resign and a new one be elected.

I very much doubt that ... your simply clutching straws ,,

Why would any person give a man the time of day who simply didn't do the right thing instead he swept it under the carpet to protect the image of the church which has BACKFIRED TENFOLD !!!!!!!!!!!!!

America , Ireland , New Zealand .. and not including the payouts which will top 1 billion dollars imo

Johnny_H02

04-12-2010, 06:15 PM

Here here! That Christopher Hitchens article says it perfectly.

Sootan

04-12-2010, 11:40 PM

I'm attacking Dawkins because he's a tw@t pushing his own ageda and publicity, rather than trying to target those responsible for physically abusing the children. As you yourself said, this is in danger of bemind a faith/non faith debate. I know iv condemned the priests several times, or did you miss that in your efforts to brand me as a fan of casual child rape.... As for the pope, I maintain he should not be the one in the firing line (certainly not solely) given how long this has been going on (certainly longer than he was the head of the church) as he did not start the cover up or condone the maltreatment of children...

Im going to quote the wiki article here...For anyone confused Joseph Ratzinger was his name before he became pope..

As I have said many times, he was not the one to actively cover this up and start this policy, and the previous pope (and probably ones before that aswell) wanted this kept quiet.

He knew about it as a cardinal before becoming pope aswell, we know that anyway. But this crime dates back to about the time he was born, if not longer.

So you think he should walk, and his underlings punished?

Chairborne_Ranger

04-12-2010, 11:43 PM

I don't know which is worse, religious bigots or atheist bigots. If you can not handle someone not 100% agreeing with you, this isn't the place to be. I get tired of quasi intellectual bigots bloviating how perfect they are and rest of humanity are a bunch of primitive back water hicks.

I gather you don't read all the posts. You failed, don't do it again. As far as how it goes on this forum, read the forum rules and warning that Mods posts. We have members who think religion causes all things evil to those who think the opposition. We try to discourage bigotry, or for the intellectual powerhouses out their "equivocation" (as a metaphor).

HoLLiS, dude, when the hell was there EVER a thread here started by a "religious bigot" pushing his beliefs down everyone's throats? When have "religious bigots" ever even attempted to push their beliefs on Atheists in a thread such this one here? All I see in this thread and others like it is people like spineshank telling us how stupid we all are for believing in stuff. I swear this guy is in just about EVERY thread that is even remotely critical of Christianity. Him and others like him in this forum ever does is use these discussions to spread their hatred of Christianity. If you aske me, he's already broken the rules of this forum several times over.

I know you're trying to be politcially correct and all to non-believers, but the only "bigots" I see here are ones who don't have a religion.

sepheronx

04-12-2010, 11:46 PM

Chairborne_Ranger

04-12-2010, 11:55 PM

Not to mention that he and others who actually think they really know what is going on in our universe, sounds stupid regardless.
Cannot prove or disprove it. At this point, no real reason to debate about it.

I'm not even attempting to debate the existence of God here. All I'm saying is that these threads end up being a one-sided discussion on why those of us with spiritual beliefs (Christians being the main target) are stupid and how we're all worse than Hitler or something.

Hollis

04-13-2010, 12:08 AM

I know you're trying to be politcially correct and all to non-believers, but the only "bigots" I see here are ones who don't have a religion.

I don't think I am PC. Problem as I see it, you are partially right on the "bigots", we also have other religions that get slammed even by people who have a religion, just a different religion. Now if members didn't stop using sweeping generalization, painting all the members of a certain group with the same brush and such and we banned everyone member that did that. How many members do you thing we would have left? Sometimes there are other solutions rather than just whacking a member. Some of our members change for the better over time, or figure out how to work the system. We will see.

BTW most members are very good and I think that helps people to learn. Some threads start off as a flame and end up being a decent discussion.

La8pv

04-13-2010, 03:24 AM

HoLLiS, dude, when the hell was there EVER a thread here started by a "religious bigot" pushing his beliefs down everyone's throats? When have "religious bigots" ever even attempted to push their beliefs on Atheists in a thread such this one here? All I see in this thread and others like it is people like spineshank telling us how stupid we all are for believing in stuff. I swear this guy is in just about EVERY thread that is even remotely critical of Christianity. Him and others like him in this forum ever does is use these discussions to spread their hatred of Christianity. If you aske me, he's already broken the rules of this forum several times over.

I know you're trying to be politcially correct and all to non-believers, but the only "bigots" I see here are ones who don't have a religion.

Stop crying, and stop sending me messages in private while your at it. This tread wasn't about faith vs non faith and most people have tried to keep it so.

I have no hatred towards Christianity, if you really want to now my feelings towards religions in general I would use the word "unnecessary".

I'm going to quote myself quoting an Indian freethinker from an earlier post again.

In fact, I do not engage in debate with believers any more. At least, I try not to. This is the least effective strategy for someone like myself, since many religious folk seem to be unable to make the distinction between personal attacks and criticism of ideas.

wildcat

04-13-2010, 03:30 AM

I'm going to quote myself quoting an Indian freethinker from an earlier post again.

good quote thanks.

randir14

04-13-2010, 04:40 AM

What we need is a good old fashioned Antipope. Let all the cardinals and bishops who are sick of the filth and coverups elect one.

Corrupt

04-13-2010, 06:04 AM

What we need is a good old fashioned Antipope. Let all the cardinals and bishops who are sick of the filth and coverups elect one.

Did you read the posts about how this was going on for decades and the last pope covered it up too and this pope inherited the secret having had moves to let it out blocked by the last pope?

Holmes85

04-13-2010, 06:20 AM

Did you read the posts about how this was going on for decades and the last pope covered it up too and this pope inherited the secret having had moves to let it out blocked by the last pope?

By now, I think it should be somewhat obvious that many people will never bother to read through the entire thread before commenting.:|

Chairborne_Ranger

04-13-2010, 11:16 AM

Stop crying, and stop sending me messages in private while your at it. This tread wasn't about faith vs non faith and most people have tried to keep it so.

I have no hatred towards Christianity, if you really want to now my feelings towards religions in general I would use the word "unnecessary".

I'm going to quote myself quoting an Indian freethinker from an earlier post again.

Lol, "stop crying"? Is that all you got? I simply stated a simple fact about these types of threads, and with that statement you're just proving my point. These threads do end up being ONE SIDED anti-religious hate feasts by the likes of you.

So this means that since there isn't proof that pink uncorns doesn't exist, the probability of pink unicorns existing is the same as them not existing. right?

You were the first to make this thread about faith vs non faith to begin with. Everything you have posted makes you sound just as bad as a pretentious smartass Bible thumper.

theholeinthedonut

04-13-2010, 11:32 AM

Beati spiritu pauperes

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article7096149.ece

LineDoggie

04-13-2010, 11:42 AM

Beati spiritu pauperes

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article7096149.eceAnd until 1985? ILGA welcomed pedophile groups such as NAMBLA within it's ranks. Only when the Bad PR of having Kiddy Fiddlers cut funding/donations did they throw them out.

La8pv

04-13-2010, 11:52 AM

Lol, "stop crying"? Is that all you got? I simply stated a simple fact about these types of threads, and with that statement you're just proving my point. These threads do end up being ONE SIDED anti-religious hate feasts by the likes of you.

You were the first to make this thread about faith vs non faith to begin with. Everything you have posted makes you sound just as bad as a pretentious smartass Bible thumper.

So this means that since there isn't proof that pink unicorns doesn't exist, the probability of pink unicorns existing is the same as them not existing. right?

Was a reply to this:

Absence of proof for any once position is not the presence of proof for the other.

Do I need to quote the Indian freethinker again?

junglejim

04-13-2010, 11:55 AM

Chairborne_Ranger

04-13-2010, 11:57 AM

Was a reply to this:

Do I need to quote the Indian freethinker again?

Oh come on, you're going to seriously tell me there was no hint of religious criticism behind that statement? Besides, that wasnt your only pretentious atheist thumping statement here.

IronFinn

04-13-2010, 11:59 AM

I think some people in this thread could seriously profit from spending a few sundays(or saturdays depending) in a church. I think it do them a bit of good to see that your average church goer is not stupid nor crazy and especially not the least bit violent. Yeah there are bizarre churches out there, but they don't represent the majority despite getting the majority of attention. Most of the vitriol I hear from atheists seems to stem from pure ignorance of what religion looks like from the inside.

I don't practice any religion but I know many who do, and they are good people.

This is where I think you are wrong. I believe that most of atheists are "apostates" from a religion of some sort. Like myself, my parents are lutherans who made me say prayers at night etc. but I turned out to be a atheist nevertheless.

Chairborne_Ranger

04-13-2010, 12:02 PM

As a Roman Catholic, let me say... burn them! Burn all the pedophile priests once convicted. Place them on spikes and burn them all.

Seriously, the church is human it makes mistakes. To retain the sanctity of the belief, instead of denying the allegation set out to correct it by any means necessary.

The problem here is that people are using this incident to spread their anti-religious/atheist agenda. There are clearly hundreds of cases of child abuse in schools, little league sports, boy scouts, etc. But nobody acusses any of these institutions as being deliberatly responsible for these abuses. When was the last time you heard the media crying for the resignation of a federal secretary/minister of education because of the literrally hundreds of cases of child abuse that takes place in public schools?

La8pv

04-13-2010, 12:14 PM

Oh come on, you're going to seriously tell me there was no hint of religious criticism behind that statement? Besides, that wasnt your only pretentious atheist thumping statement here.

Actually no- its a very good argument against the argument the other user presented. If you feel that it is a good argument against your deity I can't help it.

Let's not derail this thread any further.

junglejim

04-13-2010, 12:15 PM

actually no- its a very good argument against the argument the other user presented. If you feel that it is a good argument against your deity i can't help it.

Let's not derail this thread any further.

http://img717.imageshack.us/img717/2214/childrencornisaac.jpg (http://img717.imageshack.us/i/childrencornisaac.jpg/)

unbeliever!!!

;)

kamaz

04-13-2010, 12:23 PM

kamaz

04-13-2010, 12:28 PM

Was a reply to this:

Do I need to quote the Indian freethinker again?

someone once also said, 'what can be presented without proof, can be dismissed without proof'

and 'extraordnary claims require extraordinary evidence'

junglejim

04-13-2010, 12:30 PM

the church's reaction to the outrage over its rape of children is in some ways even worse than the crime itself. It shows exactly how corrupt this organization is both spiritually and ideologically. The blame is always lying elsewhere, they compare themselves to innocent flocks persecuted like the jews, their completely idiotic policy of celibacy and moral judgments on lifestyle choices are not at fault here, you see its those pesky homo******s that are the real culprit.

sure AIDS is bad, but condoms are worse dont you know...

I dont understand how any moral, logical and decent person can seriously follow any of this organization teachings, considering how they are handling this latest fiasco after a long history of witch trials, pogroms, anti-scientific rulings and burnings.

To proclaim that its not their despicable practice of rotating child molesters around and suppressing normal biological urges to mate and companionship wiht religious dogma, that its not this but a group of people who have a different ****** preference then most, to suggest that these people are responsible for this evil, is more evil in itself. The church should start praying for saving themselves first, then worry about other souls. Absolutely disgusting.

Not sure if you are clear on the concept, but we do not follow the priest but the teachings of christ. they are there to preach an help the normal person understand the words of JC himself and the big G. But we dont follow the priest blindly he is just there to help us understand the teachings.... the issue here is the wrong actions they do in private and yes they should be prosecuted and it was handled in all the wrong way. But they are not the church, the church is the people.

Do you actually believe that they teach pedophilia in the sermons? How many say other non religious leaders have skeletons in their closets?

I think this is what most do not understand.

Chairborne_Ranger

04-13-2010, 12:31 PM

the church's reaction to the outrage over its rape of children is in some ways even worse than the crime itself. It shows exactly how corrupt this organization is both spiritually and ideologically. The blame is always lying elsewhere, they compare themselves to innocent flocks persecuted like the jews, their completely idiotic policy of celibacy and moral judgments on lifestyle choices are not at fault here, you see its those pesky homo******s that are the real culprit.

sure AIDS is bad, but condoms are worse dont you know...

I dont understand how any moral, logical and decent person can seriously follow any of this organization teachings, considering how they are handling this latest fiasco after a long history of witch trials, pogroms, anti-scientific rulings and burnings.

To proclaim that its not their despicable practice of rotating child molesters around and suppressing normal biological urges to mate and companionship wiht religious dogma, that its not this but a group of people who have a different ****** preference then most, to suggest that these people are responsible for this evil, is more evil in itself. The church should start praying for saving themselves first, then worry about other souls. Absolutely disgusting.

Clearly, you have not read or even bothered to pay attention to ANYTHING the Pope has done to resolve this matter. Just more anti-Catholic rethoric from you.

Budhist monks are celibate too, does that automatically making them corrupt religious child molestors? EVERY religious organization has made one mistake or another throughout history. Why don't you just come out and admit you hate the Church and all it stands for. Be honest, instead of hiding your anti-religious agenda behind your so-called concern for the victims of child abuse.

Chairborne_Ranger

04-13-2010, 12:33 PM

I think this is what most do not understand.

I've come to the conclusion that they DON'T want to understand anything about the Church. They only spend time digging for "facts" whenever the Church faces a crisis, and are only ever concerned about slandering the Church. As "open" minded as they claim to be, the atheists who cling to this incident are really showing how they are quite the opposite.

SniperRu

04-13-2010, 01:22 PM

I've come to the conclusion that they DON'T want to understand anything about the Church. They only spend time digging for "facts" whenever the Church faces a crisis, and are only ever concerned about slandering the Church. As "open" minded as they claim to be, the atheists who cling to this incident are really showing how they are quite the opposite.

The track record of the catholic church is way too big and horrible to be "open-minded". Its like saying: hey sure, the nazis did some mistakes like the holocaust, but lets keep an open mind will ya.

we do not follow the priest but the teachings of christ

Ok well then why don't you read the bible by yourself, try understand it and speak to god in private. You don't a middle man, especially when it is a multi-million dollar mafia like the Vatican.

Chairborne_Ranger

04-13-2010, 01:25 PM

The track record of the catholic church is way too big and horrible to be "open-minded". Its like saying: hey sure, the nazis did some mistakes like the holocaust, but lets keep an open mind will ya.

Ok well then why don't you read the bible by yourself, try understand it and speak to god in private. You don't a middle man, especially when it is a multi-million dollar mafia like the Vatican.

Oh okay, so you're saying the Church is the ONLY organization that had members who are child molestors. The Nazis were the only organization in history to systematically exterminate jews. Wow, really nice comparison there. And what track record? And how long did Nazi germany exist for again?

Also, both preists and non-ordained members of the Church are free to leave whenever they want y'know? So comparing it to both the Nazis and especially the Mafia is truely pathetic.

SniperRu

04-13-2010, 01:26 PM

Not to mention that he and others who actually think they really know what is going on in our universe, sounds stupid regardless.
Cannot prove or disprove it. At this point, no real reason to debate about it.

Those who seek answers through real stuff like science actually know more about the universe than those who seek them in a 2000 year old fairy tale book.

junglejim

04-13-2010, 01:29 PM

Ok well then why don't you read the bible by yourself, try understand it and speak to god in private. You don't a middle man, especially when it is a multi-million dollar mafia like the Vatican.

Let me entertain you with this reply:

Because to understand what was written on the bible you need to understand the context it was written in with regards to the time and the environment that those words were written. Something that most people neither have the luxury or the time to dedicate for such studies.

But my true answer is: It's really none of your god damn business on how I want to interact with my religion, if I want to talk to a priest or sit down and read it myslef is up to me and not for you or the others to say. but somehow its really hard for some of you to get that.

Like I said the church is the people not the individual. Since you mentioned Nazi, what you want to do is destroy the Germans and not just the individual Nazis.

SniperRu

04-13-2010, 01:30 PM

Oh okay, so I guess the Church is the ONLY organization that had members who are child molestors, just like the Nazis were the only organization in history to systematically exterminate jews. Wow, really nice comparison there. And how long did Nazi germany exist for again?

ok so because they're not the only ones somehow makes it less bad? and Im not only talking about the child molesting, kamaz's post resemed well their track record, here ill quote it again:

the church's reaction to the outrage over its rape of children is in some ways even worse than the crime itself. It shows exactly how corrupt this organization is both spiritually and ideologically. The blame is always lying elsewhere, they compare themselves to innocent flocks persecuted like the jews, their completely idiotic policy of celibacy and moral judgments on lifestyle choices are not at fault here, you see its those pesky homo******s that are the real culprit.

sure AIDS is bad, but condoms are worse dont you know...

I dont understand how any moral, logical and decent person can seriously follow any of this organization teachings, considering how they are handling this latest fiasco after a long history of witch trials, pogroms, anti-scientific rulings and burnings.

To proclaim that its not their despicable practice of rotating child molesters around and suppressing normal biological urges to mate and companionship wiht religious dogma, that its not this but a group of people who have a different ****** preference then most, to suggest that these people are responsible for this evil, is more evil in itself. The church should start praying for saving themselves first, then worry about other souls. Absolutely disgusting.

Chairborne_Ranger

04-13-2010, 01:31 PM

Those who seek answers through real stuff like science actually know more about the universe than those who seek them in a 2000 year old fairy tale book.

Thank you so much for proving my point about pretentious smart ass atheist thumpers. Keep it up!

Chairborne_Ranger

04-13-2010, 01:34 PM

ok so because they're not the only ones somehow makes it less bad? and Im not only talking about the child molesting, kamaz's post resemed well their track record, here ill quote it again:

I never said this makes it less bad. You're trying to make it seem like the abuse is part of the Church's doctrine. So Kamaz's post is the actual record of the Church? And no, you clearly are not only talking about the abuse (if at all). You simply want an excuse to insult the Church in any way possible and are only using this particular subject of abuse to disguise your hateful comments about it.

SniperRu

04-13-2010, 01:41 PM

kamaz

04-13-2010, 01:42 PM

Let me entertain you with this reply:

Because to understand what was written on the bible you need to understand the context it was written in with regards to the time and the environment that those words were written. Something that most people neither have the luxury or the time to dedicate for such studies.

But my true answer is: It's really none of your god damn business on how I want to interact with my religion, if I want to talk to a priest or sit down and read it myslef is up to me and not for you or the others to say. but somehow its really hard for some of you to get that.

Like I said the church is the people not the individual. Since you mentioned Nazi, what you want to do is destroy the Germans and not just the individual Nazis.

what do you mean the church is the 'people not individual'. The church has a doctrine, a set of rules and edicts through which it expects all catholics to conduct themselves and view their world. It has a strict command structure and ranking system, Im sure you already know this. So when you tell me that the 60 years of cover ups, reshuffling of pedophile priests, the silencing of victims by paying them out with cash, hushing up investigations and protecting criminals in the name of 'benefit of the church' - in Ratzingers own words, if you tell me this is all done by some random 'individuals' and the church itself is not to blame, you are insulting my intelligence and clearly showing yours.

I really cant imagine Jesus if he really existed, picturing that this is what his teaching would end up like, pontiffs draped in gold living in a golden palace, passing down edicts on morality and judging people by a Bronze-age set of values, burning 'heretics' at the stake, hiding pedophiles to avoid scrutiny, creating and spreading poverty and death by insisting that *** is bad and condoms are wrong.. Grand ****ouncements on ******ity and morality written by old virgins.

kamaz

04-13-2010, 01:49 PM

I never said this makes it less bad. You're trying to make it seem like the abuse is part of the Church's doctrine. So Kamaz's post is the actual record of the Church? And no, you clearly are not only talking about the abuse (if at all). You simply want an excuse to insult the Church in any way possible and are only using this particular subject of abuse to disguise your hateful comments about it.

relaying historical facts of church's abuses is not a 'hateful comment'. You obviously have a problem dealing with valid criticism of this organization, understandable since you are a Catholic.

ps for anyone interested, a very interesting debate on BBC regarding the Cath. church and its values.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0kuzYwzGoXw

junglejim

04-13-2010, 01:50 PM

what do you mean the church is the 'people not individual'. The church has a doctrine, a set of rules and edicts through which it expects all catholics to conduct themselves and view their world. It has a strict command structure and ranking system, Im sure you already know this. So when you tell me that the 60 years of cover ups, reshuffling of pedophile priests, the silencing of victims by paying them out with cash, hushing up investigations and protecting criminals in the name of 'benefit of the church' - in Ratzingers own words, if you tell me this is all done by some random 'individuals' and the church itself is not to blame, you are insulting my intelligence and clearly showing yours.

I really cant imagine Jesus if he really existed, picturing that this is what his teaching would end up like, pontiffs draped in gold living in a golden palace, passing down edicts on morality and judging people by a Bronze-age set of values, burning 'heretics' at the stake, hiding pedophiles to avoid scrutiny, creating and spreading poverty and death by insisting that *** is bad and condoms are wrong.. Grand ****ouncements on ******ity and morality written by old virgins.

The church is the people, the rank and structure are the people serving under it. We dont worship the pope or the people in its ranks. The power that they wield is only up to how much an individual would allow itself to be beholden unto that structure. The cover ups and actions done by these individuals is done by them and not by the Roman Catholics. Rome can burn to the ground and the church will still exist... as much as you would cringe at that thought.

SniperRu

04-13-2010, 01:50 PM

Thank you so much for proving my point about pretentious smart ass atheist thumpers. Keep it up!

I only speak for myself

I never said this makes it less bad. You're trying to make it seem like the abuse is part of the Church's doctrine. So Kamaz's post is the actual record of the Church? And no, you clearly are not only talking about the abuse (if at all). You simply want an excuse to insult the Church in any way possible and are only using this particular subject of abuse to disguise your hateful comments about it.

The abuse no, tho it is so widespread that one might think so. However covering up these abuses definetly looks like a doctrine. Oh and please tell me whats so "hateful" and "insulting" in denouncing crimes cover up, anti-condom speeches, witch trials, inquisitions, anti-scientific ruling and burnings?

junglejim

04-13-2010, 01:54 PM

relaying historical facts of church's abuses is not a 'hateful comment'. You obviously have a problem dealing with valid criticism of this organization, understandable since you are a Catholic.

Some of us will actually not react if we keep the discussion on to the issue, which most agree that it is wrong and how it was handled was worse. However, most of you feel like you have to attack the belief as well. With comments side comments about the faith. Run a thread that sticks to the topic and I'm sure you will find the the most devout catholics in here would actually agree that things must be changed and people punished.

Chairborne_Ranger

04-13-2010, 01:55 PM

relaying historical facts of church's abuses is not a 'hateful comment'. You obviously have a problem dealing with valid criticism of this organization, understandable since you are a Catholic.

IGNORING the fact that the Church has already apologized, changed it's ways since "witch burnings", and is actively doing things to prevent future abuse is just as bad. ALL you focus on is the worst things you can dig up about the Church. You're not even TRYING to look at the other facts. You are not a valid critic if you only look at one side. You're just another narrow minded atheist who can't stand the fact that there are people who think differently than you do.

Chairborne_Ranger

04-13-2010, 01:58 PM

I only speak for myself

The abuse no, tho it is so widespread that one might think so. However covering up these abuses definetly looks like a doctrine. Oh and please tell me whats so "hateful" and "insulting" in denouncing crimes cover up, anti-condom speeches, witch trials, inquisitions, anti-scientific ruling and burnings?

Hmm, let me think. Does the church still conduct witch trials? Isn't denouncing these abusers something that this current Pope and the last pope has been doing for the last decade now? You keep hammering these accusations over and over again, you're nothing more than a bully with some unreasonable hatred for the Church and those of us who chose to be members of it.

SniperRu

04-13-2010, 02:05 PM

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...cution-dawkins

The pope should stand trial

Why is anyone surprised when Christopher Hitchens and I call for the prosecution of the pope? There is a clear case to answer

****** abuse of children is not unique to the Roman Catholic church, and Joseph Ratzinger is not one of those priests who raped altar boys while in a position of dominance and trust. But as so often it is the subsequent cover-ups, even more than the original crimes, that do most to discredit an institution, and here the pope is in real trouble.

Pope Benedict XVI is the head of the institution as a whole, but we can't blame the present head for what was done before his watch. Except that in his particular case, as archbishop of Munich and as Cardinal Ratzinger, head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (what used to be called the Inquisition), the very least you can say is that there is a case for him to answer. See, for example, three articles by my colleague Christopher Hitchens here, here, and here. The latest smoking gun is the 1985 letter obtained by the Associated Press, signed by the then Cardinal Ratzinger to the diocese of Oakland about the case of Father Stephen Kiesle, mercilessly analysed by Andrew Sullivan here.

Lashing out in desperation, church spokesmen are now blaming everybody but themselves for their current dire plight, which one official spokesman likens to the worst aspects of antisemitism (what are the best ones, I wonder?). Suggested culprits include the media, the Jews, and even Satan. The church is hiding behind a seemingly endless stream of excuses for having failed in its legal and moral obligation to report serious crimes to the appropriate civil authorities. But it was Cardinal Ratzinger's official responsibility to determine the church's response to allegations of child *** abuse, and his letter in the Kiesle case makes the real motivation devastatingly explicit. Here are his actual words, translated from the Latin in the AP report:

"This court, although it regards the arguments presented in favour of removal in this case to be of grave significance, nevertheless deems it necessary to consider the good of the universal church together with that of the petitioner, and it is also unable to make light of the detriment that granting the dispensation can provoke with the community of Christ's faithful, particularly regarding the young age of the petitioner."

"The young age of the petitioner" refers to Kiesle, then aged 38, not the age of any of the boys he tied up and raped (11 and 13). It is completely clear that, together with a nod to the welfare of the "young" priest, Ratzinger's primary concern, and the reason he refused to unfrock Kiesle (who went on to re-offend) was "the good of the universal church".

This pattern of putting church PR over and above the welfare of the children in its care (and what an understatement that is) is repeated over and over again in the cover-ups that are now coming to light, all over the world. And Ratzinger himself expressed it with damning clarity in this smoking gun letter.

In this case he was refusing the strong request of the local bishop that Kiesle should be unfrocked. Vatican standing orders were to refer such cases not to the civil authorities but to the church itself. The current campaign to call the church to account can take credit for the fact that this standing order has just changed, as of Monday 12 April 2010. Better late than never, as Galileo might have remarked in 1979, when the Vatican finally got around to a posthumous pardon.

Suppose the British secretary of state for schools received, from a local education authority, a reliable report of a teacher tying up his pupils and raping them. Imagine that, instead of turning the matter over to the police, he had simply moved the offender from school to school, where he repeatedly raped other children. That would be bad enough. But now suppose that he justified his decision in terms such as these:

"Although I regard the arguments in favour of prosecution, presented by the local education authority, as of grave significance, I nevertheless deem it necessary to consider the good of the government and the party, together with that of the offending teacher. And I am also unable to make light of the detriment that prosecuting the offender can provoke among voters, particularly regarding the young age of the offender."

The analogy breaks down, only in that we aren't talking about a single offending priest, but many thousands, all over the world.

Why is the church allowed to get away with it, when any government minister who was caught writing such a letter would immediately have to resign in ignominy, and face prosecution himself? A religious leader, such as the pope, should be no different. That is why, along with Christopher Hitchens, I am supporting the current investigation of the pope's criminal complicity by Geoffrey Robertson QC and Mark Stephens. These excellent lawyers believe that, for a start, they have a persuasive case against the Vatican's status as a sovereign state, on the basis that it was just an ad hoc concoction driven by internal Italian politics under Mussolini, and was never given full status at the UN. If they succeed in this initial argument, the pope could not claim diplomatic immunity as a head of state, and could be arrested if he steps on British soil.

Why is anyone surprised, much less shocked, when Christopher Hitchens and I call for the prosecution of the pope, if he goes ahead with his proposed visit to Britain? The only strange thing about our proposal is that it had to come from us: where have the world's governments been all this time? Where is their moral fibre? Where is their commitment to treating everyone equally under the law? The UK government, far from standing up for justice for the innocent victims of the Roman Catholic church, is preparing to welcome this grotesquely tainted man on an official visit to the UK so that he can "dispense moral guidance". Read that again: dispense moral guidance!

Unfortunately I must end in bathos, with a necessary correction of a damaging error in another newspaper. The Sunday Times of 11 April, on its front page, printed the headline, "Richard Dawkins: I will arrest Pope Benedict XVI." This conjures up – as was doubtless intended – a ludicrous image of me ambushing the pontiff with a pair of handcuffs and marching him off in a half Nelson. Blood out of a stone, but I finally managed to persuade that Murdoch paper to change the headline in the online edition.

Never mind headlines invented by foolish sub-editors, we are serious. It should be for a court to decide – a civil court, not a whitewashing ecclesiastical court – whether the case against Ratzinger is as damning as it looks. If he is innocent, let him have the opportunity to demonstrate it in court. If he is guilty, let him face justice. Just like anybody else.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2010/apr/13/pope-prosecution-dawkins

kamaz

04-13-2010, 02:05 PM

IGNORING the fact that the Church has already apologized, changed it's ways since "witch burnings", and is actively doing things to prevent future abuse is just as bad. ALL you focus on is the worst things you can dig up about the Church. You're not even TRYING to look at the other facts. You are not a valid critic if you only look at one side. You're just another narrow minded atheist who can't stand the fact that there are people who think differently than you do.

please dont make assumptions about my views of the universe. You are exactly like the criminal who sits in court for a crime, and when the jury disusses the crime, the criminal is astounded, 'but why do you only talk about this crime? I helped old ladies cross the street once or twice, why dont you menton that ??"

Let me put it this way, if the Church was a secular organization or any company or non-religious organization, there would be investigations and many arrests over these obvious and documented cover ups and hushing of victims and their families. But because its a religious organization that doestn pay taxes, everyone is supposed to just ignore this and forget about what happened.

Oh besides actively hiding criminals to protect the church's reputation, the church also runs soup kitchens for the poor (so my criticism is now 'valid')

Chairborne_Ranger

04-13-2010, 02:10 PM

please dont make assumptions about my views of the universe. You are exactly like the criminal who sits in court for a crime, and when the jury disusses the crime, the criminal is astounded, 'but why do you only talk about this crime? I helped old ladies cross the street once or twice, why dont you menton that ??"

Let me put it this way, if the Church was a secular organization or any company or non-religious organization, there would be investigations and many arrests over these obvious and documented cover ups and hushing of victims and their families. But because its a religious organization that doestn pay taxes, everyone is supposed to just ignore this and forget about what happened.

Oh besides actively hiding criminals to protect the church's reputation, the church also runs soup kitchens for the poor (so my criticism is now 'valid')

When did anyone here say it was alright for those preists to have been hiden and rotated around? When? What I'm saying is that YOU and others like you are trying to make the world believe this OUTRIGHT LIE that the abuse is part of the Church doctrine and tradition. The accused have already been denounced and are facing justice. But clearly that is not enough for you people. You just want the Church wiped out from the face of the universe and you're just clinging to this latest media craze to do so.

Connaught Ranger

04-13-2010, 02:48 PM

Getting the thread back to topic:-

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/22/20100413/tts-uk-pope-abuse-ca02f96.html
Vatican scoffs at idea of arresting pope in Britain

2 hours 40 mins ago
http://l.yimg.com/i/i/uk/ne/reute.jpg (http://uk.rd.yahoo.com/*******online/SIG=114rh0n4s/**http%3A%2F%2Fwww.*******.co.uk%2F) Philip Pullella

Buzz Up!
Print Story (http://uk.news.yahoo.com/22/20100413/tts-uk-pope-abuse-ca02f96.html?printer=1)

The Vatican said on Tuesday Pope Benedict was willing to meet more ****** abuse victims but not under media pressure and scoffed at calls for the pope to be arrested when he visits Britain in September. Skip related content (http://uk.news.yahoo.com/22/20100413/tts-uk-pope-abuse-ca02f96.html#ynw-article-part2)
Related photos / videos

http://d.yimg.com/i/ng/ne/rtrs/20100413/14/4113091597-pope-benedict-xvi-waves-during-sunday-angelus-prayer-residence-castelgandolfo.jpg?x=310&y=231&q=75&wc=408&hc=305&xc=15&yc=1&sig=MIuCB2BVBG9byXLLDYgNfg--#310,231 Pope Benedict XVI waves during the Sunday Angelus prayer at his residence of …More Enlarge photo (http://uk.news.yahoo.com/22/20100413/img/pts-pope-benedict-xvi-waves-80335d3edbdd.html)

A lawyer for British author and atheist campaigner Richard Dawkins said in London at the weekend he would try to have Pope Benedict arrested to face questions over accusations the Church covered up cases of ****** abuse of children by priests.

Asked about this at a briefing on the pope's trip to Malta this weekend, Vatican spokesman Father Federico Lombardi scoffed.

"This is a bizarre idea to say the least. It looks like the intent is to make a public opinion splash. I think they should look for something more serious and concrete before we can respond to it," he said.

"The pope's visit (to Britain) is a visit of state, and so it would be very strange if during a state visit the person who is invited to make a state visit is arrested," he said.

Dawkins, a scientist and outspoken critic of religion, has asked human rights lawyers to examine whether charges could be brought against the pope during the September 16-19 trip.

The Vatican has rejected accusations the pope helped to cover up abuse by priests in jobs he held before his election in 2005 and has accused the media of waging a "despicable campaign of defamation" against him.

In Washington, the American Humanist Association, which advocates the rights of non-believers, backed Dawkins' view that the pope should not have diplomatic immunity as a head of state and called for a "criminal investigation" of the church.

"Religious institutions should not be exempt from such scrutiny just because they are religious, and they should be held accountable for any criminal wrongdoing," the AHA said in a statement.

The Vatican said last week that Benedict, who travels to Malta on Saturday, would be willing to meet more victims, as he had during his trips to the United States and Australia (http://uk.news.yahoo.com/fc/australia-new-zealand.html).

The pope feels that meetings with victims should take place "in a climate that is intentionally one of reflection, discreet, and not under pressure of the glare of the media, so he can have a real possibility to listen and communicate personally," Lombardi said.

MALTESE MEN SUING PRIESTS

Ten Maltese men who are suing three priests for alleged child abuse have requested a private meeting with the pope.

Lombardi said he could not say if a meeting would take place. "I am not the one who decides what the pope does during his trips," Lombardi said, adding that such meetings were not announced in advance but confirmed only after they take place.

A spokesman for the Maltese men said they wanted a meeting "to help us heal and to overcome this trauma".

So far, the pope has not spoken out directly on the new wave of ****** abuse allegations that is besetting the Church in a number of countries, including the United States, Italy and his native Germany (http://uk.news.yahoo.com/fc/germany.html). He last spoke about it in a letter to the Irish people on March 20.

In Malta, which is about 95 percent Catholic, billboards publicising the papal visit were daubed last week with images related to ****** abuse.

The crisis over abuse of children by priests shows no sign of abating, with new revelations emerging almost daily and the Vatican scrambling to find a response strategy.

On Monday the Vatican published an online guide to rules for handling *** abuse charges against priests. It made clear high up that bishops must report crimes to the police, saying that "civil law concerning reporting of crimes to the appropriate authorities should always be followed".

Also on Monday, a new report commissioned by the Church in Germany said children were "sadistically tormented and also ******ly abused" at a Catholic monastery in the heavily Catholic Bavaria region.

(Writing by Philip Pullella; Editing by Simon Cameron-Moore and Paul Taylor)

Russian_dude

04-14-2010, 05:38 AM

Funny how people think they know what really exists and what does not, when we know less then 0.01% of our universe and know about 10% of our ocean. So when someone says they can prove/disprove god and life after death, it is quite funny, as no one can.

Also, if someone is a child molester, regardless of what belief it is, they should be placed behind bars. Maybe the pope is trying to justify the actions, but arresting the man over someone else's actions, is going a tad bit extreme.

Lastly, this Dawkings guy, regardless if anyone thinks he is right or wrong, still has an agenda.

But ALL the responses to life's questions so far have been NATURALISTIC. We know that laws of physics are the same on this planet as a billion galaxies away.

If I give you a plain box would you assume it has an elephant inside of it just because you don't actually know what's inside?

We might find new species in the ocean, but not different laws of gravity.

Russian_dude

04-14-2010, 05:55 AM

As I mentioned before, I know a person in his late middle age, who was molested in a Belgian private school, was forced to perform oral *** on priests and there were sadistic beatings. He claims there were NUMEROUS cases that he saw. He still breaks down when he talks about it. Is he trying to simply scam the church of money? He is a mega millionaire. These cases have not even made it to the public yet.

People, what you are witnessing is the TIP OF THE ICEBERG.

Sootan

04-14-2010, 09:42 AM

Hmm, let me think. Does the church still conduct witch trials? Isn't denouncing these abusers something that this current Pope and the last pope has been doing for the last decade now? You keep hammering these accusations over and over again, you're nothing more than a bully with some unreasonable hatred for the Church and those of us who chose to be members of it.

That is ofcourse very good. So how many have been handed over to the police for trial?

Steak-Sauce

04-14-2010, 09:59 AM

People, what you are witnessing is the TIP OF THE ICEBERG.

And you are implying that every second priest out there molested young children or what is your point?

Billy No Mates

04-14-2010, 10:11 AM

My priest never molested me,true story .

Hollis

04-14-2010, 10:32 AM

But ALL the responses to life's questions so far have been NATURALISTIC. We know that laws of physics are the same on this planet as a billion galaxies away.

If I give you a plain box would you assume it has an elephant inside of it just because you don't actually know what's inside?

We might find new species in the ocean, but not different laws of gravity.

Maybe you should have taken statistic, populations analysis and some other studies. There are 1,000,000 Catholics in the world. If you use proportional representation of human behavior assuming it to be equal among all groups, then the Catholics in the world should have over three times the crime then the US (about 1/3 of a billion people) and about 1.3 times the crime of all of Europe (.7 Billion people).

Now unless you have stats on the population for deviant behavior with in the Catholic Church keep your "opinion as to the numbers" to yourself. So far you seem to be reaching way beyond facts and operation in the land of bigots.

BTW, there are appox 400,000 Priest in the world. Compare that crime stats to Europe that has 700,000 People, or proportionately with any other countries. Then when you come up with a comparable analysis, post the info. Then we all can opine on what group is worse.

Issue again is the Pope and his actions. So far a court has not adjudicated on this matter. I am all for punishment if the facts are actually there and call for a punishment. We just don't drag people out in the streets and hang them, just because we think they did a no no or for some other form of bigotry.

Russian_dude

04-14-2010, 11:08 AM

Maybe you should have taken statistic, populations analysis and some other studies. There are 1,000,000 Catholics in the world. If you use proportional representation of human behavior assuming it to be equal among all groups, then the Catholics in the world should have over three times the crime then the US (about 1/3 of a billion people) and about 1.3 times the crime of all of Europe (.7 Billion people).

Now unless you have stats on the population for deviant behavior with in the Catholic Church keep your "opinion as to the numbers" to yourself. So far you seem to be reaching way beyond facts and operation in the land of bigots.

BTW, there are appox 400,000 Priest in the world. Compare that crime stats to Europe that has 700,000 People, or proportionately with any other countries. Then when you come up with a comparable analysis, post the info. Then we all can opine on what group is worse.

Issue again is the Pope and his actions. So far a court has not adjudicated on this matter. I am all for punishment if the facts are actually there and call for a punishment. We just don't drag people out in the streets and hang them, just because we think they did a no no or for some other form of bigotry.

Protecting protectors of paedophilia is not necessary.

Hollis

04-14-2010, 11:10 AM

Protecting protectors of paedophilia is not necessary.

I have no problem with the Pope answering to law, if that is the case. There is a big difference between assuming and knowing.

tea drinker

04-14-2010, 11:57 AM

My priest never molested me,true story .

Yes, I confess it never happened to me nor never heard any stories in our parish - even after this thing was exposed.
It's going to be a bandwagon now with loads of fake victims looking to cash in and muddy the waters for genuine victims.

Mastermind

04-14-2010, 03:29 PM

Well, truth to be used; What most "Christians"...99% or higher...truly believe in is Paulian Theology, not true Christianity.

They profess, on the surface, at least, to be followers of the teachings of Jesus Christ. Yet, Catholics, in particular, and most so-called Christians in general, are actually Paulians. As Paulians, they follow a select set of Jesus teachings, and generally sweep many of the more important ones aside. If a template were made of all the teachings of Jesus Christ, and it was placed over the actions and teachings of what the modern world has come to recognize as "Christainity", there would be a great many blank spots.

I had to go back and really study...with notes and references and a huge deal of history, to get myself right with my taught beliefs from the Christain churches I attended. I studied many main stream Christian sects and had to finally decide, none of them were faithful to Christ.

So I quit them and came to accept the more humble and truthful to self religions of the American Indians as my own faith in the universe. I am now at peace in my own heart and with the cycle of life.

As I read about the Catholics and the disgusting behavior they exhibit and have exhibited over the years and history, I am not surprised they would shuffle these priests around and protect them from public display and the reach of the law. Not surprised in the least.

I use this little mantra when I am confronted with something moral that might confuse me..."What would Jesus do?"

I do not think Jesus would have hidden the pedophiles associated with him, bought them midnight bus tickets out of town and lodged them in "safe" houses, helped them conceal their identities and set them to live a good life in another parish where they could have access to more children.

seraosha

04-14-2010, 04:10 PM

I had to look up "Paulian" in google, and found this..

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread414820/pg1

Interesting.

SniperRu

04-14-2010, 09:37 PM

Latest gem from the Catholic church:

Vatican seeks to ease furore over gay abuse remark

The Vatican has sought to "clarify" a senior cardinal’s remarks linking homo******ity with paedophilia, saying the assertion applied to clerics alone and providing data in support.
By News Wires (text)
Aurore Cloe DUPUIS (video)

AFP - Condemnation from gay groups and the French government forced the Vatican into damage control Wednesday over remarks by the pope's right-hand man linking paedophilia to homo******ity.

The Vatican issued what spokesman Federico Lombardi called a "clarification" of Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone's assertion Monday that homo******ity -- not celibacy -- is the "problem" that causes Catholic priests to molest children.

In the highly unusual statement, the Vatican said Roman Catholic Church officials were not "competent" to speak on psychological issues concerning general society.

Lombardi told AFP the statement was aimed at "clarifying" Bertone's remarks and should not be seen as the Holy See "distancing" itself from them.

Bertone's comment that "many" psychologists and psychiatrists had demonstrated a link between paedophilia and homo******ity, but not the vow of celibacy, drew official ire from France on Wednesday.

"This is an unacceptable linkage and we condemn this," said foreign ministry spokesman Bernard Valero, joining a chorus of criticism from gay rights groups and editorial writers.

An Italian group Tuesday led gay fury over the remarks, which came as the Church battles paedophile priest scandals in Europe and the United States and allegations that the hierarchy has helped to cover up for abusers.

"The truth is that Bertone is clumsily trying to shift attention to homo******ity and away from the focus on new crimes against children that emerge every day," said Aurelio Mancuso, former president of gay rights association Arcigay.

"This faux pas by the Vatican demonstrates one thing only: great desperation and great impotence," a Spanish gay rights group, COLEGAS, added Wednesday.

A Catholic gay association in Portugal, Novos Rumos, said remarks such as Bertone's "deepen the gulf between the Church as a community of believers and a certain hierarchy."

Wednesday's Vatican statement added more fuel to the fire with a reference to Church statistics defining paedophilia in the "strict sense" as applying to pre-adolescent children.

"That's a ridiculous and unfounded hair-splitting distinction that many American bishops initially tried as well," said David Clohessy, executive director of the US pressure group SNAP (Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests).

"It's grossly inaccurate, totally insensitive and frankly totally wrong," Clohessy told AFP.

According to the statistics, made public last month, 10 percent of some 3,000 cases reported to Vatican authorities in the past decade concerned paedophilia in the "strict sense" and the other 90 percent concerned *** between priests and adolescents.

Sixty percent of the cases involved adolescent boys and 30 percent concerned adolescent girls.

Vatican expert Bruno Bartoloni said Church officials were "piling up the gaffes without realising their impact."

Lombardi and other Vatican officials have suggested that the Church is unfairly singled out for paedophilia, noting that it is a widespread social phenomenon.

"All objective and informed people know that the issue is much wider, and to focus accusations only on the Church leads to a skewed perspective," Lombardi said last month.

But Clohessy said: "If eight percent of plumbers molest and seven percent of priests molest, it's still a horrific crisis.

"And plumbers who molest don't have a powerful worldwide monarchy behind them to help them get away with their crime."

He added: "There are many priests who have been caught molesting 75, 100, 150 kids. Find me the schoolteacher or scout leader who have been caught doing that. You can't, because in other institutions, predators get caught and are ousted more quickly than they are in the Church."

Vandals have weighed in with anonymous fury, daubing a foot-high offensive slogan over the door to the pope's childhood home in Germany, and spray-painting the word "paedophile" on a billboard advertising the pope's upcoming weekend visit to Malta.

Source:
http://www.france24.com/en/20100414-vatican-seeks-clarify-top-prelate-remarks-about-gays-paedophilia-bertone

Dear Vatican, please keep shooting yourself in the foot... you're doing great so far!