Dawkins & Hitchens plan to arrest Pope.

Orizio

Charlatans.

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.
Related Links

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.

Link.

OutlawPete

That's not fair, he wears a dress.

Do you know what happens men in prison that wear dresses?

Karma.

pablomakaveli

Dawkins is an attention whore.

He's only doing this to push his own agenda rather than out of concern for victims of child abuse.

L.Jenkins

pablomakaveli wrote: »

Dawkins is an attention whore.

He's only doing this to push his own agenda rather than out of concern for victims of child abuse.

But do you agree or disagree! How can he be held accountable or any priest be held accountable if accountablity doesnt begin at the top!

Seloth

Oh gawd...I wish Dawkins would jsut shut up..he is deffo an attention whore with the most undirect awnsering method ever may I also add.

He embarased Atheist as extremists do theists

pablomakaveli

djhunter30 wrote: »

But do you agree or disagree! How can he be held accountable or any priest be held accountable if accountablity doesnt begin at the top!

I agree the pope should be made to answer for any wrong doing but this publicity stunt isn't the right way to go about it.

Dave!

Bout time someone had enough balls to try and hold him accountable tbh

He's either above the law, or he isn't

L.Jenkins

pablomakaveli wrote: »

I agree the pope should be made to answer for any wrong doing but this publicity stunt isn't the right way to go about it.

I agree there with you! Is there anyother way though of litterally dragging the pope into a prison and making him confess to coin a phrase!

GLaDOS

Seloth wrote: »

He embarased Atheist as extremists do theists

Hardly

Dudess

pablomakaveli wrote: »

Dawkins is an attention whore.

He's only doing this to push his own agenda rather than out of concern for victims of child abuse.

Personally I'd have been more inclined to say that about Hitchens. "I'm staunchly atheist but mates with members of the right-wing christian former presidential administration" - woo Chris, how interesting of you...

Wibbs

pablomakaveli wrote: »

Dawkins is an attention whore.

He's only doing this to push his own agenda rather than out of concern for victims of child abuse.

+ 100000 I actually like Dawkins, even if he is way too linear and narrow minded and remarkably uniformed beyond the ken of his primary focus, but robust champion of revolution he is not. Hitchens I would have more "faith" in(which would doubtless be somewhat ironic for the chap to hear). Dawkins is an intellectually cloistered lightweight. I would not look to him to hide me in his attic if the monsters came. The usual, again cloistered "protest" he adds his name to.

Wibbs

ScienceNerd wrote: »

Hardly

Agreed. But which one of those three would you back in a straight fight? Not the right on eejit and that's part of the problem.

baztard

Nice to see some heat being put on the church. Benny was probably not responsibe in any way or form for the abuse, but he now represents the scum who were, so fúck him, let him take what that fúcked up institution deserves

Dyr

Team Atheist: World Police

Sheeps

Isn't the Pope a head of state, thus immune from this kind of thing? Dawkins is a prick and pop atheists are literally the scum of the earth.

ScumLord

The pope can use magic, they stand no chance.

Dazd_N_Confusd

And to think I used to like these guys. Well not Hitchens, he's always been a prick!

I'm beginning to think these two are as bad as the people they mock, Pat Robertson, Ted Haggard etc.

Well not as bad but getting closer every time they open their ****ing mouth!

jill_valentine

I'm not friends with either of these dudes, but this thread is a bit rich.

Weeks and weeks and weeks of "Something should be done about this" and "the Pope is a disgrace" and whatever - somebody actually threatens to actually do something about said disgrace, and there's whinging about that purely because it's Dawkins and Hitchens.

Hitchens is indeed kind of a douche, but far more people hate on Dawkins than know what he's about.

cleremy jarkson

Enjoy hell athiests. long live the pope

jill_valentine

I'll pass on your regards when I get there, Cleremy.

cleremy jarkson

jill_valentine wrote: »

I'll pass on your regards when I get there, Cleremy.

No need. I've had faith in our Lord and saviour Jesus Christ.

only joking...he's a right c'unt

Orizio

jill_valentine wrote: »

I'm not friends with either of these dudes, but this thread is a bit rich.

Weeks and weeks and weeks of "Something should be done about this" and "the Pope is a disgrace" and whatever - somebody actually threatens to actually do something about said disgrace, and there's whinging about that purely because it's Dawkins and Hitchens.

Hitchens is indeed kind of a douche, but far more people hate on Dawkins than know what he's about.

People are whinging because its a shameless publicity event - they aren't doing anything worthwhile.

Bodhisopha

I love Hitchens, he's great fun.

lemonjelly

pablomakaveli wrote: »

Dawkins is an attention whore.
attention whore.

He's only doing this to push his own agenda rather than out of concern for victims of child abuse.

Dawkins is not an attention whore at all.He speaks the truth in his books. the
attention whores are whoring in the church which is not reality.

banquo

Not really. Name three people in the Vatican apart from the pope without using google? You can't. And if you can it's not because they're attention whores.

Dawkins doesn't love science; he hates religion and his hatred gets rewarded with attention, so he carries on with it. I'm not of the faith; if another person is then great, more power to them.

jill_valentine

Orizio wrote: »

People are whinging because its a shameless publicity event - they aren't doing anything worthwhile.

Maybe. Publicity for what though?

Hitchens is all bluster, it's true - but Dawkins, less so. Dawkins is of the educated opinion that the persistence of an organisation like the Catholic church is detrimental to the society around it. That's why he does stuff like this, to generate a fuss about a very real issue that in light of recent events should be taken more seriously. It is a publicity stunt, in that sense - he's trying to further a cause he's dedicated to, because as far as he's concerned it aids the greater good.

I have no doubt that any attempt by Dawkins to bring the Pope or his church to account for their abuses will fail - but it's worth doing, nonetheless, if it makes us stop and think for a moment why that should be so.

Why should somebody who's facilitated and sheltered that kind of institutional abuse and corruption be beyond account? Why shouldn't this organisation be treated the same as any other by the law?

billy the squid

nothing will come of it. he is a head of state, which he will be for the rest of his days so nothing will happen. dawkins will be told to bog off by the police when he tries to serve the pope.

goingpostal

billy the squid wrote: »

nothing will come of it. he is a head of state, which he will be for the rest of his days so nothing will happen. dawkins will be told to bog off by the police when he tries to serve the pope.

I agree one hundred percent. Nothing will actually happen the pope, but I still think it is worth doing. Alot of people are whinging and giving out that Hitchens and Dawkins are publicity-mongers, which they are in a way, but no-one has come up with any better idea for protesting against Benny and his heinous crimes. If it makes people think a bit more about why he has immunity and why his organisation is treated with such kids-gloves, then I am all for it. As a symbolic protest it is well worth doing, and if it makes travel for the pope more awkward and difficult, like it does for other crooks like Kissinger or Livni or Mugabe, then it will have achieved something.

professore

It always amazes me what the main religions can get away with. If this was a private company (I exclude banks from this - they can apparently also do what they like) where this kind of abuse went on then the CEO would be serving a long jail sentence. Why is the pope any different? He personally covered up for known paedophiles and is STILL doing it. Let's be clear - these people are raping children and the pope gives his blessing. How can anyone defend him ?

billy the squid

professore wrote: »

It always amazes me what the main religions can get away with. If this was a private company (I exclude banks from this - they can apparently also do what they like) where this kind of abuse went on then the CEO would be serving a long jail sentence. Why is the pope any different? He personally covered up for known paedophiles and is STILL doing it. Let's be clear - these people are raping children and the pope gives his blessing. How can anyone defend him ?

But he is not a CEO, he is a head of state which gives him immunity. and who do you have to thank for that, why filthy nazis like Benito Musolini for one.

bonerm

Forget it Dawkins, you can't beat (vatican) City Hall.

MagicMarker

For as long as I can remember there are threads almost on a daily basis expressing what scum the church is.

Now there are two people trying to get something done about it, you're all just bitching about those people.

WTF is up with that?

Fair play to them I say, if they need a donation for legal fees then I'll gladly help out.

The Devil.

cleremy jarkson wrote: »

Enjoy hell athiests. long live the pope

Hell isn't so bad, it's kind of like Cork.

youcrazyjesus!

pablomakaveli wrote: »

Dawkins is an attention whore.

He's only doing this to push his own agenda rather than out of concern for victims of child abuse.

Absolute bollox. He's an honourable person. You're looking at him through the eyes of someone who is at the wrong end of his relentless logic.

Son Of A Vidic

professore wrote: »

It always amazes me what the main religions can get away with. If this was a private company (I exclude banks from this - they can apparently also do what they like) where this kind of abuse went on then the CEO would be serving a long jail sentence. Why is the pope any different? He personally covered up for known paedophiles and is STILL doing it. Let's be clear - these people are raping children and the pope gives his blessing. How can anyone defend him ?

Amen to that. Where is the Grey area here for the Church? These guys presided over all of this, concealing perverted 'sickos' within their church. Moving child rapist's on to ' greener pastures'. Is that how 'men of God' should behave? I think when Jesus said: ''Suffer little children.'' - I think the paedophiles of the church took it's meaning literally.

Regarding Dawkins, well he's another nut from the opposite spectrum I suppose. Maybe he should be arrested for suggesting we evolved from Apes. Can you imagine how insulted Apes must feel about such an association.


* Raises a glass to the professore *

youcrazyjesus!

Seloth wrote: »

Oh gawd...I wish Dawkins would jsut shut up..he is deffo an attention whore with the most undirect awnsering method ever may I also add.

He embarased Atheist as extremists do theists

He doesn't embarrass me.

pablomakaveli

MagicMarker wrote: »

For as long as I can remember there are threads almost on a daily basis expressing what scum the church is.

Now there are two people trying to get something done about it, you're all just bitching about those people.

WTF is up with that?

Fair play to them I say, if they need a donation for legal fees then I'll gladly help out.

They're using this to push their own agenda. Taking advantage of the child abuse scandals so they can try and further their own cause is pathetic and insulting to the victims of child abuse.

youcrazyjesus!

cleremy jarkson wrote: »

Enjoy hell athiests. long live the pope

The Pope has devoted his life to something which has no basis whatsoever. The joke is on him. Thankfully.

MagicMarker

pablomakaveli wrote: »

They're using this to push their own agenda. Taking advantage of the child abuse scandals so they can try and further their own cause is pathetic and insulting to the victims of child abuse.

Wow, your ability to know what others are thinking is remarkable. You should take that talent on the road!

Have you ever listened to Hitchens actually talk about the sex abuse scandals? It's quite clear it stirs up a lot of emotion in him.

youcrazyjesus!

pablomakaveli wrote: »

They're using this to push their own agenda. Taking advantage of the child abuse scandals so they can try and further their own cause is pathetic and insulting to the victims of child abuse.

This "pushing an agenda" thing always comes up when people come up against something they can't argue against. Everytime I open my mouth I push an agenda, when I go to the bar my agenda is to get a pint, when I go to school my agenda is to learn, when I write a letter my objective is to express my opinion publicly. It's a nonsense argument. I wish I saw less of it although it does tell me a lot about the person who uses it.

How do you know they're not concerned about child abuse? Have you asked them? I'm sure he's very concerned and quite angry it's been facilitated by a cabal of power mad deluded fools who pass themselves off as something worthy of respect.

pablomakaveli

MagicMarker wrote: »

Wow, your ability to know what others are thinking is remarkable. You should take that talent on the road!

Have you ever listened to Hitchens actually talk about the sex abuse scandals? It's quite clear it stirs up a lot of emotion in him.

I could say the same thing to you given you are assuming that they are being genuine.

youcrazyjesus!

medicman2009 wrote: »

Regarding Dawkins, well he's another nut from the opposite spectrum I suppose.

How exactly is Dawkins a "nut"? Have you read any of his books? Listened to him speak?

Seems to be they see an idiot arguing with someone and assume the other party is an idiot too. It's one of the reasons Dawkins shies away from arguments with those indoctrinated into a religion, be they clerics or laity, you give their "beliefs" substance by engaging with them on the subject.

pablomakaveli

youcrazyjesus! wrote: »

This "pushing an agenda" thing always comes up when people come up against something they can't argue against. Everytime I open my mouth I push an agenda, when I go to the bar my agenda is to get a pint, when I go to school my agenda is to learn, when I write a letter my objective is to express my opinion publicly. It's a nonsense argument. I wish I saw less of it although it does tell me a lot about the person who uses it.

How do you know they're not concerned about child abuse? Have you asked them? I'm sure he's very concerned and quite angry it's been facilitated by a cabal of power mad deluded fools who pass themselves off as something worthy of respect.

If they were really concerned they probably would have spent time consulting groups for victims of child abuse and letting them take the initiative in the legal case so that its the victims who are seeking justice.

Don't delude yourself it's a publicity stunt plain and simple.

youcrazyjesus!

pablomakaveli wrote: »

I could say the same thing to you given you are assuming that they are being genuine.

He's listened to him, he knows their work, he knows their personality and values through their extensive published works and media work. I hate Hitchens, he's an idiot when it comes to many subjects but on this from listening to the man I have absolutely no doubt he is genuine.

youcrazyjesus!

pablomakaveli wrote: »

If they were really concerned they probably would have spent time consulting groups for victims of child abuse and letting them take the initiative in the legal case so that its the victims who are seeking justice.

Don't delude yourself it's a publicity stunt plain and simple.

Your opinions are very simple minded. Why you assign such poor and simplistic motives to their actions? On what basis do you do this?

Please explain.

pablomakaveli

youcrazyjesus! wrote: »

Your opinions are very simple minded. Why you assign such poor and simplistic motives to their actions? On what basis do you do this?

Please explain.

Isn't it obvious? Why arent they letting the victims of child abuse lead this case? If they were really concerned with this they'd take a back seat in this case and let the victims lead it.

But they're not. Dawkins has used publicity stunts before like the bus adverts and i'd be more concerned about his motives than Hitchens.

You can't honestly deny beyond all doubt that this may be a publicity stunt.

youcrazyjesus!

pablomakaveli wrote: »

Isn't it obvious? Why arent they letting the victims of child abuse lead this case? If they were really concerned with this they'd take a back seat in this case and let the victims lead it.

He's entitled to take the case if he wants. It's not up to you to tell him he should put in child abuse victims as the public face of the case. Wouldn't that be another publicity stunt? How would it aid the case?

At this point, I suggest you're talking dribbling drooling nonsense.

But they're not. Dawkins has used publicity stunts before like the bus adverts and i'd be more concerned about his motives than Hitchens.


You can't honestly deny beyond all doubt that this may be a publicity stunt.

:rolleyes: Not everything everyone you disagree with does should be described as being done for the purposes of forwarding an "agenda" or for the purposes of publicity. You could assign every action every human has ever taken one or both of those motives. Dismissing this action in this way is not good enough. Find a good reason to criticise it or stay quiet.

I notice you've not even in passing mentioned the issue. The issue is: "Does Mr Ratzinger have a legal and moral case to answer in relation to actively facilitating pedophilia and is there a legal basis for the arrest".

galwayrush

I think they may have lost the element of surprise by announcing their plans.:rolleyes:
So, either they are pure stupid ot it's a publicity stunt.

blinding

Lock up Pope Rat. Damn good idea.

youcrazyjesus!

galwayrush wrote: »

I think they may have lost the element of surprise by announcing their plans.:rolleyes:
So, either they are pure stupid ot it's a publicity stunt.

They weren't planning on rugby tackling him inside St Pauls and dragging him outside in handcuffs. Makes no odds. It will become public once the legal action is initiated. Silly comment.

Max Power1

billy the squid wrote: »

But he is not a CEO, he is a head of state which gives him immunity. and who do you have to thank for that, why filthy nazis like Benito Musolini for one.

but thats the point, he isnt a head of state apparently