MERGED Richard Dawkins planning to have Pope Benedict arrested over 'crimes against humanity'

  • Thread starter Thread starter pollylodges
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Richard Dawkins has responded to this article: (The below is quoted from his personal website richarddawkins.net/articles/5415)
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: richarddawkins.net/articles/5341

I do not wish to editorialize but it seems that we should all be careful not to simply believe what we read (this includes myself, I took the Times headline at face value). I’m sure you all would like people who read about clergy molestation accusations to do as well.

Note to the moderators: I don’t mean to link to sites that are forbidden, if these indeed are. It seemed only fair to link to my source for the quote that it could be seen that I’m taking this from the horse’s mouth, as it were.
 
Bringing in Richard Dawkins is setting up a straw man to demolish. He’s an avowed atheist and has definite points of view, to say the least.

But Benedict should consider the lukewarm welcome he’ll receive from Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and the far-from-lukewarm welcome he is likely to receive from the many Irish living in the UK and who can come over from Ireland–I am not sure they even need a passport. Ireland is furious over its scandals, which are by far the worst of a bad bunch.
 
To see the name of Pope Benedict used in that context (on a Catholic site) alongside those of Slobodan Milosevic and Augusto Pinochet, demonstrates an abhorrent attempt at ascribing guilt by association onto the pontiff. This also reveals the webs of distortion which wound indirectlty, but wound just the same. Why not throw Osama Bin Laden’s name out there as well. It is as offensive as it is ludicrous.
 
unafraid said:
To see the name of Pope Benedict used in that context (on a Catholic site) alongside those of Slobodan Milosevic and Augusto Pinochet, demonstrates an abhorrent attempt at ascribing guilt by association onto the pontiff. This also reveals the webs of distortion which wound indirectlty, but wound just the same. Why not throw Osama Bin Laden’s name out there as well. It is as offensive as it is ludicrous.
Click to expand...
Honestly, I don’t think you’re quite being fair. The fact of the matter is that the method used to arrest Slobodan Milosevic and Augusto Pinochet is being considered–at least by one UN official–with respect to the Pope.

I don’t think, at least in this contest, it’s any sort of guilt by association; especially since another article discussing this issue from the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute uses the Milosevic example (UN Judge Says Pope Should be Prosecuted at International Criminal Court). The fact of the matter is that they are talking about a valid legal procedure that was used on the above men, their use as an example seems apt and not any attempt to malign the Pope. I can say that at the very least in my use it was simply an attempt to give context to the procedure.
 
What perplexes me is the fact that Dawkins would even think of publicizing this venture; all that would occur is the cancellation of the visit. Of course, I feel shocked and disgusted about the scandals, and have only the greatest sympathy for those who suffered, but I do not think that anyone is fooled over the ulterior motif to this piece; Dawkins is motivated by Romaphobia first, and sympathy for the victims second. Still, I see a possible cancellation of the Papal visit, and a cry of foul from British secularists.
 
Theophile said:
What perplexes me is the fact that Dawkins would even think of publicizing this venture; all that would occur is the cancellation of the visit. Of course, I feel shocked and disgusted about the scandals, and have only the greatest sympathy for those who suffered, but I do not think that anyone is fooled over the ulterior motif to this piece; Dawkins is motivated by Romaphobia first, and sympathy for the victims second. Still, I see a possible cancellation of the Papal visit, and a cry of foul from British secularists.
Click to expand...
Please see my post number 21.
 
tongue in cheek

If Dawkins can have the Pope arrested on crimes against humanity, can we arrest him since Atheism killed over 100 million people in the 20th century? (Now THAT is definitely a crime against humanity!)

Bueller?

Bueller?
 
How could you arrest someone for the crime done by another individual. It was not the Pope who abused children. It’s just like saying arrest the President of that company because an employee of his cheated and robbed the company’s clients.
 
BobCatholic said:
tongue in cheek

If Dawkins can have the Pope arrested on crimes against humanity, can we arrest him since Atheism killed over 100 million people in the 20th century? (Now THAT is definitely a crime against humanity!)

Bueller?

Bueller?
Click to expand...
Well said, sir.
 
I’ve read Richard Dawkins, and have seen videos of him speak. There is no doubt in my mind that he is pompous and out to gain as much attention as possible for his cause. But he is also very intelligent.

I think the headlines are focusing too much on the fact that he is an atheist, which technically has nothing to do with the charges they want the UK to pursue. From the article you link to:
The Guardian reports that a letter written by the Pope in 1985, when he was then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, urged that a paedophile priest in the US not be exposed for the “good of the universal church”.

Don’t be distracted by secondary issues of the Religious vs the non-religious. Focus on what evidence there is, and the laws of the UK.
The same law that could snare Pope Benedict was used to arrest Augusto Pinochet, the late Chilean dictator, on a Spanish warrant when he visited Britain in 1998.
 
PatThompson said:
I’ve read Richard Dawkins, and have seen videos of him speak. There is no doubt in my mind that he is pompous and out to gain as much attention as possible for his cause. But he is also very intelligent.

I think the headlines are focusing too much on the fact that he is an atheist, which technically has nothing to do with the charges they want the UK to pursue. From the article you link to:
The Guardian reports that a letter written by the Pope in 1985, when he was then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, urged that a paedophile priest in the US not be exposed for the “good of the universal church”.

Don’t be distracted by secondary issues of the Religious vs the non-religious. Focus on what evidence there is, and the laws of the UK.
The same law that could snare Pope Benedict was used to arrest Augusto Pinochet, the late Chilean dictator, on a Spanish warrant when he visited Britain in 1998.
Click to expand...
And do not let yourself think that one letter answers all questions and do no let yourself think that arresting the Pope is ever a smart thing to do.
 
PatThompson said:
Don’t be distracted by secondary issues of the Religious vs the non-religious. Focus on what evidence there is, and the laws of the UK.

The same law that could snare Pope Benedict was used to arrest Augusto Pinochet, the late Chilean dictator, on a Spanish warrant when he visited Britain in 1998
Click to expand...
There is no legal precedent in UK or international laws. Also, Pinochet did not come to the UK by invitation of the Queen. It is unlikely that the UK and European alliances would embarass her and her government now, would they? Regardless of how courts appear to be secularised in Europe, it would take a Pilate and, perhaps, even professional suicide for any court official to sign a warrant of arrest for the Pope. And, of course, there’s public opinion as well, whether one is respectful of the Pope or not.
 
Santi2 said:
There is no legal precedent in UK or international laws. Also, Pinochet did not come to the UK by invitation of the Queen. It is unlikely that the UK and European alliances would embarass her and her government now, would they? Regardless of how courts appear to be secularised in Europe, it would take a Pilate and, perhaps, even professional suicide for any court official to sign a warrant of arrest for the Pope. And, of course, there’s public opinion as well, whether one is respectful of the Pope or not.
Click to expand...
There is also the issue of whether or not he is guilty. Some court officials are not so cynical as to not sign a warrant for fear of losing an election. It is strange that you are looking to popular opinion to save the face of the Church instead of the truth of the matter.

The more important question, it seems to me, is is it true? Do they have a case?
 
Leela said:
The more important question, it seems to me, is is it true? Do they have a case?
Click to expand...
More importantly, do they have jurisdiction in the UK for events that occurred in the US to US citizens and allegedly involved a man who at the time was a German citizen? Moreover, Pinochet’s case involved a former head of state while if the Pope would be arrested it would be a sitting head of state. I also don’t think Germany or Italy would be remotely tolerant to having a UK judge order the arrest a German citizen - Chile obviously wasn’t happy about it, but it wasn’t part of the EU.

Also Pinochet’s case was that of mass murder and torture - certainly crimes against humanity. I think there’s a more substantially difficult case to be made that Benedict’s wrongdoing, if any, qualifies under the jurisdiction of the EU’s International Court.

If an arrest warrant were issued, the Pope simply would cancel his visit. Not to mention that, given the history of acrimony between Catholic and Protestant in the UK, if the UK did arrest the Pope you’d have large-scale rioting by furious Catholics who’d be highly suspicious of the government’s motives for supporting it.
 
Maybe it is time for British Catholics to organise for protest or if push come to the shove extreme civil disobedience if they dare to take our Pope
 
Christopher Hitchens is one of those self-important blowhards who’s convinced he’s smarter than (and therefore morally superior to) everyone else on the planet.

I’ve never seen anyone get so worked up about other people’s beliefs. He’s made it his life’s work to point out the imperfections of faith, especially Christianity, and double-especially Catholicism, while blithely ignoring the incalculable benefit that faith, especially Christianity, and double-especially Catholicism, has brought to the world.

All this while being equally content to ignore the incalculable harm done to the world by atheist societies.

I really wonder what it is that he wants from people. Are we all supposed to bow down to him, thanking him for removing the blinders from our eyes? Create a society based on *his *idea of utopia?

In some ways, I think he’s the world’s biggest religious fanatic. Otherwise, why would he care?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top