Skip to comments.Richard Dawkins: I Will Arrest Pope Benedict XVI
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 ...
yeah: except comparing Benedicts XVI's book "Introduction to Christianity" to Hitchen's "God is not Great" is like comparing Plato to Dr. Seuss.
Forgive me for questioning the point but the original statement was
Atheists cant defeat Islam.
Your counter argument is that the Chinese crushed a minority population of Muslims over whom they already had power. Ergo... what? That Islam was defeated in this one event? That China will ultimately defeat Muslims worldwide? Or that some atheist nations will ultimately do the job? Is there an atheist manifesto of some sort that lays out the promise of doing this? Elements in both Judaism and Christianity do teach the ultimate defeat of all false systems of religion. How a single disconnected event answers the point, well, yeah, I don't know what to make of that.
Do you think you are going to get any kind of responsible treatment from a man who has been married three times?
Let me answer you with a question:
Do you see Islam taking over China?
The anti-Catholics on Freep will lead me to leave. You are acting just as badly as the atheist “Government is God” type.
My mother was Episcopalian. Our Associate Priest was known to be a pedophile and he was in charge of Sunday School. This was in 1960s San Francisco Bay Area. EVERYONE in the Parish knew it and was having sex with a couple of the boys. [Fortunately, not me]. Now, our Church was the only one?
The reality is that pedophilia exists in all religions, day care centers, our schools, etc. But why do only crucify Catholics for it?
Yes, pedophilia is horrific. But it occurs everywhere. Try traveling abroad where it is rampant and you find Americas going offshore to have sex with small boys. Where is the outrage about that?
I don’t care if you claim to be Catholic. Did you do anything about? Probably not. You are just another Catholic-hating bigot. You have plenty of company on Freep these days.
I know plenty of Catholic priests (I converted in college) and i have never known of a pedophile. So, circulate your stupid opinions.
You probably are one of the Romney haters too.
In Dawkins TED talk it was interesting that his real complaint against Christians — the one he really got animated about — was that Christians restrict or judge sexual behavior on certain standards which he wants nothing to do with. What his comments suggested to me was that it wasn’t so much how many times he might be married, but a desire to have the freedom to do what he wants without being judged by anyone. Dawkins, like his pal Hitchens, got all wee wee’d up about people not approving of his sexual conduct. Great minds think alike and these men obviously have had the same train of thought about this vital issue of freedom from the moral restraints concerning sexual conduct. Gee. I’d be lying to say I am surprised. Men wanting liberties! Straight or gay. Imagine that! Atheist men railing against those who would deny those “liberties”. Wow. Is it a new thing in the earth? /sarc
First, you didn't answer my question at all. You responded with a lame question that avoids having to answer my question or to respond to the points made.
Second, Islam's limited influence in China is not proportional to Islam's influence in many other countries so your example, as argued in my previous post, is irrelevant.
Third, your lack of answer is the kind of response I'd expect. Avoid the points raised.
Regardless of the /sarc tag, Christians are not preventing anyone from doing anything. No one is forced to be a Christian.
And even if a person is a Christian, Christians are told they are sinners. Christians are not kept from sinning by the Church because that is impossible. Christians are encourage to be mindful to avoid sinning but they are not kept from doing anything under the sun.
I didn’t recognise your question earlier. Perhaps you could be more specific.
That said, when you concede that ‘Islam’s influence is limited in China’, what are you implying? That Islam has other enemies besides Christianity?
I agree with everything you’ve said.
The focus is on the hypocrisy, which brings out the contrast. That is why such man-made entities stand out as targets.
No. I am not implying anything. Their influence in China is limited: they are only 1-2% of the population and so it is no noteworthy feat for the Chinese to suppress or even annihilate them. They hold the reigns of power elsewhere so the Chinese move is insignificant in relation to the larger Muslim world.
Hitchens is an alcoholic blowhard, a pathological self-promoter and media junkie. He's the Kitty Kelly of non-fiction.
No. Like all cowardly atheists, Hitchens and Dawkins target Christians only. Their darts are thrown from the secure redoubt of the West. You won't see them in Yemen or Somalia anytime soon.
Muslims have been aware of China since the birth of Islam, and probably even before (reference the Quranic verses on silk). If they could not convert China in Islam’s 1400+ year history, what has curtailed and still is hindering, their progress?
I don't hop on the bandwagon bashing the church, but I do notice the appropriate energy with which the church attacks abortion, and the "Well, it's more complicated than you seem to know" care with which they defend their shameful history of hiding, excusing, or ignoring child molestation.
It is depressing in a way to see people, good people mind you, not realizing what is happening here. But, God said this is the way it would go down.
Sounds like Dawkins, right?
Probably the cultural divide, or rather the gulf between Chinese culture and Islam, though there are probably a number of factors involved. But you are progressively walking the conversation away from your original point which you have failed to defend so I wish you well as you ponder such questions.
The RCC should have seen this coming. Never try to cover up anything because it makes it worse.
The Pope should have ordered the perverts kicked out.Get in front of it and then you can control the situation instead of it controlling you.
I am a former RC, but it still pains me to see this kind of crap going on in the church. But a lot of times they seem to bring it upon themselves
The very first religion listed is....
Atheists are people who believe that god or gods are man-made constructs."
Cultural divide didn’t stop Islam from spreading to disparate cultures like those of South East Asia, Africa or Eastern Europe, so that cannot be the reason for the curtailment.
The original point still stands that Islam has no single mortal enemy. Plain reason is good enough to defeat it.
I wish you well, too, and hope you continue to ponder upon these questions just as surely as I will.
You are clearly as grossly ignorant of the facts as a single-celled animal is of intelligent life.
Richard Dawkins not Dawson. Richard Dawson was the family feud host. Perhaps more credible than Dawkins.
You, FRiend, are a consummate moron.
You are right, I wrote the wrong name. Richard Dawson was the guy who introduced malicious perverts to Bob Crane.
Hitchens is a superb intellect and incomparable writer.
That doesn’t mean he doesn’t get one wrong once in awhile, as he did in this case. I’m afraid his intellect fails him when he leads with his personal hatred of religious followering.
Which is a logical error. All cultures are not equivalent and therefore not equally susceptible to any given idea or system of thought. It may not be the case, but you have not demonstrated it not to be.
It’s up to the cops to handle this, first of all. Second, any internal action at the parishes is handled by the bishops, not the pope. Third, the left is notorious for being soft on child-molesters but, oh, let any religious organization (except muzzies, of course, and Black Liberation Theology) become embroiled in a scandal of a sexual nature, and it’s the end of the world.
Gross hypocrisy from them and many FReepers.
My original claim was implied by me when I contradicted the assertion that only one particular religion was equipped to fight Islam, by the poster I first replied to.
As it stands right now, that implication is still valid.
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.
“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.
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.
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.