Posted on 04/10/2010 11:49:41 PM PDT by Steelfish
April 11, 2010 Richard Dawkins: I Will Arrest Pope Benedict XVI Marc Horne
Atheist campaigner Richard Dawkins RICHARD DAWKINS, the atheist campaigner, is planning a legal ambush to have the Pope arrested during his state visit to Britain “for crimes against humanity”.
Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, the atheist author, have asked human rights lawyers to produce a case for charging Pope Benedict XVI over his alleged cover-up of sexual abuse in the Catholic church.
The pair believe they can exploit the same legal principle used to arrest Augusto Pinochet, the late Chilean dictator, when he visited Britain in 1998.
The Pope was embroiled in new controversy this weekend over a letter he signed arguing that the “good of the universal church” should be considered against the defrocking of an American priest who committed sex offences against two boys. It was dated 1985, when he was in charge of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which deals with sex abuse cases.
(Excerpt) Read more at timesonline.co.uk ...
No, the assertion was that only particular religion will ultimately vanquish Islam. You mvoed the goalpost and have been ignoring that fact ever since.
It’s the same thing.
And I will arrest Richard Dawkins for crimes against humanity. Then we’ll hold a trial in London and sentence him to death by public hanging.
Possibly, although one could posit that Dawkins is bereft of any principles.
Furthermore, In the context of a discussion of a religious topic, it might be presumed that you intended the original meaning of the word; i.e. One who accedes to certain basic statements regarding the Christian faith. That is to say, certain “fundamentals.” Your definition appears to be informed by the constant media propaganda which would conflate “fundamentalism” variously with “snake handlers,” self righteousness, pharaseeism, and Jihadis. When one uses this mal-definition; it soon becomes a portmanteau word which can be used to tar anyone to whom the writer disagrees.
Further furthermore, “fundamentalist” defined thus, could legitimately be used to categorize many of the more prominent pro-Catholic posters, here on FR.
Do they not have “religious...point of view”?
Do they not “return to fundamental principles?” (Specifically, the distinctive doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church.)
Do they not “... adhere rigid(ly) to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views?”
I am not saying this in a pejorative sense, merely demonstrating that your definition is perhaps too broad.
DG
“I was born and raised RC, not anymore.”
This is a quote of yours from an earlier post.
“I am RC and appalled by this pope.”
This is your latest quote on your religious affiliation.
Which one is correct, for today?
Liar. For shame.
“Plain reason is good enough to defeat it.”
It would appear, at this point in time, that there is no “plain reason” in Europe.
“And I will arrest Richard Dawkins for crimes against humanity.”
Free speech is now a crime against humanity? Is this a Catholic teaching? It’s not American.
Hank
How hard is that to do? It is a "faith" that directs people to kill others and blow up things. Not exactly rocket science.
I’m guessing you are OK with the average of 260 children molested by protestant ministers each year, far outstripping charges against Catholic priests. Check the log in your own eye before casting aspersions on those with s splinter in their eye.
Elaborate please.
Another case of a letter taken completely out of context, with the press misinterpreting Catholic legal terminology. The priest was out of active ministry. Ratzinger was in no way placing any child at risk.
Nothing Ratzinger did endangered any child. The priest was out of active ministry already. The only Ratzinger was holding up was a dispensation from the obligation of celibacy.
This was for Weakland to address.
Another aspect not mentioned is that Cardianl Ratzinger during that time period was in the Congregation of the Faith. The responsibility for priests (unless it involved false teaching) is the duty of the Congregation of the Priest.
It was not until Weakland claimed that the priest in question had broken the secrecy of the confessional, which would fall into the Congregation of the Faith.
It is too bad that Bishops can not be defrocked. Weakland is deserving of it, during this whole affair, he was having his own homosexual affair, stealing thousand of dollars in church funds to pay off his lover.
Nothing Ratzinger did endangered any child. The priest was already out of active ministry. The only thing Ratzinger held up was a dispensation from the obligation of celibacy.
Archbishop Sheen used to ask ex-Catholics, “What was your sin?”
Nothing Ratzinger did endangered a child. The priest was already busted and out of active ministry. Ratzinger delayed only a dispensation from the obligation of celibacy.
What abuse did he ever cover up? Give specifics, not just the fact that he has been in the newspapers.
Hard to believe Christoper and Peter Hitchen are brothers.
I was being sarcastic. If Richard Dawkins can arrest the pope, then, following his logic, I can arrest Richard Dawkins.
Yes dead, assuming it's really OBL.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.