Richard Dawkins VS The Pope...

[LDN]

Blue Meanie said:

ShadownINja said:

That might answer one question I have, "What is the point in Dawkins?" He's turning into a really tedious tosser. He might be right. There might be no god. I'm sure he's infinitely more intelligent and knowledgeable than me but he's tediously smarmy. The Gordon Brown of the scientific world. Smarmy... yet miserable inside.

Y'know... why doesn't Dawkins actually do something useful for a change instead of whingeing about the same old things. Go to Africa, rescue orphans or pay for a school to be built or donate a wad (or even just time) to Macmillan Cancer Support.

Yes, because this is about Dawkins isn't it, and not the fact that someone who knowingly covered up child abuse would be visiting the UK, and Dawkins said he should be prosecuted.

Exactly.

[Astacus]

Hands up all those who seriously think anyone is going to actually arrest the Pope.

anyone

No?

Thought not

[Blue Meanie]

Astacus said:

Hands up all those who seriously think anyone is going to actually arrest the Pope.

anyone

No?

Thought not

And do you view that as right or wrong? Is the Pope untouchable?

[Oily Nails]

Astacus said:

Hands up all those who seriously think anyone is going to actually arrest the Pope.

anyone

No?

Thought not

Oh I think someone might get a hand on his arm and at least get

" right my son, your ni......"

before being riddled with 9mm rounds and a Ceremonial Halberd up the bum

[Astacus]

Blue Meanie said:

Astacus said:

Hands up all those who seriously think anyone is going to actually arrest the Pope.

anyone

No?

Thought not

And do you view that as right or wrong? Is the Pope untouchable?

If you mean on a purely practical level, the anwser is yes, I do think he is untouchable. No one is going to arrest the spiritual leader of the worlds multiple millions of Catholics, any more than they arrested the lunatic Mugabe.

Right or wrong?

What? is it right that no one arrests the Pope in response to the bleatings of some tediuos self publicist?

We don't actually know the facts yet do we. All we know is what we read in the papers (a well known source of rock hard fact) and what a lot of (rightfully) angry people say.

Right now I would say, on balance, yes, its right.

[Pony]

this article put a smile on my face. tbh i don't really care about the motives of dawson, i just think this is really funny.

so what would happen if they actually did arrest the pope and gave him life in prison. (apart from pissing off nearly 1 billion people)

could this cause wars?

[TheD]

Astacus said:

We don't actually know the facts yet do we. All we know is what we read in the papers (a well known source of rock hard fact) and what a lot of (rightfully) angry people say.

I cant believe you wrote that. I think those angry people would a lot angrier if they read that. Papers aren't known for their honesty, I'll grant you that. But there is much more evidence that what is written in the papers. In my opinion (for what little it may be worth) I would be proud if this country stood up and told him to put his visit off until all the facts came to light.
Dawkins may not be many peoples favourite person but he has allowed this not to be put to sleep and has again brought the subject up (even for his own gain that may be) but there are those who think (wrongly) this should be forgot about and moved on. I don't give a monkeys hoot who the pope and others think he is. What I do know is he should be treated no different than any other person under the laws of the land.
And dont get me started on Diplomatic Immunity or how we should pay for a visit by one of the richest institutions on the planet.........And breath

[Blue Meanie]

TheD said:

Astacus said:

We don't actually know the facts yet do we. All we know is what we read in the papers (a well known source of rock hard fact) and what a lot of (rightfully) angry people say.

I cant believe you wrote that. I think those angry people would a lot angrier if they read that. Papers aren't known for their honesty, I'll grant you that. But there is much more evidence that what is written in the papers. In my opinion (for what little it may be worth) I would be proud if this country stood up and told him to put his visit off until all the facts came to light.
Dawkins may not be many peoples favourite person but he has allowed this not to be put to sleep and has again brought the subject up (even for his own gain that may be) but there are those who think (wrongly) this should be forgot about and moved on. I don't give a monkeys hoot who the pope and others think he is. What I do know is he should be treated no different than any other person under the laws of the land.
And dont get me started on Diplomatic Immunity or how we should pay for a visit by one of the richest institutions on the planet.........And breath

Can I just point people to the last post on page one, where Dawkins clears up how this article came about. Dawkins did not do this for credit...

[Astacus]

TheD said:

Astacus said:

We don't actually know the facts yet do we. All we know is what we read in the papers (a well known source of rock hard fact) and what a lot of (rightfully) angry people say.

I cant believe you wrote that. I think those angry people would a lot angrier if they read that. Papers aren't known for their honesty, I'll grant you that. But there is much more evidence that what is written in the papers. In my opinion (for what little it may be worth) I would be proud if this country stood up and told him to put his visit off until all the facts came to light.
Dawkins may not be many peoples favourite person but he has allowed this not to be put to sleep and has again brought the subject up (even for his own gain that may be) but there are those who think (wrongly) this should be forgot about and moved on. I don't give a monkeys hoot who the pope and others think he is. What I do know is he should be treated no different than any other person under the laws of the land.
And dont get me started on Diplomatic Immunity or how we should pay for a visit by one of the richest institutions on the planet.........And breath

What "we don't actually know yet" it what he Pope's level of complicity in this whole affair is. And if you read what I wrote you will notice that I carefully pointed out that I thought he angry people were justified - you even quoted it!

If you take the trouble to do even the smallest level of back-ground reading, you will find that some people take the view that Cardinal Ratzinger as he then was, endevoured to bring the situation to the attention of the then Pope, but was rebuffed. Who knows what the truth is?

So, Lets summarise.

I don't believe what the press say just because they say it, and I don't necessarily believe the supporters of the Pope either. Each has their own axe to grind.

I do believe that those people who were ill treated by Catholic priests deserve some justice. Whether that entitles them to take pot shots at the Pope depends entirely on his level of complicity, which we have yet to acertain.

It is my view that his level of complicity is probably exagerated by the press, because thats what they do for a living.

[SkinnyBoy]

Like Dawkins will get anywhere near him, hes a Sith Lord.

[smn159]

Astacus said:

I do believe that those people who were ill treated by Catholic priests deserve some justice. Whether that entitles them to take pot shots at the Pope depends entirely on his level of complicity, which we have yet to acertain.

Wouldn't that be the whole point of the proposed trial?

[Halb]

Dawkins = ace. Pope = liar.
Hopefully something good will come out of this. ANd maybe there will never again be an institutionalized defence/cover-up by the Catholic church to protect Priests buggering kids...which is what this is all aboot, not Dawkins being smarmy (supposedly)

[Busa_Rush]

Halb said:

Dawkins = ace. Pope = liar.
Hopefully something good will come out of this. ANd maybe there will never again be an institutionalized defence/cover-up by the Catholic church to protect Priests buggering kids...which is what this is all aboot, not Dawkins being smarmy (supposedly)

Dawkins=moron who is trying to pick a fight with the pope because he disagrees with him about religion, this has nothing to do with child abuse.

If you knew anything about the Catholics then you'd know that the Pope has very little to do with anything which happens on the ground level. Same as the CofE or any commercial organisation . .. how much does the the Chairman of the BBC know about the activities of the make up artists ?

[Blue Meanie]

Busa_Rush said:

Halb said:

Dawkins = ace. Pope = liar.
Hopefully something good will come out of this. ANd maybe there will never again be an institutionalized defence/cover-up by the Catholic church to protect Priests buggering kids...which is what this is all aboot, not Dawkins being smarmy (supposedly)

Dawkins=moron who is trying to pick a fight with the pope because he disagrees with him about religion, this has nothing to do with child abuse.

If you knew anything about the Catholics then you'd know that the Pope has very little to do with anything which happens on the ground level. Same as the CofE or any commercial organisation . .. how much does the the Chairman of the BBC know about the activities of the make up artists ?

I presume your reading kills do not go as far as reading Dawkins statement from the previous page then? For the benefit of others I will repost it to avoid further embarrassment.

Dawkins said:

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.

The newspaper article is nothing more than sensationalist, overblown crap.

Edited by Blue Meanie on Monday 12th April 14:15

[smn159]

Busa_Rush said:

Halb said:

Dawkins = ace. Pope = liar.
Hopefully something good will come out of this. ANd maybe there will never again be an institutionalized defence/cover-up by the Catholic church to protect Priests buggering kids...which is what this is all aboot, not Dawkins being smarmy (supposedly)

Dawkins=moron who is trying to pick a fight with the pope because he disagrees with him about religion, this has nothing to do with child abuse.

If you knew anything about the Catholics then you'd know that the Pope has very little to do with anything which happens on the ground level. Same as the CofE or any commercial organisation . .. how much does the the Chairman of the BBC know about the activities of the make up artists ?

The accusation is that the Ratzinger DID know, and chose to put the protection of the church and its assets ahead of the protection of the abused children.

You don't think that this is worthy of criminal investigation, and appropriate punishment if he's guilty?

[Blue Meanie]

smn159 said:

Busa_Rush said:

Halb said:

Dawkins = ace. Pope = liar.
Hopefully something good will come out of this. ANd maybe there will never again be an institutionalized defence/cover-up by the Catholic church to protect Priests buggering kids...which is what this is all aboot, not Dawkins being smarmy (supposedly)

Dawkins=moron who is trying to pick a fight with the pope because he disagrees with him about religion, this has nothing to do with child abuse.

If you knew anything about the Catholics then you'd know that the Pope has very little to do with anything which happens on the ground level. Same as the CofE or any commercial organisation . .. how much does the the Chairman of the BBC know about the activities of the make up artists ?

The accusation is that the Ratzinger DID know, and chose to put the protection of the church and its assets ahead of the protection of the abused children.

You don't think that this is worthy of criminal investigation, and appropriate punishment if he's guilty?

As I said earlier, why peopler are focussing on Dawkins, rather than the vatican cover up is beyond me.

[LDN]

Blue Meanie said:

smn159 said:

Busa_Rush said:

Halb said:

Dawkins = ace. Pope = liar.
Hopefully something good will come out of this. ANd maybe there will never again be an institutionalized defence/cover-up by the Catholic church to protect Priests buggering kids...which is what this is all aboot, not Dawkins being smarmy (supposedly)

Dawkins=moron who is trying to pick a fight with the pope because he disagrees with him about religion, this has nothing to do with child abuse.

If you knew anything about the Catholics then you'd know that the Pope has very little to do with anything which happens on the ground level. Same as the CofE or any commercial organisation . .. how much does the the Chairman of the BBC know about the activities of the make up artists ?

The accusation is that the Ratzinger DID know, and chose to put the protection of the church and its assets ahead of the protection of the abused children.

You don't think that this is worthy of criminal investigation, and appropriate punishment if he's guilty?

As I said earlier, why peopler are focussing on Dawkins, rather than the vatican cover up is beyond me.

I agree, very odd :/ All that's being said is that there should be a trial. And I agree, there bloomin' well should. Simple as that. People seem quick to lay into Dawkins who IMO, has supported a valid stand point that has been raised by others. As stated, the newspaper article headline is out of context; suprise suprise.

[Halb]

Busa_Rush said:

Halb said:

Dawkins = ace. Pope = liar.
Hopefully something good will come out of this. ANd maybe there will never again be an institutionalized defence/cover-up by the Catholic church to protect Priests buggering kids...which is what this is all aboot, not Dawkins being smarmy (supposedly)

Dawkins=moron who is trying to pick a fight with the pope because he disagrees with him about religion, this has nothing to do with child abuse.

If you knew anything about the Catholics then you'd know that the Pope has very little to do with anything which happens on the ground level. Same as the CofE or any commercial organisation . .. how much does the the Chairman of the BBC know about the activities of the make up artists ?

Others have answered this. The charge against the pope is that he covered up priest buggering kids, as part of a systematic reaction to protect the church.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/12/richard-d...
Dawkins isn't a moron, he is a very smart biologist!

[Busa_Rush]

Halb said:

Busa_Rush said:

Halb said:

Dawkins = ace. Pope = liar.
Hopefully something good will come out of this. ANd maybe there will never again be an institutionalized defence/cover-up by the Catholic church to protect Priests buggering kids...which is what this is all aboot, not Dawkins being smarmy (supposedly)

Dawkins=moron who is trying to pick a fight with the pope because he disagrees with him about religion, this has nothing to do with child abuse.

If you knew anything about the Catholics then you'd know that the Pope has very little to do with anything which happens on the ground level. Same as the CofE or any commercial organisation . .. how much does the the Chairman of the BBC know about the activities of the make up artists ?

Others have answered this. The charge against the pope is that he covered up priest buggering kids, as part of a systematic reaction to protect the church.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/12/richard-d...
Dawkins isn't a moron, he is a very smart biologist!

The Pope has been accused of all sorts of things over the years, current and previous, but there's no evidence to support any of the current allegations and it's all simply farcical.

Dawkins has been proven to be a nobber on many an occasion over the years, he likes nothing more than a scrap with anybody involved with religion and that's all this is, a poke at religion.

[Halb]

Busa_Rush said:

The Pope has been accused of all sorts of things over the years, current and previous, but there's no evidence to support any of the current allegations and it's all simply farcical.

And now he is accused of something which he needs to address. There has been abuse, there has been cover-ups. The church seems to be now urging it's members to cooperate more, but in the past, was this pope guilty of helping to cover it up?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8612787.st...

busa rush said:

Dawkins has been proven to be a nobber on many an occasion over the years, he likes nothing more than a scrap with anybody involved with religion and that's all this is, a poke at religion.

Proved how?