# Dawkins:  I will arrest Pope Benedict



## The Space Cowboy (Apr 11, 2010)

> 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.
> 
> ...





Sir Richard Dawkins, Epic Troll.


----------



## First Tsurugi (Apr 11, 2010)

Sounds like the intro to a Good Cop Bad Cop movie.


----------



## Patchouli (Apr 11, 2010)

Bracing for epic.


----------



## sxz (Apr 11, 2010)

Holy fuck, that would be more epic than taking a dump and not having to wipe your ass!


----------



## hehey (Apr 11, 2010)

Hes asking for war.....

(only being dramatic here obviously)


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Apr 11, 2010)

He's asking to have the Swiss guard beat his ass, which I welcome. Let's see who atheist cry out to when beat over the head repeatedly.


----------



## The Space Cowboy (Apr 11, 2010)

There are numerous UK laws concerning who can make an arrest.  Since he is not a constable he does not have the arrest powers to do what he intends.


----------



## Tkae (Apr 11, 2010)

So if the Pope lands in Britain and crazy shit happens that keeps him from getting arrested... wouldn't that prove the existence of God?

God vs Dawkins... this could get interesting


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Apr 11, 2010)

The Space Cowboy said:


> Personally I think he's talking out of his ass.


Probably so, but I can't see him actually going through with it considering he doesn't have authority to do so nor would they let him.


----------



## Vanthebaron (Apr 11, 2010)

Do it flog him while you at it


----------



## sxz (Apr 11, 2010)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> He's asking to have the Swiss guard beat his ass, which I welcome. Let's see who atheist cry out to when beat over the head repeatedly.



Yeah, that'll show them atheist meanies


----------



## Zhariel (Apr 11, 2010)

I'm an atheist, but this is a teeeeerrible idea. Oh man, if it goes down, I need video of it.


----------



## Mider T (Apr 11, 2010)

I wonder how far he's willing to go to cement his anti-religion stance?  I thought he'd tone it down when he started getting banned from countries but he couldn't pass up a scandal.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Apr 11, 2010)

sxz said:


> Yeah, that'll show them atheist meanies


It's not the fact that he's an atheist, its the fact its Dawkins. The guy's an asshole and for some reason people like to rally around him like he's their god.


----------



## First Tsurugi (Apr 11, 2010)

The Space Cowboy said:


> There are numerous UK laws concerning who can make an arrest.  Since he is not a constable he does not have the arrest powers to do what he intends.



There's no such thing as a citizen's arrest in Britain?



Tkae said:


> So if the Pope lands in Britain and crazy shit happens that keeps him from getting arrested... wouldn't that prove the existence of God?
> 
> God vs Dawkins... this could get interesting



Some TTGL kinda shit would go down. 



Vanthebaron said:


> Do it flog him while you at it



Pretty sure flogging someone Benedict's age would kill him.


----------



## jux (Apr 11, 2010)

i'd like to see how this sits well with the catholics


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Apr 11, 2010)

jux said:


> i'd like to see how this sits well with the catholics


Kidnapping doesn't generally sit well with anyone.


----------



## First Tsurugi (Apr 11, 2010)

jux said:


> i'd like to see how this sits well with the catholics



Probably about as well as someone trying to do it to Obama or some other world leader.


----------



## dr.psycho (Apr 11, 2010)

I hope he succeeds.


----------



## sxz (Apr 11, 2010)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Kidnapping doesn't generally sit well with anyone.



That's a strong word.

It wouldn't classify as a kidnapping if it actually happened, which it won't.


----------



## Ennoea (Apr 11, 2010)

While it may seem silly the man did help cover up Child sexual abuse for decades, its about time people stopped walking on eggshells and called out the Pope on it. The Pope isn't above the fucking law. Christians are such hypocrites.


----------



## The Space Cowboy (Apr 11, 2010)

He who fights with bigots might take care lest he thereby become a bigot.

From some quick reading Britain's citizens' arrest laws are pretty limited, and there are cases in which citizens' arrests cannot legally be made.

Therefore I encourage Dawkins to do it. He will forever ruin his ability to reason with anyone except those who already agree with him, if he hasn't already.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Apr 11, 2010)

dr.psycho said:


> I hope he succeeds.


Why because people can do illegal shit if someone else did something illegal or seemingly illegal before them? 

If Dawkins was such a humanitarian and cared for those kids, he'd be going round the world rounding up people in places where rape is out of control. Dawkins is a pussy so he reserves himself to going after old men and the religious because that's what furthers his agenda. 

Some of you act like he's some kind of upstanding hero. He's just an attention whore who happens to share beliefs with you.


----------



## Ennoea (Apr 11, 2010)

> Some of you act like he's some kind of upstanding hero. He's just an attention whore who happens to share beliefs with you.



Isn't this why you defend the Pope? You can't really call out anyone else on it.


----------



## Petenshi (Apr 11, 2010)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Why because people can do illegal shit if someone else did something illegal or seemingly illegal before them?
> 
> If Dawkins was such a humanitarian and cared for those kids, he'd be going round the world rounding up people in places where rape is out of control. Dawkins is a pussy so he reserves himself to going after old men and the religious because that's what furthers his agenda.
> 
> Some of you act like he's some kind of upstanding hero. He's just an attention whore who happens to share beliefs with you.



I admit he is an attention whore and that he should be out wrangling every rapist, but the Pope, if hes done what he is accused of certainly deserves jail just like everyone else.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Apr 11, 2010)

Ennoea said:


> Isn't this why you defend the Pope? You can't really call out anyone else on it.



Um I don't defend the pope, in fact I said he should be removed. But way to fucking misquote me.


----------



## Ennoea (Apr 11, 2010)

Really though John Paul II is to blame, Ratzinger did cover up but only due to John Paul II being a stubborn asshole.



> Um I don't defend the pope, in fact I said he should be removed. But way to fucking misquote me.



I didn't misquote, it seemed like you were defending the Pope.


----------



## Mintaka (Apr 11, 2010)

DO EET!!!!


----------



## dr.psycho (Apr 11, 2010)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Why because people can do illegal shit if someone else did something illegal or seemingly illegal before them?
> 
> If Dawkins was such a humanitarian and cared for those kids, he'd be going round the world rounding up people in places where rape is out of control. Dawkins is a pussy so he reserves himself to going after old men and the religious because that's what furthers his agenda.
> 
> Some of you act like he's some kind of upstanding hero. He's just an attention whore who happens to share beliefs with you.



The pope helped cover up sex scandals in the Vatican and he should pay for it, simple as that. 

Just because you passionately hate Dawkins and think hes an asshole doesn't mean hes wrong on the issue.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Apr 11, 2010)

dr.psycho said:


> The pope helped cover up sex scandals in the Vatican and he should pay for it, simple as that.
> 
> Just because you passionately hate Dawkins and think hes an asshole doesn't mean hes wrong on the issue.


Dawkins isn't the police, therefore he can't just arrest someone. You can't break laws because someone else broke them. Dawkins isn't fucking batman. 

And I hate Dawkins because he does shit like this and is so blatantly biased.


----------



## Petenshi (Apr 11, 2010)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Dawkins isn't the police, therefore he can't just arrest someone. You can't break laws because someone else broke them. Dawkins isn't fucking batman.
> 
> And I hate Dawkins because he does shit like this and is so blatantly biased.



Yeah, but no one is ever going to arrest the pope unless someone does something out of the ordinary.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Apr 11, 2010)

Petenshi said:


> Yeah, but no one is ever going to arrest the pope unless someone does something out of the ordinary.



You can't do that, because you're breaking the law. It wouldn't hold up in a court and the case would be thrown out. If I wrongfully arrest some one (kidnap) I can't then turn them without being arrested myself.


----------



## ameterasu_41 (Apr 11, 2010)

Assuming he had a plan, he probably just blew any chance he had on being an attention whore. Then again, all he really wants is publicity anyways.


----------



## Fruits Basket Fan (Apr 11, 2010)

IT IS NOT EVER GOING TO HAPPEN !!!!



The Pope is loved by millions of Christians....and if anyone dares to put him on court, you will have chaos.



Unfortunately, several devout Catholics do believe that the Pope cannot be bound by "earth" laws or courts .....


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Apr 11, 2010)

ameterasu_41 said:


> Assuming he had a plan, he probably just blew any chance he had on being an attention whore. Then again, all he really wants is publicity anyways.



If Dawkins was any kind of agreeable he would actually look at the Catholics who want the Pope ousted and help them do that, at least that makes him look like a person who can put his differences aside. He's more worried about tarnishing the Church than he is about the children.

Meanwhile, Mass attendance is up.


----------



## Petenshi (Apr 11, 2010)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> You can't do that, because you're breaking the law. It wouldn't hold up in a court and the case would be thrown out. If I wrongfully arrest some one (kidnap) I can't then turn them without being arrested myself.



Respecting the law only goes so far. As martin Luther King said a law that doesn't coincide with natural law is an unjust law. This is one of those occasions. You are basically saying the pope can do whatever he wants as long as it isn't to bad that the UN has to get involved.


----------



## The Space Cowboy (Apr 11, 2010)

Here is a handy guide of what I think will happen if he actually goes through with it.


----------



## dr.psycho (Apr 11, 2010)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Dawkins isn't the police, therefore he can't just arrest someone. You can't break laws because someone else broke them. Dawkins isn't fucking batman.
> 
> And I hate Dawkins because he does shit like this and is so blatantly biased.



You make it sound like hes going to go out and physically arrest the pope himself...

Yeah its quite clear you hate Dawkins, especially when 90% of the content in your posts are just you bashing Dawkins, and implicitly bashing anyone who supports him.


----------



## abcd (Apr 11, 2010)

I would say that pope is at fault and people at such high positions should take responsibility and step down .....


----------



## Momoka (Apr 11, 2010)

Dawkins finally went crazy


----------



## Xion (Apr 11, 2010)

Dawkins goes in the "militant" atheist category.

Never had much respect for radicals on any issue.


----------



## Shasta McNasty (Apr 11, 2010)

Obviously this won't accomplish anything, but I hope it sheds light on the sex slave trade organization that is the Catholic Church.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Apr 11, 2010)

Petenshi said:


> Respecting the law only goes so far. As martin Luther King said a law that doesn't coincide with natural law is an unjust law. This is one of those occasions. You are basically saying the pope can do whatever he wants as long as it isn't to bad that the UN has to get involved.



You're basically putting words in my mouth and comparing Dawkins to someone who worked for the furthering of men and women in a country is pretty sad. Dawkins is self serving and had he been here, your comparison of him to a religious figure would have more than likely offended him than the fact that the figure had a great impact on society. 



dr.psycho said:


> You make it sound like hes going to go out and physically arrest the pope himself...
> 
> Yeah its quite clear you hate Dawkins, especially when 90% of the content in your posts are just you bashing Dawkins, and implicitly bashing anyone who supports him.


Dawkins is an attention whore. He's going to end up in jail, de-knighted and looking worse after all of this and he already has on some democratic forums. Any reasonable atheist can see this is a stupid whoring tactic and one that only serves to make any atheist like a lawless offender.


----------



## dr.psycho (Apr 11, 2010)

The Space Cowboy said:


> There are numerous UK laws concerning who can make an arrest.  Since he is not a constable he does not have the arrest powers to do what he intends.



Hes not going to arrest the pope himself...

Dawkins is going to attempt to get a judge to issue an international arrest warrant on the pope under the universal jurisdiction or universality principle:

"a principle in public international law (as opposed to private international law) whereby states claim criminal jurisdiction over persons whose alleged crimes were committed outside the boundaries of the prosecuting state, regardless of nationality, country of residence, or any other relation with the prosecuting country. The state backs its claim on the grounds that the crime committed is considered a crime against all, which any state is authorized to punish, as it is too serious to tolerate jurisdictional arbitrage."

When the warrant is issued, the cops will arrest the pope upon his arrival.

So what it boils down to is the question of whether or not allowing p*d*p**** priests to molest young children and helping them escape conviction is considered a "crime of humanity"


----------



## Damaris (Apr 11, 2010)

i would be all for this if i thought dawkins actually gave a damn about the kids.
but he's only proving that radical militant atheists are as bad as what they claim to hate.


----------



## First Tsurugi (Apr 11, 2010)

dr.psycho said:


> Hes not going to arrest the pope himself...
> 
> Dawkins is going to attempt to get a judge to issue an international arrest warrant on the pope under the universal jurisdiction or universality principle:
> 
> ...



No, what it boils down to is whether the judges and Britain as a whole want to invite massive amounts of controversy that go along with arresting the leader of one of the largest religions in the world.

Hint hint: they don't.


----------



## shiki-fuujin (Apr 11, 2010)

Omg I'm gonna go buy some popcorn, and watch the shit storm that will follow..


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Apr 11, 2010)

dr.psycho said:


> Hes not going to arrest the pope himself...
> 
> Dawkins is going to attempt to get a judge to issue an international arrest warrant on the pope under the universal jurisdiction or universality principle:
> 
> ...



I doubt that happens, he would have better luck doing it himself. Of course half of the thread seems to think that he is doing it himself, so you better all get your argument straight. 

And you talk about me and not liking Dawkins. I'm sorry is there some anti-Dawkins stuff in my sig? On my Avatar, sig picture? No...and there never has been? But what's that in yours? How can you say I am mocking that troll Dawkins with every post you make has something about the Church attached to it, hypocrite much?


----------



## Mintaka (Apr 11, 2010)

I share his sentiments, however unless he has someone within the ranks of the authorities and those within the ranks of law I see little chances of this being successful in the way he wishes.

It may however serve as a catlyst for something else, whether good or bad is yet to be seen.  Nonetheless this tactic intrigues me.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Apr 11, 2010)

Tokoyami said:


> I share his sentiments, however unless he has someone within the ranks of the authorities and those within the ranks of law I see little chances of this being successful in the way he wishes.
> 
> It may however serve as a catlyst for something else, whether good or bad is yet to be seen.  Nonetheless this tactic intrigues me.


Church history pretty much shows that times of turmoil see the most successful attendance for the Church. So I doubt their worried.


----------



## First Tsurugi (Apr 11, 2010)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Church history pretty much shows that times of turmoil see the most successful attendance for the Church. So I doubt their worried.



What?

The pedophilia scandals have driven away more people from the Church than any event in recent history.


----------



## The Space Cowboy (Apr 11, 2010)

First Tsurugi said:


> What?
> 
> The pedophilia scandals have driven away more people from the Church than any event in recent history.



Internal turmoil no.  External troubles yes.  Dawkins counts as an external source.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Apr 11, 2010)

First Tsurugi said:


> What?
> 
> The pedophilia scandals have driven away more people from the Church than any event in recent history.



Several churches in town and other areas reported higher attendances this past Easter than in previous years. World wide the Church still bolsters huge numbers and many people consider themselves Catholic (like myself and Mael) and don't always attend church.


----------



## Adonis (Apr 11, 2010)

Xion said:


> Dawkins goes in the "militant" atheist category.
> 
> Never had much respect for radicals on any issue.



He's not militant. Being vocal about your opinion in a public forum isn't being militant.

That said, Dawkins pulling a Michael Moore makes between my eyes sting with shame.


----------



## Tkae (Apr 11, 2010)

I wonder if Pope-nappers have a special place in hell set aside for them.

Dante didn't mention it, but I think maybe it's under the ass of Satan


----------



## Red (Apr 11, 2010)

Arresting the Pope? Of course he will and I'm God Emperor of Mankind.


----------



## Tkae (Apr 11, 2010)

Adonis said:


> He's not militant. Being vocal about your opinion in a public forum isn't being militant.
> 
> That said, Dawkins pulling a Michael Moore makes between my eyes sting with shame.



No, see, when he got the law involved he became militant.

Men with guns = militant


----------



## HugeGuy (Apr 11, 2010)

Dawkins...


----------



## Mintaka (Apr 11, 2010)

Indeed.  If he's going to do it why did he announce it?

BTW if dawkins were a militant he wouldn't be arresting the pope, he'd be shooting his plane down with an RPG.


----------



## Champagne Supernova (Apr 11, 2010)

I wonder how close he'd actully get to the pope before get manhandled by his security.


----------



## Adonis (Apr 11, 2010)

Some of you are aware you're effectively defending a pope who wrote instructions for covering up a worldwide molestation scandal, right?

I don't see how the "lol, Atheists" sentiment (beyond the sensationalist PR stunt buffoonery) is justified considering he is complicit in grievous criminal acts.


----------



## Mintaka (Apr 11, 2010)

Champagne Supernova said:


> I wonder how close he'd actully get to the pope before get manhandled by his security.


*dawkins is 5 feet away.*


Holy security man person thing: HOLD IT BUSTER!  *gets tackled to the ground*

Do the popes security men say buster?  I think that'd be kind of funny.

Yeah yeah he's not doing it himself.  But it would be funny if he was.


----------



## Tkae (Apr 11, 2010)

Ok, seriously, would you arrest this man?


----------



## shiki-fuujin (Apr 11, 2010)

Tokoyami said:


> Indeed.  If he's going to do it why did he announce it?
> 
> BTW if dawkins were a militant he wouldn't be arresting the pope, he'd be shooting his plane down with an RPG.



I smell a conspiracy theory brewing....
But I agree with KTK, Dawkins is sort of an radical.Though the pope himself is not a "saint".


----------



## Adonis (Apr 11, 2010)

Tkae said:


> No, see, when he got the law involved he became militant.
> 
> Men with guns = militant



I'm a militant victim, then, every time I ask for police assistance in response to a crime. Don't be so stupid.

Seriously, am I the only one who still remembers that this Pope knowingly aided and abetted the rape of children? The fact Dawkins is probably being self-serving is a red herring.


----------



## dr.psycho (Apr 11, 2010)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> I doubt that happens, he would have better luck doing it himself. Of course half of the thread seems to think that he is doing it himself, so you better all get your argument straight.
> 
> And you talk about me and not liking Dawkins. I'm sorry is there some anti-Dawkins stuff in my sig? On my Avatar, sig picture? No...and there never has been? But what's that in yours? How can you say I am mocking that troll Dawkins with every post you make has something about the Church attached to it, hypocrite much?



Yeah its quite clear half the people in the thread think Dawkins is going to make the arrest himself, including yourself with your "Dawkins = Batman" and "kidnapping" comments. Your comments made quite clear you thought the same too, either that or you're really good at pretending to be ignorant. 

Whether you think Dawkins is an attention whore, or a radical militant atheist, or whatever ad hominems you can pull out of your rear end isn't relevant to the issue here. 

The pope knowingly allowed the molestation of children within his church, and protected the guilty priests from the law by covering it up.The bottom line is he needs to pay for his crimes.





First Tsurugi said:


> No, what it boils down to is whether the judges and Britain as a whole want to invite massive amounts of controversy that go along with arresting the leader of one of the largest religions in the world.
> 
> Hint hint: they don't.



I wouldn't be surprised if the judges chickened out. But I'm hoping they put bias and pressures aside and do their jobs. *Nobody* should be above the law, not even "gods representative on earth"....


----------



## shiki-fuujin (Apr 11, 2010)

Adonis said:


> I'm a militant victim, then, every time I ask for police assistance in response to a crime. Don't be so stupid.
> 
> Seriously, am I the only one who still remembers that this Pope knowingly aided and abetted the rape of children? The fact Dawkins is probably being self-serving is a red herring.



No you are not.Many just feel that Dawkins is using the situation to bolster his 'street cred" so to speak.


----------



## dr.psycho (Apr 11, 2010)

The Space Cowboy said:


> Here is a handy guide of what I think will happen if he actually goes through with it.



Why would he be jailed? At worst his requested arrest warrant on the pope will be denied.


----------



## Adonis (Apr 11, 2010)

shiki-fuujin said:


> No you are not.Many just feel that Dawkins is using the situation to bolster his 'street cred" so to speak.



He probably is. Doesn't make him wrong. 

You could question most people's motives if you get down to it; rarely are we as noble as we like to think. How many people use the suffering of African children as a quick way to win an argument without actually empathizing with their plight? Most radicals aren't upset because people are suffering; they use the fact others are suffering as a post hoc rationalization for their own personal dissatisfaction.


----------



## Tkae (Apr 11, 2010)

Adonis said:


> I'm a militant victim, then, every time I ask for police assistance in response to a crime.



No, you're a militant sympathizer every time you point in the direction of a "criminal" for the police to impose their will upon 

The "criminal" is the victim.



> Seriously, am I the only one who still remembers that this Pope knowingly aided and abetted the rape of children? The fact Dawkins is probably being self-serving is a red herring.



Pope attempting to hide a conspiracy that might damage his flock's faith...

A crazy idiot spewing hatred...

...

...


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Apr 11, 2010)

dr.psycho said:


> Yeah its quite clear half the people in the thread think Dawkins is going to make the arrest himself, including yourself with your "Dawkins = Batman" and "kidnapping" comments. Your comments made quite clear you thought the same too, either that or you're really good at pretending to be ignorant.
> 
> Whether you think Dawkins is an attention whore, or a radical militant atheist, or whatever ad hominems you can pull out of your rear end isn't relevant to the issue here.
> 
> ...



I still think and hope he means to do it himself, just to see him lose any credibility for being anything other than a troll. But you still didn't answer my thing about you being a hypocrite. Guess I am right. 



Adonis said:


> Some of you are aware you're effectively defending a pope who wrote instructions for covering up a worldwide molestation scandal, right?
> 
> I don't see how the "lol, Atheists" sentiment (beyond the sensationalist PR stunt buffoonery) is justified considering he is complicit in grievous criminal acts.


No one's defending that fuck up, someone should tie them up somewhere and burn them both. Dawkins for generally being an annoying fuck and the Pope for systematically fucking over little boys while others fucked said little boys. If the Pope was smart, he would allow priests to marry, that law was only made so that Pope's kids didn't inherit church property. If allowed now, they couldn't inherit shit besides the little crappy car you buy on a priests salary. Then he would have the paedophiles executed or at least excommunicated and jailed. I would probably be a Priest if they could marry. 

Benedict instead sticks to this notion that its right to essentially turn away anyone who is straight and not a paedophile by restricting them from getting married.


----------



## Adonis (Apr 11, 2010)

Tkae said:


> Pope attempting to hide a conspiracy that might damage his flock's faith...
> 
> A crazy idiot spewing hatred...
> 
> ...



You do know the Pope's both those things, right?

A Pope perpetuating the misery of children in order to protect his hierarchy of power or an outspoken biologist that wears tacky Hawaiian shirts. Who's the monster here? 

The fact you're honestly equating the Pope protecting child rapists to a "jerk" atheist that hurts feelings shows how warped your priorities are. Sure, thousands of children had their trust taken advantage of and sexually-abused for it but at least no one had to evaluate their faith as a result. Fuck you.


----------



## Tkae (Apr 11, 2010)

Adonis said:


> The fact you're honestly claiming the Pope was justified in protecting child rapists shows how warped your priorities are. Sure, thousands of children had their trust taken advantage of and sexually-abused for it but at least no one had to evaluate their faith as a result. Fuck you.



For someone who blindly throws out the names of rhetorical fallacies as your argument rebuttals, you're sure committing a pretty bad one yourself considering you're assuming that my entire argument actually _is_ the defense of the pope by claiming he was justified in protecting child rapists 

You're putting words in my mouth, sir 

I've said nothing more than that he's a cute old man in a red hat and red shoes.

That being the defense of child rapists is entirely your doing


----------



## Mintaka (Apr 11, 2010)

Tkae said:


> Ok, seriously, would you arrest this man?


Short answer, yes. 

Long answer, yes.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Apr 11, 2010)

That's two Popes in those pics.


----------



## The Space Cowboy (Apr 11, 2010)

Please restrict commentary to the issue at hand and refrain from personal attacks.  That goes for everyone.  Now the people in the story?  Go ahead.  Bash them all you want


----------



## Mintaka (Apr 11, 2010)

> That's two Popes in those pics.


Great now I need to time travel to aresst the other one.


----------



## Tkae (Apr 11, 2010)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> That's two Popes in those pics.



Shut up, only Catholics would have noticed if you hadn't said anything 

Now they'll all know 

Fine, I admit it, the first one is John Paul II. But it was so funny I had to add it. And I still think Benedict is funny in his red hat and red shoes, even without the good-humored pantomime...


----------



## Adonis (Apr 11, 2010)

Tkae said:


> For someone who blindly throws out the names of rhetorical fallacies as your argument rebuttals, you're sure committing a pretty bad one yourself considering you're assuming that my entire argument actually _is_ the defense of the pope by claiming he was justified in protecting child rapists



That's the only assumption that rendered your post was an actual rebuttal. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt by assuming you were a moron with warped views rather than just a moron wasting typing space with lame jokes.



> You're putting words in my mouth, sir



I'm sure it's the closest you've ever come to voicing an intelligible opinion.



> I've said nothing more than that he's a cute old man in a red hat and red shoes.
> 
> That being a defense of child rapists is entirely your doing



You may have heard, but he looks like the Dark Lord of the Sith.

Oh yes, look at the adorable child rapist-enabler!


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Apr 11, 2010)

No...the two of them look different. Or are you saying all old people look alike? You're an Agist.


----------



## Taco (Apr 11, 2010)

dr.psycho said:


> Yeah its quite clear half the people in the thread think Dawkins is going to make the arrest himself, including yourself with your "Dawkins = Batman" and "kidnapping" comments. Your comments made quite clear you thought the same too, either that or you're really good at pretending to be ignorant.



... Batman beats the shit out of the bad guys and let's the cops take it from there, duh.


----------



## Tkae (Apr 11, 2010)

Adonis said:


> I was giving you the benefit of the doubt by assuming you were a moron with warped views rather than just a moron wasting typing space with lame jokes.



That's your fault, not mine


----------



## Lord Yu (Apr 11, 2010)

Silly Dawkins, you cannot arrest the Lord of The Sith!


----------



## Tkae (Apr 11, 2010)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> No...the two of them look different. Or are you saying all old people look alike? You're an Agist.



Actually, I was gambling on the fact that over half of his face is covered by his hands, and that the only real features that could be looked at were his chin structure. Though I guess you could also tell because he's in Pope garb and the picture is clearly old, which wouldn't be the current Pope.

And his lips are different, I guess 

But I was honestly hoping that non-Catholics wouldn't be wise to the fact that the old Pope was lax in wearing his red hat and more ornate accessories, while the new Pope is more conventional in wearing them, and that none of the Catholics who could tell the two apart in such a way would keep quiet and not press the issue.


*Spoiler*: __


----------



## sxz (Apr 11, 2010)

I thought all of the popes were grown from the same seeds?


----------



## -= Ziggy Stardust =- (Apr 11, 2010)

I wonder if the pope will kick his ass, lately there has been an increase of ass-whopping old people.


----------



## dr.psycho (Apr 11, 2010)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> I still think and hope he means to do it himself, just to see him lose any credibility for being anything other than a troll. But you still didn't answer my thing about you being a hypocrite. Guess I am right.
> 
> 
> No one's defending that fuck up, someone should tie them up somewhere and burn them both. Dawkins for generally being an annoying fuck and the Pope for systematically fucking over little boys while others fucked said little boys. If the Pope was smart, he would allow priests to marry, that law was only made so that Pope's kids didn't inherit church property. If allowed now, they couldn't inherit shit besides the little crappy car you buy on a priests salary. Then he would have the paedophiles executed or at least excommunicated and jailed. I would probably be a Priest if they could marry.
> ...



Maybe you should get all your facts straight before commenting next time. Your ignorance might mislead others (and I wouldn't be surprised if it already has from the looks of things in this thread). 

The difference between Dawkins and the Pope is the Pope committed a crime, and Dawkins has not. Only the pope should be punished. 

No you haven't proven that I'm a hypocrite. Your presumptions on my personal views and the video I have in my signature is irrelevant. You're free to bash Dawkins all you want, you seem to have a talent for that. I've only criticized the Pope and the p*d*p**** priests in my post, and it was well deserved. If you concede that the Pope should be punished than this little debate is over, arguing forward becomes meaningless. 

...and for the record I have this video in my signature because I think its hilarious and Louis C.K is one of the funniest comedians out there. I have no hate for the Catholic church, my girlfriend is catholic. But I have all the hate in the world for criminals, and the pope in this case is quite clearly a criminal.


----------



## Pilaf (Apr 11, 2010)

Xion said:


> Dawkins goes in the "militant" atheist category.
> 
> Never had much respect for radicals on any issue.



So what's that make Rat-Zinger...a militant p*d*p**** apologist?


----------



## sxz (Apr 11, 2010)

Dawkins shuld get on his bike for this battle.

He's no match for the king.


----------



## Petenshi (Apr 11, 2010)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> You're basically putting words in my mouth and comparing Dawkins to someone who worked for the furthering of men and women in a country is pretty sad. Dawkins is self serving and had he been here, your comparison of him to a religious figure would have more than likely offended him than the fact that the figure had a great impact on society.



You are making this about Dawkins, when it should be about the pope. Heres an example of this situation. You are a kid in school and have always hated a particular teacher, and the said teacher does something horrible that warrants being fired like slapping children. If you bring up that she did this, regardless if it is because you hated her before this event you still are doing a good thing by removing the teacher. 

The pope needs to answer for his actions in a timely manner, If he went through the proper channels it would take forever.


----------



## Tkae (Apr 11, 2010)

Petenshi said:


> You are making this about Dawkins, when it should be about the pope.



Really?

Because this thread is about Dawkins.

The Pope has his own thread all to himself


----------



## Mintaka (Apr 11, 2010)

This is about dawkins trying to make the pope answer for his crimes so the pope is also part of the discussion.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Apr 11, 2010)

Petenshi said:


> You are making this about Dawkins, when it should be about the pope. Heres an example of this situation. You are a kid in school and have always hated a particular teacher, and the said teacher does something horrible that warrants being fired like slapping children. If you bring up that she did this, regardless if it is because you hated her before this event you still are doing a good thing by removing the teacher.
> 
> The pope needs to answer for his actions in a timely manner, If he went through the proper channels it would take forever.



Dawkins intentions are just as much a problem as the Pope's wrong doings, he's not doing it because its right he's doing it to further his agenda.



dr.psycho said:


> Maybe you should get all your facts straight before commenting next time. Your ignorance might mislead others (and I wouldn't be surprised if it already has from the looks of things in this thread).
> 
> The difference between Dawkins and the Pope is the Pope committed a crime, and Dawkins has not. Only the pope should be punished.
> 
> ...



The old "my girlfriend" defense, a lot of people have girlfriends that represent something they hate, doesn't make you any less of a hypocrite. 

And by supporting Dawkins, who has said that the Church needs to die out, you're supporting more than just downfall of a few people. So if we are to believe that a few represents the whole group, can we then assume that all atheists are as backwards and assholish as Dawkins, or can you only apply that kind of stereotyping to religion?


----------



## dr.psycho (Apr 11, 2010)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Dawkins intentions are just as much a problem as the Pope's wrong doings, he's not doing it because its right he's doing it to further his agenda.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Trying to get a criminal arrested is just as bad as being a criminal and breaking the law? You're as illogical as they come.

I'm supporting Dawkin's attempt to arrest a criminal. Nothing more and nothing less.

You keep talking about Dawkin's "agenda" without elaborating...care to enlighten me on what it is?


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Apr 11, 2010)

dr.psycho said:


> Trying to get a criminal arrested is just as bad as being a criminal and breaking the law? You're as illogical as they come.
> 
> I'm supporting Dawkin's attempt to arrest a criminal. Nothing more and nothing less.



So when I attack Dawkings and his biased attack on a large group of people because a minority of them are paedophiles you say I can't attack Dawkins. Even though his attack isn't because kids were harmed, its because he thinks he will be responsible for driving people from the Church. 

But when I say your sig is an attack on the Church, its irrelevant. You're just as illogical as they come. If you want to pull those bullshit arguments somewhere else that may fly, but you can't fucking stand there as a pot and call the kettle black. 

Proving that Dawkins seeks to have the Church destroyed, pretty much destroys your argument and makes your supporting him just as bad. Jeeze, I hope your girlfriend is proud. 



			
				Dawkins said:
			
		

> No, Pope Ratzinger should not resign. He should remain in charge of the whole rotten edifice - the whole profiteering, woman-fearing, guilt-gorging, truth-hating, child-raping institution - while it tumbles, amid a stench of incense and a rain of tourist-kitsch sacred hearts and preposterously crowned virgins, about his ears.





*I would like to thank Pilaf, because if he hadn't toted this quote 'round where it didn't belong, I wouldn't have seen it and remembered it. Thanks for helping out. 

Love
CTK 
*


----------



## Tkae (Apr 11, 2010)

Tokoyami said:


> This is about dawkins trying to make the pope answer for his crimes so the pope is also part of the discussion.



The Pope is only a part of this discussion by proxy. Dawkins isn't excused of his stupidity because of what the Pope did. It's fair game to discuss why he's not an idiot for trying to arrest the Pope, but it's not fair game to just talk about the Pope.

Because then it's not talking about Dawkins.

And this thread is about Dawkins 

Do I need to post pictures explaining this?


----------



## sxz (Apr 11, 2010)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> So when I attack Dawkings you say I can't attack Dawkins. Even though his attack isn't because he thinks he will be responsible for driving.
> 
> But when I say your girlfriend seeks to have the Church destroyed. Your sig is just as illogical as they come. If you want to pull those bullshit you but you can't fucking stand there as a pot kettle black.
> 
> Proving that Dawkins hope is proud.



You tell a tall tale... But I commend your bravery + reps


----------



## MartialHorror (Apr 11, 2010)

To be honest, I'm mixed. While I have no respect for the Pope and if he condones what that Priest did, then he should lose his title(and possibly face the law).

On the other hand, it's Richard fucking Dawkins, who I no respect for either. I think the dude promotes hatred and intolerance of religion too much and he's obviously doing this for the publicity.


----------



## Xion (Apr 11, 2010)

Adonis said:


> He's not militant. Being vocal about your opinion in a public forum isn't being militant.
> 
> That said, Dawkins pulling a Michael Moore makes between my eyes sting with shame.



Yeah he doesn't go around bombing churches, but I would qualify being especially publicity-focused, whoring for attention, and obnoxiously biased and vocal as being "militant" at least in the vernacular. 

Nice to see you still like being anal over the tiniest things.


----------



## PhlegmMaster (Apr 11, 2010)

I expected to see stupidity in this thread, but this is too much.

First, have you nutcases read the article? Dawkins isn't going to arrest anyone. He hasn't actually said that he "will arrest Pope Benedict", that's just the article's author putting words in his mouth, most likely because he's a biased theist. All Dawkins and Hitchens have done is hire human rights lawyers.

Second, asking why Dawkins doesn't go after all rapists instead of focusing on the Catholic rapes and cover-ups only makes your own biases more obvious. It's like asking why anti-racism activists don't go after all kinds of discrimination instead of focusing on race-based discrimination. Uh, they do it because it's their chosen cause, that's all. Why would you even ask such a stupid question? 

Third, stop kidding yourselves. You're not against bringing justice to an evil old man and his corrupt organization because Dawkins and Hitchens happen to be involved. You're against it because you're against anything and anyone that dares to attack the special, privileged status that religion undeservedly possesses in our societies. You're dishonest scum, and if this world was a sane one you would be recognized as such and treated accordingly.


----------



## dr.psycho (Apr 11, 2010)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> So when I attack Dawkings and his biased attack on a large group of people because a minority of them are paedophiles you say I can't attack Dawkins. Even though his attack isn't because kids were harmed, its because he thinks he will be responsible for driving people from the Church.
> 
> But when I say your sig is an attack on the Church, its irrelevant. You're just as illogical as they come. If you want to pull those bullshit arguments somewhere else that may fly, but you can't fucking stand there as a pot and call the kettle black.
> 
> ...



I quite clearly said you're free to bash Dawkins all you want. But it seems like your irrationality blinds you to the point where you can no longer read my posts? Not surprising since you also thought Dawkin's would make the arrest himself and be jailed for it...and still do. 



dr.psycho said:


> *You're free to bash Dawkins all you want, you seem to have a talent for that*. I've only criticized the Pope and the p*d*p**** priests in my post, and it was well deserved.



Again, I support Dawkin's attempt to arrest the Pope for his criminal acts, nothing more and nothing less. This is the 2nd time I've had to repeat this to you. Just because I support Dawkin's in this issue does not mean you can generalize and assume that I support him on all issues he partakes in. 

Similarly just because Catholic priests have molested children, does not mean I'll assume all Catholic priests are child molesters. 

If Dawkin's has a certain aversive view, it doesn't mean I automatically support it. 

Where in that quote does Dawkin's say he wants to destroy the church?
Also you still haven't elaborated on Dawkin's supposed "agenda"....?


----------



## perman07 (Apr 11, 2010)

Xion said:


> Dawkins goes in the "militant" atheist category.
> 
> Never had much respect for radicals on any issue.




The pope is obviously a rotten bastard who deserves to get some shit his way, Dawkins is just being antagonized here because he's Dawkins. I haven't actually seen anyone in this thread try to defend the pope, every counter-argument is about Dawkins, which is kind of beside the issue.

But even if the pope IS guilty of these things, is reducing PR on crimes within your organization actually a criminal act? I don't see what laws they are supposed to base an arrest of the Pope from. Which doesn't make the Pope innocent by any measure, it just goes to show that common sense and the law don't always go hand hand in hand.


----------



## Spica (Apr 11, 2010)

Aw, Dawkins, now you're gonna make atheists terrorists.  Kidnapp bin Laden instead.


----------



## dr.psycho (Apr 11, 2010)

PhlegmMaster said:


> I expected to see stupidity in this thread, but this is too much.
> 
> First, have you nutcases read the article? Dawkins isn't going to arrest anyone. He hasn't actually said that he "will arrest Pope Benedict", that's just the article's author putting words in his mouth, most likely because he's a biased theist. All Dawkins and Hitchens have done is hire human rights lawyers.
> 
> ...



A beacon of light in this thick fog of ignorance?


----------



## MartialHorror (Apr 11, 2010)

As said, no one is defending the Pope, everyone is just attacking Dawkins.

I mean, Dawkins isn't leading his crusade against pedophiles, he is leading his crusade about the top dog who might condone pedophilia. 

His crusade isn't even against bringing down someone who condones pedophilia, he's just doing it to further his war against religion. Thats all he wants. 

Thats why the focus is on him. His focusing on the Pope reveals his own motives. 

I believe most Christians who are aware of all the facts know that what the Pope allegedly did was wrong. They just aren't liking how Dawkins is handling it.


----------



## Red (Apr 11, 2010)

@Adonis, I'm not defending the Darth Benedict. Just pointing out that this guy is going to fail, that or I become God Emperor of Mankind.



Champagne Supernova said:


> I wonder how close he'd actully get to the pope before get manhandled by his security.


Pretty damn close, Pope's security is shit from what I heard.

Also lawl again at attempting to arrest a sith lord. He'd get force chocked from miles away.


----------



## Toby (Apr 11, 2010)

Funny cartoon, but using stereotypes? Not an argument. 



perman07 said:


> The pope is obviously a rotten bastard who deserves to get some shit his way, Dawkins is just being antagonized here because he's Dawkins. I haven't actually seen anyone in this thread try to defend the pope, every counter-argument is about Dawkins, which is kind of beside the issue.
> 
> But even if the pope IS guilty of these things, is reducing PR on crimes within your organization actually a criminal act? I don't see what laws they are supposed to base an arrest of the Pope from. Which doesn't make the Pope innocent by any measure, it just goes to show that common sense and the law don't always go hand hand in hand.



He is not being antagonised simply because he is Dawkins. He is being mocked because he is making a mockery of international law and making it look like it's a trivial past-time for atheists to wank over as easily as any other easily antagonised entitlement group. 

To arrest the Pope is to arrest a head of state, which means you are dealing with international criminal law - and if anything the best case he could make would be to sue the Catholic Church or the Vatican for their failure to rope in all the abusive clerics. But the question is whether these people are agents of the Vatican or the national organisation of Catholics in the country where they are serving as clergymen.

In neither case does this put the head of state at the blame. You can make a better argument that Bush was a war-criminal than that the current Pope can be blamed for the paedophilia-scandal in the Catholic church. Bush started the war in Afghanistan and Iraq. The Pope Benedict has hardly started the current fiasco. It's not even worth dignifying an argument what Dawkins is trying to pull here, and it is very obviously related to the Bush/Blair-trials.

The common sense of the law actually exists in this case. It would be ludicrous to arrest a man who has no control over these clerics. Their bishops have power over clerics, and the Pope has power over the bishops who, in fact, can appeal a Papal ruling to the Conclave. It is not a single command-structure that so many people seem to think it is. Really, the ignorance about the structure of the Catholic Church is quite shocking, and it is a true pleasure to be able to point it out in these debates.

As for the case that could be made against the clerics, it would hardly suit an international criminal tribune since the criminals, the clerics, should be judged in the countries where they abused children - which means it will have to be a trial within each individual country's Catholic chapter organisation, and this should hardly be a challenge in the UK where Catholics are hardly protected by any state law of preference. 

i.e. British lawyers should make their cases in British courts, and keep on their toes. Dawkins is running his mouth and doing so against a vastly more powerful organisation than himself and his university employers.


----------



## The Space Cowboy (Apr 11, 2010)

As an incidental matter, the response of various internet forums regarding this article is pretty much identical to the sentiments of this thread.


----------



## Dionysus (Apr 11, 2010)

OK.  If he can get a court to see enough to agree to charge Popeius with something, sure, go ahead.


----------



## dr.psycho (Apr 11, 2010)

Toby said:


> . *It would be ludicrous to arrest a man who has no control over these clerics. Their bishops have power over clerics, and the Pope has power over the bishops who, in fact, can appeal a Papal ruling to the Conclave*. It is not a single command-structure that so many people seem to think it is. Really, the ignorance about the structure of the Catholic Church is quite shocking, and it is a true pleasure to be able to point it out in these debates.



Ratzinger was a cardinal at the time of the molestation. Part of his duties were to decide whether or not priests should be defrocked, this was in the 1990s. In 1996 the arch bishop at the time sends a letter to inform Ratzinger about the molestation cases. Ratzinger ignored the letter...8 months later the accused underwent a secret trial, but Ratzinger stopped it, and covers it up. So yes Ratzinger did have control over the clerics and chose to ignore the archbishops letters and covered up the molestation directly himself. 

This is just one sex scandal hes covered up...there are more.

BBC news report: For more details.

*Spoiler*: __ 



[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpZz8Ps6u6M[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## Toby (Apr 11, 2010)

dr.psycho said:


> Ratzinger was a cardinal at the time of the molestation. Part of his duties were to decide whether or not priests should be defrocked, this was in the 1990s. In 1996 the arch bishop at the time sends a letter to inform Ratzinger about the molestation cases. Ratzinger ignored the letter...8 months later the accused underwent a secret trial, but Ratzinger stopped it, and covers it up. So yes Ratzinger did have control over the clerics and chose to ignore the archbishops letters and covered up the molestation directly himself.
> 
> This is just one sex scandal hes covered up...there are more.
> 
> ...



You are wasting your time, I'm afraid. I know Ratzinger's story and I didn't like him becoming Pope, but he is Pope, and that changes everything. You wouldn't be able to bring the US president to account for his previous crimes provided he had done something stupid while in college. Becoming Pope or US president absolves you of criminal persecution in your domain. Fortunately for the Pope this extends to Italy as well, since the Vatican State is tiny. 

He is a head of state now. You can't touch him any more for those past crimes. 

Again, this would have to be an internal trial within that church, or within the laws of the country. Arrests on the Pope have to be related to his duties as Pope.


----------



## dr.psycho (Apr 11, 2010)

Toby said:


> You are wasting your time, I'm afraid. I know Ratzinger's story and I didn't like him becoming Pope, but he is Pope, and that changes everything. You wouldn't be able to bring the US president to account for his previous crimes provided he had done something stupid while in college. *Becoming Pope or US president absolves you of criminal persecution in your domain. Fortunately for the Pope this extends to Italy as well, since the Vatican State is tiny.
> 
> He is a head of state now. You can't touch him any more for those past crimes. *
> 
> Again, this would have to be an internal trial within that church, or within the laws of the country. Arrests on the Pope have to be related to his duties as Pope.



Yes you can...as soon as he steps into the UK. 

*universal jurisdiction or universality principle* is a principle in public international law (as opposed to private international law) whereby states claim criminal jurisdiction over persons whose alleged crimes were committed outside the boundaries of the prosecuting state, regardless of nationality, country of residence, or any other relation with the prosecuting country. The state backs its claim on the grounds that the crime committed is considered a crime against all, which any state is authorized to punish, as it is too serious to tolerate jurisdictional arbitrage.


----------



## Botzu (Apr 11, 2010)

> You wouldn't be able to bring the US president to account for his previous crimes provided he had done something stupid while in college. Becoming Pope or US president absolves you of criminal persecution in your domain. Fortunately for the Pope this extends to Italy as well, since the Vatican State is tiny.
> He is a head of state now. You can't touch him any more for those past crimes.
> 
> Again, this would have to be an internal trial within that church, or within the laws of the country. Arrests on the Pope have to be related to his duties as Pope.


past crimes you make it sound like these things happened a long ass time ago. aren't atleast some of the priest shuffling he has been doing happened within the last couple months/years?
specifically for:


> shuffling priests from parish to parish rather than sullying the church's reputation by defrocking clergy who raped, sodomized or otherwise sexually abused minors.


and the accusations against the pope:


> The accusations against the pope stem from his leadership as archbishop of Munich, in his native Germany, before he came to the Vatican three decades ago, as well as his long tenure in Rome leading the Holy See's office dealing with a growing pile of dossiers about p*d*p**** priests


Which are clearly related to his duties as pope.


----------



## Dionysus (Apr 11, 2010)

Quick!  Get out your wiki links and undergrad law textbooks!


----------



## dr.psycho (Apr 11, 2010)

Dionysus said:


> Quick!  Get out your wiki links and undergrad law textbooks!


Oh geeze, I forgot facts don't belong in this forum.


----------



## Toby (Apr 11, 2010)

dr.psycho said:


> Yes you can...as soon as he steps into the UK.



Good one. I appreciate this. However, the problem is that you would still have to connect these cases from across the world to the Pope as the man responsible for all the abuse. He is not to blame for all this however. Don't get me wrong, he's pretty mean, but this is not his work. Not his alone, and to a much smaller degree than anybody else's fault.

This is why I brought up the Bush/Blair-cases. Dawkins is bound to be basing his argument on them. The connection with Bush's Afghanistan and Iraq war crimes accusations is that while acting as US president, Bush was the Commander in Chief, and therefore ultimately responsible for declarations of war and the actions carried out by US servicemen in Iraq and Afghanistan. And then I mentioned that he as president cannot be charged in a US court for these crimes. Which is why it would have to be an international trial, and perhaps if Bush steps on the soil of a country which despises him, the authorities might authorise his breath. But hold your breath on that, and the same goes for the Pope, who regularly visits countries which are predominantly Catholic and, for example, pro-Vatican, like Israel and the UK. 

The child-abuse however, cannot be traced back only to one single Pope, and let alone only the Pope alone. This problem is evidently not just the Pope's fault in the same sense that a commander orders their soldiers to abuse prisoners of war. The Pope does not order clergymen to carry these deeds out. His complicitness is based on ignoring the abuses. To that extent you might be able to make an argument, but it would not be as strong as warranting the removal of his office.

At best, victims could sue the Catholic church in their home country. And this is already very available to them, which is why this is a stupid statement and a fool's errand that Dawkins is cooking up.



Botzu said:


> past crimes you make it sound like these things happened a long ass time ago. aren't atleast some of the priest shuffling he has been doing happened within the last couple months/years?
> specifically for:
> 
> and the accusations against the pope:
> ...



You could link those priests to their bishops and you could try those priests and bishops within the laws of the land, however - my point was - that the Pope who once served there is now Pope, and lives in the Vatican, so good luck on catching him.

The accusations are not related to his duties as Pope. The Pope does not deal with menial tasks like these. You should know that his duties are mostly symbolic and the specific duties regard promoting the development of the church and increasing membership in it while being God's representative on Earth. The Conclave and archbishops deal with the priests and clergy, which makes them the prime target for a law-suit regarding child abuse.

Again, you all seem wildly bent on defending the hero Dawkins. But your problem is that you refuse to see what I am doing here:

I am telling you that you can - as a victim of sexual abuse - sue the church, in your country, and it is fully possible because it has been done before. You just need evidence, and testimonies work.

However, what seems to be the object of desire here, that is impeaching the Pope, is not legally possible. And in the few cases where you can justify detaining him, you would rely on political support for doing so. 

Now it is one thing for the UK to suggest we should detain Livni from Israel and a whole other thing to detain the Pope. Do any of you know what international repercussions that would have?


----------



## Garfield (Apr 11, 2010)

Now if only there was a judge cool enough to play along with this.


----------



## Kira U. Masaki (Apr 11, 2010)

You honestly I would have no idea who dawkins is if it wasnt for a very catch sig where he was rapping here on Narutoforums. Honestly though does he really have nothing better to do.


----------



## Dionysus (Apr 11, 2010)

dr.psycho said:


> Oh geeze, I forgot facts don't belong in this forum.


Ouch dude.  Does not follow from my post.  I'm actually supportive of the idea of holding heads of state accountable for their misdeeds, even while in office.  Now I'm going to have to be a dick and say that you have not actually given any referenced facts.  Now tend to those wiki links and textbook page citations.


----------



## dr.psycho (Apr 11, 2010)

Dionysus said:


> Ouch dude.  Does not follow from my post.  I'm actually supportive of the idea of holding heads of state accountable for their misdeeds, even while in office.  Now I'm going to have to be a dick and say that you have not actually given any referenced facts.  Now tend to those wiki links and textbook page citations.



Which style of citation would you like? I personally prefer APA.


----------



## Aster The Megalomaniac (Apr 11, 2010)

Do you REALLY wanna take that shot, Dawkins?


----------



## dr.psycho (Apr 11, 2010)

Toby said:


> Good one. I appreciate this. However, the problem is that you would still have to connect these cases from across the world to the Pope as the man responsible for all the abuse. He is not to blame for all this however. Don't get me wrong, he's pretty mean, but this is not his work. Not his alone, and to a much smaller degree than anybody else's fault.
> 
> This is why I brought up the Bush/Blair-cases. Dawkins is bound to be basing his argument on them. The connection with Bush's Afghanistan and Iraq war crimes accusations is that while acting as US president, Bush was the Commander in Chief, and therefore ultimately responsible for declarations of war and the actions carried out by US servicemen in Iraq and Afghanistan. And then I mentioned that he as president cannot be charged in a US court for these crimes. Which is why it would have to be an international trial, and perhaps if Bush steps on the soil of a country which despises him, the authorities might authorise his breath. But hold your breath on that, and the same goes for the Pope, who regularly visits countries which are predominantly Catholic and, for example, pro-Vatican, like Israel and the UK.
> 
> ...



I'm well aware that what Dawkin's is doing is not as easy as it seems. It depends on how good the lawyers he hired are and if they can dig up better paper trails, and if more cases of sex scandals pop up, etc. I still support what hes doing though, but at the same time I'm not exactly optimistic about it actually being accomplished.

All the Pope has to do is cancel his trip to the UK and its safe...


----------



## Toby (Apr 11, 2010)

Here, let me throw you a bone if you want to know how to arrest a head of state. We can use the American president Bush and Sudanese leader Omar Al Bashir's cases for comparison as case studies.

US President Bush - accusations of war crimes: abuses of POWs, illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq
Facts: Commander in Chief is responsible for going to war and conduct of operatives in operations approved by CoC
Ruling: Non-existent - why? If Bush were to be tried, it would have to be in an international court. His government did not and the US government still barely recognises international courts. For their office to hold power in the US they must become _legitimate_ meaning two things: 
1. There must be legal authority for operating in the domain of the United States
2. There must be a force which will detain and uphold international law in the United States

While part 1 is somewhat fulfilled, the second part is not. INTERPOL does not walk in the US for anything short of white collar crime.

Sudanese President Omar Al Bashir - accusations of human rights abuses, genocide and negligence in upholding basic caveats of international human rights for women and children
Facts: Sudan is embroiled in civil war, and as the sovereign leader of his own territory, Bashir is responsible for the actions of his soldiers since his government is the sole legitimate authority in the country,
Ruling: Existent - as Bashir has failed to uphold basic tenants of human rights law in Sudan he is guilty of war crimes

Has he been arrested? No. Why? Legitimacy again. And again, part 2. INTERPOL would never walk into Sudan to capture him, and the countries which Bashir visit do not arrest him.

Will Bashir get arrested in somewhere like Europe or the USA? Most likely. So he probably won't go there, or he will keep a low profile while doing so. 

Why do they get away with this? Politics. And of course, putting away Bashir doesn't solve anything. They will just replace him. So if you want justice, put him away, but if you want justice, solve the issue at hand.



dr.psycho said:


> Which style of citation would you like? I personally prefer APA.



Chicago Manual is better.


----------



## Black Wraith (Apr 11, 2010)

First they have to actually make a connection between the two and even then as Toby's mentioned it's stupidly hard to arrest a head of state.

Although I don't agree with the concept of a head of state having immunity from prosecution.


----------



## Dionysus (Apr 11, 2010)

dr.psycho said:


> Which style of citation would you like? I personally prefer APA.


Whatever floats your boat.  Style is fairly irrelevant, so far as my love of bibs go.  Though, if you link to a long document, be sure to point to relevant sections.  It would probably be more helpful to look specifically at UK law, since this is the avenue being used.  Then, a proper outline on the political reasons this is likely would also be needed--to encompass a truly sound argument on this matter.

Have the paper ready for next week week.


----------



## Toby (Apr 11, 2010)

Black Wraith said:


> First they have to actually make a connection between the two and even then as Toby's mentioned it's stupidly hard to arrest a head of state.
> 
> Although I don't agree with the concept of a head of state having immunity from prosecution.



The tricky bit isn't really that hard when we think of it though. It really is just the lack of case law proving the direct connection between a head of state being negligent towards upholding international law concerning rights and life standards to a sufficient degree that would qualify as inhumane.

The problem is distinguishing this inhumane degree from that of authoritarian regimes which are not intentionally repressing their people, but who follow different systems of government and which, in fact, might just be hopelessly poor.

It definitely doesn't help in the Omar Al Bashir case that if we cry genocide, we must intervene - and since nobody wants to, crying genocide would make the UN effectively meaningless.

The tension that prevents diplomats from saying that word in connection to Sudan is proof that this basic rule of international law still works, and it's a work in progress. Over time it might become more rudimentary and enforced, and in the case of the Pope it might be possible to make accusations that the church has not adequately followed national government instructions. Should a group of Catholic countries agree to demand reforms in the training of clergymen from the Vatican, then they could object and require their own internal screening of clergymen by their own government officials.

That at least would improve the conditions for the kids involved. And I see it likely that the Vatican would foot the bill for it.


----------



## 00MinatoNamikaze00 (Apr 11, 2010)

Kira U. Masaki said:


> You honestly I would have no idea who dawkins is if it wasnt for a very catch sig where he was rapping here on Narutoforums.


 You're a cool dude.


----------



## The Pink Ninja (Apr 11, 2010)

Dawkins will amaze you all with his epic martial arts as he fights his way through a huge crowd and a bazillion bodyguards.

Atheism gives you superpowers.


----------



## impersonal (Apr 11, 2010)

The clergy protects paedophile priests to avoid scandals that would ruin the expansion of Catholicism - they believe that it's good to be a bit dishonest here and there for the (higher) sake of the Catholic Church.

Dawkins attacks the Pope on bullshit charges* to create a scandal that will favour the expansion of atheism - he believes it's good to be a bit dishonest here and there for the sake of his Atheist Church.

Really, Dawkins has just become one more of these dogmatic retards. He is like Auguste Comte in many ways; he shares many of positivism's ideas; and like his predecessor, he is slowly establishing his own Church. Comte indeed ended up creating a "Religion of Humanity" which in turn spawned organizations _officially_ branding themselves as Churches.



(*What he did may constitutes a crime, or mere mismanagement, but certainly not a crime against humanity)


----------



## Saufsoldat (Apr 11, 2010)

It's pretty obvious that this is mostly a publicity stunt, still it's always amazing to see people raging over Dawkins no matter what he does. He could give food to starving kids in Africa and CTK would still argue that he's just trying to further his agenda.



impersonal said:


> The clergy protects paedophile priests to avoid scandals that would ruin the expansion of Catholicism - they believe that it's good to be a bit dishonest here and there for the sake of Faith in general.
> 
> Dawkins attacks the Pope on bullshit charges* to create a scandal that will favour the expansion of atheism - he believes it's good to be a bit dishonest here and there for the sake of Lack of Faith in general.
> 
> (*What he did may constitutes a crime, or mere mismanagement, but certainly not a crime against humanity)



It's never a bad thing to try and bring a criminal to justice. If there's anything the pope did that constitutes a crime against humanity it would be trying his best to spread AIDS to as many people as possible.


----------



## @lk3mizt (Apr 11, 2010)

lol, impossible. it just cant happen


----------



## sxz (Apr 11, 2010)

@lk3mizt said:


> lol, impossible. it just cant happen



Anything can happen in Naruto


----------



## Sasori (Apr 11, 2010)

The irony with Dawkins is that he is more fanatical in his "atheism" than the majority of religious people.

I don't understand how he cannot see it..


----------



## Kind of a big deal (Apr 11, 2010)

If he's tried in court, then he'll be either found innocent or guilty. What's the big deal? If the pope has done nothing wrong and God is on his side, why wouldn't he go prove he's innocent of the charges?

It's really quite simple, the best way for the Pope to dismiss Dawkins, would be to have the court rule that the charges were rubbish. If Christians oppose this idea, it could mean they know deep down that Dawkins may have a chance at winning this. 

The bigger the resistance and the outrage, the more everyone's true colors become obvious. Shouldn't Christians have faith that it will turn out well? I guess not. I guess Christians are sometimes a religion of little faith in their religious leaders since they're so afraid to have them judged by a court.


----------



## impersonal (Apr 11, 2010)

Saufsoldat said:


> It's pretty obvious that this is mostly a publicity stunt, still it's always amazing to see people raging over Dawkins no matter what he does. He could give food to starving kids in Africa and CTK would still argue that he's just trying to further his agenda.


Yeah, well, there's indeed something very irritating about him. He's like Bill O'Reilly to me; when O'Reilly helped finance this anti-fred-phelps, dead-soldier's dad, I thought "well fuck him anyway". Same with Dawkins.

I think the problem is that people identify him as "The Atheist" and I feel like it's my responsibility to bring him down.



Saufsoldat said:


> It's never a bad thing to try and bring a criminal to justice. If there's anything the pope did that constitutes a crime against humanity it would be trying his best to spread AIDS to as many people as possible.


Well, the AIDS thing... It's terrible judgement, but I wouldn't say it's a crime against humanity. After all, abstinence does work against AIDS. If you're actually going to be abstinent.


----------



## LoboFTW (Apr 11, 2010)

Damaris said:


> i would be all for this if i thought dawkins actually gave a damn about the kids.
> but he's only proving that radical militant atheists are as bad as what they claim to hate.



So attention whoring is as bad as covering up child molestation. I like your morals.


----------



## alchemy1234 (Apr 11, 2010)

I do think Dawkins is an attention whore and most definitely an asshole of the highest caliber, but the pope shouldn't be allowed to just get away with this.


----------



## -JT- (Apr 11, 2010)

Lol Dawkins. Mug


----------



## ragnara (Apr 11, 2010)

I hope he is successfull even though I doubt the Pope of all people is going to get prosecuted. Dawkins may have some bullshit logic but he's on the good side here.


----------



## Ladd (Apr 11, 2010)

Toby said:


> You are wasting your time, I'm afraid. I know Ratzinger's story and I didn't like him becoming Pope, but he is Pope, and that changes everything. You wouldn't be able to bring the US president to account for his previous crimes provided he had done something stupid while in college. Becoming Pope or US president absolves you of criminal persecution in your domain. Fortunately for the Pope this extends to Italy as well, since the Vatican State is tiny.
> 
> He is a head of state now. You can't touch him any more for those past crimes.
> 
> Again, this would have to be an internal trial within that church, or within the laws of the country. Arrests on the Pope have to be related to his duties as Pope.



The problem is that he is not the head of a state recognised by the UN, so he won't be able to claim diplomatic immunity.

And  at everyone who thinks that Dawkins will physically go out and try to apprehend the Pope... Some people need to learn to read.


----------



## Scholzee (Apr 11, 2010)

haha what a dreamer


----------



## Hachidaime (Apr 11, 2010)

> 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:
> 
> ...


----------



## impersonal (Apr 11, 2010)

> Needless to say, I did NOT say "I will arrest Pope Benedict XVI" or anything so personally grandiloquent.


Needless to say indeed. Yet many here thought he would go at it by himself. Guys...


----------



## DisgustingIdiot (Apr 11, 2010)

While I don't like seeing the man make a fool of himself (he may be in the right but this is going to fail miserably) the amusement I gain from this will definitely be worth it.


----------



## zuul (Apr 11, 2010)

Fantastic. 

But maybe it isn't worth the effort since the olf fart will die soon.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Apr 11, 2010)

dr.psycho said:


> I hope he succeeds.



I hope he does too.


----------



## Mael (Apr 11, 2010)

Normally I'd bag on Dawkins for being an atheist/elitist douche, but because it's Benny we're talking about I'm surprisingly endorsing this move as a Catholic myself.


----------



## Esponer (Apr 11, 2010)

Dawkins is only denying it now so the Pope isn't scared off.


----------



## zuul (Apr 11, 2010)

Mael said:


> Normally I'd bag on Dawkins for being an atheist/elitist douche, but because it's Benny we're talking about I'm surprisingly endorsing this move as a Catholic myself.



It's annoying to see this dude shitting on JP efforts to modernize the Catholic Church isn't it ?


----------



## Soulbadguy (Apr 11, 2010)

After reading the selfish gene, it was kinda hard to even think of a God...

So I wouldn't call him a douche.


A Biologist, a person who studys life, hates the idea of god?

Hmm.


----------



## Mael (Apr 11, 2010)

zuul said:


> It's annoying to see this dude shitting on JP efforts to modernize the Catholic Church isn't it ?



Benedict is terrible for the Church.  He's basically taken everything that was supposed to modernize the Church and instead mold it into some mindset that anything relative is evil and that the greater good doesn't mean jack shit (condoms in Africa) so long as the Vatican isn't butthurt by it.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Apr 11, 2010)

impersonal said:


> Yeah, well, there's indeed something very irritating about him. He's like Bill O'Reilly to me; when O'Reilly helped finance this anti-fred-phelps, dead-soldier's dad, I thought "well fuck him anyway". Same with Dawkins.
> 
> I think the problem is that people identify him as "The Atheist" and I feel like it's my responsibility to bring him down.



I wouldn't compare him to O'Reilly as I haven't seen Dawkins deliberately misleading the public to further his own agenda. Maybe there have been instances that I am simply not aware of but so far he struck me as a good scientist who promotes skepticism and merely criticizes the current hypocrisy concerning the role of religion in our society.



> Well, the AIDS thing... It's terrible judgement, but I wouldn't say it's a crime against humanity. After all, abstinence does work against AIDS. If you're actually going to be abstinent.



If that were all the church says then I'd be fine with it but the problem is not that they say "you shouldn't use condoms because it makes baby jesus cry", what they say is more along the lines of "condoms are unsafe and actually increase the risk of contracting HIV". This lie is still spread by almost the entire catholic church in Africa and - in my opinion - constitutes genocide.

EDIT: At the very least it proves beyond a shadow of doubt that the catholic church values dogma more than human lives.


----------



## Chee (Apr 11, 2010)

Well, I like the guy. But the title made me lol. 

Arrest the pope.


----------



## Akatou (Apr 11, 2010)

Damn. I agree with the whole thing about the cover up being dodgy. but...If this fails, the (already scarce) credibility the man has will go down the drain, and so will that of fellow atheists who might have their head screwed on the right way. 
If he succeds (haha), he's arrested the pope. I'm not sure about how big the chaos that will ensue will be, but I'm pretty sure there's going to be one arrogant little prat sitting on top of it.

Something like this should be dealt with legally, through reason and discussion (which are not necessarily useless and inconclusive if done properly).
Not jumping up at the Pope (jesus christ, the POPE) and arresting him like some arrest happy freak.


----------



## Watchman (Apr 11, 2010)

Akatou said:


> Damn. I agree with the whole thing about the cover up being dodgy.
> But this is going to fail, and the (already scarce) credibility the man has will go down the drain, and so will that of fellow atheists who might have their head screwed on the right way.
> Something like this should be dealt with legally, through reason and discussion (which are not necessarily useless and inconclusive if done properly).
> Not jumping up at the Pope (jesus christ, the POPE) and arresting him like some arrest happy freak.



Read the article.


----------



## Akatou (Apr 11, 2010)

Watchman said:


> Read the article.



I _did._ Got something wrong?


----------



## Dionysus (Apr 11, 2010)

Akatou said:


> If this fails, the (already scarce) credibility the man has will go down the drain, and so will that of fellow atheists who might have their head screwed on the right way.


Care to explain your logic here.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Apr 11, 2010)

Akatou said:


> I _did._ Got something wrong?



He doesn't want to arrest the pope.


----------



## Ladd (Apr 11, 2010)

Akatou said:


> I _did._ Got something wrong?



He isn't going to jump up at the Pope (jesus christ, the POPE) and arrest him like some arrest happy freak.


----------



## Esponer (Apr 11, 2010)

Akatou said:


> Something like this should be dealt with legally, through reason and discussion (which are not necessarily useless and inconclusive if done properly).
> Not jumping up at the Pope (jesus christ, the POPE) and arresting him like some arrest happy freak.





			
				The Article said:
			
		

> 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.



Is that not "legally"?


----------



## Watchman (Apr 11, 2010)

Akatou said:


> I _did._ Got something wrong?



Yes. He's not "jumping up at the Pope (jesus christ, the POPE) and arresting him like some arrest happy freak."

He is in fact dealing with this "legally, through reason and discussion (which are not necessarily useless and inconclusive if done properly)."


----------



## Dionysus (Apr 11, 2010)

Pressure from more governments where these scandals keep happening would be nice.  The pope's (jesus christ, the POPE) house needs a little cleaning.


----------



## Esponer (Apr 11, 2010)

I haven't been following this scandal very closely. Is there evidence that the Pope (JCTP)1 was involved in a cover-up? How strong is the evidence?


1 jesus christ, the POPE


----------



## Jin-E (Apr 11, 2010)

Atheist Crusaders trying to fish in stirred up waters

How very shocking.


----------



## Dionysus (Apr 11, 2010)

Supposedly the then-Cardinal (jesus christ, the CARDINAL) Ratzinger resisted the defrocking of a US priest known to be exceedingly "child friendly."  Letter with signature.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Apr 11, 2010)

Dionysus said:


> Supposedly the then-Cardinal *(jesus christ, the CARDINAL)* Ratzinger resisted the defrocking of a US priest known to be exceedingly "child friendly."  Letter with signature.



Is that a meme I'm missing out on or something?


----------



## Adonis (Apr 11, 2010)

Jin-E said:


> Atheist Crusaders trying to fish in stirred up waters
> 
> How very shocking.



When have Atheists been known to team up and mobilize ever? Honestly, calling out Atheists because a handful are justifiably attempting to prosecuting a Pope that Catholics themselves should be outraged by is ridiculous. Do I need to pull out the "we're being oppressed by the minority!" chart?

@ everyone else:

Parallel: Just like those silly Animal Rights crusaders prosecuting Michael Vick! They don't care about ALL abuse; they only show up when animals are tortured! Transparent, agenda-pushing hypocrites!


----------



## Watchman (Apr 11, 2010)

Seto Kaiba said:


> Is that a meme I'm missing out on or something?



It looks like it's just become a meme. :S


----------



## Dionysus (Apr 11, 2010)

Seto Kaiba said:


> Is that a meme I'm missing out on or something?


Sadly, child molestation is not a meme.


----------



## Watchman (Apr 11, 2010)

Dionysus said:


> Sadly, child molestation is not a meme.



A certain member of the Ursine family, beloved by imageboards begs to differ with you.

In all seriousness, Jin-E, I don't understand what's wrong with people being trying to bring action against a man who tried to cover up paedophilia. If a group of Muslims argued against the Pope (JCTP), would you accuse them of being in this solely to push their agenda? Are you trying to say that only Catholics have a right to condemn the Pope for this?

I'd think that the fact that paeodphilia is so widely reviled, coupled with the fact that such an inarguably influential man is at the root of this controversy, justifies *anyone* stepping up to condemn him.


----------



## Dionysus (Apr 11, 2010)

Even Hitler (jesus chirst, HITLER) would be shocked.  Think about that one.


----------



## Esponer (Apr 11, 2010)

It's "jesus christ, the Führer", Dionysus…


----------



## Gooba (Apr 11, 2010)

This just in, people hate Atheists more than they hate people who protect and willfully enable serial pedophiles.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Apr 11, 2010)

Adonis said:


> When have Atheists been known to team up and mobilize ever?



The USSR?



Adonis said:


> Honestly, calling out Atheists because a handful are justifiably attempting to prosecuting a Pope that Catholics themselves should be outraged by is ridiculous. Do I need to pull out the "we're being oppressed by the minority!" chart?



Catholics are pissed, the doesn't stop Dawkins from thinking he can use this to end their religion, I pretty much proved that he thinks that's what should happen and he apparently still thinks that the Church is the same as it was in the 1500s.


----------



## Gooba (Apr 11, 2010)

> Catholics are pissed, the doesn't stop Dawkins from thinking he can use this to end their religion, I pretty much proved that he thinks that's what should happen and he apparently still thinks that the Church is the same as it was in the 1500s.


You are right, in the 1500s they tortured adults.  Now they only torture young boys.

Pope Benedict deserves to go to jail, and Dawkins is trying to do this by going to lawyers.  What is unlawful or wrong about it?  Does his motivation matter so much that arresting someone responsible for hundreds of children being molested isn't a good thing?


----------



## Adonis (Apr 11, 2010)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> The USSR?



I don't mean Statists that imposed Atheism as a means to squash religious competition for authority; I mean Atheists marching under an ideological banner of Atheism.





> Catholics are pissed, the doesn't stop Dawkins from thinking he can use this to end their religion, I pretty much proved that he thinks that's what should happen and he apparently still thinks that the Church is the same as it was in the 1500s.



We all know Dawkins wants to end their (and other) religions; he's been upfront about that ever since The God Delusion thus no "proof" or deduction was needed. However, there seems to be a gap between Catholics being upset God's representative on Earth is so corrupt and their actually doing something about the head of their own religion. And frankly, even ignoring how this scandal has set them back, Catholicism is only progressive by fundamentalist standards. Begrudgingly accepting facts like the Heliocentric model of the solar system and gravity hardly makes a group the beacon of enlightenment; especially when you consider their rigid stances on social issues.


----------



## Watchman (Apr 11, 2010)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Catholics are pissed, the doesn't stop Dawkins from thinking he can use this to end their religion, I pretty much proved that he thinks that's what should happen and he apparently still thinks that the Church is the same as it was in the 1500s.



I see no post from you that proves Dawkin's trying to end the Catholic Church with this act, just put pressure on a man who tried to cover up paedophile rings.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Apr 11, 2010)

Gooba said:


> You are right, in the 1500s they tortured adults.  Now they only torture young boys.
> 
> Pope Benedict deserves to go to jail, and Dawkins is trying to do this by going to lawyers.  What is unlawful or wrong about it?  Does his motivation matter so much that arresting someone responsible for hundreds of children being molested isn't a good thing?


I said he deserves to die, but that's my feeling on anyone aiding pedophiles in the first place. But such a fair assessment of the Chruch, can I pick the worst of Atheists and assume all of them are the same? 

And yes, the motivation matters as well as the way in which it is done. Dawkins can hardly be called impartial and the English court would hardly want to go through with it.



Adonis said:


> I don't mean Statists that imposed Atheism as a  means to squash religious competition for authority; I mean Atheists  marching under an ideological banner of Atheism.



That's because its too wide a banner, for the same reason theists don't just gang up. Because the Muslims, Catholics and Mormons no more believe the same thing exactly than you and another random Atheist I yank in out of the rain. 





Adonis said:


> We all know Dawkins wants to end their (and other) religions; he's been  upfront about that ever since The God Delusion thus no "proof" or  deduction was needed. However, their seems to be a gap between Catholics  being upset God's representative on Earth is so corrupt and their  actually doing something about the head of their own religion. And  frankly, even ignoring how this scandal has set them back, Catholicism  is only progressive by fundamentalist standards. Begrudgingly accepting  facts like the Heliocentric model of the solar system and gravity hardly  makes a group the beacon of enlightenment; especially when you consider  their rigid stances on social issues.



Science itself had persecuted others for different ideals, though not as badly as religion, its human nature to challenge those who challenge your system of belief whether its fact or faith based.


----------



## Shinigami Perv (Apr 11, 2010)

This is a dumbass move. 

He is trying to make a spectacle of himself. You know what the papers will read? "Atheist harasses pope." Why make the pope look like a victim in the middle of a sex scandal? All the religious groups will see this as persecution of religion by atheists, and he'll do it anyway despite the fact that he can't legally get the pope arrested. Of he wants to make a clown of himself, by all means. 

And really, Christopher Hitchens?  Was he sober long enough to be involved with the attorneys?


----------



## Jin-E (Apr 11, 2010)

Adonis said:


> When have Atheists been known to team up and mobilize ever? Honestly, calling out Atheists because a handful are justifiably attempting to prosecuting a Pope that Catholics themselves should be outraged by is ridiculous. Do I need to pull out the "we're being oppressed by the minority!" chart?!



Apparently, you associated my mention of "crusaders" as if that automatically meant that i was referring to a large army. No, i dont know if any mainstream Atheist organizations have attempted to use this as fodder to smear religion in general, but im very certain that Dawkins and Hitchen( and other hardcore Religion-bashers such as Harris, Volpert and Stenger) felt a certain amount of Schaudenfraude over this and fully intend to exploit this. 

I have no problem with him condemning immoral acts. I do have problems in him using this to make unwarranted claims.



Watchman said:


> In all seriousness, Jin-E, I don't understand what's wrong with people being trying to bring action against a man who tried to cover up paedophilia. If a group of Muslims argued against the Pope (JCTP), would you accuse them of being in this solely to push their agenda? Are you trying to say that only Catholics have a right to condemn the Pope for this?



No, but the problem is that Dawkins real motives are so easily discerned that its not even funny. Say, if you had swapped "the Catholic Church" with a non-religious multinational corps, such as Coca-Cola, Nestle, McDonalds etc. Assume they too had policies that condoned children abuse. Would you imagine Dawkins, the supposed Champion of Morality would raise an eyebrow then? Not more than any other decent human being would do and he would certainly not become personally involved in it.  

Thats the point. He'll obviously use this current crisis in his next book to showcase his usual onesided contempt for ALL monotheistic religious practice. 

But yes, i agree that the Catholic Church in their blind arrogance and their stubborn refusal to face the facts, brought all this criticism on themself. Ironically, the supposed reason as to why they covered up the abuses in the first place was to protect the image and reputation of the church.


----------



## Watchman (Apr 11, 2010)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> I said he deserves to die, but that's my feeling on anyone aiding pedophiles in the first place. But such a fair assessment of the Chruch, can I pick the worst of Atheists and assume all of them are the same?



Sure, as soon as you can find a man that the vast majority of Atheists consider the leader of an organised confederation of Atheists... Oh wait.



> And yes, the motivation matters as well as the way in which it is done. Dawkins can hardly be called impartial and the English court would hardly want to go through with it.



Dawkins might not be impartial, but that quite frankly doesn't matter because he isn't the one on trial here.



> Science itself had persecuted others for different ideals, though not as badly as religion, its human nature to challenge those who challenge your system of belief whether its fact or faith based.



And I'm sure you can provide an example of dissenters from the norms of the scientific community being burnt at the stake for their views?



Shinigami Perv said:


> This is a dumbass move.
> 
> He is trying to make a spectacle of himself. You know what the papers will read? "Atheist harasses pope." Why make the pope look like a victim in the middle of a sex scandal? All the religious groups will see this as persecution of religion by atheists, and he'll do it anyway despite the fact that he can't legally arrest the pope. Of he wants to make a clown of himself, by all means.



If all religious groups see is "Atheist harassing pope" then it will simply prove the exact point people are trying to bring the pope to task for - that you folk value image over principles - that a defence of religion>bringing a man who knowingly covered up paedophile rings to justice.


----------



## Outlandish (Apr 11, 2010)

well i hope he goes after Israeli diplomats in the same manner


----------



## Adonis (Apr 11, 2010)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> And yes, the motivation matters as well as the way in which it is done. Dawkins can hardly be called impartial and the English court would hardly want to go through with it.



It doesn't matter if Dawkins is being impartial; the Pope covered up the rapes of children and protected the abuses. That's what's on trial. And if the English courts don't "want" to go through with it, as opposed to simply "can't", it shows the special privilege afforded to organized religion (unless you're Scientology in which case you get rightly labeled as a nefarious cult.)





> That's because its too wide a banner, for the same reason theists don't just gang up. Because the Muslims, Catholics and Mormons no more believe the same thing exactly than you and another random Atheist I yank in out of the rain.



That's the point. Atheism isn't a group that could have uniform goals, being a negative state of nonbelief. Going "those atheists!" is idiotic.

And no, all Theists don't believe in the same thing BUT a trait they must share by necessity (otherwise they'd be Deist) is the belief in a personal God. Likewise, they each have specific tenets you can cite to in regard to their own religion. It's not all baseless generalization.



> Science itself had persecuted others for different ideals, though not as badly as religion, its human nature to challenge those who challenge your system of belief whether its fact or faith based.



The difference being that science has a scientific method of verification/refutation while religion...they just ostracize you. I don't place my faith in scientists who can be, and have been, as petty and tribal as any theocrat; I just trust a system that takes falsification as a virtue rather than a burden.


----------



## -= Ziggy Stardust =- (Apr 11, 2010)

Even though I doubt he would achieve his goal but I agree with his cause and method of conduct (trying to change corruption in a legal manner and not in a violent manner). I never thought I would say this but : good luck Dawkins, hope you bring that prick to justice.


----------



## Shinigami Perv (Apr 11, 2010)

Watchman said:


> If all religious groups see is "Atheist harassing pope" then it will simply prove the exact point people are trying to bring the pope to task for - that you folk value image over principles - that a defence of religion>bringing a man who knowingly covered up paedophile rings to justice.



No, it won't. No person in the legal system will issue an arrest warrant for the pope. So it will appear like an atheist harassing the pope because he's got no viable legal means to get him arrested, not to mention wasting the court's time. It will be seen as a lone atheist nutcase out to get the pope, and he will bring it down to the level of the birth certificate nutbags harassing Obama. 

And I don't know where this "you folk" stuff came from. I'm an atheist, difference being that I care how we are perceived. I'd rather not fall to the level of the birthers.


----------



## Damaris (Apr 11, 2010)

LoboFTW said:


> So attention whoring is as bad as covering up child molestation. I like your morals.



I think someone who wants to use the trauma those kids went through to further his own agenda is just as bad as someone who covered up the trauma to further his own agenda. The boys who suffered are the only ones I care about in this mess, and it seems that neither the Pope nor Dawkins give a damn about them, and so I view both the Pope and Dawkins as equally disgusting.


----------



## Dr. Obvious (Apr 11, 2010)

Dawkins makes us Athiests look like fucking jerks


----------



## Adonis (Apr 11, 2010)

Damaris said:


> I think someone who wants to use the trauma those kids went through to further his own agenda is just as bad as someone who covered up the trauma to further his own agenda. The boys who suffered are the only ones I care about in this mess, and it seems that neither the Pope nor Dawkins give a damn about them, and so I view both the Pope and Dawkins as equally disgusting.



Considering how everyone else is just bitching with their thumbs up their ass in regard to the Pope being prosecuted, do we really have the luxury of saying, "I don't like the guy doing something about it?"

The Pope is the asshole that protected their abusers; Dawkins is the asshole using the abuse to go after the institution that allowed it. Totally equal. Doing the right thing for the wrong reasons (which most of us are probably guilty of in one form or the other) is still doing the right thing.


----------



## Shade737 (Apr 11, 2010)

Damaris said:


> I think someone who wants to use the trauma those kids went through to further his own agenda is just as bad as someone who covered up the trauma to further his own agenda. The boys who suffered are the only ones I care about in this mess, and it seems that neither the Pope nor Dawkins give a damn about them, and so I view both the Pope and Dawkins as equally disgusting.


I have to agree with this post. Their both in the wrong.


----------



## Watchman (Apr 11, 2010)

Shinigami Perv said:


> No, it won't. No person in the legal system will issue an arrest warrant for the pope. So it will appear like an atheist harassing the pope because he's got no viable legal means to get him arrested, not to mention wasting the court's time. It will be seen as a lone atheist nutcase out to get the pope, and he will bring it down to the level of the birth certificate nutbags harassing Obama.



You never know, and in any case, Dawkins is only going for the legal route. If that fails, he's more than likely going to drop the case or just publically snark about how a religious leader covering up paedophilia is exempt from the measures that would imprison/ruin anyone else covering up paedophilia.



> And I don't know where this "you folk" stuff came from. I'm an atheist, difference being that I care how we are perceived. I'd rather not fall to the level of the birthers.



My mistake, I thought you were a Muslim. Sorry for jumping the gun.



Damaris said:


> I think someone who wants to use the trauma those kids went through to further his own agenda is just as bad as someone who covered up the trauma to further his own agenda. The boys who suffered are the only ones I care about in this mess, and it seems that neither the Pope nor Dawkins give a damn about them, and so I view both the Pope and Dawkins as equally disgusting.



Horrendous oversimplification, don't you think? The Pope covered up paedophilia to try and save the public image of the Catholic Church; Dawkins is trying to use this action of the Pope's to go after the bastard who covered up paedophilia to try and save the public image of the Catholic Church.

They're not comparable at all.


----------



## Shade737 (Apr 11, 2010)

Watchman said:


> Horrendous oversimplification, don't you think? The Pope covered up paedophilia to try and save the public image of the Catholic Church; Dawkins is trying to use this action of the Pope's to go after the bastard who covered up paedophilia to try and save the public image of the Catholic Church.
> 
> They're not comparable at all.


Well if this situation wasn't related to religion I doubt he would of did the same.


----------



## Gooba (Apr 11, 2010)

> so I view both the Pope and Dawkins as equally disgusting.


Really?  Are you serious?  I wonder what the 200 children molested directly due to the actions of the Pope think about Dawkins.  I bet they hate him exactly as much.  Just like how America hates Rudy Giuliani  exactly as much as they hate Osama Bin Laden (He tried to use 9/11 to get elected President).


----------



## Adonis (Apr 11, 2010)

Shade73 said:


> Well if this situation wasn't related to religion I doubt he would of did the same.



The flipside is that no nonreligious institution could cover up such a scandal and face NO consequences. In other words, who knows and what does it matter? People are allowed to focus their activism on specific issues.


----------



## Shade737 (Apr 11, 2010)

Adonis said:


> The flipside is that no nonreligious institution could cover up such a scandal and face NO consequences. In other words, who knows and what does it matter? People are allowed to focus their activism on specific issues.


He is an atheist who is going after the pope for his own anti religious agenda and not for the children themselves.


----------



## Adonis (Apr 11, 2010)

Shade73 said:


> He is an atheist who is going after the pope for his own anti religious agenda and not for the children themselves.



A lot of police officers are in it for the glory, not for the sake of the victims. Your point?

A good way to not fall into the crosshairs of someone's agenda is not being complicit in the rape of children. Am I going to sit here and act like Dawkins is a white knight protecting children? No. Is he wrong? No.


----------



## Esponer (Apr 11, 2010)

Damaris said:


> I think someone who wants to use the trauma those kids went through to further his own agenda is just as bad as someone who covered up the trauma to further his own agenda. The boys who suffered are the only ones I care about in this mess, and it seems that neither the Pope nor Dawkins give a damn about them, and so I view both the Pope and Dawkins as equally disgusting.


Just as bad? Really?

You don't mean "just as bad", you mean "also bad", because you cannot compare somehow doing something morally abhorrent that would further his agenda to someone doing something morally justifiable/good that would also further his agenda.


----------



## Shade737 (Apr 11, 2010)

Adonis said:


> A lot of police officers are in it for the glory, not for the sake of the victims. Your point?


My point is that its bad.


----------



## Damaris (Apr 11, 2010)

Gooba said:


> Really?  Are you serious?  I wonder what the 200 children molested directly due to the actions of the Pope think about Dawkins.  I bet they hate him exactly as much.  Just like how America hates Rudy Giuliani  exactly as much as they hate Osama Bin Laden (He tried to use 9/11 to get elected President).



I can't speak for those children, but I think anyone who tries to use child molestation as a platform for themselves is the lowest of the low. And for the record, I also found Rudy Giuliani pretty awful.


----------



## Gooba (Apr 11, 2010)

Damaris said:


> I can't speak for those children, but I think anyone who tries to use child molestation as a platform for themselves is the lowest of the low. And for the record, I also found Rudy Giuliani pretty awful.


"Pretty awful" isn't the same as "invade 2 countries for a decade long war in order to murder".  Yes it is a douchebag move, but actually doing the molesting, or moving the molesters so they can continue is way way worse.  I can't believe I even need to type this.  "The lowest of the low" is such ridiculousness.  There are people who rape children then murder and eat them, how the fuck is Dawkins worse than them for trying to get someone arrested who clearly deserves it?  Explain who the victims of Dawkin's actions are.  Who is hurt by him arrested the Pope?  Who potentially could be saved from molestation because of it?  Making the world a better place for douchey reasons is still making the world better.  Making the world far worse in order to protect you job is on a completely different level.

I am fucking offended that just because he is the leader of a religion he is getting a pass on the kind of evil shit they don't even have comic-book supervillains do.


----------



## Watchman (Apr 11, 2010)

Damaris said:


> I can't speak for those children, but I think anyone who tries to use child molestation as a platform for themselves is the lowest of the low. And for the record, I also found Rudy Giuliani pretty awful.



Interesting choice of words there. Dawkins isn't using child molestation as a platform, he's using _prosecution_ of child molestation as a platform. But I suppose that doesn't sound as morally indefensible as you want it to be.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Apr 11, 2010)

Gooba said:


> Really?  Are you serious?  I wonder what the 200 children molested directly due to the actions of the Pope think about Dawkins.  I bet they hate him exactly as much.  Just like how America hates Rudy Giuliani  exactly as much as they hate Osama Bin Laden (He tried to use 9/11 to get elected President).



But he didn't state it so obviously and expect everyone to fall in line with him, nor did he try to destroy an entire group.


----------



## Esponer (Apr 11, 2010)

Gooba said:


> I am fucking offended that just because he is the leader of a religion he is getting a pass on the kind of evil shit they don't even have comic-book supervillains do.


The Pope is innocent: he had nothing to do with any cover-up of child abuse.


----------



## Shade737 (Apr 11, 2010)

My problem isnt what he is doing, my problem is in his motivation to do so. 

Needing an anti religious reason to go against someone for doing something wrong is not a good thing.


----------



## Shinigami Perv (Apr 11, 2010)

Nothing Dawkins claims in court will matter. The Vatican is a sovereignty. It was granted sovereign status by the Lateran Treaty of 1929. Dawkins proposes that since the UN doesn't recognize it, the pope is not entitled to an immune status. But Britain recognizes the Vatican. It even has an embassy at the Vatican. So the point is invalid because British law is not trumped by a lack of UN recognition.


----------



## Damaris (Apr 11, 2010)

Gooba said:


> "Pretty awful" isn't the same as "invade 2 countries for a decade long war in order to murder".  Yes it is a douchebag move, but actually doing the molesting, or moving the molesters so they can continue is way way worse.  I can't believe I even need to type this.  "The lowest of the low" is such ridiculousness.  There are people who rape children then murder and eat them, how the fuck is Dawkins worse than them for trying to get someone arrested who clearly deserves it?  Explain who the victims of Dawkin's actions are.  Who is hurt by him arrested the Pope?  Who potentially could be saved from molestation because of it?  Making the world a better place for douchey reasons is still making the world better.  Making the world far worse in order to protect you job is on a completely different level.
> 
> I am fucking offended that just because he is the leader of a religion he is getting a pass on the kind of evil shit they don't even have comic-book supervillains do.



The mistake you're making is thinking that I care about the Pope. I'm all for him being brought to justice. Hell, I'm all for someone offing him so he can explain what he's done to the God he claims to worship. But no one in their right mind is defending the Pope in this thread. If I thought for a moment Dawkins cared about what had happened to those children, I would be all for this. But instead it is pretty obvious that he's just using this to drive people away from the Church rather than punish the Pope for what he did. Neither of them care about the real victims, so I really could care less about either of them. And making the world better for douchey reasons may be making the world better, but that doesn't mean I have to support it, like it or even respect Dawkins as a person.



Watchman said:


> Interesting choice of words there. Dawkins isn't using child molestation as a platform, he's using _prosecution_ of child molestation as a platform. But I suppose that doesn't sound as morally indefensible as you want it to be.



In my eyes, he's exploiting what happened to those kids to advance the agenda he wants to force on the world, no matter how you want to chop up word choice to make him look better. I don't care if you're atheist, Christian, Hindu, whatever---if you molest kids, or use what happened to those kids as a way to promote yourself or what you believe in, I think you are the scum of the earth.


----------



## Watchman (Apr 11, 2010)

Damaris said:


> In my eyes, he's exploiting what happened to those kids to advance the agenda he wants to force on the world, no matter how you want to chop up word choice to make him look better. I don't care if you're atheist, Christian, Hindu, whatever---if you molest kids, or use what happened to those kids as a way to promote yourself or what you believe in, I think you are the scum of the earth.



Discrediting the Catholic Church =/= Promoting Atheism.

Do you really think Dawkins is aiming to just destroy the Catholic Church with this in the hopes that every Catholic on Earth spontaneously turns Atheist?


----------



## Chee (Apr 11, 2010)

What Watchman said. All that will happen is either the pope doesn't get arrested, he gets arrested but his charges dropped, or he gets arrested and a new pope gets elected.

Catholic church ain't going anywhere.


----------



## perman07 (Apr 11, 2010)

Damaris said:


> The mistake you're making is thinking that I care about the Pope. I'm all for him being brought to justice. Hell, I'm all for someone offing him so he can explain what he's done to the God he claims to worship. But no one in their right mind is defending the Pope in this thread. If *I thought for a moment Dawkins cared about what had happened to those children, I would be all for this. But instead it is pretty obvious that he's just using this to drive people away from the Church rather than punish the Pope for what he did.* Neither of them care about the real victims, so I really could care less about either of them. And making the world better for douchey reasons may be making the world better, but that doesn't mean I have to support it, like it or even respect Dawkins as a person.


Why can't it be both? Why can't it be that he wants to prosecute a guy he views as guilty AND discredit an organization he believes perpetuates wrong actions?

You have judged Dawkins as such a bad man that you can't even picture him having any rational reasons for disliking the Pope. To me, you come across as way more dogmatic than he ever has by automatically dismissing him despite your concession that you agreed the Pope deserved to be prosecuted.


----------



## Gooba (Apr 11, 2010)

> The mistake you're making is thinking that I care about the Pope. I'm all for him being brought to justice. Hell, I'm all for someone offing him so he can explain what he's done to the God he claims to worship. But no one in their right mind is defending the Pope in this thread. If I thought for a moment Dawkins cared about what had happened to those children, I would be all for this. But instead it is pretty obvious that he's just using this to drive people away from the Church rather than punish the Pope for what he did. Neither of them care about the real victims, so I really could care less about either of them. And making the world better for douchey reasons may be making the world better, but that doesn't mean I have to support it, like it or even respect Dawkins as a person.


I didn't say you had to like it, I was saying that it wasn't worse than molesting 200 children, which is true.



> The Pope is innocent: he had nothing to do with any cover-up of child abuse.


What?


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Apr 11, 2010)

Watchman said:


> Discrediting the Catholic Church =/= Promoting Atheism.
> 
> Do you really think Dawkins is aiming to just destroy the Catholic Church with this in the hopes that every Catholic on Earth spontaneously turns Atheist?


I posted proof that he thinks this will destroy the Catholic Church earlier. Not saying that it makes any sense why it would. But that was exactly his hope and while you might see the logical fallacy in thinking that way, I don't think Dawkins does nor is he all that logical.


----------



## Adonis (Apr 11, 2010)

You could claim Universal Health Care proponents are exploiting the sickness/death of the uninsured to push forth *their* agenda. Does that mean no one should bring up the fact such-and-such number of people die each year, which supports their stance, because it's "using" the suffering of others as a platform? That's moronic.

And the insinuation that Dawkins can't both share a human revulsion at child rape and be pushing forth his agenda is inexplicable to me.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Apr 11, 2010)

Adonis said:


> You could claim Universal Health Care proponents are exploiting the sickness/death of the uninsured to push forth *their* agenda. Does that mean no one should bring up the fact such-and-such number of people die each year, which supports their stance, because it's "using" the suffering of others as a platform? That's moronic.


Yeah, but universal healthcare promotion is for the greater good, you can't say the destruction of the Church would be. Nor would it stop the molestation of Children.


----------



## Gooba (Apr 11, 2010)

Richard 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:
> 
> ...


**


> Yeah, but universal healthcare promotion is for the greater good, you can't say the destruction of the Church would be. Nor would it stop the molestation of Children.


Why can't I say that?


----------



## Esponer (Apr 11, 2010)

Gooba said:


> Esponer said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Esponer said:


> I haven't been following this scandal very  closely. Is there evidence that the Pope (JCTP)1 was involved  in a cover-up? How strong is the evidence?


I thought I'd be more likely to get an answer if I trolled a little.

I'm disappointed, though. I reckoned that you'd go more all-out in your response. I've seen the Telegraph and Daily Mail articles, but I was hoping for a real, balanced source that went into detail. This is one case ? have you read any good summary on every case?


----------



## Adonis (Apr 11, 2010)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Yeah, but universal healthcare promotion is for the greater good, you can't say the destruction of the Church would be. Nor would it stop the molestation of Children.



Putting pressure on the church will stop this particular case of institutionalized rape. And as Chee said, it's not going to destroy the church (though it could quite easily be considered for the greater good to get rid of an arbitrary hierarchy of power and influence that does things like condemn condoms in Africa.)


----------



## perman07 (Apr 11, 2010)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> Yeah, but universal healthcare promotion is for the greater good, you can't say the destruction of the Church would be. Nor would it stop the molestation of Children.


Of course you could claim so.

If hiding pedophiles AND perpetuating the spread of AIDS aren't enough to be considered worsening the world, I don't know what is..

I reckon more things could be put forth, but I have no knowledge beyond these 2 to be honest..


----------



## Damaris (Apr 11, 2010)

perman07 said:


> Why can't it be both? Why can't it be that he wants to prosecute a guy he views as guilty AND discredit an organization he believes perpetuates wrong actions?
> 
> You have judged Dawkins as such a bad man that you can't even picture him having any rational reasons for disliking the Pope. To me, you come across as way more dogmatic than he ever has by automatically dismissing him despite your concession that you agreed the Pope deserved to be prosecuted.



Because based on his past actions and statements, I have trouble thinking that Dawkins is viewing this as a chance to help the victims and bring the guilty to justice as much as a chance to discredit the Catholic Church. The latter I don't have a problem with but find morally reprehensible, the former I wish were true. Although if that quote Gooba posted is right, then perhaps I'm wrong. I hope I am, because it's a nice break from the Dawkins of the past.


Dogmatic? Maybe I am. I've no problem with admitting that I have a personal bias regarding child molestation that influenced every word I posted in this thread.


----------



## Shinigami Perv (Apr 11, 2010)

The real problem is that the church does not believe strongly in secular laws. When a priest molests a boy, the coverup is as much to protect from embarrassment as with the nature of Christian beliefs. 

When someone commits a crime, to old school Catholics it's not a crime, but a "sin." Catholics believe in forgiveness, and worldly laws are less important than God's laws to them. Especially to priests, who take this stuff seriously. Jail sentences are irrelevant, penance is all that matters.

The sin is an issue to be taken up with God, not with a court. The victim is supposed to forgive, not hire a lawyer or notify prosecutors. And I'm not saying this cynically, they believe this stuff hardcore. This system is practically made for abuse.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Apr 11, 2010)

Adonis said:


> Putting pressure on the church will stop this particular case of institutionalized rape. And as Chee said, it's not going to destroy the church (though it could quite easily be considered for the greater good to get rid of an arbitrary hierarchy of power and influence that does things like condemn condoms in Africa.)



What will stop most of the rape in the Church is what I said earlier about fundamental changes to the rules, (the Pope needs to be removed for that to happen). 



Shinigami Perv said:


> The real problem is that the church does not believe strongly in secular laws. When a priest molests a boy, the coverup is as much to protect from embarrassment as with Christian belief.
> 
> When someone commits a crime, to old school Catholics it's not a crime, but a "sin." Catholics believe in forgiveness, and worldly laws are less important than God's laws to them. Especially to priests, who take this stuff seriously. Jail sentences are irrelevant, penance is all that matters.
> 
> The sin is an issue to be taken up with God. The victim is supposed to forgive. This system is practically made for abuse.



As someone who knows a lot of old school Catholics, I can say you're not on the up and up with what you're talking about.


----------



## Shinigami Perv (Apr 11, 2010)

Cardboard Tube Knight said:


> As someone who knows a lot of old school Catholics, I can say you're not on the up and up with what you're talking about.



This is not something I came up with. My dad told me about this idea he encountered when he was studying to become a priest. He grew up Catholic, was schooled in the seminary. He studied under future Cardinal Bernard Law at a famous pontifical college overseen directly by the Holy See. 

I was born and raised Catholic, went to a Catholic school, and went to church every weekday. I know a little about Catholicism. 

It's a wonder that the mods allow you to run around making uninformed criticisms without elaborating, which is tantamount to trolling.


----------



## perman07 (Apr 11, 2010)

Damaris said:


> Because based on his past actions and statements, I have trouble thinking that Dawkins is viewing this as a chance to help the victims and bring the guilty to justice as much as a chance to discredit the Catholic Church. The latter I don't have a problem with but find morally reprehensible, the former I wish were true. Although if that quote Gooba posted is right, then perhaps I'm wrong. I hope I am, because it's a nice break from the Dawkins of the past.


He has never appeared immoral to me, he only criticizes religion. Beyond that criticism I have never heard him say anything dogmatic about restricting the freedom of religious people. I have only ever heard him try to convince people, not try to suppress them (unlike Christians who wish to sensor his words as hate speech while calmly stating he will go to hell).

Quite frankly, people hate Dawkins irrationally. At worst he is a troll, but he isn't even that bad of a troll as the equivalent religious trolls.



> Dogmatic? Maybe I am. I've no problem with admitting that I have a personal bias regarding child molestation that influenced every word I posted in this thread.


Appeal to emotions fallacy, you try to make dogmatism sound good by tying it to hatred of child molestation.

He is criticizing the same child molestation as you, yet you have somehow managed to antagonize him for it. It's like your head has decided he is automatically bad beforehand, I really don't get your thought process.


----------



## Damaris (Apr 11, 2010)

perman07 said:


> He has never appeared immoral to me, he only criticizes religion. Beyond that criticism I have never heard him say anything dogmatic about restricting the freedom of religious people. I have only ever heard him try to convince people, not try to suppress them (unlike Christians who wish to sensor his words as hate speech while calmly stating he will go to hell).
> 
> Quite frankly, people hate Dawkins irrationally. At worst he is a troll, but he isn't even that bad of a troll as the equivalent religious trolls.



I honestly think he's just as bad for blindly attacking religion as religious people who blindly attack atheism. I've got no patience for the extreme ends of either spectrum. And I'd love to see your examples of people "sensoring" his words. You can't deny some of what he says is hate speech. I won't deny some of what Christians say and do is hypocritical. I don't understand _you_ defending one above the other and not understanding me for thinking they both are equally wrong.



> Appeal to emotions fallacy, you try to make dogmatism sound good by tying it to hatred of child molestation.
> 
> He is criticizing the same child molestation as you, yet you have somehow managed to antagonize him for it. It's like your head has decided he is automatically bad beforehand, I really don't get your thought process.



That's very nice.


----------



## perman07 (Apr 11, 2010)

Damaris said:


> I honestly think he's just as bad for blindly attacking all religions as religious people who blindly attack atheism. I've got no patience for the extreme ends of either spectrum. And I'd love to see your examples of people "sensoring" his words. *You can't deny some of what he says is hate speech.* Some of what Christians say and do is hypocritical. I don't understand _you_ defending one above the other and not understanding me for thinking they both are equally wrong.


Of course I can deny it. In fact, I think he's usually quite reasonable, albeit occasionally harsh.

Normally I don't bother asking for proof in debate threads (cause it's kind of a pussy method which relies on the fact that people are lazy about informal debates on forum boards), but you shouldn't have a hard time tracking some of his so-called hate speech if it exists.

Criticizing religion in general when every major religion have caused damages directly from their dogma is quite reasonable. Most conflicts around the world have some religious element to them (Israel and the Middle East in general, Christians and Muslims in Africa, Hindus and Muslims in Inda, and so on).

I honestly believe the world would be a better place without religion, and stating that is not hate speech since I'm not declaring any hate for the religious, only for religions. Which are the kinds of things Dawkins say, he's not expressing hate for the religious people, but criticizing their beliefs.


----------



## Sarutobi sasuke (Apr 11, 2010)

So person A would like to hold person B to account in a court of law because person B tried to cover up the child abuse person C committed to avoid embarrassing organization A, which B and c work for.

Seems cut and dry to to me.

But wait! Person A is Richard Dawkins A big mouth atheist who writes snarky books says mean things. So by definition he can't be right on anything because anything he does is to further his evil agenda.

Is anyone else not appalled that it takes _Richard Dawkins_ of all people to bring forth the idea that the Pope be held accountable and actually try to do something about it?

Is any one else not ashamed that he will likely fail in his attempt to hold to account a man accused covering up child abuse? what a joke international law is.


----------



## Shade737 (Apr 11, 2010)

Sarutobi sasuke said:


> But wait! Person A is Richard Dawkins A big mouth atheist who writes snarky books says mean things. So by definition he can't be right on anything because anything he does is to further his evil agenda.


Aren't you generalizing a bit.


----------



## Sarutobi sasuke (Apr 11, 2010)

Shade73 said:


> Aren't you generalizing a bit.



Yes, a bit.


----------



## ChocoMello (Apr 11, 2010)

^Was widely ignored in this thread. (and + reps.)

On topic, while I agree that Dawkins can be somewhat trollish, I have yet to see any hate speech or attacks on religious people that would explain why people are so upset about him.

Also, I do not understand why intentions matter so much to people on this board. If someone does something I support, I generally do not care that much about his reasons or own agenda to push.

Lastly, I think this will go nowhere. The pope will ignore it entirely if he is clever (as will probably any courts), since any further comment would keep public attention at the abominable things he decided to hide in the catholic church. Wasted effort.


----------



## Sarutobi sasuke (Apr 11, 2010)

Dick 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 Horne, other than to refer him to my 'Ratzinger is the Perfect Pope' article here:
> 
> ...





HMMM


----------



## Shade737 (Apr 11, 2010)

ChocoMello said:


> ^Was widely ignored in this thread. (and + reps.)
> 
> On topic, while I agree that Dawkins can be somewhat trollish, I have yet to see any hate speech or attacks on religious people that would explain why people are so upset about him.
> 
> ...


Isnt it good to have good intentions that think more of others more and not for themselves in that situation?


----------



## Gooba (Apr 11, 2010)

Also, I don't see how Richard Dawkins is being selfish at all.  Yes he is trying to do this to further his goals, which is to help the world by eliminating religion.  Whether or not you agree eliminating religion would be good, he thinks it is and so he is doing what he does to try and help others.


----------



## αce (Apr 11, 2010)

Dawkins is a fucking badass.


Does anyone NOT wanna see the pope thrown in jail?


----------



## Esponer (Apr 11, 2010)

Esponer said:


> The Pope is innocent: he had nothing to do with any cover-up of child abuse.





Gooba said:


> What?


Okay, after doing some reading I'll return to this.

Would you identify what part of that article you think proves that the Pope was involved in a cover-up of child abuse?

A _*cover-up*_, I said. Kiesle went through the Californian court before John Cummins wrote to John Paul II, the then Pope (JSTP). There's nothing, anywhere, that says the Catholic Church had information that Kiesle was abusing children and kept that information from authorities. Authorities were 'done' with Kiesle before _any_ of this began ? 3 years before!

So I said a 'cover-up', and you've given me a case which doesn't even in the slightest resemble a cover-up. Why?

Furthermore, Ratzinger had no jurisdiction over paedophilia at the time. He was responding to a request to laicise the priest. Did the delay mean Kiesle remained in the ministry? No. It was Bishop Cummins' authority to keep Kiesle out of the ministry, not Ratzinger's. During those years I've read that he was _not_ involved in the ministry, nor had any special access to children.


----------



## Damaris (Apr 11, 2010)

perman07 said:


> Of course I can deny it. In fact, I think he's usually quite reasonable, albeit occasionally harsh.
> 
> Normally I don't bother asking for proof in debate threads (cause it's kind of a pussy method which relies on the fact that people are lazy about informal debates on forum boards), but you shouldn't have a hard time tracking some of his so-called hate speech if it exists.



I think what he is saying isn't always wrong, but how he goes about stating it is just awful. You can have valid points, but if you act like a smug asshole, people are going to be driven away.

Just look at the quote CTK posted earlier from him. Now imagine if someone said something like that about Islam, or Judaism or atheists. Dawkins refuses to act like a reasonable person in a debate. He consistently picks unnamed sources for his books and claims they represent all Christians, which is about as logical as me to claim that he represents all atheists. There's his habit of ignoring religion affiliated hospitals and science centers because they disagree with how he feels religion should be. And that makes me quite sad, because often he says wonderful, wonderful things and I agree with him, and then he has to go blame every single problem of humanity on religion.




> Criticizing religion in general when every major religion have caused damages directly from their dogma is quite reasonable. Most conflicts around the world have some religious element to them (Israel and the Middle East in general, Christians and Muslims in Africa, Hindus and Muslims in Inda, and so on).
> 
> I honestly believe the world would be a better place without religion, and stating that is not hate speech since I'm not declaring any hate for the religious, only for religions. Which are the kinds of things Dawkins say, he's not expressing hate for the religious people, but criticizing their beliefs.



To say that is just wrong and ignores all the social justices that those religions truly preach. Not to mention that thinking if you eliminate religion from the world conflict will stop is just naive. People who fight wars based on religion are not religious because they are not following their doctrine. A Christian who fights a war against a Muslim simply because that person is a Muslim is not a Christian. Besides, people will always fight each other, with religion or without it, because of it or despite it. War is based on geography and language and people in power will oppress those without it. Taking religion out of that equation won't stop war. Not to mention that plenty of atheists cause conflict as well. The Pol Pot regime preached atheism and sought to exterminate all religious expression in Cambodia. 1.7 million people died. Stalin killed 20 million people. With your logic, shouldn't I argue that the world would be a better place without atheism?

Of course that isn't hate speech, because you said it in a rational non-offensive way. But Dawkins repeatedly states: _"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, "mad cow" disease, and many others, but I think a case can be made that faith is one of the world's great evils, comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to eradicate." "Yes, testosterone-sodden young men too unattractive to get a woman in this world might be desperate enough to go for 72 private virgins in the next." "Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence."_ How are those quotes not addressed to the people who actually practice the religion, rather than the religion proper. And regarding the subject matter--do I agree? For the most part. But as long as he keeps the holier-than-thou attitude, the smug disdain for those who practice religion, I'm not going to like him or support him. 


Sorry for the late reply, some friends came over to my dorm.


----------



## Toby (Apr 11, 2010)

There are some outrageously stupid ideas going around in here.

If you think arresting the Pope is possible, let alone a solution to the paedophilia scandal, then you're blissfully ignorant of the actual problem at hand. Screening and excommunicating priests is the only way we can solve the problem of abuse. That's what really matters. 

In this thread however, the whole debate is about the PR of Dawkins' attempt to promote arresting the Pope.

And go sit the fuck down if you don't think Dawkins is serious about this.  British lawyers are investigating the legality of arresting the Pope. It's seriously being considered now because the Catholic Church has a terrible track-record for not taking enough action dealing with their paedophile clergy.

However, Dawkins is not going to help a single victim by calling out the Pope for an arrest. If the Pope did lead by example and genuinely apologised for these abuses, that would be a nice symbolic gesture, but this is not what Dawkins has called for. There's a silly idea he's gotten into his head that labelling the Pope as a criminal might possibly end up helping the cause of abuse victims. But really it is only likely to amplify tension within the church and resistance towards changing the process of excommunication. 

That being said, Dawkins is not simply advancing his own selfish cause. I think some people who defend the church here have misunderstood his whole argument he is making, which isn't unreasonable: In a nutshell, he thinks the Pope, as the head of the church, is responsible for the actions of his servants and employees around the world. All modern organisations work this way, so this is a fair assumption. But the Catholic Church is ancient, and its structure is a whole different type than what Dawkins has imagined. 

It certainly does look like he is taking advantage of the suffering of victims of sexual abuse to advance his own goals of promoting atheism and critical thinking, but he is genuinely concerned with the wellbeing of the victims. It's just that he has made a really bad call on trying to give them justice this way. It won't happen. In fact, there's no saying whether it will harm their cause within the church or not, but the obvious solution is to calm him and his supporters down because if the church takes this threat seriously, it will resist change. And to refer to the start of my point, there is no constructive gains to be made from arresting the Pope. The only progress to be made is getting rid of the priests who abuse children.


----------



## Esponer (Apr 11, 2010)

Toby said:


> Screening and excommunicating priests is the only way we can solve the problem of abuse.


Screening and *jailing* priests is the only way we can solve the problem of abuse. The most terrifying thing isn't that the Church has been slow to excommunicate those who've abused children, it's that they're in any position to do in the first place. Many of these people should never have walked away from the court process free men.

An excommunicated priest and child abuser is still a free man who can get a job with children (if the Church had to be the ones to disallow them from parish work, then the court didn't disallow them from working with children) or go rape his brother's little child.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Apr 11, 2010)

Well we know who the Pope will call if he is incarcerated:


----------



## Akatou (Apr 11, 2010)

hoppla  i DID get it wrong. sorry. 
(jesus christ, did I ever)


----------



## Jin-E (Apr 11, 2010)

Esponer said:


> Screening and *jailing* priests is the only way we can solve the problem of abuse. The most terrifying thing isn't that the Church has been slow to excommunicate those who've abused children, it's that they're in any position to do in the first place. Many of these people should never have walked away from the court process free men..



While i obviously agree with the need to excommunicate priests that does these acts, I feel like if this is the sole solution to the problem, then that would be similar to actually making a few snits on a arm attacked with gangreen, rather than amputating it from the root. 

I believe there also needs to be deep structural changes within the Church's practice, organization and theology. For example, setting an 18 year age minimum for altar boys would surely help make it more difficult for potential abusers to be alone with juvenile children. Another thing that would help is if the Church put more emphasis on the fact that Priests, like the constituents they serve, consist of imperfect human beings.  That is an important point IMO. Before this scandal erupted, Catholic priests enjoyed an enormous amount of trust and confidence within the catholic population, not because the people necessarilly knew they all the individual Priests were decent, but rather because they assumed that a priest would never betray their trust. Thats why i think they were much more comfortable in leaving their children in the care to priests, as they naturally assumed they, who were "holy" servants of Christ and thus on a more sanctimonious ground than "laymen". Thus, many parents were probably blinded by the Priestal robes and the moral authority they demanded and thus tell-tell warning signs that something was amiss might have been missed. 

To use an another example. The Jehovahs Witnesses, like the Catholic Church, is another religious group that has been plagued in recent years of stories of sexual abuse on minors. Why has both these groups come into the limelight when it comes to these types of crimes? Its because they share several important traits that makes them prone it, namely: 

- The authoritarian, centralized top-down organizational structure.

- Both groups demand obedience to their teachings with little room for tolerance

- Both have a ingrained scepticism to worldly authorities butting into their internal congregational affairs

- Both regularilly emphasize the role of Priests/Elders and the responsibility each member has when it comes to submitting to their decisions. In the case of the Jehovahs Witnesses, their publications repeatedly make glowing assertions about the Elders role of being spiritual guides and shepherds and clearly admonish the congregation to put extrem amount of trust and faith in these appointed men. 

For example, It was very difficult to succesfully expose Congregation leaders in the JW community (called Elders) that have reportedly abused children, because the Witnesses used this following Bible verse in these cases: 

_ Do not entertain an accusation against an elder unless it is brought by two or three witnesses_

Obviously, since an abuser obviously abuse one victim at a time(and unless someone else sees him performing the act _or_ if he admits his guilt), it would be word against word and thus the congregation would end up shelving the disciplinary case.




Basically, what im trying to get across, is that an mixture of Authoritarian congregational structures, Blind, untempered loyalty and the misuse of Scriptures often is the underlying cause for these acts.


----------



## Petenshi (Apr 11, 2010)

Damaris said:


> To say that is just wrong and ignores all the social justices that those religions truly preach. Not to mention that thinking if you eliminate religion from the world conflict will stop is just naive. People who fight wars based on religion are not religious because they are not following their doctrine. *A Christian who fights a war against a Muslim simply because that person is a Muslim is not a Christian.* Besides, people will always fight each other, with religion or without it, because of it or despite it. War is based on geography and language and people in power will oppress those without it. Taking religion out of that equation won't stop war. Not to mention that plenty of atheists cause conflict as well. The Pol Pot regime preached atheism and sought to exterminate all religious expression in Cambodia. 1.7 million people died. Stalin killed 20 million people. With your logic, shouldn't I argue that the world would be a better place without atheism?



The problem is Organized Religion. And not because of what religion stands for, but because of what it becomes when people get together. When you define yourself as a Christian for example, a group, you instantly reflect that you are NOT something else. You are opposite, you are defining the other. History dictates that people dislike differences. People want everything to be the same.

The power organized religion has over people right now is frightening, and that is the root cause of most conflicts in the world yes. What you say though, is completely correct, if religion is extinguished and people preached atheism but a fringe group of theists became culturally the same as the atheists now, the power atheism would have would cause many wars, no doubt. The reason these things are problems is they do not have caps for power. It doesn't try to stop itself from spreading like a disease and causing conflict. Any program that has the tenet to go out and spread like Religion will almost always have conflict like this. Look at the Vegan movement Vs. Meat Eating.

Secondly to address the bold, and I have to thank Pilaf for this, No one is a real Christian then. What does that even mean anyways? Everyone takes their beliefs and changes them to fit there own. I am tired of all this separation that we have. Why must we continue to further and further label ourselves, instead of just trying to understand each others belief. As long as we are scared of the unknown and differences of people their will be conflict.



> Of course that isn't hate speech, because you said it in a rational non-offensive way. But Dawkins repeatedly states: _"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, "mad cow" disease, and many others, but I think a case can be made that faith is one of the world's great evils, comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to eradicate." "Yes, testosterone-sodden young men too unattractive to get a woman in this world might be desperate enough to go for 72 private virgins in the next." "Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence."_ How are those quotes not addressed to the people who actually practice the religion, rather than the religion proper. And regarding the subject matter--do I agree? For the most part. But as long as he keeps the holier-than-thou attitude, the smug disdain for those who practice religion, I'm not going to like him or support him.



What would you rather him do? Being passive aggressive may work for some things but its not going to fly with religion, it has too much power. That would honestly be like trying to have a rational debate with the Nazi's instead of going to war with them. The same would be true however, as mentioned above, if the atheists had power over fringe theist groups. The majority of religion has pretty much strong armed the public into keeping it in power. Dawkins is only expressing his anger in this manner because it is true, and he knows being nice about it isn't going to change anything.  He has to be aggressive or lose things that are precious to him. I mean, if I was a truly superior candidate for president but I said I was an atheist I could not be elected no matter how hard I tried. Do you see how much power religion holds on us? 

So, in conclusion Dawkins Speeches are not hate speeches they are a last cry to rally people against the power of religion. Its called a revolution, and it has happened with many many many other groups, it just so happens that religion has way to much power over our lives and he is expressing this in the only way he knows will work. 

In the end, I try not to blame religion(Although its Hard.) but rather the immense power and hold it has over everyone. Perhaps that is what Dawkins is trying to do.


----------



## Chee (Apr 11, 2010)

> The problem is Organized Religion.



All religion is organized.

I think you mean having faith. Having faith is fine.


----------



## ChocoMello (Apr 11, 2010)

Shade73 said:


> Isnt it good to have good intentions that think more of others more and not for themselves in that situation?



I agree, that would be even better. Because so, I could rest assured that he keeps furthering the cause of those children. Or take the media attention to solely help them and prevent further abuse cases.

But I agree with CTK on this one, only one able to really do something about is is the church itself.

Still, gotta take what you get. Which is quite nothing right now, since it no judge is going to summon that shitstorm.


----------



## superattackpea (Apr 11, 2010)

While I do agree that reason behind actions is an important thing to consider, the pope has committed a horrible crime and needs to be punished. So while I don't necessarily believe Dawkins is legitimately doing this for the common good, it's something that needs to be done none the less.


----------



## Esponer (Apr 11, 2010)

superattackpea said:


> While I do agree that reason behind actions is an important thing to consider, *the pope has committed a horrible crime and needs to be punished*. So while I don't necessarily believe Dawkins is legitimately doing this for the common good, it's something that needs to be done none the less.


What crime?


----------



## Rescuebear (Apr 11, 2010)

Esponer said:


> What crime?



From what i understand he was in change of the organization that headed child sex abuse cases within the church, when at least one case of sexual abuse was covered up involving two victims.

@ this story.
Personally I think they should at the very least remove/replace him, but in all fairness he should face the law.


----------



## Esponer (Apr 11, 2010)

What case, Rescuebear?


----------



## Dionysus (Apr 11, 2010)

Esponer said:


> What case, Rescuebear?


Look at you.  Protecting the man who protects pedophiles!  Revolting!  Run him out of town boys!


----------



## ShadowLordZ (Apr 11, 2010)

Every other tom, dick and harry in the liberal nut camp will get media coverage as long as as they have something to say against the catholic church.


----------



## Esponer (Apr 11, 2010)

Dionysus said:


> Look at you.  Protecting the man who protects pedophiles!  Revolting!  Run him out of town boys!



Asking what happened isn't protecting, except in a police state.


----------



## Dionysus (Apr 11, 2010)

Esponer said:


> Asking what happened isn't protecting, except in a police state.


Tsk tsk.  You have all the humour of phlegmy blood.


----------



## Esponer (Apr 11, 2010)

I like being dead pan in the face of joking sometimes. It confuses people.


----------



## dr.psycho (Apr 11, 2010)

Esponer said:


> What crime?



Heres a couple of news videos and a link describing Ratzinger's direct involvement in the coverup of the sex scandals.

*
BBC Newsnight: Pope Led Cover-Up of Priest Who Molested 200 Deaf Boys*

*Spoiler*: __ 



[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpZz8Ps6u6M[/YOUTUBE]




*AP EXCLUSIVE: Future pope stalled p*d*p**** case*

*Spoiler*: __ 



http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100409/ap_on_re_us/us_pope_church_abuse




*TYT on the new AP exclusive*
*Spoiler*: __ 



[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GoziXJnBcdY[/YOUTUBE]




*ABC Nightline: Father Maciel*

*Spoiler*: __ 



[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iaJE3_PYaCU[/YOUTUBE]




*edit: Added one more.


----------



## Pilaf (Apr 11, 2010)

ShadowLordZ said:


> Every other tom, dick and harry in the liberal nut camp will get media coverage as long as as they have something to say against the catholic church.



Right.. the "liberal nut camp"..the ones trying to persecute old men who RAPED LITTLE BOYS.


----------



## Jagon Fox (Apr 11, 2010)

well i'd like to see these people pay for their crimes, but i'd like to see someone who is both capable and competent doing it. richard dawkins doesn't fit the bill


----------



## Pilaf (Apr 11, 2010)

Jagon Fox said:


> well i'd like to see these people pay for their crimes, unfortunately richard dawkins aint the one to do it



He appears to be the one who stepped up to the plate and decided to try, at least. I don't see anyone else doing this.


----------



## Jagon Fox (Apr 11, 2010)

touche' but just because he's willing to bell the cat doesn't mean he won't get gobbled.


----------



## Pilaf (Apr 11, 2010)

Jagon Fox said:


> touche' but just because he's willing to bell the cat doesn't mean he won't get gobbled.



None of the arguments his enemies spit against him are actually valid, which is more than can be said for the Pope. Professor Dawkins is a very pleasant and learned man who has never abused nor advocated the abuse of a single child in his life. The pope is a vile old lecherous toad in a funny dress.


----------



## Taco (Apr 12, 2010)

What does how he dress have to do anything with your comparison to "Professor" Dawkins not abusing children, good sir Pilaf?


----------



## Fulcata (Apr 12, 2010)

Toby said:


> However, Dawkins is not going to help a single victim by calling out the Pope for an arrest. If the Pope did lead by example and genuinely apologised for these abuses, that would be a nice symbolic gesture, but this is not what Dawkins has called for. There's a silly idea he's gotten into his head that labelling the Pope as a criminal might possibly end up helping the cause of abuse victims. But really it is only likely to amplify tension within the church and resistance towards changing the process of excommunication.



Benedict will indeed lead by example, but it will be the wrong one. The problem will persist in the church for decades to come, and will only end with the passing of at least one (probably two) Pope. If the church is known for anything, it's for being slow.


----------



## Zarathoustr4 (Apr 12, 2010)

people...

Shouting polemics about symptoms.

Taking any fact to match their own little political belief.

Never talking about true illness.

It really make me think about a huge magic trick where the whole audience look at the right hand while the left one is fucking them. The only stuff bugging me is that the audience is also the magician.


----------



## Nodonn (Apr 12, 2010)

Jagon Fox said:


> well i'd like to see these people pay for their crimes, but i'd like to see someone who is both capable and competent doing it. richard dawkins doesn't fit the bill



You think Dawkins is not a capable and competent man?

Christ your standards are high, you must think you're a piece of shit.


----------



## Pilaf (Apr 12, 2010)

Forbidden Truth said:


> What does how he dress have to do anything with your comparison to "Professor" Dawkins not abusing children, good sir Pilaf?



Indeed..why does only that part of my post warrant a cherry picking from the likes of you?


----------



## ShadowLordZ (Apr 12, 2010)

Pilaf said:


> Right.. the "liberal nut camp"..the ones trying to persecute old men who RAPED LITTLE BOYS.



No one is saying that the victims didnt suffer at the hands of some vile men. But the way the media is portraying the entire issue is more of the liberal medias anti Catholicism coming to the fore, rather than a genuine effort to inform the public at large of what is indeed going on. The Pope has admitted the mistakes on part of the church and asked for forgiveness. The church is genuinely trying to atone for the sins of these few evil men and improve its ways in dealing with such cases in the future. 
The reason i mentioned "liberal nut camp" was because these days the so called "rational" folks of the left tend to propagate the view that a few sins of some in the church are indeed a reflection of Catholicism at large. Whereas where we in a similar discussion on some other religion, political correctness would creep in, and the faults of those religions will be merely shown as being a deviation from the supposedly great belief that said religion claims to be. (take islam for example.)
When taken in the wider perspective of the anti christian stance of many a leftist, what it all comes down to at the end of the day is the leftist need to discredit Christianity in general. The only force standing in the way of the "politically correct liberals" implementing their (social) polices is the catholic church and hence they leave no stone unturned in attacking it.


----------



## Watchman (Apr 12, 2010)

ShadowLordZ said:


> No one is saying that the victims didnt suffer at the hands of some vile men. But the way the media is portraying the entire issue is more of the liberal medias anti Catholicism coming to the fore, rather than a genuine effort to inform the public at large of what is indeed going on. The Pope has admitted the mistakes on part of the church and asked for forgiveness. The church is genuinely trying to atone for the sins of these few evil men and improve its ways in dealing with such cases in the future.



Bullshit. Child Abuse has been a problem with the Catholic Church for decades, if not centuries, and every scandal has been apologised for publically whilst nothing of worth is done by the church where it actually counts.



> The reason i mentioned "liberal nut camp" was because these days the so called "rational" folks of the left tend to propagate the view that a few sins of some in the church are indeed a reflection of Catholicism at large. Whereas where we in a similar discussion on some other religion, political correctness would creep in, and the faults of those religions will be merely shown as being a deviation from the supposedly great belief that said religion claims to be. (take islam for example.)



How cute - generalising a large group of people for supposedly generalising other people, though I dare you to find me a significant portion of the Left that claims all, or even a majority of Catholics are child abusers. I guarantee you won't find it.

What you will probably find are people who think those responsible for the paedophilia should be punished, instead of being given a slap on the wrist and a prayer for salvation, which is no different from the many left-wingers on this forum alone who think radical Muslims, Hindus or Jews should be held responsible for their actions, but don't go on any "omg all Muslims are t3h evil" when a nutjob suicide bomber blows people up.



> When taken in the wider perspective of the anti christian stance of many a leftist, what it all comes down to at the end of the day is the leftist need to discredit Christianity in general. The only force standing in the way of the "politically correct liberals" implementing their (social) polices is the catholic church and hence they leave no stone unturned in attacking it.



Is your tinfoil hat fastened correctly, comrade? (again, much lulz at you trying to call out the left for generalising all of Catholicism and then pulling out this nonsense)


----------



## Esponer (Apr 12, 2010)

Watchman said:


> Bullshit. Child Abuse has been a problem with the Catholic Church for decades, if not centuries, and every scandal has been apologised for publically whilst nothing of worth is done by the church where it actually counts.


Ratzinger asked Pope John Paul II to give responsibility to sexual abuse cases to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to avoid, likely in response to the mishandling by Archbishop Rembert Weakland of sexual abuses cases – prior to 2001, there was no central authority governing sexual abuse cases.

Something of worth was done.



Watchman said:


> What you will probably find are people who think those responsible for the paedophilia should be punished, instead of being given a slap on the wrist and a prayer for salvation, which is no different from the many left-wingers on this forum alone who think radical Muslims, Hindus or Jews should be held responsible for their actions, but don't go on any "omg all Muslims are t3h evil" when a nutjob suicide bomber blows people up.


Alex, did you – along with almost everyone else, it seems – fall asleep some time ago and, on waking up, forget about civil law completely?

It's not the Catholic Church's responsibility to punish people for paedophilia. It's the court's. The Church can't imprison people.

In every case, the Pope – and, with some very troublesome but rare exceptions, the entire Catholic Church – have made sure the law has been aware of everything they know. No information has been withheld from the court process.

In every case of a child abusing priest being at large for decades, it is the *court's* fault. It is civil law which has failed the children, not canon law. The Catholic Church are not the people who arrest, sentence and jail paedophiles. That is what the police, judge, jury and jailors do.

If the law says a man cannot work with children, then he cannot. If the law doesn't say that, it's not criminal oversight of the Catholic Church to not enforce it. And the likes of Kiesle were in fact not allowed to work with children – the Church intervened and kept him from ministry, even though they didn't have a legal requirement to do so. (They _should_ have had a legal requirement to do so. Hell, more than that, he shouldn't have been a free man at all.)



Watchman said:


> Is your tinfoil hat fastened correctly, comrade?


Is yours?


----------



## Suigetsu (Apr 12, 2010)

rabbid atheists pullish s*it out of their asses.


----------



## dr.psycho (Apr 12, 2010)

Esponer said:


> In every case of a child abusing priest being at large for decades, it is the *court's* fault. It is civil law which has failed the children, not canon law. The Catholic Church are not the people who arrest, sentence and jail paedophiles. That is what the police, judge, jury and jailors do.



Its true its not the job of the church to legally punish their priests, but have you missed the fact that the church has delibrately shielded these pedophiles from being convicted? 

The law would of dealt with these p*d*p**** priests a long time ago if the church had not actively and delibrately protected them.


----------



## Esponer (Apr 12, 2010)

dr.psycho said:


> Its true its not the job of the church to legally punish their priests, but have you missed the fact that the church as delibrately shielded these pedophiles from being convicted?
> 
> The law would of dealt with these p*d*p**** priests a long time ago if the church had not actively and delibrately protected them.


Evidence please.


----------



## dr.psycho (Apr 12, 2010)

Esponer said:


> Evidence please.



You could just open up a newspaper? Or watch the news?



dr.psycho said:


> Heres a couple of news videos and a link describing Ratzinger's direct involvement in the coverup of the sex scandals.
> 
> *
> BBC Newsnight: Pope Led Cover-Up of Priest Who Molested 200 Deaf Boys*
> ...



There is more, but I'm too lazy to dig them all up.


----------



## Esponer (Apr 12, 2010)

I have been, and I've seen no evidence of a cover-up. If you're going to claim that the Church has "delibrately shielded these pedophiles from being convicted", why don't you give me evidence?

Pick one case. An amalgamation of Maciel, Murphy, Kiesle, etc. blurs the argument. Pick one, and show me evidence of what you're saying – or don't say it at all. If you would, quote a specific and small area of text or type for yourself, rather than linking to a video. It will make it much easier for me to identify the relevant bit of argument.

Thank you.


----------



## dr.psycho (Apr 12, 2010)

Esponer said:


> I have been, and I've seen no evidence of a cover-up. If you're going to claim that the Church has "delibrately shielded these pedophiles from being convicted", why don't you give me evidence?
> 
> Pick one case. An amalgamation of Maciel, Murphy, Kiesle, etc. blurs the argument. Pick one, and show me evidence of what you're saying ? or don't say it at all. If you would, quote a specific and small area of text or type for yourself, rather than linking to a video. It will make it much easier for me to identify the relevant bit of argument.
> 
> Thank you.



All of the videos and articles describe the evidence of them delibrately covering up the sex scandals.

I'm not going to spoon feed you all the information just becuse you're too lazy to look at the evidence. Whether you look at this evidence or not is up to you. But if you don't, I reserve the right to dismiss your opinion as stale and without substance.


----------



## Watchman (Apr 12, 2010)

Esponer said:


> Ratzinger asked Pope John Paul II to give responsibility to sexual abuse cases to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to avoid, likely in response to the mishandling by Archbishop Rembert Weakland of sexual abuses cases ? prior to 2001, there was no central authority governing sexual abuse cases.
> 
> Something of worth was done.



Our opinions of 'worth' must differ then - the fact that there is a central authority that does nothing does not seem to be a substantial improvement to me.



> Alex, did you ? along with almost everyone else, it seems ? fall asleep some time ago and, on waking up, forget about civil law completely?
> 
> It's not the Catholic Church's responsibility to punish people for paedophilia. It's the court's. The Church can't imprison people.



Yes? I'm saying that these people should be punished in court, especially as the reaction of the church to their crimes is so unbelievably lenient.



> In every case of a child abusing priest being at large for decades, it is the *court's* fault. It is civil law which has failed the children, not canon law. The Catholic Church are not the people who arrest, sentence and jail paedophiles. That is what the police, judge, jury and jailors do.



But the Catholic Church is the body that cover up these cases in an attempt to save face, and fail to adequately police themselves. Do we blame the international community for the Islamist terrorist camps in Pakistan? Of course we don't, because that would be stupid.

Combatting this problem is a two-front matter; the courts can and should put these paedophiles away, but it's up to the Catholic Church to excise the root problem. Of course, if a civil court could force the Catholic Church to directly address this problem, I'd be thrilled, but we both know that's not likely to happen or that the church would be likely to throw its full weight behind enforcing the court order.



> Is yours?



Well, when you see me spouting conspiracy theories, feel free to throw that line at me, Simon.


----------



## Esponer (Apr 12, 2010)

dr.psycho said:


> All of the videos and articles describe the evidence of them delibrately covering up the sex scandals.
> 
> I'm not going to spoon feed you all the information just becuse you're too lazy to look at the evidence. Whether you look at this evidence or not is up to you. But if you don't, I reserve the right to dismiss your opinion as stale and without substance.


All? All right, then my job now is to refute just one, and you've been proven wrong. This seems a more responsible use of my time than going through each in turn when they've clearly been compiled by someone who hasn't given any thought to whether they show any evidence of the Pope being involved in a cover-up.

I'll choose the second one, which I've already discussed in this thread.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100409/ap_on_re_us/us_pope_church_abuse 

This is about Kiesle.



> LOS ANGELES ? The future Pope Benedict XVI  resisted pleas to defrock a California priest with a record of sexually  molesting children, citing concerns including "the good of the universal church,"  according to a 1985 letter bearing his signature.



First, he's being accused of not defrocking the man ? *not* of keeping any information from the police. This is the end of the argument, actually, as you won't find anything in this article about any information being kept from the police.



> Kiesle had been sentenced in 1978 to three years' probation after pleading no contest to  misdemeanor charges of lewd conduct for tying up and molesting two young  boys in a San Francisco Bay area church rectory.


7 *years* before the Pope's letter, Kiesle's case was handled by authorities. There's absolutely no information whatsoever of the Pope having any involvement before 1978, and that's what would be necessary for any cover-up to have been involved. Information couldn't have been kept from authorities 7 years after authorities acted on that information.

In fact, evidence of Kiesle's guilt was destroyed by civil courts before the case reached Rome.



> As his probation ended in 1981, Kiesle asked to leave the priesthood and  the diocese submitted papers to Rome to defrock him.


Was his request to be defrocked quickly acted on? No.

Does that mean he was active in the ministry? No. Do your reading ? Kiesle wasn't involved with children after 1981. The Church didn't allow him to be. That's not the same as them defrocking him, though.

They were under no legal obligation to defrock him. That's an internal matter, about a title, and has no effect on the safety of children.

Finally, you gave this as an example of Ratzinger being involved in a cover-up. I've shown you many reasons why this is nonsense. Here's one more little lie in the news: Ratzinger was not the head of an organisation responsible for child abuse.

The organisation he was head of, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, had no authority over this until 2001, when Ratzinger requested that authority from the then Pope so that there actually _was_ a central authority that could ensure the protection of children.

Now, I request that you detract the following claim:



dr.psycho said:


> All of the videos and articles describe the  evidence of them delibrately covering up the sex scandals.



Since this is clearly not "all", I ask that you give me a genuine case, rather than a list that contains this kind of nonsense.

Thank you.


----------



## Esponer (Apr 12, 2010)

Watchman said:


> Our opinions of 'worth' must differ then - the fact that there is a central authority that does nothing does not seem to be a substantial improvement to me.


Perhaps you should actually research what Ratzinger has done to protect children in the Catholic Church. I suspect you haven't read a thing about that.

Do you understood that since these cases, and specifically due to the work of Ratzinger, background evaluations have been required for all priests, deacons, seminarians, educators, employees and volunteers? That in a recent audit, 96% of children in the care of the Catholic Church have been through a course about this to ensure their safety? That there is, in fact, now a regular and detailed audit in place protect children, and a central authority to deal with this?

That it's now much easier to defrock priests over this, specifically due to Ratzinger?

Tell me you've actually read about all this and rejected it, and that you're not just hearing about it now.



Watchman said:


> Yes? I'm saying that these people should be punished in court, especially as the reaction of the church to their crimes is so unbelievably lenient.


And in every case, the court has had all the information available to the Church, at least, available to them. In these frightening cases, the court have not done enough.

What do you expect the Church to now do? Actually, okay – they should pick up where the court left and do what they can to keep these priests away from children. And in cases like the Kiesle case, they *did*, but still the lies come.



Watchman said:


> But the Catholic Church is the body that cover up these cases in an attempt to save face


Evidence, please!


----------



## Toby (Apr 12, 2010)

dr.psycho, everyone, please:

The problem is that even with all this investigative journalism, it has to be a victim who takes a priest to court - not a journalist, and a police office cannot do anything but investigate, but that too requires that a victim insists to do so, and present a case. Many victims don't do this however because they are so traumatised by the episode and some would prefer to forget about it rather than go to court. This is very common with rape victims.


----------



## Watchman (Apr 12, 2010)

Esponer said:


> Perhaps you should actually research what Ratzinger has done to protect children in the Catholic Church. I suspect you haven't read a thing about that.
> 
> Do you understood that since these cases, and specifically due to the work of Ratzinger, background evaluations have been required for all priests, deacons, seminarians, educators, employees and volunteers? That in a recent audit, 96% of children in the care of the Catholic Church have been through a course about this to ensure their safety? That there is, in fact, now a regular and detailed audit in place protect children, and a central authority to deal with this?
> 
> That it's now much easier to defrock priests over this, specifically due to Ratzinger?



I suppose you have sources for any of these arguments? I fully admit I'm no expert on the Catholic Church, but I haven't heard any of this.



> And in every case, the court has had all the information available to the Church, at least, available to them. In these frightening cases, the court have not done enough.



Which addresses my point how exactly?



> What do you expect the Church to now do? Actually, okay ? they should pick up where the court left and do what they can to keep these priests away from children. And in cases like the Kiesle case, they *did*, but still the lies come.



For every Kiesle, you have a case such as .



> Evidence, please!



Take a look through this thread. The videos posted by dr.psycho, for instance.

Toby also raises a valid point that just as rape victims don't always bring their cases to court, children abused by people they hold in positions of authority and respect may not want to relive what happened to them by bringing their case under the scrutiny of the law. The number of cases is possibly higher than those we have reported.


----------



## Platinum (Apr 12, 2010)

Dawkins is such a windbag.

Though that would be a sight to see.


----------



## Romanticide (Apr 12, 2010)

Like someone could arrest the Pope. And anyway, if anyone should be arrested, it's the molesters.


----------



## -Dargor- (Apr 12, 2010)

Now that i think about it, how come no charges were pressed against that guy anyway, since you know, he's been covering up pedo affairs for decades.

I hope it works, nobody should get away, not even if you're a "symbol"


----------



## Verdius (Apr 12, 2010)

Hollow'd Heart said:


> Like someone could arrest the Pope. And anyway, if anyone should be arrested, it's the molesters.



And not those responsible for attempting to protect the molesters?

 I'm tired of hearing people defend the Pope because he's the Pope as if it abolishes any past crimes. He's still a criminal as far as I'm concerned that aided and abided people that were commiting really heinous crimes. 

The fact that he's the Pope has nothing to do with it, the fact that he tried to cover up THE MASS MOLESTATION OF CHILDREN however is what matters here and the fact that people are excusing or waving over these transgressions are precisely why people like Richard Dawkins are drawing attention to it. The whole religious status of the situation is what keeps it from being properly taken care of and it's time we put an end to this shit.


----------



## Esponer (Apr 12, 2010)

Verdius, could you provide any evidence that the Pope was involved in any cover-up?


----------



## Masaki (Apr 12, 2010)

I would love to see this happen, Richard Dawkins or not.


----------



## Taco (Apr 12, 2010)

Pilaf said:


> Indeed..why does only that part of my post warrant a cherry picking from the likes of you?



Because it's in your post?


----------



## Emigan (Apr 12, 2010)

I think I might make my way down to London to see what happens


----------



## Zugzwang (Apr 13, 2010)

Esponer-why do you keep saying that a cover up is withholding information *from the authorities*(or something close to this). This is by all accounts not part of the definition or am I missing something. The only reason I am saying this is because perhaps this is what's causing a lot of the confusion.

As for the thread topic it seems that everything that could be said has already been said, so I guess I agree most with toby on this.


----------



## dr.psycho (Apr 13, 2010)

Esponer said:


> All? All right, then my job now is to refute just one, and you've been proven wrong. This seems a more responsible use of my time than going through each in turn when they've clearly been compiled by someone who hasn't given any thought to whether they show any evidence of the Pope being involved in a cover-up.
> 
> I'll choose the second one, which I've already discussed in this thread.
> 
> ...



First of all your definition of "coverup" seems to be just not reporting the sexual abuse to the authorities, which by the way the church certainly has done. 

If you want proof they protected sex offender priests from the authorities, just watch the BBC program _Sex crimes and the Vatican_
*Spoiler*: __ 



http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/panorama/5389684.stm



The program details how priests deal with sexual abuse cases and how these cases are sent to the vatican so they can hold secret private trials rather than handing them over to the authorities - These are quotes from BBC Panorama's investigation:

*Spoiler*: __ 



KENYON: *Instead of reporting O'Grady the church hid him from the authorities. No mistake, but part of a secret church directive*. The man responsible for enforcing it was Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI.. County Wexford in Ireland.

...*It imposes an oath of secrecy on the child victim, the priest dealing with the allegation and any witnesses. Breaking that oath means excommunication from the Catholic Church.*




Patrick Wall, a former Benedictin monk who became the Vatican approved enforcer of crimen sollicitationis in his Minnesota diocese describes his dirty work in covering up sexual abuse cases. He even talks about how he had a budget of $7 million to pay people off to be quiet about the cases.

*Spoiler*: __ 



KENYON: Patrick Wall, a former Benedictine monk who became the Vatican approved enforcer of crimen sollicitationis in his Minnesota diocese. 

PATRICK WALL
Former Benedictine Monk: I was part of the system that was getting chewed up and being used deceptively, and it was a real dark night of the soul. Everything that I had trained for, you know, well over a decade to do, *I found out that I wasn't working for a holy institution but an institution that was wholly concentrated on protecting itself*.

KENYON: *When a priest was accused of sexual abuse, the abuser was slipped quietly away*, and Father Patrick was moved in.

WALL: *Cause most of the cases never saw the light of the day, hence we were successful. That is really the ultimate definition of success for the church, when it comes to a case of sexual abuse of a minor, that no one ever finds out about it, that it gets shut down, that it's kept quiet. If a pay off is needed, or if some kind of a settlement is needed, it's done. We had a $7 million budget in 1996 to do such things. And.. but the thing that we had to have was a confidentiality order where it absolutely had to be agreed that everything was quiet. *




Another paedophile priest Father Fortune was also helped by the church instead of being handed over to the authorties:

*Spoiler*: __ 



KENYON: *The church knew Father Fortune was a paedophile, but failed to inform the police. Instead it moved him from Parish to Parish.* He was finally exposed, and killed himself on the eve of his criminal trial. Along with the BBC, *Colm began investigating who'd been responsible for helping him evade detection. It turned out to be the most senior church figure in the diocese, the Bishop of Ferns Doctor Brendan Comiskey*. We confronted him. 






Esponer said:


> In every case, the Pope – and, with some very troublesome but rare exceptions, the entire Catholic Church – have made sure the law has been aware of everything they know. No information has been withheld from the court process.





Esponer said:


> And in every case, the court has had all the information available to the Church, at least, available to them....



*Wrong*

One of the DA's in the program named Rick Romley has attempted to mount several lawsuits against these paedophile priests, he describes how hard it is. The church refused to hand over information regarding the paedophile priests and are reluctant in handing over information gathered by their own secret internal trials. 

*Spoiler*: __ 




KENYON: The man who dealt with his case was Rick Romley, a high profile district attorney in Phoenix. Before retiring this year he convicted 8 paedophile priests in his diocese and, uniquely, *forced a written confession from the local bishop admitting that he knowingly hid child sexual abuse from the police. *

ROMLEY: *the obstruction I saw during my investigation was unparalleled in my entire career as a DA...it was so difficult to obtain any information from the Church at all.*

ROMLEY: You know, when we started looking at it I mean it was really interesting. I mean we came across, in the canons for the church, that there are supposed to be secret archives to where this *type of material is to provided and not given to civil authorities no matter what the circumstances*.*We had information that there is an instruction from the Nuncio, who is Ambassador status, to shift all this, you know, incriminating type of information to him because under our.. under the law we could not subpoena that material because he would have protected status as an Ambassador from the Vatican*.

ROMLEY: It is a.. *it was an openly obstructive way of not allowing civil authorities to try to stop the abuse within the church*. I mean they fought us every step of the way. 




He goes further to talk about how much of the evidence against these paedophile priests were archived, which under the law could not be subpoenaed, in other words the evidence witheld by the church could not be legally retrieved by the courts to be used to testify against the pedo priests because the church dissallowed it and because of their special status. 

My definition of coverup is hiding evidence intentionally, and not only has the church done this, but they've litterally hid the paedophile priests from the authorities. 

Evidence is needed in order to prosecute these priests fully, but the church is quite clearly refusing to release these documents. This makes it very hard to jail these priests because often times, like Cenk from TYT mentioned, the molestation happens 1 on 1, and it becomes the child's words against the priests, with no witnesses. Cases like these make it extremely hard to prosecute the priests, and the church isn't helping by witholding information from the authorities. 

If the church really cared about the victims they would release all the archived information regarding these priests and help testify in order to get them jailed. But they aren't, and are more afraid of the bad publicity as opposed to the justice the victims deserve. Father Doyle a former vatican lawyer and priest talks about how Ratzinger, who is now the pope, could easily do this.


*Spoiler*: __ 



FR. DOYLE: Cardinal Ratzinger, who now is Pope, could tomorrow get up and say 'here's the policy for throughout the church. Full disclosure to the civil authorities. Absolute isolation and dismissal of any convicted cleric. Complete openness and transparency. Complete openness of all financial situations. Stop all barriers to the legal process. Completely cooperate with the civil authorities everywhere.' He could do that. 




Instead Ratzinger creates a new decree called 'exclusive competence' in which all sexual allegations go exclusively to the Vatican and only to the Vatican and no where else. This includes the civil authorities, and this is one of the reasons Romley had such a hard time retrieving information for his cases.

*Spoiler*: __ 




KENYON: But now he (Ratzinger as the pope) ordered that the Vatican must have what it calls 'exclusive competence'. In other words, *all child abuse allegations must go exclusively to Rome*. 




...and yes I take back that quote I made because its too generalized.

Is that enough evidence for you?

*edit: corrected some spelling errors and added more details.


----------

