Give me a break.
You really think their main motivation for this is publicity? Give. Me. A. Break. It may seem unbelievable to you, but the fact there's a leader, not only of a religion, but of a state and a government as well, offering safe haven to wanted felons, that covered up one of the largest scandals of child torture and rape is enough motivation for any to make a stand. This isn't being done for publicity. I don't know where you've built your impression of Christopher Hitchens from, but you quite clearly have huge misconceptions about his conduct. Yes, he's very extreme, but he's one of the most reasoned and enlightened individuals alive today and to try and call him immature is a hypocrisy to end all hypocrisies.
Give me a break.
source
Hey, you'll get no argument from me that publicity did enter into their conduct. Of course they're going to want people to hear about it, people to know about it, but to assume that their motivation from spawning the potential lawsuit is publicity it cynical and naive. I'm very familiar with both Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens (Christopher, more so), with their work, their writings and their beliefs. I know how passionate both of them are regarding this subject, and you pay them a profound insult (perhaps intentionally) by insinuating that their motivation for the lawsuit is anything other than genuine.
Please do correct me if I'm wrong here, but you seem to have contradicted yourself here. You say that you wish for an investigation to be carried out by an authority, but not from the likes of a 'crank' like Richard Dawkins, then you layout a case for why such an investigation would be impossible. Surely you've just given a fairly justifiable case as to why it has to be somebody like Christopher Hitchens or Richard Dawkins to do this?
I'd say that the disagreement I pointed out in the first past of my post was slighty more than that. But fair enough, each to their own and what not.
That's the point, I believe there is enough evidence to in the public domain and the problem is just that, both the domestic law enforcement community and the international equivalent don't seem to be doing anything. Cardinal Law is one that springs to mind, as a wanted man that left Boston and is being sheltered by the Vatican. Are we to let this carry on? Are we to allow this Pope to offer refuge to wanted men? Are we to allow the untold misery and suffering caused by his hand go unpunished? I know you're not saying that it shouldn't, but I'm saying that I believe it will unless we get the likes of people such as Hitchens or Dawkins trying to do so.
I don't think anything will come of it to be honest, but I sincerely hope that it does. This could be deemed as something of a contradiction, however I don't believe it to be one, but even if publicity is all that comes from this (i.e. raising people's awareness of the legal side of the scandal), then it will still have served a purpose.
Give me a break.
Ten points for presenting me with an unfalsifiable argument. On the one hand you're saying that it's being done for publicity, then you're saying that it's being done for publicity and to Ratzinger prosecuted. How am I supposed to retort to an argument that covers all of the bases? Either you believe Dawkins and Hitchens motivations for seeking legal advice on a possible prosecution is rooted in a desire for publicity, or a desire to see a criminal brought to justice.
I suppose if you genuinely believe that their motivation was publicity and not to bring a criminal to justice, then that's a fair comment (I'm not trying to be sarcy here).I can't believe you wrote that when it doesn't even resemble anything I wrote.
I would be inclined to agree if I thought there was another way to go about it.
